Sitting of 4 June 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  Mr. Speaker Weatherill (Retirement)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have to inform the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Address of Tuesday 19 May 1992
  "praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal Favour upon the right hon. Bernard Weatherill for his eminent services during the period in which he presided with such distinguished ability and dignity in the Chair of this House"
  has been presented to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty has been pleased to receive the same very graciously and has commanded me to acquaint this House that Her Majesty is desirous, in compliance with the request of her faithful Commons, to confer on the right hon. Bernard Weatherill some signal mark of her Royal Favour.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Wages Board
    Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I have no such plans.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding that farm workers are disgracefully underpaid, they and their unions are firmly of the view that they would be even worse off if the board were abolished? Is the Minister aware that it is the policy of the National Farmers Union to continue to support the board? Will he therefore expand on his reply and make it clear that the Government will neither renounce the relevant International Labour Organisation convention nor take advantage of the window which opens in August next year to initiate steps to abolish the board?
    Mr. Gummer: There are many things that I have to deal with. As this matter cannot be dealt with until next year, I do not regard it as necessary to consider it until that moment arises. When it does, I will; and when I do, I will take into account both the facts that the hon. Gentleman has put before me.

    Sugar Beet
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to curb the production of sugar beet.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The United Kingdom will be seeking a thorough going reform of the sugar regime which is due to be completed by July next year.
    Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the Minister. He will be aware that the substantial overproduction of sugar beet in the European Community has led to a dreadful situation for world prices and thus for sugar cane producers, who are among the poorest countries in the world. Will he therefore, when he takes over the presidency in July, make sure that the MacSharry proposals, which quite disgracefully ignored the African, Caribbean and Pacific protocol on sugar cane, take account of that overproduction, drastically reduce the production of sugar beet under quota A, abolish quota B, and immediately withdraw the storage premium for quota C? Will he seek those objectives during his presidency?
    Mr. Curry: Proposals for reforming the sugar regime will be coming forward shortly. That is one of the matters that we shall have to deal with in our presidency. It is quite clear that, now that there has been a dramatic reform in the cereals sector, the sugar sector must also be reformed. It is clear also that cutting the price and dealing with the overproduction in Europe must be absolutely central to that reform.
    Mr. Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend on negotiating an extremely successful set-aside scheme which does not discriminate against arable farmers in my constituency, but does he accept that there is continuing downward pressure on farm incomes? Will he assure my farmers that, in the next round of negotiations, he will press as hard as he can for an increase in the sugar beet quota?
    Mr. Curry: The practical course in reform of the sugar regime is to have a go at C sugar. The problem at present is that the high price for A sugar is used by many continental countries to justify overproduction of C sugar, which is then placed on the world market. If we can tackle that, we shall have dealt with one of the real problems of the regime.

    Environmental Protection
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what environmental monitoring duties are currently the responsibility of his Department.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's principal responsibilities for environmental protection.
    Mr. Gummer: My Department's policy and monitoring responsibilities are for environmental aspects of farming and for the marine environment.
    Mr. McFall: Is not the Minister's desire to take over some of the primary inspection functions of the National Rivers Authority derived from his determination to protect the interests of the multinational farming fertilisers and pesticides manufacturers? Is he not ashamed that in so doing he protects them from the full rigours of a proper environmental protection regime?
    Mr. Gummer: I have no such desire and no such intention. My only desire is to ensure that I continue to be known in Europe as—in the best possible sense—the greenest Minister of Agriculture.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister of Agriculture will be aware that he will be undertaking one of his immediate principal environmental responsibilities for the marine environment at the Glasgow meeting of the International Whaling Commission later this month. What does he propose to do to sustain the position that the Government rightly adopted at the last meeting to ensure that there remains an international and effective ban on whaling in future, as there has been in the recent past?
    Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government's present policy was presented at the last meeting in Bournemouth, at which I represented the Government, together with Sir Peter Scott. Together we presented that change of policy, which we have pursued ever since. I intend to uphold that position clearly in Glasgow. I also want the ban to be spread to the smaller cetaceans, which are under considerable threat and are wrongly classed in some countries as though they were not whales.
    Mr. Gale: That answer will be most welcome to many people who have taken a continuing interest in the future of whales and dolphins. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has established a clear reputation as a green Minister. Will he reaffirm his Ministry's position with regard to the European presidency? Will he say clearly that he intends to put animal welfare at the top of his priorities during our presidency of the European Community?
    Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear that the unity of Europe depends on the best things in each country being adopted by others. One of the best things that we can do for Europe is to raise the standards of animal welfare. I hope that we shall learn a little from some other countries about standards of looking after children.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend find time to read a report from the North Atlantic Assembly which highlights the dangers that threaten marine life from chemical weapons which were dumped in the North sea
    932
    and other seas after the second world war? Does he recognise that such chemicals could pose a considerable threat? Will he be kind enough to look into the matter?
    Mr. Gummer: It is obviously important that we examine any threat to the marine environment. I shall be happy to look into the matter.
    Mr. David Clark: If the Minister is as green as he claims, why does he allow 35 per cent. of our sites of special scientific interest to be destroyed by farmers? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Gummer: Yet again the hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance of farming and of the environment. The electorate showed him what they thought of him at the last election. That is why the environment is safer in my hands than it would ever have been in his.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of protecting the countryside is to ensure that British agriculture remains profitable and has a viable future? I congratulate him on his tremendous achievements in the common agricultural policy reform discussions, and especially on imposing the requirement that if land is set aside an environmental protective element must be included in the arrangements.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that the common agricultural policy should have environmental protection at its centre and not as a peripheral matter. That we have sought to do. We have moved environmental protection a long way already. In our presidency we intend to extend it further.

    Milk Marketing
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future arrangements for milk marketing in the United Kingdom and the changes he intends to make.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future arrangments for milk marketing in the United Kingdom and the changes he intends to make.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government intend to introduce legislation this Session to facilitate the transformation of the milk marketing boards into non-statutory organisations.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister's reply gives rise to some concern. We are looking for an assurance about the continuation of the services provided by the milk marketing boards. Will the Minister assure me that the cherished and ever-demanded supply of milk to the doorstep by the usual milk roundsmen will continue and that there is no fear of the British housewife and family losing that delivery?
    Mr. Gummer: The change in the status of the milk marketing boards has no effect on the delivery of milk at the doorstep. That would be endangered if the milk marketing arrangement continued not to allow British milk producers and sellers to achieve the maximum market. Doorstep delivery is unaffected by our decisions.
    Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware of the growing fear that a threat to the doorstep delivery of milk is one of the things that will flow from a restructuring? Is he also aware that the Freedom campaign—Friends Electing for the Delivery of Milk—has been formed to protect the delivery of milk and Britain's delivery men and women, and that it aims to collect 5 million signatures? Will he give an undertaking that he and his Department will back that campaign and ensure that the delivery of milk to the doorstep is safeguarded?
    Mr. Gummer: As a user and an enthusiastic supporter of the doorstep delivery of milk, I wish the campaign well. It is not signatures that the campaign wants, however, but the willingness of consumers to order milk at the doorstep. The best way we can help doorstep deliveries to continue is by buying at the doorstep. That is for the consumer to decide and she can do so under the new system as under the present one.
    Mr. Marland: As my right hon. Friend is aware, many milk producers go to great lengths and are successful in adding value to the raw material by producing locally branded yoghurt, cheese and ice cream. Whatever changes may be made in the milk marketing arrangements, will my right hon. Friend ensure that existing milk producers can continue with that processing and can expand their current efforts?
    Mr. Gummer: One of the purposes of our policies is to ensure that those able to add value to milk will be able to get the milk that they need, so that we shall no longer be in the absurd position of not having enough milk for high value products but still putting butter into intervention. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the changes that the milk marketing boards, the Dairy Trade Federation, the Commission and the Government are seeking to produce.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the statutory milk marketing boards have ensured the availability to the consumer of milk of the highest quality in Europe—with the possible exception of the Danes, to whom we have a lot to be thankful for? Will he bear it in mind that it is absolutely essential, under any new marketing arrangements, that that high quality of milk is preserved for the benefit of the British people?
    Mr. Gummer: The proposals, which result from the milk marketing boards deciding that changes are necessary, and which have clearly been endorsed by the fact that the majority of milk producers wish for such change, will defend Britain's position of producing the highest quality milk in Europe. I hope that we shall then be able to raise standards throughout the rest of Europe; that is one of the great advantages of our enthusiastic membership of the Community.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that, just as farmers who are remote from areas of consumption are worried about the prices that will result from the changed arrangement, consumers fear that the delivery of their daily pinta on the doorstep and its price structure will be threatened? Consumers fear that they will not necessarily receive their daily pinta at the same price if they live in areas remote from the points of production.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should remember that under the quota system we have less milk than we
    934
    need for our national requirements. Therefore, producers even in remote areas need not be concerned, as they might be if there were an overproduction of milk in this country. The hon. Gentleman must also accept that the way to defend the daily pinta is to buy it on the doorstep and not merely to talk about doing so. Too many people who are keen on the daily pinta buy their own milk somewhere else.

    Factory Farming
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward legislation to give RSPCA inspectors the right of entry to factory farming premises.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): No, Sir. We have no plans to bring forward such legislation.
    Mr. Cohen: I congratulate the Minister on his large presence at the Dispatch Box. Why will he not give RSPCA inspectors the power of entry to factory farming premises? Is he aware that the RSPCA recently published statistics which showed a sharp rise in the number of convictions of cruelty to livestock, particularly to sheep and to cattle? That problem of cruelty could best he stopped by giving RSPCA inspectors the power of entry. If the Minister will not do that, will he instruct his own inspectorate to increase significantly its visits to farms so as to stop such cruelty?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has a fine record on welfare matters. He will know that those arrangements were rehearsed well when the Farm Animal Welfare Council considered the report of its enforcement group. The council recommended that the primary role for on-farm visits should be retained by the state veterinary service and that voluntary bodies should not be given a statutory role. If the hon. Gentleman or any organisation has any complaints to make in that respect, they will be investigated vigorously and speedily, and he should let us know at once.
    Mr. Bellingham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Is he aware that many of my constituents, ranging from Thai restaurant owners to proprietors of 25,000 acre estates, rejoiced in his appointment as he is the first Minister of food to know quite a lot about food. Will he deny the rumour in the popular press that he is about to exchange his usual breakfast menu of cold grouse and claret for Alpen and apple juice?
    Mr. Soames: I have no plans to do that at present.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I offer my personal congratulations to the Minister. I am sure that his appointment will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Given that we have to have a Tory in that office, I suppose that it had better be him.
    I thank the Minister for his constructive answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). Will he acknowledge that in intensive farming systems there is potentially a considerable area of abuse and that there can be great suffering? Does he accept that due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and other health problems his own inspectorate, the state veterinary service, is overburdened with work and is unable to carry out the

    935
    level of inspection that it has hitherto? In the short term, will the Minister consider employing private sector vets to carry out the necessary welfare inspections?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that any area of farming or husbandry is open to abuse. As he knows, we take such abuse seriously. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of the state veterinary service. I will also write to him in greater detail.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the future of fishing.
    Mr. Curry: I met the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations earlier this week and I am meeting its national executive on 4 July.
    Mr. Mitchell: I have just come from a meeting with members of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his achievement in uniting the fishing industry—for the first time in its history—in total opposition to the measure that he will be proposing on Monday. Does he accept that the measure is necessary only because of his long delay in introducing a proper decommissioning scheme, that it will be disruptive, dangerous and financially crippling for the fishing industry, and that the industry is begging him to think again and propose alternative measures which will be really effective in dealing with conservation?
    Mr. Curry: Quite unusually, I agreed with nothing that the hon. Gentleman said. The measures are necessary. It is easy to talk about conservation, but when we have come up with alternative ideas, the industry has tended to oppose every one of them. At the end of the day, we must be serious about conservation. The stocks are in very serious danger, not just in British waters but in waters throughout the world. We can tackle that only by adopting a series of measures, of which decommissioning is one. Effort control, licence extension and industry-led rationalisation are all part of conservation and represent a sensible, balanced package. It is important that all elements of the package should be introduced.
    Mr. Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Will he agree that one of the biggest threats to the future of the fishing industry is the recent growth in the number of foreign boats being transferred to our register? I refer not just to Spanish boats, but to the large number of Dutch boats coming on to our register. Will the Government use their six months presidency of the European Council to try to achieve some political agreement with other fisheries Ministers to deal with the scourge once and for all and to put an end to that diabolical practice?
    Mr. Curry: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a problem. We took measures to deal with some of the problems of beamers on the east coast, which is, of course, a Dutch problem. With regard to the pretentions of the Spanish and Portuguese to fish in some Community waters, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Advocate General delivered an opinion which was helpful,
    936
    though the full court ruling has yet to come. Our presidency will be devoted to matters of enforcement and making sure that European fishing grounds are predominantly for Europeans and for the benefit of coastal communities who depend on them.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that fishermen greatly resent the measure to be introduced on Monday and allege that there has not been proper consultation between them and the Minister? What has been the level of consultation? Has the hon. Gentleman met the fishermen's organisations before presentation of the Bill?
    Mr. Curry: The Government's measures on fisheries were announced at the end of February. It was stated clearly then that effort control was part of our policy. We then introduced a consultation document, immediately after the general election—it would have been constitutionally improper to do so earlier, even though it was ready just before the election—dealing with all the details of decommissioning and effort control. I very much want detailed consultation and discussion about how this will work in practice. The Bill will give me power to attach to the licence a condition to introduce effort control. All the details of that are still subject to consultation, and that consultation is entirely valid.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what are his objectives during his presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
    Mr. Gummer: I shall seek to carry forward the process of common agricultural policy reform, complete the single market, improve animal welfare and make environmental considerations much more central to the CAP.
    Mr. Nicholson: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success in the recent negotiations? It represents one of the more hopeful precursors of the United Kingdom presidency. During that presidency, will he give great emphasis to achieving higher standards where appropriate, effective enforcement and, above all, a level playing field on such matters as national subsidies for environmental purposes, food hygiene and that most important area to which he referred—animal welfare?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is clearly important that controls over the cruel production of veal and pigs should be extended to the whole of the Community. We should not take a nationalistic view of animal welfare: it should apply throughout the EC, as our membership of the Community demands.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister satisfied that the proposals for the reform of the CAP will reduce the major, and in some sectors increasing, discrepancy between farm and retail prices? Is he further satisfied that there will be opportunities for producers in all sectors to benefit from the proposals without the risk of increased prices to the consumer?
    Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment on this occasion, his first appearance in his new role. We have to face the fact that under present

    937
    policies, which I understand the hon. Gentleman's party supports, prices paid by consumers are higher than they would otherwise be. CAP reform has led to a reduction in consumer support and an increase in taxpayer support. At the same time, the farmer is being asked to take a price which is much closer to the market value. In those circumstances, we have the fairest situation between farmers and countries.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the success of the recent price round. Will he assure us that the cereal market will continue to be supported by intervention and that the prices will apply to feed-quality cereals?
    Mr. Gummer: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to support the cereal producer, not simply by intervention, which will he properly diminished, but by compulsory set-aside, compensation and area payments. That is what the United Kingdom has demanded arid that is another example of the way in which the EC has increasingly taken on Britain's views.
    Dr. David Clark: The House will be disappointed that the Minister has not decided to highlight food hygiene as one of the key issues of his presidency. Does not he understand that the majority of British people want high-quality food? Has not he seen the recent study of the trading standards officers in Birmingham which shows that 90 per cent. of eggs sampled were substandard and that most of those were imported? When will he stand up and speak for the British consumer?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not need to stand up and speak for the British consumer. I have put through the House the most extensive food safety legislation of any country. The hon. Gentleman is constantly selling short British food. He is the man who told us not to eat British sausages or British apples. The hon. Gentleman has no right to speak for British food producers and the electorate told him that in no uncertain terms.
    Mr. Lord: My right hon. Friend is a very fair man. During his presidency of the Council, will he make his main aim the fairest possible application of rules and regulations governing agriculture throughout the EC, which is a matter of great concern to us all? In particular, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the devastating effect that the unfair application of rules and regulations is having on the poultry-processing industry in my constituency in Suffolk where veterinary inspection charges are crippling, putting the industry at a severe disadvantage compared with its competitors in Europe.
    Mr. Gummer: I will and I am.

    Animal Welfare
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the welfare of animals at slaughter.
    Mr. Soames: We shall improve the training of slaughtermen, implement outstanding Farm Animal Welfare Council recommendations as soon as possible and make sure that Britain's high standards are adopted throughout the rest of the Community.
    Mr. Fyfe: I thank the new Minister for his helpful answer and I hope that he will continue to give such answers. What advice has the Ministry sought on the slaughter of animals according to religious custom so that those customs are respected while cruelty to the animals is avoided? Will he seek advice from any religious bodies that consider it helpful to offer such advice?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady raises an important point. The law on the welfare of animals at slaughter applies equally to religiously slaughtered animals, apart from the requirement for pre-stunning. In 1990, the Government introduced new legal safeguards on religious slaughter. In particular, the use of casting pens for cattle is being phased out and, from July this year, cattle will be required to be slaughtered in an upright, specially approved restraining pen. In expressing their concern, the hon. Lady and her constituents speak for many, and I hope that my reply reassures them.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that improving welfare standards at slaughter should embrace the transportation of animals to the place of slaughter? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Minister do all that they can during my right hon. Friend's presidency to ensure that European practices and behaviour are raised to the levels that obtain in Britain? Quite frankly, far too often standards in Europe are totally unacceptable.
    Mr. Soames: Yes, we shall do just that. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to raise that point. We shall seek to raise the standards observed by our partners in the European Community to the same high levels that apply in this country.
    Mr. Beggs: On behalf of my hon. Friends, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. We all welcome the Government's efforts to ensure the welfare of animals at slaughter. Does the Minister agree that of equal, if not greater, importance is the welfare of the consumers of the end products? What assurance can he give that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that even the minimum use of illegal substances for growth promotion can be detected at abattoirs?
    Mr. Soames: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we run the most extensive and vigorous checks in this country. We are always alert to any possible dangers. Despite regular testing, illegal substances have never been found in this country—but we will continue vigorously to police that aspect.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that great cruelty occurs not only at slaughter on the continent but in the transportation of animals to slaughter on the continent? Does he agree that animals in this country and in continental countries should be slaughtered as closely as possible to their place of origin?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. As I said earlier, we seek to raise standards in the rest of the European Community to the high levels that prevail in this country.
    Mr. Morley: Is the Minister aware that because of the high standards in slaughterhouses in this country, the poultry sector in particular is disadvantaged? Because the standards observed by European competitors do not reach the same level, they enjoy a cost advantage on imports. If

    939
    the Government accept that some slaughterhouses on the continent do not meet our high standards, what will the Minister do about British producers that drag animals many hundreds of miles over long periods of time, to be slaughtered in poor-quality slaughterhouses abroad?
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend the Minister dealt earlier with the question of cost. We intend to raise the question of standards and costs with the Community, to ensure that our producers are in no way disadvantaged. Transport is a matter to which we attach the highest importance. During our presidency, we shall seek to raise it to the top of the agenda.

    Plant Passports
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations within the European Community on the subject of plant passports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: Under pressure from this Government, the Commission has undertaken to bring forward proposals in the near future.
    Mrs. Roe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion and thank him for that reply. Is he aware of the concern of United Kingdom growers about the greater bureaucracy and cost implicit in the proposals? Can he give an assurance that they will not be disadvantaged by comparison with our European Community partners, in respect of the financing of the inspections required under the proposed plant health arrangements?
    Mr. Curry: We intend this to be a measure of deregulation. The word "passport" can be misleading. There is no passport officer and no physical passport; the term refers to a mark that can be applied by the propagator himself. We intend the regime to be as light as possible, but we also want it to be applied as sensibly as possible and—this is most important—as universally as possible, so that we can ensure that we are on a level playing field.

    Product Marketing
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans for improving the marketing of British agricultural products.
    Mr. Curry: We are encouraging better marketing through collaboration between producers. The group marketing grant will help them to develop large, professionally managed groups.
    Mr. Riddick: Is it not a pretty crass piece of marketing to move the manufacture of Wensleydale cheese from Yorkshire to Lancashire? Can my hon. Friend do anything to persuade Dairy Crest to sell the Wensleydale factory in Hawes, either to an outside buyer or through a management buy-out?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been actively engaged in this regard. As a fellow North Yorkshire Member, I can only endorse the view that Wensleydale cheese is far better coming from Yorkshire than from Lancashire—but that is true of all the other cheeses as well.
    Mr. Skinner: What steps will the Minister take to help three farmers in Bolsover to market their products? Does he recall that, nearly 12 months ago, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promised the House that they would not lose out? According to Farmers Weekly, the Minister is not going to pay those farmers any more money. They have lost their livelihoods and the Bolsover people are fed up with contamination by dioxins. It is time that those farmers were paid and it is time that a public inquiry was carried out.
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has dealt fully with points about the matter on many occasions.

    Bananas
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the accessibility of the British market to Latin American bananas.
    Mr. Curry: The Commission has published a working paper on banana imports aiming to fulfil all the Community's international obligations.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Latin American republics from which bananas come are third world countries just as deserving of our consideration as the Caribbean islands? Are not British consumers entitled to those bananas, which are larger, cheaper and, by and large, of higher quality than the ones that are currently being imported?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that British consumers do indeed benefit from those bananas. Last year, about 28 per cent. of bananas consumed in Britain came from Latin America and we believe that this year the quantity could comfortably be 100,000 tonnes. However, we have an obligation to protect the position of our traditional suppliers in Jamaica and the Windward islands. It is entirely possible for us to do that while ensuring adequate access for Latin American bananas.
    Dr. Godman: May I remind the Minister that many of those engaged in the production of Latin American bananas are employed in lousy conditions by big American firms? Will he ensure that the producers—the small farmers in the Windward islands and elsewhere—are protected from the obduracy of the Germans in regard to exports to the Community of their very fine product?
    Mr. Curry: We have made it absolutely clear that we stand by our obligations to the Windward islands and Jamaica, enabling them to continue to have full access to our market. The European Community seems likely to introduce proposals to impose a quota on dollar bananas. To be fair, the dollar bananas are likely to take any increase in the market, because they are better placed; but our stance is that producers from the ACP—African Caribbean Pacific—countries must be fully protected, because of the importance of that crop to their industries and economies.

    Meat Hygiene
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his proposals for meat hygiene.
    Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend the Minister has announced that a national meat hygiene service is to be established as an agency of his Department.
    Mrs. Winterton: I welcome today's announcement that an agency is to be set up to replace the former piecemeal arrangements. When will that agency be fully operational, and what charging policy will be introduced? The Department should bear in mind the necessity to keep costs low and provide good value for money, to ensure that excellent British meat and meat products are available to the consumer at competitive prices.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Subject to the will of Parliament, the new agency will take over in late 1994 or early 1995. It will enable us to achieve consistent enforcement standards and a uniform basis for charging in Great Britain. By putting our own house in order, we shall be better placed to put pressure on the Commission and other member states to achieve the same standards across the Community. We are wholly committed to securing improvements in what is currently an unsatisfactory situation.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that very small abattoirs, which have to take into consideration the cost of visits by meat inspectors and vets, are very worried about the high costs of those visits when the new regulations come into force? Does he also accept that small abattoirs are very important to rural economies? Will he take on board representations made to him that those costs should be kept as low as possible?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We agree entirely that small slaughterhouses are vital to rural communities. We have secured a special derogation for 12-to-20-animal units. Welfare and hygiene standards will apply to large or small slaughterhouses, but the point on charges is well taken.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): May I first congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on joining Her Majesty's Privy Council this morning. As you did so, I was presiding over a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Moss: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smaller countries have a vital part to play in the life of the European Community? Does he further agree that Denmark should not be sidelined or pressurised, merely because its people expressed their views in a democratic way about the Maastricht treaty?
    The Prime Minister: I emphatically agree with my hon. Friend about that. The work of the Community will go on, and Denmark and all the other small member states will play their full part in it. We have no wish whatsoever to slam the doors in the face of Denmark or to rule out any procedures whatsoever that will help Denmark in her present difficulties and enable her to join the Maastricht
    942
    treaty. But it is unrealistic to think that everything has been changed by the Danish vote, just as it is unrealistic to think that nothing has been changed by it.
    Mr. Cryer: But does not the Prime Minister accept, in the wake of the mess that the Common Market is happily in now, as a result of the Danish referendum, that if he brings back a renegotiated treaty and some sort of deal with the Danish Government, there will be a great deal of pressure in this country to require the Government to hold a referendum here over any constitutional alterations which might be involved in that new treaty?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that I made the Government's position about a referendum entirely clear yesterday, and I have nothing whatsoever to add to that today. On the subject of the treaty itself, there is a great deal in it that represents concessions by our partners to what we have long sought in this country. That would also be open to renegotiation, if any renegotiations were to take place. I hope that today in Oslo, where my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is attending a meeting, they will begin to examine in detail the way to deal with the particular difficulties, following the referendum in Denmark.
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing unease of both listeners and viewers about the coverage of live sport? Irrespective of the long-term implications of the deal over the premier league football coverage, is my right hon. Friend aware that there was genuine resentment, among my constituents at least, during the recent world cup coverage from Australia? There is uncertainty over the future of the ball-by-ball cricket commentaries. Is it not a fact that the arrangements that were designed to give greater opportunities to listen or to watch seem, in practice, to be having the reverse effect?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows—I am pleased about this, as he is—ball-by-ball cricket commentaries are now continuing, albeit on a different wavelength. I know that some people have been and are concerned whenever areas of activity are opened up by market forces—that has often been the case in the past—but in time many of those anxieties have disappeared and the beneficial effects have found their way through. The net effect of new television channels is that there is more and better coverage of sport on a wider number of channels.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister recall the statement on 26 March that an asylum Bill would be the first action of a new Conservative Government? Why did he change his mind?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will see the asylum Bill before too long.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister characteristically tried to evade the question. On 26 March the asylum Bill was to be the first priority, to be introduced before anything else. Why was that Bill needed so urgently before the election, but not afterwards?
    The Prime Minister: I am intrigued at the right hon. Gentleman's sudden enthusiasm for the Bill. I can put his mind at rest. The Government are committed to reintroducing the asylum Bill at an early opportunity and we propose to do so.
    Mr. Hattersley: Nobody should be surprised that the Prime Minister is ashamed to give the real answer. The Asylum Bill was introduced in an attempt to legitimise many of the scare stories about immigration put about by the Tory party. It is to the Prime Minister's shame that he is not prepared to denounce that policy and attitude now.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should know better than to make remarks such as that. As we have said in the past, it was the first Bill that we decided to reintroduce and put into the Queen's Speech. It remains essential now, as it was then, to streamline the decision-making process. We intend to resist the misuse of asylum procedures and to ensure that genuine refugees are properly protected. That is the position of the Bill, and it will be introduced shortly.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming case for the enlargement of the European Community has been in no way diminished by the result of the Danish referendum? Can he assure my constituents in Swindon and the entire country that he will use the opportunity presented by the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community in the next six months to press the case as vigorously as he can for the enlargement of the Community to include the countries of the European Free Trade Association and the countries of central and eastern Europe when they are ready to join?
    The Prime Minister: No one in this country or within the Community can be in any doubt about my total commitment to opening up the Community to the EFTAns and, in due course, to those from eastern Europe. Nothing that has happened in recent days changes my belief that that is necessary and urgent, and we will continue with it. I do not accept that anything has put enlargement at risk. I can assure my hon. Friend that this will have a high priority during our presidency.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Prime Minister aware of the dismay felt by a number of hon. Members and many historians at the fact that the papers relating to Rudolf Hess are still not being fully disclosed? Is he aware that it is the view of many people that there is a continuing Establishment cover-up which should now be revealed and that the undisclosed papers reveal matters relating to the non-royal status of the Duchess of Windsor?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory. If there has been a cover-up, it has been covered up from me as well.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend will have noted early-day motion 174, which has been signed by a substantial number of Conservative Members. Is he aware of their deep desire that the British presidency should promote the Conservative principles of free trade and intergovernmental co-operation and not the socialist diktats of Jacques Delors?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly use the presidency to pursue issues that are in our interests and those of the whole Community: the introduction of the single market, reform of the CAP, developing relations with the EFTA and eastern countries, future financing and deregulation—matters for which this party and this country have stood for so long. We shall pursue all of them during our presidency.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does the Prime Minister accept that, in the face of the Danish announcement today that they will not attempt to renegotiate, to reintroduce the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which we would have discussed yesterday and today, would be like reintroducing a Bill for the resurrection of Shergar?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that premise and the hon. Gentleman would be rather surprised if I did. The Maastricht treaty was the result of a lot of difficult negotiations that were conducted over some time. If we went back to square one, I do not think that we could assume that our partners would agree all the matters that are of interest to this country. We must wait and see how events fall out.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: Following the collapse of socialism in Basildon, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that last month's local election results in Basildon, which ensured the success of every Conservative candidate, showed that residents were fed up with an inefficient, high-spending socialist council and believed that only Conservatives could provide good services at a low cost? Does the Prime Minister have any advice for the new council on where it might stick the nuclear-free-zone signs? That was another daft socialist idea.
    The Prime Minister: I feel sure that my hon. Friend will already have passed any advice that is necessary to the new Basildon council. I very much doubt whether I would dissent from what he said. The electors in Basildon made an extremely wise choice in the local elections and in the general election, and I am sure that it is a choice which they will repeat many times in the future.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: As part of his "taking stock" of the situation in Scotland, has the Prime Minister made any representations to the EC to have the European central bank set up in Scotland? If not, will he agree to do so now?
    The Prime Minister: I have made no representations, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, on this matter, but we shall certainly do what we can to ensure that, whenever possible, Community institutions, including the bank, are situated in the right place in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent launch of the campaign for physics and of a survey of sixth-formers which showed that 90 per cent. of them believe that physics is essential to solve the world's environmental problems? Does he agree that good science is preferable to slick pressure group campaigning, to ensure that the Earth summit at Rio leads to a good future for our planet?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of understanding physics, although I must confess that I cannot claim to be among those who understand it very well at all. However, environmental education is an important theme of education these days and I hope that it will be a growing theme. It will certainly enable people to understand the deeply important issues to be discussed at Rio.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: When the Prime Minister took his present post, he described the notion of a society at ease with itself. Does he feel that when he goes to the Earth summit next week, against a background of a dismal record on the environment in Britain and development aid having been cut from 0·51 per cent. of gross domestic product to 0·27 per cent. during his years in the House, he will be representing a society at ease with itself?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, runs down what this nation has done and is doing to assist with aid. He conveniently ignores the fact that we have the sixth largest aid budget in the world, that it is one of the most effective programmes that the OECD recognises—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has been cut in half."] It most certainly has not been cut in half as was inaccurately stated earlier this week. He ignores the fact that there are other forms of aid that we can and do give, that the Toronto terms originated with my former right hon. Friend, Nigel Lawson, that the Trinidad terms originated under this Government and that they are two of the biggest debt write-offs that there have ever been, and that there is no other country with a comparable record and no previous Government with a comparable record to that of this Government.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JUNE—Second Reading of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.
TUESDAY 9 JUNE—Opposition day (1st allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Ethnic Minorities in British Society", followed by a debate entitled "Protecting the Maxwell Pensioners". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motion relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order.
WEDNESDAY 10 JUNE—Until about seven o'clock, consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
THURSDAY 11 JUNE—Debate on Government policy on science and technology on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JUNE—Debate entitled "Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the 1992–93 Price Proposals" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 15 JUNE—Second Reading of the Boundary Commissions Bill.
[Monday 8 March
Floor of the House
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 10229/91

Common Fisheries Policy

(b) 5088/92

Quality Policy for Fishery products

(c) 5210/92

Monitoring Implementation of the CFP

(d) 5337/92

Discard Practice in Community Fisheries

(e) 5351/92 ADD 1

Common Organisation of the Market in Fishery Products

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a)

HC 24-ix (1991–92)

(b)

No Report

(c)

(d)

(e)

Friday 12 June
Floor of the House
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 7570/91

Common Agricultural Policy

(b) 5534/92 ADD 1–3

Prices for Agricultural Products and related measures for 1992–93

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xxix (1990–91), HC 24-iii (1991–92)

(b) No Report.]

Dr. Cunningham: May we have a statement on Monday by the Foreign Secretary following his discussions today in Oslo at the meeting of the Council of Ministers? Given the
948
importance of what has happened in the Danish referendum and its significance for the Maastricht treaty, it is surely important that the House should have the earliest possible statement from the Foreign Secretary, and that should be on Monday. I hope that the Leader of the House can assure us that that statement will be made.
Will the Leader of the House think again about the business for Friday next week? It is surely beyond doubt that the proposed changes to the common agricultural policy which are to be debated are of huge importance and significance for producers and farmers, and also for consumers. Given that it will, by common consent, be a discussion on some of the most fundamental changes for perhaps a quarter of a century, should not we have the debate on a day other than a Friday when many hon. Members, for important and legitimate reasons, will be in their constituencies and therefore unable to participate in it? Seriously and earnestly, I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider that decision and change the day of the debate.
Given the fact that the Government have failed to provide time for a statement, let alone a debate, on the plight of Maxwell pensioners, and that the Labour party has, rightly, provided Supply day time for such a debate, may we have an assurance that the Minister will not only participate in the debate, as obviously he will, but will set out in detail what urgent action the Government intend to take to help to alleviate the problems faced by Maxwell pensioners?
Will the Leader of the House reflect on today's business—specifically, the Bill on community care—and agree that we should discuss only the Second Reading today? There is plenty of time for the Bill to be considered in Standing Committee. I believe that it would be for the convenience of the Government and Ministers as well as for the convenience of the House as a whole if that proposal were adopted.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman asked four questions. The first was whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would make a statement on Monday following the Oslo meeting. I had originally hoped that it might be possible for a statement to be made tomorrow, but that seems in doubt. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he wants, that there will be a statement on Monday. I hope that, in turn, he will recognise that it may be difficult for my right hon. Friend to maintain an entirely trappist position throughout the weekend, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take offence if he does not.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made a complaint—as I suppose it must be called—about the fact that we shall debate the common agricultural policy on a Friday. I resist the suggestion that merely because the day is a Friday it is not possible to debate a subject of importance. That would imply a grave diminution of many subjects that have been debated on Fridays—and indeed of the House's sittings on Friday. In view of what has happened, it is right that we have tried to make time for a debate on the common agricultural policy, as well as the debate on science and technology on Thursday—that is also an important subject. I believe that the desirability of debating the matter soon outweighs the considerations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he accepts that I feel that that is the right way to proceed, so as to give the House the earliest opportunity to debate two important subjects.

949
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Maxwell. I have made it clear several times that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will—soon, I hope—make a statement on the establishment of the review of the framework of pensions law which the Government have undertaken to set up. I cannot give an absolute commitment about the timing of that, but it is clear that there will be two opportunities for such matters to be raised in the first two days of next week—one on Department of Social Security questions, and one on the Supply day. I shall not attempt to write my right hon. Friend's speech for the debate, or his answers to questions, at this stage, but I am sure that he is aware of the concern that comment should be made about the matters raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—and I shall again draw it to his attention.
Lastly, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about today's business, I am glad to say that I understand that there have been further discussions through the usual channels about the handling of the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill. In the light of those discussions, I propose that we proceed only with the Second Reading of the Bill today, and allow it to be further considered in a Standing Committee. I hope that that will also meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who raised the matter with me yesterday.
Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what progress he hopes to make next week in setting up the departmental Select Committees? With so much happening, especially in foreign affairs, it seems a pity that the Committees are not in place to monitor the Executive in the proper way. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether, from your high position, you can give encouragement and support to the setting up of the Select Committees so that Parliament can do its job properly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He wants to get on a trip.
Mr. Newton: I—
Mr. Skinner: The Government have lost three months already.
Mr. Newton: I see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is in his usual inimitable form. I would not wish to be taken as endorsing his comments on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). which is important.
I have said on a number of occasions that I am anxious to see progress made as quickly as possible in setting up the Select Committees. We have already made some progress with the setting up of the Committee of Selection and the Public Accounts Committee. We have been able to set up the European Standing Committees—a slightly separate point. I hope that we shall soon get the Joint Cornmittee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on European Legislation. I look to make progress as soon as we can on the departmental Select Committees, including the one in which my right hon. Friend is interested.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Lord President issue next week the Top Salaries Review Body report on office cost allowance? He must be aware that hon. Members of all parties are anxious about the report because they want to make suitable appointments of staff.
950
That is important for the staff. Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the full report will be adopted by the Government?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a precise prediction now of the exact time of the publication of the report or the exact proposals that I expect to explain to the House at that time. I can say—the right hon. Gentleman will realise that I have had one or two other things on my mind in recent days—that I hope that we shall be able to do so soon.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the opportunity for a debate next week on Maxwell will give the Secretary of State for Social Security an opportunity to make a statement about the implementation of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990 which would make the Maxwell pensioners creditors of Maxwell Communication Corporation and of Mirror Group Newspapers? The consequence would be that many hundreds of millions of pounds could flow back into those pension funds.
Mr. Newton: Clearly the debate next week will give my right hon. Friend opportunities to make comments as he thinks right on a wide variety of matters. As I have already said, I will not attempt to make his speech across the Dispatch Box this afternoon, but I will ensure that his attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's request.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Reverting to the question of the creation of the departmental Select Committees, surely it is within the Government's gift to decide which Departments will be covered in the new regime which the right hon. Gentleman has set up. Presumably there is no difficulty about making an early statement on that.
Is there any prospect, having regard to the special circumstances surrounding the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill which we shall discuss on Monday, of the right hon. Gentleman being prepared to recommend the referral of Second Reading to a Special Standing Committee, given that the industry believes that it has not had proper time for consultation?
Mr. Newton: I will give some thought to the hon. Gentleman's point. My principal concern is that we should make progress on that important measure which is needed, in association with other proposals involving finance, in the interests of a sensible fisheries policy and a sensible basis of operation for the fishing industry.
On the first question, the hon. Gentleman, in his new capacity in what are called the "usual channels", will realise the need for considerable discussions about these matters. Those discussions are proceeding. I cannot go any further than I already have in relation to what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
Mr. Richard Page: Although I welcome the opportunity during an Opposition Supply day to debate the Maxwell pensioners' problems, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be a sterile debate unless the results of the Government's investigations are to hand and can be considered? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that the Securities and Investments Board report is made available as a paper for the whole House? The debate next week can then have some meaning.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows that a considerable number of inquiries of various kinds are going on in respect of those affairs. The one to which he has referred would normally be under the general aegis of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade rather than that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Again, I shall make sure that my right hon. Friends are made aware of my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. John Hutton: Will the Leader of the House look again at the business for next week and see whether time could be found to debate the provision of dental services within the national health service? Many dentists in my constituency have expressed deep concern about actions taken recently by the Secretary of State for Health which cast doubt on the viability of many dental practices in my constituency and the availability of dental services within the NHS. It is an important matter which the House needs time to debate.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the dental rate study group met yesterday and considered the proposals which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health the previous day. I understand that the dental rate study group will meet again to continue its discussions in a week or two. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to have such a debate at the moment, but clearly it would have been open to Opposition Members to take part in next week's Supply day debate had they thought it right to do so.
Mr. David Sumberg: May I support what many of my colleagues have said about Tuesday's debate on Maxwell? There is to be a mass lobby in the House on Monday by Maxwell pensioners, many of whom are my constituents. They want to know what the Government will do about the matter. They have been swindled out of their pensions and they are very worried, and understandably so. Can my right hon. Friend give us some assurance before the debate?
Mr. Newton: I can give my hon. Friend the clear assurance that my right hon. Friends and I are very much aware of the concern on both sides of the House and among others about this matter. I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that I can go beyond what I have already said on a couple of occasions about the position in respect of the debate next week.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Leader of the House aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has made the very important announcement today by way of a written answer to one of his hon. Friends that the Government will review their policy on all-seater stadiums for football clubs, especially in the third and fourth divisions? Will he take it from me that hon. Members will consider that to be a very important and sensible announcement? In view of the fact that improvements have taken place in football grounds in the past few years, that is extremely sensible.
Will the Leader of the House consider initiating a debate so that those who lost their loved ones in the Hillsborough disaster may have their fears allayed by the fact that the Secretary of State has taken very much into account the improved situation for football grounds and that in no way will safety requirements be jettisoned as a result of the review?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can respond immediately, or indeed even less than immediately, to the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. I can certainly welcome, on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the statement. I too think that it is a very sensible move.
Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend will be aware of Conservative Members' concern about the problem of gipsies and so-called new-age travellers. He will be aware also of the recent terrible scenes in the west country and the apparent inadequacy of the police to cope. May we therefore have an early debate on that important subject—it is certainly a nuisance to many of our constituents who have such people living close to them—and look again at the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986? The problem seems to be getting worse and we do not seem to be addressing it.
Mr. Newton: Again, I do not think that I can promise my hon. Friend an early debate on that matter. I can certainly assure him that the Government take the issue seriously, although it is not an easy one to tackle. It is right that any proposed action should be carefully thought through.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on the adverse effect of the privatisation of hospital cleaning services on quality, hygiene and public safety? Is he aware that it was revealed today that in Royal Alexandra hospital in my constituency a firm of private cleaning contractors threw waste infected with tuberculosis into the public waste disposal system? Does he agree that it is a disgrace that the policy of putting profits before patient care is leading to such instances, caused by poor working practices, in the very institutions that are supposed to protect public health?
Mr. Newton: While I should naturally be worried about the incident that the hon. Gentleman describes—I have not had any opportunity to check it, so I cannot endorse his description—I resist the suggestion that such incidents occur only where private contracting firms are involved. For example, I think back to the time when I was a Minister in the former Department of Health and Social Security and the difficulties at the Stanley Royd hospital in Wakefield. The hon. Gentleman should think more carefully before making implied allegations about private sector operators.
Mr. Barry Porter: May I return to the question of the setting up of the departmental Select Committees, having listened to the brief but fairly vigorous exchange from a sedentary position between the two Front Benches. As I understand it, we are all waiting for the largest Opposition party to sort out its leadership and spokesmanship difficulties. But I understand from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the delay has something to do with the Government Front Bench. I do not understand. Some of us would rather like to get on with doing some useful work.
Mr. Newton: I was unaware of the informal exchanges to which my hon. Friend refers because I was addressing the House rather than listening to whatever exchanges

953
took place. My clear understanding is that all of us who are involved in these matters—it is certainly true in my case—wish to make progress as soon as possible but on the basis of the necessary consideration and discussion.
Mr. David Winnick: When the Maxwell debate takes place next Tuesday, will the Minister who replies to the debate explain the legal position whereby the Maxwell family apparently continues to have substantial income and assets abroad while pensioners have been swindled out of their pensions? Some pensioners now live in destitution. Could the Attorney-General come to the House and explain why, despite what has happened, there has been no prosecution? Is there now a special law in Britain under which the Maxwell family and those associated with it commercially are immune from prosecution?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well not only that an inquiry is being conducted by the Securities and Investments Board—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) referred to it—but a substantial investigation is being held by the Serious Fraud Office. Clearly, questions of prosecution arise following investigations, not during or before them. The suggestion that the Maxwells have some sort of immunity is simply ludicrous.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 9?
[That this House welcomes the Report of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House, HC20, Session 1991–92, which considered 'whether the public and private business of the House might be conducted more effectively by making changes to the order and timing of business, the hours of sitting and the arrangement of the parliamentary year'; notes the recommendations of the report and the debate on 2nd March 1992; and urges the Government to provide time to discuss further and consider on substantive motions and vote on the recommendations of the report at the earliest opportunity.]
It calls for the opportunity further to discuss the report of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House and a chance to vote on its recommendations. The motion has been signed by more than 80 Members. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall have an opportunity to debate the report before the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: Yes.
Mr. Frank Field: When the Leader of the House reports back to his colleagues at the Department of Social Security, will he please add my views? Will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that, while hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Government's acceptance of the Social Security Select Committee recommendation that there should be a long-term review of pensions law, it does not help one Maxwell pensioner? Will he also tell him that when we have the debate on Tuesday we shall be anxious that he should make a statement on what the Government intend to do to help what will be by the end of the month 6,000 pensioners who have either lost their pension entirely or had it reduced substantially?
Mr. Newton: The whole House is well aware of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters and, indeed, of his position as Chairman of the Committee which wrote the
954
report in the previous Parliament. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also be aware of that and will, of course, take note—I cannot say more than that—of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Bearing in mind that Opposition Members constantly preach that the Government do not give enough aid to third-world and poorer countries, may we have another debate on the Rio summit, this time with a little more notice? Conservative Members could then point out that Opposition Members are always in the forefront of requesting the creation of trade barriers, such as the multi-fibre arrangement, against poorer countries, and that the World bank recently calculated that such trade barriers cost the third world more than we give them in aid. Does that not illustrate beautifully that the real nature of socialism is to throw money at problems rather than to let people help themselves?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a good point by emphasising the importance of trade to developing countries, which is often overlooked and which is at least as important as aid, and often more important. That illustrates the occasional contradictory position of Opposition Members who demand more aid and then demand protective trade restrictions, which would undo much of the good. Leaving that aside, as I said in my mini business statement yesterday, I cannot promise a further debate at this stage although there will certainly be a statement after the summit and we can then consider the position in the light of that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the announcement that there will be a debate next Thursday on science and technology, as it is a subject on which the House has been strangely silent.
May I press the Leader of the House on the subject of departmental Select Committees because many people outside the House wonder why something that is so vital for the scrutiny of Government is being impeded? One would not have thought that the Opposition were causing the delay and therefore, if the Leader of the House is having difficulty with the usual channels, could he not try the unusual channels and let us get on with our business?
Mr. Newton: I have not sought to suggest that there is any cause of difficulty in any place. Difficult issues in relation to the structure of Select Committees and to the way in which they should be set up have to be dealt with, and I hope that it will not be too long before they can be resolved. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no foot-dragging on the Conservative side, and I have no reason to accuse anyone else of it either.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Before we have the Maastricht debate—[Interruption.] I am sorry; we have had the Maastricht debate. Before the Maxwell debate next week, could the Leader of the House bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Security the fact that no Government is blameless for not having legislation that protects people's pensions? If the legislation that is likely to be introduced is tight enough to protect people's pensions, can he ask his right hon. Friend to come to the Dispatch Box on Tuesday and give some hope to pensioners? If, with the introduction of good legislation, it is unlikely to happen again, we could set a precedent in that way, and we could

955
give those people hope. Some of my constituents are losing between £10,000 and £29,000 each year of their lives and the Government are their only hope.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend gave me a moment of greater unease than usual with his slip at the beginning of his question. On the rest of his question, I undertake, as I have done on a number of occasions today, to bring his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week about recent reports that the Government are secretly planning to privatise Scotland's water industry? Does the Leader of the House agree that such public asset-stripping would be a national scandal, especially in view of the recent revelation that the chairmen of the privatised water boards in England and Wales are lining their pockets with £20 million worth of perks, and the fact that the Government have no mandate, even by British standards, to privatise Scotland's water, because there was no mention of it in the recent or any previous Tory party election manifesto? Surely such contempt for democracy reinforces the case for a Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Newton: In the interests of keeping the temperature down, I shall simply undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Richard Alexander: May I commend my right hon. Friend's defence of our Friday debates? Does he agree that they are often effective, in-depth debates and that it is equally difficult to catch Madam Speaker's eye on a Friday as it is on any other day? I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of a debate on the common agricultural policy, because it was my request that we should have an early debate on agricultural policy. Presumably, if it were not to be held on Friday, it would have been some time before we could have had that debate.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When he rose, I wondered whether to advert to a conversation held in informal circumstances that we had earlier in the week. I am grateful for his remarks and glad that I was able to respond to his suggestion and to the widespread demand from other parts of the House.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given that it seems that the Select Committee on Health will not sit for some time, may we have a debate on what is happening to health service employees? The Leader of the House, with other hon. Members, will have received the report from the Royal College of Nursing about whistle-blowing. He will also be aware that Dr. Chris Chapman has joined other victims of the authoritarian managers now running the health service when he was sacked this week. Is it not time that the House debated exactly what is happening to health service employees who care about standards and patients and who are increasingly victimised if they express those cares?
Mr. Newton: I shall depart, perhaps unwisely, from the emollient frame of mind in which I answered the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and move into a slightly more aggressive mode. The hon. Lady could conceivably make representations to her hon. Friends on the Front Bench on why we had six days' debate on the
956
Loyal Address without health being raised in any shape or form and why we saw nothing of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made next week to clarify the rumours that the Government have plans to lower the age of consent for homosexuals? It has been rumoured that it will be brought down to as low as 12 years of age, as in Denmark. Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that the public's fears need to be allayed on that important issue?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I need not tell my hon. Friend that, in respect of one suggestion to which he referred, he should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers—if that is what he read.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: For the second time in this Parliament, may I raise the question of the three reports from the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which deal with lobbying, the chairmanship of Committees and the new register? When will we debate those reports on substantive resolutions because 11 hon. Members spent 200 hours working in Committee on them?
Mr. Newton: Clearly, I am not in a position, having announced the business, to promise a debate next week, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, this is the second or third time that the matter has been raised. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has also raised it, and I am aware of the interest in the matter. I am certainly not ignoring it.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend has been most generous and helpful to the House in his response to the many interventions about the Maxwell pensions affair. May I stress that it is crucial that the House quickly receives the report from the Securities and Investments Board? It is six months since its inquiries were instigated and we cannot wait much longer because, for each day that passes, more pensioners are losing their entitlement to pension. The new chairman of the SIB, appointed this week, should address his mind to this problem with the greatest urgency.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will realise that the SIB is an independent body and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot dictate to it when it produces its report. However, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has his attention drawn to the point made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Leader of the House accept the urgent need for a debate on the water industry in view of the fact that it is not only paying increased dividends to its shareholders and increased salaries to its top executives, but is hugely increasing prices to consumers? There is also clear evidence that it is continually inclined to cut off supplies of water to those who find themselves unable to pay their bills.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request. My only comment at this stage is that I sometimes wish that, when points such as that are made, reference was also made to the growing amount of investment in the water industry to meet the increasingly difficult problem of demand.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Was the right hon. Gentleman in his place yesterday when his hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) suggested that Labour Members, including occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, had not spoken of the need for a debate on the Maxwell affair and pensions before the general election? Will the Leader of the House accept that on 5 December I raised the matter and that on 9 December several of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), raised it? I hope that in the debate next week the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that his hon. Friend was not telling the truth.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that previous Governments of different complexions have found money, when necessary, to pay pensioners who have found themselves in a similar predicament? For example, a Labour Government bailed out Court Line and recently the Tory Government bailed out Barlow Clowes. If the present Government have enough money to bail out Canary wharf, they should be able to find some for the Maxwell pensioners. I trust that we shall be told on Tuesday that they intend to do that.
Mr. Newton: As I observed earlier, the hon. Gentleman is in his usual inimitable form this afternoon, although in perhaps slightly less good humour than he was yesterday.
Mr. Skinner: That is not surprising.
Mr. Newton: We should certainly miss him if he were not there.
Mr. Kirkwood: So would we!
Mr. Newton: I cannot speak for the Liberal Bench.
Leaving aside the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I was in the House yesterday and noted the exchanges that took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and the shadow Leader of the House. I cannot say that I have done further detailed investigation of Hansard since, though I note the point the hon. Gentleman makes.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety felt by 200 constituents of mine who are likely to lose their pensions
958
because of unsatisfactory answers given by the Prime Minister on the Thursday before the recess, when he sought refuge by attempting to give them consolation over the way in which they would receive the guaranteed minimum pension? Is he further aware that for the pensioners in my constituency that will come to the "generous" sum of £6·76 a week, hardly enough to buy a pot of marmalade? Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the pensioners come to see us on Monday, and in the debate on Tuesday, assurances will be given not only about the review, which is important, but to the effect that they will not lose the money that is essential to keep their households together? That is the crunch in the matter.
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the obvious intended thrust of the hon. Lady's question and shall draw that, too, to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I would observe, as a former social security Minister, that it is not possible to quote a figure for the guaranteed minimum pension —or, indeed, for the pension entitlement under Maxwell pension schemes—for any individual pensioner because it depends on the contribution record and period over which contributions were made.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1196) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dioxins) (England) (No. 2) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1274) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members may recognise the Bill as being essentially the same as a private Member's Bill introduced in another place in the previous Session by my noble Friend the Baroness Brigstocke. That Bill gained all-party support but failed to complete all its stages here before dissolution. I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) to get the Bill through on that occasion. It is unfortunate that the Bill did not quite make it before dissolution, because the need for it remains.
  Today's Bill, which successfully completed all its stages in another place after a wide-ranging and interesting debate, provides for a minor but vital technical amendment to section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
  Hon. Members will be aware that Government policy on care in the community has recently been set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" and in part II of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The policy is based on two principles—first, that the majority of people want to remain in their own homes or in a homely environment for as long as possible and, secondly, that the needs of any two people can differ, so individual problems require individual solutions.
  Our policy puts the emphasis of care where it should rightly be—on the proper assessment of the individual needs of the users of services and on the design of a package of care that meets those needs.
  The White Paper's approach is based on giving local authorities the freedom and flexibility to develop effective individual solutions for the provision of services and support that frail, elderly, vulnerable or disabled people need. The aim is to enable those people to live as full and independent a life as possible.
  That approach reflects the transformation of attitudes towards how that group of people should be looked after which has occurred during the last quarter of a century. Individuals, families, volunteers, professionals, campaigners and politicians from all sides have come to recognise the shortcomings of institutional environments and the greater potential and fulfilment which people enjoy when living in, contributing to and being supported by the community.
  The White Paper is important, but it is merely one more step along a well-trodden road. It needs to be seen in that context, and its significance must be neither over nor under-estimated. Its objectives include, first, promoting the development of domiciliary, day and respite services to enable people to live in their own homes where that is practicable and desirable; secondly, ensuring that practical support for carers is made a high priority; thirdly, ensuring proper assessment of need and care management; and,
  960
  fourthly, promoting the development of a flourishing independent sector alongside good quality public provision.
  Implementation of that policy is well under way. From April 1991 social services departments were required to introduce inspection units and complaints procedures and we introduced new specific grants to help particular groups. From April 1992, authorities were required to produce and publish community care plans. From April 1993, local authorities take on full responsibility for arranging all social care services.
  That responsibility will include the provision of services such as home helps, home care assistants and day care to support people in their own homes, and making arrangements for residential and nursing home care for those who are no longer able nor wish to remain in their own homes. Individual needs will be assessed and a package of care designed and managed by the local authority.
  The full implementation of all community care objectives involves a continuing process that goes on for many years. Not for nothing was the White Paper called "Caring for People—Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond".
  The Bill is concerned with the ability of local authorities to make arrangements for residential accommodation across a range of organisations and does not touch on domiciliary or nursing home care.
  Hon. Members will be aware that there is a range of types of residential accommodation currently available, for example, residential care homes, group homes, and hostels of all types. They may be managed by local authorities, voluntary or commercial organisations, and they cater for varying types of need and degrees of dependency. Some provide only bed and board, others help with supportive or personal care. Those that offer personal care as well as board are required to register with the local authority under the Registered Homes Act 1984, unless they are specifically exempted from so doing.
  At present, local authorities provide hostel accomodation and other forms of residential care either directly or through the independent sector—voluntary or commercial —under the National Assistance Act 1948 and paragraph 2(1)(a) of schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977.
  The Government attached great importance to retaining and extending the flexibility that local authorities have to provide a range of residential accommodation to suit the varying needs of the individuals who go to them for care. In all the guidance that we put out, we stressed to local authorities the need to be flexible. Local circumstances will dictate the best balance between different types of arrangement, but we have emphasised that individuals should have genuine choice over the services that they receive.
  That means choice not only of the type of service, but of its provider. The independent sector—both voluntary and private—plays an important part in residential care at the moment. We are determined that that will continue, and to encourage greater involvement of the independent sector in non-residential care.
  A mixed economy of care is the way to ensure choice, stimulate quality, and secure the best value for money. Authorities should begin to move away from the role of sole provider to the role of enabler and facilitator. The independent sector is a resource that must not be allowed

  961
  to lie unused. Most authorities know that, and are beginning to respond to their new challenges. The purchaser provider model, which is delivering great benefits within the national health service, may usefully be emulated in that respect by local authorities.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that the range and quality of care that will be offered by the voluntary and private sector will be such that a satisfactory environment will be provided for those who, at a time of poor health or increasing age, turn to local authorities to provide accommodation?
  Mr. Yeo: Yes, I am more than satisfied. There is overwhelming evidence that the involvement of the voluntary sector and, more recently, of the private sector in residential and, to some extent, non-residential care—we want to encourage more of that—is a key influence in raising standards. The independent sector is only able to survive and prosper by offering local authorities and, through them, the individuals who need support a standard of provision that is not only as good as that provided by local authorities but better, in many cases.
  It is a time-honoured tradition in this country for the voluntary sector in particular to pioneer standards of service with which the statutory agencies eventually catch up, so that they become available to all. I see the voluntary sector as a very benign influence in that whole process.
  However, a problem has arisen that necessitates this Bill. From April 1993, when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is fully in force, paragraph 2(1)(a) of schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977 will be repealed, and section 26 of the National Assistance Act 1948 will be amended by section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It was the Government's intention that the flexibility that local authorities currently have under the 1977 and 1948 Acts be retained.
  Unfortunately, section 42(2) of the 1990 Act inadvertently curtailed that flexibility, particularly with respect to local authorities making arrangements with independent sector residential accommodation, which does not require to be registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984. It puts at risk the use by local authorities of a range of independent sector providers including hostels, and notably the Abbeyfield Society. That society has about 1,000 homes providing accommodation for elderly people who do not require personal care, as defined in the Registered Homes Act 1984, but domestic help and the provision of meals in a small and homely residential setting.
  Most Abbeyfield homes are family-sized houses where seven to nine elderly people have their own bed-sitting rooms. Residents have normally moved from their own homes nearby. They furnish their own rooms with their treasured possessions; they lead their own lives and come together for the main meals of the day, which are prepared by the resident housekeeper. That way of life provides a balance of privacy and companionship that can be ideal for many elderly people.
  People are individuals and have individual needs, and as I have said, the new community care arrangements are intended to allow local authorities to respond more effectively to those needs. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be most regrettable if their flexibility to
  962
  do so were curtailed by the loss of powers to make arrangements with organisations like the Abbeyfield Society.
  The Bill remedies the problem by replacing section 42(2) of the NHSCC Act 1990, thus restoring to local authorities the powers that they now have to make full use of the independent sector but would otherwise lose in April 1993 when the Act comes into force. The Bill makes a minor but vitally important technical change to the legislation, without making any policy changes; it simply maintains the status quo.
  The substance of clause 1 restores to local authorities the ability to make arrangements for residential accommodation with the independent sector in premises neither registrable under the Registered Homes Act 1984 nor exempt from registration. It restores the flexibility to make arrangements with various independent-sector organisations for residential accommodation, as well as maintaining the rest of the arrangements found in section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Clause 2 provides for the short title, commencement and extent.
  I hope that the House will agree that the Bill deals with a technical problem that arises from section 42(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and remedies it so that hostels and societies like Abbeyfield are not put at risk.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I welcome the Minister to his new post, and thank him for giving a fairly wide introduction to a fairly narrow Bill. In doing so, he has enabled the House to examine some of the wider community care issues. We are extremely grateful both for the example given by the Minister and for your acceptance of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Given the wide-ranging remarks that the Minister made at the beginning of his speech, I hoped that he would take the opportunity to say a little more about what is in prospect for April 1993. It would have been useful to hear a clear, unambiguous reaffirmation that the community care reforms would indeed go ahead at that time. That is, in fact, a requirement, and I shall be happy to give way if the Secretary of State or any of the other Ministers wishes to intervene on the subject.
  I feel that a Minister should clarify recent reports that Health Department officials have considered aborting the reforms. Those reports have not been contradicted so far, and they have sent shock waves through local authorities and the voluntary and private sectors, which need to know where they will stand next year. There can be no excuse for further delay or lack of readiness on the Department's part —unless, that is, the Government continue to refuse to talk about the financial arrangements. That in itself leads to doubt, which is only multiplied by the reports that I have mentioned. It would be helpful if this unexpected debate could be used to clear up that doubt; there is still plenty of time to do so.
  The Government could at least say something about financial commitments to local authorities: for instance, a commitment that the financial arrangements will at least take account of the shortfall in income support between charges to residents and the benefits available. That shortfall is, after all, required to be made good by charity —by which I mean registered charities—and also by

  963
  relatives of people in care, some of whom are themselves receiving social security benefits. Such doubts and difficulties really must be cleared up. The implementation of the legislation has been delayed; following the general election, there can be no further excuse for Ministers not to make their position clear.
  The difficulty of the shortfall led to what I consider an immoral two-tier charging system in some care-awayfrom-home establishments. Residents with assets—usually the proceeds of the former family home—who can therefore fund themselves for a few years until their assets run out are charged between £40 and £90 a week more than other residents so that the proprietors can balance the books. That is immoral, but Ministers never refer to that cross-subsidy.
  Ministers cannot stay silent about the problem much longer. The Government must give a commitment—if not now then in Committee—that the community care funding arrangements for each local authority will be specific so that the authority can operate as an enabler and an organiser, and certainly only as a partial provider of services. Then we shall all know what the arrangements are. There will then be some accountability and a lessening of the risk that the money will be diverted to other, I have no doubt, useful purposes. There must be accountability at both central Government level and local authority level.
  This Second Reading debate provides a welcome opportunity for the House to address these issues. This is a small Bill, though it is somewhat longer than the Maastricht Bill. We know, therefore, that there can be wide debates on small Bills. The House is trying to promote a policy of comprehensive community care which allows people to make informed choices regarding options about which they have been consulted. It is therefore necessary to have a flexible system which takes into account a variety of human networks and circumstances. A problem in one area has major ramifications elsewhere for services and choice. If we do not pass the Bill, people who cannot go into residential accommodation of this kind will be forced into unsuitable residential or nursing care. Some may even be forced to stay, unsuitably, in their own homes. Such a comprehensive system, based on variety and meeting people's needs at a personal level, means that the rest of the system must be examined, even when one is considering what appears to be a fairly narrow point.
  However brief this debate on community care may be, the subject will be debated more today than it was ever debated during the general election campaign. Up to 6 million adults who are disabled or frail are affected, and anything up to 5 million or 6 million carers who have to undertake varying degrees of care are also affected, but their needs were completely passed by during the general election campaign. It may be argued that 80 or 90 per cent. of community care policy is common to all the parties, but that is no excuse for silence on a fundamental issue which affects people at a personal level. When it came to public debate during the general election campaign, community care was almost a no-go area. I have already said that there is a good deal of common ground between the parties, but that is no excuse for silence.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)rose—
  Mr. Rooker: I was about to mention the Secretary of State and I was probably about to mention the very point that she wishes to make. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State, whom I congratulate on her appointment, is in the Chamber.
  I well remember Friday 28 February of this year when my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and I launched the Labour party's policy paper, "Better Community Care". Traffic in London was disrupted by bombs. I took part in a recorded interview with the Secretary of State in which we discussed community care policy. That recording for the BBC was made in the middle of that Friday morning. It was intended for "The World at One", but the recording was not broadcast because we did not argue with one another. That says more about how the BBC tries to manipulate political debate and the political process in this country than it does about my views, the Secretary of State's views, or the views of the Labour party and the Conservative party. If we do not argue, the BBC does not want to be involved, even though community care policy affects millions of our fellow citizens. I have waited quite a while to get that off my chest, and today's debate has provided me with a good opportunity to do so.
  The Bill, to which I must refer from time to time, affects residential accommodation as opposed to residential care. It highlights the fact that the success of a comprehensive community care policy rests as much on housing and transport policies as on policies for health and social services. One cannot construct a comprehensive community care policy which meets the individual needs of our fellow citizens unless housing policy is an integral part of it.
  The Bill touches on housing policy and the availability of housing of a specialist type. Whether we are talking about availability or choice in housing or aids and adaptations within the home, the aim must be for those who have to leave their home for a care-away-from-home establishment to succeed in restoring a degree of independence and be able to return to their own home. One should not have to end up in residential accommodation, even of the sort provided for in the Bill. There must be an aim to restore independent living. The thousands of stroke patients in this country will testify to that. They know the importance of the rehabilitation process to help them become as independent as possible. It should not be a one-way process; there must be the possibility of returning home. That is why housing policy is so crucial to the success of a comprehensive community care system.
  The Bill is concerned essentially with residential accommodation provided by the voluntary and private sectors. The Labour party document to which I referred earlier makes it clear, without qualification, that we see a comprehensive community care policy as an ideology-free zone. Those who rely on community care services are not concerned about who provides that service so long as it is reliable and of good quality. The users are not over-preoccupied with the debate which has rightly gone on in the House about the split between purchasers and providers. One person may be the recipient of a service delivered by the local authority, the voluntary sector and elements of the private sector. Users do not need to know what sector it is that turns up at different times of the day. They want a seamless service. However, the argument about the split between purchaser and provider is a major

  965
  policy issue. It is a policy argument that we have had, and no doubt will continue to have, in the House. The users want to be treated as human beings.
  Service provision may sometimes be very simple. It may sometimes be the provision of gadgets, aids and adaptations rather than a service. It is better to provide the kitchen aids and adaptations to enable people to cook their own food than for them to have to rely on meals on wheels. The former provides independence while the latter leads to dependence. If it is possible for people to cook their own food, that should be the priority because, by and large, that is what the user will want. Most people do not want care; they want a bit of help to enable them to exist and flower as independently as possible and to live as full a life as possible.
  If we can aim to provide a seamless service, it will overcome many of the difficulties experienced by those who need the service, by hon. Members and by social workers. It is not easy to achieve that aim. There are good grounds for believing that if we do not get the planning and finances right, we shall not be able to achieve ii; from April next year, even with all the planning that has taken place.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the important issues in achieving independence for people living at home is that the bureaucracy involved in bringing about improvements and aid in the home must be kept to a minimum? Visits by white collar staff to ascertain what is needed and how it is to be done often occur on too many occasions and take too long when all that is needed is a workman who can do the job quickly.
  Mr. Rooker: 1 could not agree more, and 1 shall offer a solution which appears in policy documents published by the Labour party in February. I cannot understand why a qualified social worker or district nurse, who is at the sharp end of the problem, cannot order a second stair rail instead of the patient having to wait six months for a scarce occupational therapist to place an order. Why should not the social worker or district nurse order the minimum aids and adaptations which are required urgently to prevent further accidents, which in turn put further pressure on the NHS? I cannot understand that bureaucracy. We want trained occupational therapists for specialist work, but following, say, a stroke or the early diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, the simple aids—the handyman's aids—should be provided on the say-so of a qualified social worker or district nurse; they are at the sharp end because they are the first people to be involved.
  The philosophy of providing a seamless service, not differentiating between the sectors, underpins the Labour party's desire to implement the original intentions of the Griffiths report. There is a good deal of policy agreement across the House, but there are some policy differences. I am not criticising any Minister as all are new to their tasks, but the Government still have not adopted the Griffiths recommendation that a Minister in the Department of Health should have key responsibility across other Departments because at least four Departments—Health, Environment, Transport and Social Security—are involved. We should enhance the role of the Department of Health in this aspect of policy. As Ministers settle to their
  966
  tasks, they may consider Labour policy and pick out some good ideas. We shall not criticise them for doing so—we shall just remind them of what they are doing.
  I referred earlier to the ring-fencing of funds. It is crucial that local authorities are aware of funds in advance. A Minister should be responsible for a specific sum of money which can be traced. Those tax pounds should be traced from the House through the system to the user so that we can ensure value for money and that none of the money is diverted for repairing roads, roofs or our leaking and crumbling schools. Those are all worthy causes, but the House will have voted that money for community care.
  The Griffiths report made it clear that it is necessary to ring-fence such money, and we believe that it should be ring-fenced for at least the lifetime of the Parliament. The quid pro quo is that local government must ring-fence its share as well. Too often the funds of social service committees have been raided by other local government committees.
  We shall continue to press—we shall be able to do so better when the Government make their policy clearer—for a financial regime which is as fair as possible between the sectors so that the availability of finance in one sector and not in another does not force people into a choice of care which may not necessarily meet their needs. That is exactly what has happened in the past few years, when income support has been available for one sector but not for others. There must be fairness—level playing field is a term that we understand, but viewers may not—in multi-sector provision. A seamless service is distorted if the financial arrangements are not fair between the sectors.
  The Bill covers the part of community care policy which the Labour party document referred to as care away from home. There are many aspects of care away from home, and I set out briefly some of the general principles which might be helpful for the providers as it is a matter for a bipartisan approach. Shadow Ministers shuffle off or shuffle around after elections, as do Government Ministers, but by and large our principles do not change. The Under-Secretary of State may smile at that, but it is an important point because the different sectors need to make investment plans beyond the lifetime of a Parliament. Finance is important for the voluntary sector, for local government and especially for the private sector; they need a fair degree of stability and to know the parties' positions. I shall make it clear what our principles were and are, and they will not change merely because faces may change. That fact has been recognised by the different sectors and they have found it helpful.
  The Bill affects part of care away from home—residential accommodation as opposed even to residential care. Such forms of care should not be seen as a problem or failure of community care because, as the Minister said, they are an integral part of a comprehensive system of community care. They will include a variety of circumstances: housing with various degrees of independence, such as those covered in the Bill; group homes, also partly covered by the Bill; residential and nursing homes; and, in some parts of the country, village communities and elderly persons' foster schemes in individual homes such as those for young people.
  The circumstances of people needing care away from home will vary from full-time nursing care to the minimalist provision involved in the care covered in the Bill. Making sure that the variety of human needs and

  967
  networks is covered requires a great deal of flexibility in housing and social policy—far more than has hitherto been shown by the Government.
  The Labour party sees merit in a variety of organisational arrangements for care away from home. That variety not only assists in creating real choice and in meeting people's needs, which change in time, but avoids the trap of the monopoly provision of care. This is where I strike a note of discord with the Government, who sometimes appear to be actively working towards monopoly provision by the private sector while the Labour party is opposed to monopoly provision by any one sector. The public sector, the voluntary sector and the private sector all have a role to play and a contribution to make, either independently or in partnership on projects and packages. However, the choice should not be a maze for the consumer.
  More attention must be given to information and guides to services in an easily accessible and understandable form. Information must be better than that offered by one London borough, which must remain nameless, which earlier this year advised a friend of mine desperately seeking information about respite care to "look in the Yellow Pages." Hearing that in 1992 from a social services authority shows clearly that a great deal of the modern thinking in the House has completely passed that authority by. However, there are also good model local authorities of all political persuasions which have gone out of their way to provide easily accessible guides and information on all services in their area and which are taking on board their enabling role.
  Labour insists that all sectors providing care away from home are treated equally for quality assessment purposes because that is the ballpoint for the user. We are not prepared to allow any distinctions to be made with regard to quality measures and the rights to be enjoyed by residents, staff or carers based on the ownership, size or location of an establishment. It naturally follows that we shall not seek to play off one sector against another or to single out a whole sector for praise or blame on the basis of a few good or bad examples. That would send a wrong signal to the providers and, what is more, to the families of the people in care away from home. That is the problem which causes difficulty. It would also send the wrong signal to the staff employed in the establishments.
  The consumers or users of the service must come first, whether or not they are the budget holders, and, by and large, the local authority will be the budget holder for most people. That is not a cliché or a new found policy. I was once taken to task for quoting Labour party policy which I was told was very old, but I said that it was still current. We said that we were
  "committed to tip the scales back in favour of the individual and away from public and private concentrations of power."
  That suits community care policy and, indeed, any other aspect of policy. It has been our policy since 1976. I carry that cutting around constantly in my wallet and I am accused of abusing it in relation to different aspects of policy, but we meant what we said. It is time, in every aspect of policy, to tip the scales back in favour of the individual and away from concentrations of power, whether public or private, but it is especially important that that point is taken on board in community care policy.
  968
  I do not want to introduce a note of discord, but I did not have the opportunity to raise certain points during the general election campaign. One point of particular importance, bearing in mind the contents of the Bill, is that the requirement for care-away-from-home establishments will mushroom in the next decade. We have been through the very elderly persons explosion. We must enable people to remain in their own homes if that is their choice. We must not force them to stay in their homes, but if they choose to do so we must move heaven and earth and do all that is humanly possible to facilitate that. However, even with that as a policy objective and with the best will in the world, with imagination, initiative and enterprise, there will be increased demand for care-away-from-home establishments because, for example, of that great scourge of the late 20th century—loneliness.
  Sometimes people want to leave their own homes after the loss of a partner or loved one. There may be no obvious medical or physical reason for them to leave, but they will have lost the companionship and perhaps cannot exist on their own. That has happened many thousands of times, and the problem will not go away, so there will be increased need for care-away-from-home establishments provided on a multi-sector basis.
  We believe that the ownership of such establishments should be made absolutely clear in all brochures, explanatory details and contracts offered to local authorities or individuals. We also believe that if any employees, including general practitioners and consultants in the NHS or the local authority, have any financial interest in any care-away-from-home establishment in their employing authority or in any adjacent area, it should be transparent in a public register of interests. Attention should also be drawn to the register in material issued by the homes involved.
  We do not say that such interests should not exist. If we are to have a comprehensive community care system with scope for choice and with a variety of multi-sector provision, we must encourage people to make the best use of their talent, expertise and training. We are not opposed to care professionals having such interests, provided that the interests are registered and transparent. Quality care demands nothing less from professional people, and such a move would be of help right through the system. The Government must deal with that issue, but it will not be made possible except by way of amendments which I have not yet fully considered.
  We must return to the issue because it requires primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will take the point on board in the spirit in which it is made—not in any attacking, denigrating way, but as a means of avoiding problems in the future. If the policy is to be a success and meet the needs of our fellow citizens as users, we can do no less than examine that aspect of policy.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health for his helpful response to my intervention. He satisfied my prime concern, which was that we were not looking simply at the range of accommodation that will be available for placements by local authorities but were attempting to ensure that accommodation of sufficient quality will be available so that placements can be the correct ones.

  969
  I found myself in almost full agreement with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who drew attention to the second point that I would like to make. Because we are discussing not long-term placements in nursing homes or registered care homes but people who may have relatively short-term problems, or problems—such as mental disabilities—which may eventually allow them to return to the community, it is essential that we note that the title of the Bill places community care before residential accommodation. The need for the accommodation arises out of a requirement for care. It is not somewhere to put people out of the way so that they can be conveniently forgotten. Rather they are placed there because that is the most suitable place in which the community can show its commitment to care for them. If in future they have the opportunity to return to some other form of accommodation—their own home, perhaps, or some other form of residential accommodation such as warden-assisted flats—that would be encouraged.
  I was pleased that the Minister gave us an assurance that there would be accommodation of the quality required. That is a measure of the success of such accommodation. I have recently dealt with the case of a lady who, after undergoing heroic surgery for cancer, was placed first in a nursing home and then—after a remarkable recovery, considering the fact that she was elderly—she was able to move gradually back into other accommodation, so that she is now virtually independent, in a flat of her own. Surely that is the measure of the community care which everyone in the House would like to see.
  I question what the hon. Member for Perry Barr said about differential charges. I was not sure whether, in suggesting that people who can pay are being made to pay more, he was criticising the proprietors of residential accommodation for having a range of charges within their establishments. If so, it was not a very fair criticism. After all, most homes offer a range of quality of accommodation—single rooms, or larger rooms, for example, for those who would prefer them.
  Mr. Rooker: I made the point exactly as I intended to. In many areas, especially in nursing homes, a different charge is made for exactly the same level of service, depending on whether people are self-funded—that is, not in receipt of income support. That is immoral because it is a cross-subsidy from one resident to another, to make up a shortfall. The homes could not cope without it. If they did not have a mix including self-funded people, whom they charge more than they charge people on income support, they would close. That is the fault of the Government's refusal to organise their social security policy properly.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. He may recall that in the previous Parliament I joined him and many of his hon. Friends in the Division Lobbies on that issue, so there is no great disagreement between us there—except that I still wish to defend owners and organisers who allow people whom they took on when they had private funds to stay in their highly expensive accommodation long after those funds have run out and they can obtain only the amount payable in income support. Credit should be given to such owners, who do not seek to remove people when their private funds have run out—but now I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy
  970
  Speaker, will draw my attention to the fact that we are not discussing registered accommodation or nursing homes this afternoon.
  I believe that I shall have the support of Members on both sides of the House when I say that it is important that community care should contain the widest possible range and variety so as to be able to meet the needs of individuals. Social services departments should continue to be involved, as should other local authority bodies and agencies, after accommodation has been found. There should be a continuing commitment to the personal care and development of individuals. However slow that may be—in the case, for example, of people with serious handicaps—there should still be a continuing commitment to the development of the individual, not just to his or her placement.
  The Bill, modest though it is, gives local authorities a wider choice, and I believe that they will seize the opportunity to ensure that they provide carefully selected and progressive accommodation to suit the requirements of each individual who turns to them for assistance.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I make it clear at the outset that I have no wish to obstruct the progress of the Bill. I certainly support its aims, and I am aware of the excellent work undertaken by some of the establishments whose functioning it will affect. There is an Abbeyfield Society establishment in my constituency, and the model that Abbeyfield offers should be actively encouraged. My comments will make it apparent that I wish us to have a detailed debate on the measure, as opposed to allowing it to go through on the nod, as yesterday's business statement led me to assume was the original intention. I was worried to see that the Bill was expected to go through all its stages today, and I welcome the fact that the Government have conceded the Standing Committee stage. That Committee stage may well be brief—there is no need to obstruct the Bill's progress—but I feel that there are issues which we should debate.
  The Bill gives us the opportunity to discuss the current community care situation in the run-up to April next year, and the chance to pick up a range of issues which were missed when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was passed. I hope that the Government will listen to some of the suggestions made today, and perhaps add provisions to the Bill before the Committee stage.
  I listened carefully to the Under-Secretary of State's opening speech—and, personally, I wish him well in his new role. I know that his background is relevant to the work that he is now undertaking. But I was worried because what he said made it appear that he and the Government were oblivious to what many people believe is a crisis in community care in the run-up to 1 April next year—a crisis that will not be resolved by the changes which it is proposed will take place on that date.
  The Government's strategy on community care has been clear for many years: leave it to the market. Now we are picking up the pieces. The market has organised what is in the interests of the market rather than those of the care consumer. There is now a huge explosion in one form of care—private institutional care—way above and beyond any reasonable estimate of the demand caused by the increasing number of elderly and very elderly people.

  971
  What concerns me is that, when the Government refer to "community care", they actually mean private institutional care. That is the central theme of their belief in community care. I do not believe that institutional care is community care. Community care is care in the community and not care away from the community. The Opposition have restated that point because it is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition.
  Let us consider what has happened in relation to funding the private institutional care sector since 1981. I find it interesting that the Government boast about the amount they have put into private institutional care through the income support system. In 1981, the amount invested in private care through supplementary benefit was about £10 million a year. In the past financial year, the amount invested was about £2 billion—a huge amount —which was paid through income support to people in private institutional care. The total figure invested by the Government through income support to people in private institutional care since 1981 comes to about £9 billion. Rather than boasting about that figure or being proud of it, the Government should be ashamed that so much money is being invested in institutionalising people in this day and age.
  To make matters worse, alongside the investment of £9 billion through income support, one must consider the pattern of funding through the revenue support grant system to local authority social services. Figures available from the Library show that about £6 billion of RSG funding to local authority social services has been removed by reductions in RSG during the same period. The Government are clearly determined to move money away from preventive domiciliary services into institutional care. That is a nonsensical strategy which should be reversed as a matter of urgency. The Government have pulled the rug out from under the local authorities' ability to fund domiciliary care such as home helps, meals-on-wheels, respite care, day care and a range of other services which are geared to enabling people and their carers to remain in the community. That strategy should be exposed, and I urge the Minister to look afresh at the way in which the Government are acting.
  We are debating an issue which is not only political but which involves basic human rights issues of how we treat elderly and disabled people. It is a basic human right to allow people to remain in independent or semi-independent living in the community if they and their carers so wish. The Government are determined to remove that right from people and they should be ashamed of their record in that respect. Compared with similar countries in Europe and elsewhere, in Britain far more elderly and disabled people are institutionalised than should be the case. We should consider that position very seriously and none of us should be proud of it.
  As other hon. Members have said, we should consider afresh the issue of the financial difficulties facing vast numbers of elderly disabled people who cannot afford to pay for the private institutional care they receive at present —an issue that affects every hon. Member who has constituents in private care homes. It is scandalous that there are people in every constituency who have to use their personal allowances to pay for their care. Some
  972
  elderly people do not have a spare penny to spend on a hair-do, on new underwear or even on a bag of sweets. That is profoundly unacceptable in this day and age and the Government should be ashamed of it.
  We are told that April 1993 will change everything—if April 1993 ever happens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, there are strong rumours that April 1993 may not arrive and that there may be a second deferral of the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I should be grateful for further clarification from the Minister. I served in Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and I believe that April 1993 will be a false dawn. It is being held up as something that will suddenly cure all the ills in community care, but I do not believe that that will happen.
  Assessment, care management and community care plans are all excellent and desirable provisions which were supported by the Opposition. However, assessment is nonsense when social workers cannot assess for alternatives to institutional care. With the huge explosion in private market care, the Government have established a bias towards institutional care. To ensure that we have an even playing field and a choice of services, we desperately need a massive redirection of funding away from the private institutional sector into alternatives to institutional care, whether public, private, voluntary or other, to enable people when they are assessed to have a genuine choice to remain independent and to stay out of care. Assessment may not have the impact that many people, including people in my own party, assume that it will have after April 1993.
  There are huge gaps in the Bill and in the 1990 Act in relation to the rights of people in a care setting, whether private nursing homes, residential care homes, local authority homes or whatever. It is important for the Government, following important reports such as the Wagner report, the "Home Life" recommendations and reports from organisations such as Counsel and Care, which suggest that things are not well in relation to the rights of residents in many care homes, both in the private and public sectors, to address the issues, whether in the Bill or in separate legislation. The Government should bring into statute clear requirements protecting the rights of people in care.
  We shall now have the opportunity to consider some of those requirements in Committee, but there are issues which we should consider as a matter of urgency and which could be addressed in the Bill. One issue is the right to rehabilitation. When we debated the 1990 Act in Committee—several of my hon. Friends served on that Committee—we discussed the assessment process which will come into operation after April 1993. However, once a person is placed in institutional care, there are no review procedures. Anyone who has worked with elderly people or who knows of cases of elderly people knows that a person's circumstances can change in a week, in a month or in six months, and that they may be completely different from when that person was initially assessed. It is essential that we introduce some form of reassessment and review for people who are in care homes to give them the opportunity of rehabilitation and actively to encourage rehabilitation.
  People in the private sector are now worried that some of the homes may not be full and that they may not be able to run at a profit. What incentive is there for private care

  973
  home owners to rehabilitate a resident and to work to get that resident back in the community if by doing so they put themselves into financial difficulties which may affect the viability of the homes? The Government's system works completely against rehabilitation and returning people to the community. People must address that point regardless of their politics. It is a human rights issue which we have overlooked and which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
  Another issue which ties in is the way in which the existing system actively encourages dependence in care—indeed, it actively rewards dependence. The Department's system of monitoring people who move from receiving income support payments for care to income support payments for nursing home care—a significantly increased amount which the Government have introduced—involves no monitoring of whether people need that additional form of care or whether they are receiving it. There is no system of checking whether that care is needed or is being given. That is a scandalous misuse of public resources.
  I can give the Minister examples of individual cases. People have been shunted into nursing care when they do not need it. The system encourages dependence, and we must urgently address that problem.
  Other matters that we need to consider include the right to privacy. The Counsel and Care report last year pointed out that people cannot go to the toilet in private, cannot bathe in private, and cannot have their own bedrooms. I have been to a home in which elderly ladies were bathed alongside each other. The system was two baths side by side, with a lady sitting in each bath, and two members of staff between them. The argument was that that was a quicker way of dealing with all those who had to be bathed. Anyway, they said, it did not matter because those old people were confused, so they were not embarrassed by being bathed in front of each other. That is unacceptable. In case anyone thinks that I am anti-private sector, that happened in a local authority home. I accept that it was a few years ago, but it happened, certainly within the past five years.
  Before I was elected to this place, I went to a private care home in my constituency. Seven people were crammed into one bedroom. In this day and age that is completely unacceptable. The issues of privacy and rights within care must be addressed by the Government. We must consider security of tenure and also people's rights. There are few rights for people who are asked to pay because they cannot afford their fees. There is no system to ensure that they are properly looked after. Vulnerable elderly people worry about being out on the streets. I accept that there are care home owners—I know of some in west Yorkshire—who are subsidising people through their own charity and good will. However, we know of people in west Yorkshire who have been evicted and of people who have moved downmarket. That is unacceptable when people in their 80s and 90s are vulnerable, unhappy and unaware of what is happening.
  The Government must put into statute some of the requirements in their "Home Life" document. It is nonsense to have recommendations in "Home Life" and not back them by statutory provision. It weakens the position of the inspectorate which is to monitor and register homes when there is no backbone to the desirable points in "Home Life".
  I hope that those issues will be addressed by amendments to the Bill. Opposition Members have no
  974
  desire to block the Bill, but it is important to debate some of the human rights issues that are affected by such legislation. The Government should be ashamed of their record on community care. What we have seen over the past decade or more in the care of elderly people is wrong. It is about time we had a change of course. The Minister starts his job with a clean sheet. I hope that he will look at the matter afresh. The Bill provides the opportunity significantly to solve some of the problems to which I have referred and to which, no doubt, my hon. Friends will refer.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who speaks with vigour, enthusiasm and, of course, a knowledge born of his experience. His speech seemed to be a rather strong advocacy of the Government's legislation. He urged them to do exactly what the legislation is intended to do. He complained that too many people are in institutions and could be better looked after in their own homes. That is precisely the object of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. He said that, in the past, we have not given sufficient help to carers. Again, that is very much the philosophy of the Act, the White Paper, and the way in which local authorities are endeavouring to implement the legislation. The hon. Gentleman pleaded for a redirection of resources. That is precisely what the legislation is all about, and it is exactly what we hope will happen.
  I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who complained that community care did not feature much in the election campaign. However, in his anecdote he demonstrated the reason for that. As has been and will be evident in the debate, this is not a matter of party political controversy. Even differences in the ways in which we reach the ends are a good deal fewer than they were a couple of years ago when we discussed such matters in Committee.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I have an Abbeyfield home in my constituency. If Abbeyfield had been left out of the legislation, we would have been astonished and would have endeavoured to put the matter right straight away. One accepts that, expert though parliamentary draftsmen are, errors and omissions sometimes occur, and steps must be taken to put matters right. That is exactly what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that it will have a rapid passage through the House.
  Hon. Members tend to spend many hours in the mornings, afternoons and sometimes nights considering Bills in Committee until, finally, on Third Reading we consider that our job is done, as indeed may be the case. But that is when the work starts. Hon. Members who have followed the implementation of the Children Act 1989, for example, and now the community care part of the 1990 Act realise how much work has been going on within Government Departments and locally in implementing that Act.
  There has been a steady stream of guidance from the Department to local authorities on a range of matters within the Act and on how it should be implemented. Local authorities have been doing much work in compiling their care plans, all of which were submitted to the Department by 1 April and are now being examined.

  975
  Authorities have been spurred on to increase their range of services. Of course, the philosophy behind the Act is that a range of services should be available and that it should be the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that they are provided, to make assessments and to make care packages. Whether care packages are available within local authority services, within the voluntary sector or within a mixture of sectors will depend on each case and on the local facilities available.
  As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, there has been a lack of guidance on finance. There has been virtually no guidance on the financing of community care. Hon. Members will recall that assurances on resources were requested time and again when the 1990 Act was being considered. The then Minister assured us time and again that resources would be available to ensure that the Act was fully implemented. That Minister is now the Secretary of State, and we can be sure that those promises will be fulfilled.
  In attending local conferences on the implementation of community care, I have been struck by the enthusiasm to get on with the job and with the widespread concern about whether resources will be available, and in particular about what they will be. That depends not only on the Department of Health but on the Treasury and the DSS. It is important that, as soon as possible, we have clarification of the mechanics of shifting what, until now, has been the income support element under the DSS and how it will be made available to local authorities. In future, if, after assessment, an elderly or handicapped person—it may even be a child—is to go into a residential home, the cost is to be met by the local authority from funds that previously would have come from the Department of Social Security as part of income support. What is that figure to be? On what basis is it to be formulated? Surely discussions have been going on for a couple of years on that. It must be possible to give local authorities an idea what the figure will be.
  Of course, one accepts that the normal local authority grant is still under discussion. Under the curious system that we have in Britain, it will be autumn before local authorities know the figure for the year starting next April. One wonders how businesses could operate on the same basis, but that is the way in which Governments operate. However, it should be possible to say now what will be the tranche which up to now was income support. It should further be clarified how the tranche will be applied.
  For example, if a person is assessed as most suitably accommodated in an Abbeyfield home, will that cost be met in full by the local authority or will the local authority have only sufficient funds to pay what was up to now the income support level? As we know, that was often not sufficient to meet the full cost. Who will fill the gap?
  If local authorities are obliged to make assessments, it is rather important that they have the resources to provide the services that they have decided are required. While I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister is unlikely to be able to give us a detailed reply in this Second Reading debate, there will be a useful opportunity in Committee to discuss how the important National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is being implemented.
  Can my hon. Friend give us more information on resources and funding? What will be available and how
  976
  will it be applied? That information would be of enormous value to local authority officers who, with the assistance of many people in the private and voluntary sectors, are hard at work preparing for next April. They need assurances that they will have the means to carry out what Parliament has instructed them to do.
  5.22 pm
  Ms. Liz Lynne: I welcome this non-controversial Bill. It gives me an opportunity to ask some questions and raise several issues. The House is probably aware, as I am sure you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at present income support levels often do not meet the cost of either residential or nursing homes. Elderly people often have to make up the shortfall or, if they are fortunate enough to have a relative around, a relative has to make up the shortfall. As has already been said, if there are no relatives, problems can arise.
  What exactly does the Minister have in mind on funding? When local authorities take over the responsibility for paying for homes and residential accommodation, will the Minister give the same money as the income support level? Or is he thinking of paying the actual cost of the home? It is essential for us to know that. If local authorities do not receive the actual cost, many will say that they cannot provide as many places as perhaps they should.
  People with learning difficulties are a good example. At present, such people are assessed and a statement is made. That statement is often made taking into account what facilities are available to the local authority. I am desperately afraid that the same thing could happen with this Bill and that local authorities will assess only on the strength of what they have available in residential accommodation. This is an important point to remember.
  Another matter of concern is inspection. What does the Minister have in mind? Does he intend perhaps to set up an independent inspection unit? I should like far more inspections to take place in residential and, indeed, nursing homes. More inspections should be carried out unannounced. I know that that already happens to a certain extent, but I should like to see many more such inspections to ensure that standards are maintained in homes.
  I am aware that the matter is not covered specifically by the Bill, but what are the Minister's views on the use of the Buxton chair, which I understand is still used in certain residential and nursing homes? It is sometimes referred to as the "naughty chair".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Bill is fairly tightly drawn. I have been pretty generous in allowing a wide debate, but we cannot go way beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Ms. Lynne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I move on to my last point about the funds that will be made available. I should like far more funds to be made available for community care generally. Come April 1993, when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 must be implemented, local authorities throughout the country will have horrendous problems unless they have more funds and those funds are ring-fenced.
  I make a plea to the Government again today seriously to consider ring-fencing the funds for community care, and specifically for residential homes. If the Government do

  977
  not ring-fence the funds or find some way of insisting that local authorities spend on those homes, the money allocated for residential homes they will hive off the money for pet projects. I should like some assurances on that.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the Minister on his appointment. With his former association with the Spastics Society, a great deal is expected of him. I am sure that he knows that. I also congratulate your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. It is a clear indication that being a rebel is no bar to respectability afterwards.
  I find the Bill a little confusing in several respects. I am delighted that we are having this debate and that time will be found for reasonable discussion in Committee so that we can clarify some of the difficulties which emerge. My first difficulty with the Bill is why it does not apply to Scotland or, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) reminded me, Northern Ireland. Perhaps we can be told what the problem is.
  In the explanatory memorandum there is a reference to a lacuna, which is presumably the reason for the Bill. I do not know whether there is a Scots word for "lacuna". Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) can help me with that. I think that it means that there is a gap. I do not know whether there is a similar gap or lacuna in Scotland, but if there is, can we do something about it? If there is not, may we hear about it?
  My hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), rightly addressed the Bill in the context of our worries about community care in the 1990s. It is reasonable that we should have such a discussion at an early stage in this Parliament. We have heard some interesting speeches and I am sure that there will be other equally interesting speeches later. The Chamber is not so packed as it might be if this were a debate on Maastricht, but I humbly suggest that Members of Parliament will receive far more representations at their surgeries in the next four or five years about what is happening to community care for the elderly in our society than even about the important issue of Maastricht. The matter should therefore be viewed in that context.
  Some of us received a document from the Royal College of Nursing this week entitled, "A Scandal Waiting to Happen". It tackles the problems of elderly people in nursing care in residential and nursing homes which are dealt with in the Bill. It makes a number of important points which are central to our approach to such matters —for example, the provision of proper funding after assessments take place. The booklet reflects a view which has been expressed in the debate when it says:
  "Like many other organisations, the Royal College of Nursing has expressed concern that the money being allocated to local authorities to carry out their duties under the NHS and Community Care Act should be ringfenced."
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his place because the Select Committee which he chaired with some distinction, and the former Select Committee which dealt with such matters when there was a single joint Department, understood that there was a strong case for ring-fencing, as did so many other reports. The Griffiths report dealt with the matter and
  978
  complained that legislation in a difficult area, involving the elderly and their carers, is being passed in dribs and drabs —I fear that the Bill tends to suggest that the Griffiths report was right about that, if it was not necessarily right about everything else. The Bill represents dribs and drabs.
  We spent a great deal of time in Committee dealing with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We have been told that the community care provisions will be introduced in 1993. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, there have been strong rumours from the Department of Health that that is not now the Government's intention and that they are under strong pressure to postpone their commitment. I hope that it may be within the rules of the debate for the Minister to deal with that—if he will listen to what I am saying. I am not sure what the Foreign Office has to do with these matters, but he might be better advised listening to hon. Members than to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who is sitting beside him. Will the Minister tell us whether the commitment to the community care sections of the 1990 Act is still as firm as the Government have suggested?
  In common with my hon. Friends, I am greatly worried about our approach to this issue if the Royal College of Nursing takes the view that there is a scandal waiting to happen. When dealing with the enormous problems faced by elderly people, if we leave so much to market forces, without even providing for adequate inspection of public and private sector homes—although I accept that there should be no distinction between them—we do not seem to be making much progress.
  Although we welcome the main thrust of the Bill's proposals, I am worried that yet again local authorities are being viewed as enablers rather than providers. In the absence of ring-fencing, enormous financial requirements are being made of local authorities, but it is not clear whether funding will be made available.
  The Bill, and questions about it, are especially relevant at a time when we are considering the transfer of funding. Local authorities face great problems. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) mentioned their obligations under the Children Act 1989, and it is right that we should deal with the problems of children in need, but local authority budgets will have to cope with such important matters. I served on the Standing Committee on the Children Act, as did many hon. Members. We understood that such progress was being made. When we eventually hand all that legislation over to the local authority social services departments and the Scottish social work departments, they will have to decide their priorities. I do not think that they will welcome the job, given present financial constraints.
  An additional problem in the 1990 Act, which the Government seek to amend by the Bill, is the transfer of funding from the Department of Social Security. The problem facing local authorities is clear. They will have to deal with the social security expenditure shortfall—with the fees deficit—and that will be made more difficult when the Bill is enacted. We are told that the present shortfall means £30 per week for a person in a care home and £50 per person for those in nursing homes.
  If the Bill is enacted, a further responsibility will be passed to the local authorities, at the same time as the Government transfer an inbuilt deficit of £132 million to them. It is therefore reasonable for the Government to

  979
  explain their view of the priorities. What guidelines have they offered to local authorities? How do they view the central issue of assessment, for example, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred?
  It is not enough merely to produce a Bill of this sort, or even to say that the Government are going ahead with the 1990 Act, without considering the global problems of community care and without telling us whether they agree with the main thrust of the Griffiths report, which said that there should be genuine care within the community.
  If we simply pile elderly people into institutions—to use a somewhat crude expression—that does not mean that we are providing care in the community. Happily, there is a growing number of elderly people. Surely we should demand that those men and women, who have brought up families and worked in their communities, are assessed properly to make certain that they are able to remain in the community. We should ask ourselves whether many of those people would be happier remaining in their communities, with the provision of more home helps and occupational therapists, and improvements in the meals on wheels and chiropody services.
  With the emphasis being placed on providing residential care, mainly in the private sector, and on reducing resources for local authorities—including education, which ought not to be beyond the reach of the elderly, who are a part of our community and should be seen as such—I worry that we are not producing a real strategy for care in the community. We are pursuing the accountancy of the problems faced by the Treasury. A real strategy would mean that more elderly people would find independence but would be genuinely supported, when there is a need for such support, within the community.
  I hope that we shall also be able to tackle the problem of advocacy in Committee. If we are dealing with proper assessments, with the role of carers, and trying to enrich the lives of the elderly, and especially the institutionalised, advocacy becomes profoundly important.
  I was delighted that a group was established in Scotland this week to deal with dementia. Clearly, those people have rights. In the absence of advocacy, nobody in private or even public homes will be able to say they do not like a particular room, that they are unhappy because of social security problems, the food and clothing available, or that they have problems with incontinence. The elderly may feel that such important matters are not being dealt with.
  Sadly, we all know from our constituency visits that, in some cases, the problem of incontinence is not being addressed. In the absence of advocacy, which I hope will be included in the Bill, I hope that elderly people will be assured that, at least, we are concerned about their lifestyle, health and welfare and that that is not inconsistent with the strategy for community care.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On the sad and sensitive matter of incontinence, is the hon. Gentleman, who has served as a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Health, concerned about the anomalies in the free provision of incontinence pads? I say without reservation that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who opened the debate for the Opposition, has done some wonderful work on that issue. It is crazy that elderly people in hospitals and in county
  980
  council part III statutory accommodation are in receipt of incontinence pads, but those in private nursing and residential homes have to pay for them separately. Is that not an issue to which the Government should give urgent attention?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and valid point.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister thinks that it is all wonderful.
  Mr. Clarke: Apart from the importance of the issue which, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield rightly pointed out, my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has promoted—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) wishes to speak, he can seek to intervene, but I prefer not to hear too many sedentary comments because they detract from the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke).
  Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield has made a valid point which helps to underscore my concluding remarks —I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. Advocacy—in the private sector especially, but I do not exclude it from the public sector—is important for elderly people.
  At the beginning of my speech, I stressed that the vital issue of community care, including the problems of the elderly, are ones that we shall debate often in the course of the Parliament. It is right that we should do that. I regret to say that one reason for that is that, in the previous Parliament, we did not give the matter the priority that it deserved. We are all reminded by our elderly constituents that they are part of society and that their needs—and, above all, their rights—are matters that we should consider.
  This small Bill follows on from the Government's major National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We have not seen much evidence to support the belief that the Government have broken away from the ideology of 1990. I do not see that those on the Government Front Bench are as committed to a mixed economy system in care as is my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, with whom I agree. I hope that as our discussions develop the Government will accept that in the provision of community care we should have a commitment to a genuine provision of services to the elderly. There should be representations and consultations about their needs in the public and private sectors. We should ensure that there will be proper inspections at every level so that elderly people enjoy the fulfilled and enriched lives that the people of this country would expect the House to deliver.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment, but I apologise for unavoidably missing the early part of this debate. However, I very much appreciate the opportunity to join in the discussion. I also apologise for missing my hon. Friend the Minister's opening speech. I shall look forward to reading it and I congratulate him on his appointment. He brings to it his long experience of

  981
  working with disabled people, and he has always shown great sensitivity to their needs. I am confident that he will fulfil his duties well.
  I am pleased that the Government have introduced the Bill, because maximum flexibility is essential and local authorities should use the services of the private sector. I listened with care to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), but I was confused by one of his points. I noted that he said that the resources available to local authorities had been reduced. I am sure that, in the provision of community care, we have increased resources to local authorities. If we consider the future for local authorities, an increasing proportion of local authority resources will go into community care. Perhaps fewer resources will go into education if more schools opt out, but more will go into community care.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: At the end of his speech, will the hon. Gentleman accompany me to the House of Commons Library? There I shall introduce him to a researcher who will show him detailed figures—the hon. Gentleman was not present when I spoke—that show that the Government's reduction in rate support grant since 1979 has taken £6 billion out of local authority social service expenditure. They are not my figures or those of the Labour party: they are the figures of the House of Commons Library, and I look forward to taking the hon. Gentleman along the Corridor.
  Mr. Thurnham: I am sorry that I was not present to hear the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I shall read Hansard with care. The figures that I have seen show an increase in resources, and there is no doubt that, in future, the proportion of local authority resources going into community care will increase, even if the proportion of resources going into education is reduced.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will find that I was arguing that local authorities are being asked to undertake more and more responsibilities, and the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made the same point about the Children Act 1989. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the argument about figures, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) produced some important ones? If the case for ring-fencing is established, we will at least know how much funding is being made available.
  Mr. Thurnham: I do not follow that argument, to which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) also referred. I do not believe that local authorities will divert resources from community care. The pressures and demands are for more resources in community care, so I do not believe that local authorities will divert such resources elsewhere.
  I do not think that resources need to be ring-fenced because we cannot trust local authorities to spend their money where the needs are greatest. Local authorities are in the best position to make such judgments and, if anything, they will spend more than they possibly would if the expenditure was ring fenced. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument: we need maximum flexibility.
  I have seen an enormous community care plan produced by my authority in Bolton, and other Members will have seen similar plans produced by their authorities. Of course, it is the responsibility of local authorities to
  982
  produce such plans and to have them approved in order to start implementing the new services for which they will be responsible in 12 months' time.
  Tomorrow I shall visit a centre which has been created for the provision of respite care and residential care, in a former children's home in my constituency at Moss Nook. I am delighted that it has been set up and is being arranged by a new charitable organisation that has been set up by the Bolton handicap action group. The work has been done in partnership with the health authority—in future I hope that the local authority will also be involved. Such partnership is the best way to provide services with the maximum flexibility.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West said that councils should act as enablers rather than as providers. I am glad that that message has got through, as it is the best way to provide community care services in the future. Some counties, such as Kent, have set a good example in providing services in the most efficient way by remembering that they are first and foremost enablers and not providers.
  I look forward to the passage of the Bill. There should be the maximum flexibility. Local authorities should be trusted to use their discretion and there seems no need to ring-fence their funds, because they are in the best position to assess needs and decide how best to use their resources. I hope that local authorities will not try to make a political football out of all this, because the needs are real, the resources can be found and they must he used wisely. Those resources should not be distorted or manipulated to make political capital out of the needs of the people for whom they are intended.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: It is desirable for everybody that local authorities are able to offer the widest possible choice to people seeking residential care. I welcome the Bill because, when enacted, it will provide a wider spread of provision available to local authority social service directorates.
  It is unfortunate that there should have been such a long delay in implementing the community care legislation. It seemed to have fallen victim to the Government's poll tax folly. In other words, caring for people was sacrificed in an effort to prop up the doomed poll tax that continued the previous Government's policy of making the rich better off at the expense of the poor. Thatcherism will go down in history as a Robin Hood in reverse—robbing the poor to give to the rich.
  Many elderly people, including the confused, the physically and mentally handicapped, those with autism and people with drug and alcohol problems, are eagerly awaiting the implementation of the community care legislation in April. I hope that the rumours about possible further delay in implementation are not true. The people concerned, and the carers, must not be let down. Certainly they should not be made to wait any longer for this legislation.
  To ensure that their expectations, which are many and varied, are met, we must provide good-quality services. Most local authorities have been working hard to that end. They already have in place their registration and inspection units and are endeavouring to develop policies

  983
  encompassing all the elements of good-quality care, offering a wide range of choice. That will be made better by the Bill.
  Many local authorities, working with area health authorities and the voluntary and commercial sectors, are operating genuine partnerships with the aim of providing professional and good quality care; but if community care is to be of the highest quality, giving real choice to users and carers, it must be provided by a highly trained and motivated work force in the local authority voluntary and commercial sectors.
  That can be done only with proper funding by the Government. Real choice and quality cannot be offered on the cheap or set against a backdrop of a budget that cannot be altered. If we are to offer real choice and quality, people must be given it genuinely and be told that there is no budget backdrop to that choice.
  We are now less than 12 months from implementation, yet local authorities still do not know how they will be funded and how much they will get. People must be trained and many new procedures developed and in place well before that date. If local authorities and others are to be ready, they must know as soon as possible the detailed information about the social security transfer of funds.
  Why is it that we and local authorities still do not know the conclusions of the deliberations of the so-called algebra group that was set up to try to sort out the transfer of funds? Like my hon. Friends, I urge the Secretary of State to ring-fence the extra funding to ensure that the money is used on community care and not lost in wider local authority budgets. I have no doubt that it would be put to good use if they were allowed to use it for other causes, but we must make sure that the money is targeted directly into social service budgets so that it is used to implement this legislation.
  Local authorities want to know how the Government expect them to fund the work force who will be needed to implement the final stages of the community care legislation. They need up-to-date information on the number of people currently in, and those projected to enter, independent care. Most local authorities are keen to undertake their new responsibilities for community care and have made considerable effort to meet required objectives. This measure will help them in that respect.
  Recent reports from the social services inspectorate, regional health authorities and the Audit Commission suggest that local authorities are well on target. The final word on all the issues to which I have referred, and therefore responsibility for the effective implementation of the proposals, lies with the Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will promise the British people that the Government will make adequate funds available to ensure that, when they need care, they will get it when they need it, rather than being put on a waiting list for assessment.
  Will the Secretary of State also promise them real choice and give an assurance that local authorities will not have to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to fund that choice? Will she also promise that people will not have to wait any longer for a high-quality community care programme, whatever their needs and wherever they live in Britain.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am glad of this opportunity to contribute to the debate and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I apologise for being absent for the early part of it. The studio in which I was located for a time was linked to the Chamber, so I was able to hear a major part of the speeches of those who spoke earlier.
  I am pleased to support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). He highlighted many problems that those of us who have taken a great interest in community care anticipate and believe will occur on 1 April of next year. I view that date with deep concern. It is not only my concern: it has been expressed to me by senior officials and others concerned with and appointed to help authorities and those who work in local authority social service departments.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) thought—I share his view—that social service departments were unaware of the resources that they would have to spend on community care as from 1 April of next year. That state of affairs does not enable social service departments, which will be the lead authorities in community care, to make adequate plans.
  I need not remind the House that we are talking of groups of people, particularly the elderly, who are among the most vulnerable in society. I view with concern the decisions being taken by county council social service departments to shed their part III residential homes and dispose of them, in the main, to non-profit-making charitable organisations which take over the management and running of the homes.
  I am delighted to see in his place my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because nobody knows more than he about social security income support and all matters relating to assistance and benefit available to the needy and elderly. He knows that grave problems face elderly people in the funding of their residential care. The more people there are who depend on the private sector, the more difficult it will become. That is a matter to which the Government, and particularly the Department of Health, will have to give careful consideration.
  We look to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to do a great deal between now and 1 April next year. He has a fine reputation for dealing with vulnerable groups in our society. He was a distinguished officer of the Spastics Society and he served on the Select Committee for Health and its predecessor Committees, and we look to him to achieve a great deal in the introduction of community care in Britain.
  The one thing that causes me some concern is the last paragraph of the explanatory memorandum. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) will criticise me if I do not point it out, and perhaps will criticise me if I do, because it says:
  "The Bill should not result in any increase in public expenditure, or have any effect on public service manpower."
  It should. We must oil the wheels of community care to ensure that it works and that those who deserve the support of hon. Members, on whatever side they sit—the elderly and other vulnerable groups—should be totally confident that, in the implementation of what is a dramatic change in policy, community care, brought into effect and

  985
  implemented by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, has the resources to make it work.
  Hon. Members would not expect me to sit down without saying that I too, like many who have spoken, wish expenditure in the specialist areas to be ring-fenced. Roy Griffiths said in his report that the money should be ring-fenced. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is nodding and smiling at me, and I am delighted that he is. I know, because of his own concern, just how much he is anxious about this and how much he wishes to see the community care policy working.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)rose—
  Mr. Winterton: I am delighted to give way to such a senior Minister.
  Mr. Newton: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for intervening in a matter relating to my old pastures rather than my current one. I was nodding and smiling only because, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) knows perfectly well, the purpose of the Bill is modest—to correct an error in the original Bill affecting the Abbeyfield Society. I have to admire his ingenuity in ranging over the whole area of community care in the course of the debate.
  Mr. Winterton: I can only pay tribute to the discretion and good sense of the Chair in enabling me to highlight a number of deep concerns felt on both sides of the House, which is helpful—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not rely too much on my discretion.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that sound piece of advice, which, naturally, as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I shall heed immediately.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman probably missed some of the debate while he was in the television studio, so I should tell him that the Minister initiated a debate on the whole of community care, not just the narrow terms of the Bill. That was entirely endorsed by the then Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House did not hear the opening speech, so his remarks are slightly out of order.
  Mr. Winterton: It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on what the hon. Gentleman says. I always take the advice of the Chair, and as long as I serve in this place I shall continue to do so.
  I am linking my remarks to the explanatory memorandum which, I repeat, says:
  "The Bill should not result in any increase in public expenditure, or have any effect on public service manpower."
  Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
  Mr. Winterton: I shall give way in a moment to my hon. Friend, who was another distinguished member of the Select Committee on Health in the previous Parliament.
  It may well be necessary in the course of the further stages of this legislation to tell the House that additional resources, both by way of public expenditure and in respect of public service manpower, may well be required
  986
  to plug what is described in the explanatory memorandum as a lacuna created by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend's ingenious use of the explanatory memorandum seems to link with an earlier remark when he said that it is particularly sad that local authorities should be getting rid of their part III accommodation. The implication was that, in the private or non-profit-making sector, one might look for rather less effectiveness than in the public sector. I hope that is not what he means. He would be greatly mistaken if that was what he meant. I hope that he will correct any misapprehension on my part.
  Mr. Winterton: I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend. I look to community care to provide a wide range of facilities. I see developing a situation in which in many areas there will be few what I describe as statutory part III residential homes. Almost exclusively, the social service departments, acting as facilitators, as purchasers of services, not necessarily as providers, will not have the scope of choice that I believe is necessary. That is a point that has already been made in speeches today.
  I am entirely in favour of partnership. I am entirely in favour of the private sector being an important part of that partnership. I am also in favour of the non-profit-making charitable organisations being part of the overall provision that is available to social service departments to choose from in respect of accommodation and care for the elderly and other vulnerable groups within the community. But I am deeply concerned that choice, which the Government have said should be an important part of the new system, will be limited. When elderly people are assessed about the accommodation and care they require, the assessment might well be affected by the availability of facilities.
  Whether or not my hon. Friends are prepared to say it. clearly we are loading a heavy additional responsibility on to local authorities. I remain to be convinced that sufficient resources will be transferred to local authorities, in the main from health authorities, to enable local authorities as the lead authority in community care to provide the level of service and the range of accommodation that is required if community care in Britain really is to work.
  Again, I make a plea for ring fencing, which has been suggested by Labour Members and Liberal Democrats and is also supported by Conservative Members. I am aware of many authorities, such as my own in Macclesfield, where the health authority and social service departments have now put forward a blueprint of what they hope to achieve. But the fruition, the true implementation, of what is contained in the excellent and well-researched proposal booklet that has been issued in my area will entirely depend on the level of resources that is made available.
  The Bill is relatively tight, but the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State had introduced the Bill widely, embracing the whole scope of community care. I suspect that he did, although I heard only tiny snippets of his contribution. However, I know from the experience that he has had that he will have put a good case.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is fundamentally important that, when the Bill is implemented on 1 April 1993, money is made available so that disabled housing grants can be in

  987
  place? It would be nonsense to have insufficient resources to provide the disabled with the aids they require in their homes—such as rails around the toilet and bath. In the Welsh context, a long waiting period for essential aids could make the Bill a nonsense.
  Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. His intervention, together with the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West shows how effective this is as a Parliament of the United Kingdom. We do not need separate legislatures to highlight the particular problems of Wales, Scotland or—I say this to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—of the northern, north-western, or west midlands regions.
  The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) was right to highlight the need to provide resources to enable local authority social services departments to provide adaptations and modifications to homes so that the elderly and infirm can continue to live in the community.
  The hon. Gentleman's question perhaps implied that, if that cannot be done, community care cannot effectively be implemented in the United Kingdom. I share his concern to some extent. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are deeply committed to an effective community care system and programme are aware that there are resource problems. There are rumours that the Government may seek further to postpone the programme. I hope that they do not. Although we are not utterly ready for it, a postponement would affect the morale of those who are desperately seeking to be ready by 1 April 1993 to an extent that would be counter-productive.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been generous in allowing my speech to range wider than it ought to have done, but I followed my hon. Friend on the Government Front Bench in that— and I know that others of its members wish that I would do that rather more often. I promise them that I shall seek to do so, bearing in mind my own reputation and independence of mind. I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that my comments come not just from the heart but from the head. He knows that the Select Committee on Social Services made a long, deep and detailed study of community care. We produced some excellent reports, with fine conclusions and recommendations—many of which received a positive response from the Department of Health.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give an assurance that the Bill will remove a lacuna created by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and that —despite the final sentence of the explanatory memorandum—the Government will give serious consideration to the provision of additonal resources, if they are needed before the legislation's implementation on 1 April 1993.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that we are dealing with very vulnerable groups that cannot themselves promote a good case on their own behalf. They look to the House or to Parliament as a whole to ensure that their interests are safeguarded in the dramatic change of policy that is encapsulated in the 1990 Act.
  6.15 pm
  Ms. Tessa Jowell: I join other hon. Members in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. and in welcoming this legislation, which is little more than a technical tidying up to give local
  988
  authorities the power to place people in and pay for facilities that are not registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984.
  Community care is at a watershed, and stability is of the essence. Certainty in the nature and range of provision is the only way in which the confidence of those who rely on that provision and their carers will be sustained. Concerns are emerging about the way in which the broader community care policy is being implemented.
  There is a danger that the legislation's excellent intentions and all the fine rhetoric from hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House will not be borne out by the daily experience of elderly and disabled people throughout the country. It is the job of the House to do everything in its power to ensure that the legislation's promises are honoured in the provision of better opportunities in the daily lives of the elderly and disabled.
  Ministers have repeatedly given assurances that the new legislation will be adequately funded. The definition of adequacy will promote extensive debate among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The importance of adequate funding cannot be overstated in terms of ensuring certainty and stability. Local authorities in particular must have the money to do properly the job that Parliament has willed them to do.
  Negotiations are under way about the money to be made available. I suspect that it may create difficulties for local authorities that the sums will be announced not in July as originally intended but in October.
  Reference has been made to the difficulties anticipated by local authorities because the money to be transferred to them to purchase care for people in their own homes or in residential accommodation will not be ring-fenced and specifically identified—and will therefore be susceptible. There are grave doubts also about the adequacy of the distribution formula, with evidence that the money may not be distributed by central Government to local government in accordance with local need.
  Local authorities have been charged with the technically and managerially demanding job of implementing the legislation. Its complexity is extensively acknowledged—most recently, by the Audit Commission. In recent years, local authority infrastructure and the capacity to plan for these changes has been eroded as Government cuts have been forced on local authorities.
  Other hon. Members have referred to the problem created by the "fee gap"—the difference between the amount that residential and nursing home care costs, and the amount that is available from social security to pay for that care. It is terribly important for that problem to be rectified as part of the negotiations about the amount to be made available to local authorities. Current estimates suggest that there is an average discrepancy of some £30 a week between the cost of a residential care place and the amount made available through the social security system. In the case of nursing home places, the discrepancy is about £50 a week.
  My constituency is fortunate to benefit from a small project—run under the auspices of Age Concern—that arranges placements for people who have been discharged from long-stay hospital care into private nursing care, searching the country for places where care can be provided at income support levels. Although, as a result, people are often placed a long way from home, the project also provides follow-up through visiting. I understand that

  989
  it is a unique initiative, and that elderly people in other parts of the country cannot be guaranteed access to such valuable support.
  Mr. Rowe: I share the hon. Lady's anxiety for the amount available for community care to be sufficient. Is it not the case, however, that, when the purchaser of such care is the local authority and not, as at present, the Department of Social Security operating at one remove, it will be much easier to match what is available with what can be afforded?
  Ms. Jowell: I shall come to that point. The Social Security Select Committee called for an urgent review of the fee gap, and I echo that call. If we do not sort out the problem now, local authorities will inherit an inherent deficit in the budget passed to them by Government via the revenue support grant, and that structural underfunding will limit the number of people in residential care whom authorities can support.
  In setting up contracts with independent providers, local authorities will be required to underwrite the cost in full. At present, the shortfall is being met by means of a range of cobbled-together solutions. Organisations such as Counsel and Care for the Elderly and Age Concern can provide substantial anecdotal evidence of the pressure that is put on relatives to find what may be large amounts of money to make good that shortfall. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned a figure of £142 million: that is a considerable sum, which must be taken into account in the calculation of local authority funding.
  Another problem affects people who are currently in residential and nursing home care, who have what are described as "preserved rights" under the new arrangements. That often means that families or charities must make good the continued shortfall. If this important matter is not sorted out now—if money is not made available on the basis of the available evidence—the long-term success of the policy may be jeopardised.
  A second problem that may sabotage the best efforts of local authorities relates to the current dispute between the Department of Health and local authority associations" about the number of people currently admitted to residential and nursing home care each year. I understand that the discrepancy now stands at between 15,000 and 20,000, and the costs associated with an underestimate of this scale in the number of people entering residential care is sufficient to jeopardise the policy's success further.
  To a large extent, such problems arise through the inadequacy and unreliability of available information. We do not really know how many people are in residential care, from which local authorities they have come and who will be responsible once the legislation is fully implemented. Those factors do not merely jeopardise the capacity of local authorities to do the job that they want to do; they have a direct and immediate impact on the well-being and confidence of disabled elderly people and their carers.
  Adequate funding must be made available. It must be recognised that the new policy focuses particularly on support for elderly and disabled people to remain in their own homes, and that because of lack of alternatives, they may have to go into residential care. Estimates suggest that, at any time, about 10 per cent. of elderly people in
  990
  almost any residential home in the country might have lived independently in their own homes if the necessary support had been available.
  We need the capacity to maintain the stability of the residential sector, but local authorities also need the capacity to begin to build up and develop the new forms of domiciliary care that will be essential if the objectives of the policy are to be achieved in the years to come. We want more elderly and disabled people to live longer in the safety and security of their own homes.
  None of us can have failed to be moved by the report published last week by the Carers National Association, which drew particular attention to the amount of illness suffered by carers. One of the great promises contained in the Bill is that the level, quality and sensitivity of support for carers will be much higher than it has been in the past, but local authorities will require money if they are to achieve that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If Conservative Front Benchers were quieter, I might be able to hear what the hon. Lady is saying.
  Ms. Jowell: It is essential that the promises that have been made—in the boldest terms—to improve the quality and level of support for friends and relatives who care for the elderly and disabled in their own homes are delivered in practice.
  Let me end my speech by asking four questions, which I hope the Minister will answer. First, do the Government recognise the risks of failing to enter into early discussions with local authority associations about the shortfall that authorities are in danger of inheriting—a shortfall that may endanger their capacity to implement the policy properly?
  Secondly, does the Minister recognise that additional difficulties have been caused because the money made available to support community care is not ring-fenced?
  Thirdly, what provision is to be made for the inevitable contingencies that will arise as unforeseen problems are encountered? At the end of the last Parliament, the Government were prepared to bale out hospital trusts that had run into financial difficulties. I hope that the same effort will be put into ensuring stability in the care and support of elderly and disabled people.
  Finally, recognising that one of the most important factors for elderly disabled people and their carers—the beneficiaries of the legislation—is certainty and clarity about what they are entitled to, will the Minister also consider introducing a community care, carers and users charter as an expression of general enthusiasm for citizens charters, about which we have heard so much from the Government? Codification of this entitlement—setting it out clearly—would be one of the greatest benefits that we could extend to carers and disabled people, whose lives are often made more difficult and burdensome by the confusion, red tape and bureaucracy that they have to try to penetrate in pursuit of the care and support they need.
  6.31 pm
  Ms. Ann Coffey: I wish to refer specifically to the exclusion of small residential homes from inspection under the Bill, which I find difficult to understand. If someone goes into a home in which there are two other people, the monitoring of standards in that home should not be significantly different from those that apply to a

  991
  home where there may be three other people. I cannot stress too strongly how important is the role of inspection in maintaining and monitoring standards, particularly where care and finance are closely linked.
  Reference has already been made to the problems encountered over the financing of care in private residential homes. They are caused by high interest rates and low Department of Social Security grants. Financial problems of that nature affect the care that is given to residents. They also have an effect on the quality of staff employed in those homes.
  Hon. Members have referred to the use of personal allowances and charging for extra items. Also, threatening residents with eviction because they cannot pay their fees is not the way to make them feel that they are being cared for. Sadly, though, that is a step that a residential home may have to take. It has a damaging effect on the people in that home.
  Apart from the effect on the quality of nursing care, lack of finance also has an effect on local health authority provision. During the last year, my health authority has experienced an enormous increase in the number of acute admissions. That is ironic, since two wards were closed and nursing care was transferred to the private sector to release resources. Part of the reason for the increase in acute admissions may be that the quality of nursing care provided by private nursing homes was not good enough. That leads to an additional burden being placed on the health authority. Moreover, it means that beds for people who need operations cannot be made available.
  The inspection process as a whole is inadequate, but particularly for nursing homes. The district health authority is responsible for inspection. If, however, a district health authority should deregister a home, it could lay itself open to a claim for compensation on appeal. Some district health authorities therefore might adopt an over-cautious approach.
  The guidelines for inspection are insufficiently specific. They are fairly specific in terms of physical standards of care—the number of beds per room and toilet facilities —but they are not specific when it comes to the measurement of quality of care, which is, of course, very difficult. However difficult it may be, it should be attempted. Emotional support is important for residents; the activities provided for residents are important. Their emotional support should be given the same attention as their physical needs, if the Government are serious about raising the standards of care in residential accommodation.
  If we raise standards, the costs will rise. When the residential allowance is announced, I hope that it will take into account the higher costs of better care. If it does not do so, local authorities will have to make up the shortfall. If the cost of residential care becomes too expensive for local authorities, they will have insufficient money to spend on community care. The result, therefore, of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 will be an increase in expensive private residential sector care which could have been provided much more cheaply by local authorities had the Government allowed local authorities to borrow capital in order to make the necessary adaptations to local authority homes.
  992
  I urge the Minister to think carefully about a number of issues, but particularly about the inspection process and tightening up the guidelines. I hope that he will think carefully, too, about the provision of an independent inspection process for nursing homes. It should not be provided by the district health authority. That can lead to conflicts of interest. May I ask the Minister also to think carefully about providing the right amount of money for residential care? If he is determined to provide it through the private sector and to disadvantage the public sector, the residential allowance must enable good care to be provided, as well as profit. If the Minister does not make provision for the profit margin, the care provided to residents will inevitably suffer.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: May I start by telling you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one story? I hope that it will bring the debate about community care down to earth. This happened to me during the election campaign. Hon. Members know that one of the curious habits of parliamentary candidates is to go up to perfect strangers in the street and ask them about their health. Sadly, one is really asking them about their vote.
  On this occasion, the woman I spoke to turned on me in great anger and said that she was voting for no one, and why should she? She pointed to her husband, whom she was pushing in a wheelchair and who was seriously handicapped, and said, "I am his carer"—she used that word—"and I get virtually no help. Sometimes I have to care for him almost around the clock, such is the nature of his disability. I hear about community care. I know that that is a lie. I am not going to vote for anyone." I found that a difficult argument, because of the passion with which it was presented to me, to refute.
  A curious British habit is to use the English language in imprecise ways—sometimes in ways that are virtually a contradiction. While we all talk, as I do, about community care, the reality all too often is not care but neglect. The reality is community neglect in Britain. That is not just rhetoric. I recall data from the general household survey of carers which showed that the majority of carers receive no help at all.
  What worries me about our debates—I refer not just to our debate in this Chamber but to the debates in the country—about community care, not least because of the jargon with which the professionals like to bemuse us, is that, while we hear about "packages of care" and the "seamless service", the reality for most people in this position is, very often, nothing.
  Despite the expertise in the House, there is probably greater expertise elsewhere around Westminster, such as Victoria street late at night. It would be good for all of us, certainly Ministers, to leave the House occasionally, walk up Victoria street late at night and talk to those trying to sleep in shop doorways. Many of them are elderly or suffering from mental illness. They would be surprised to learn that they are examples of community care. It would be good for us all to experience that type of so-called community care. Therefore, we should be careful about our terminology.
  Despite the poor attendance in the Chamber, and no doubt the lack of press interest in this debate, this must be one of the most important subjects that the House will debate. That point has already been made by many hon.

  993
  Members. It is a subject that will grow in importance. The number of us who will reach a ripe old age is growing significantly year by year. As has already been pointed out, it is not just the aging of the population that is significant, but the aging of the elderly population itself. In the first census this century, in 1901, there were just 50,000 people over the age of 85—Wembley stadium half full. By the 1981 census the number had increased tenfold, to 500,000. Between 1981 and the year 2001, the number will double again, so that we will have over 1 million people aged 85 or over.
  It would be agist and incorrect to say that all those poeople will need care in the community or elsewhere. Many are sprightly and will go on "Jim'll Fix It" and jump out of an aeroplane for the first time at the age of 85, hopefully with a parachute. However, we cannot be romantic about aging, because many of those people will suffer from Alzheimer's disease, be senile in other ways or incontinent and may need a great deal of care in our community. So the demography is against us. If this debate is important now, it will be even more important in five or 10 years. If we are to get it right, let us get it right sooner rather than later.
  The debate is also important—this is a challenge to us all—because of the cost of so-called care in the community. Do we know enough about the cost of such care? When I say that, I am thinking about financial as well as social costs. We know from some estimates that the amount of care provided by family carers, let alone the Government, runs into billions of pounds. Because of the curious way in which we do our national arithmetic, none of those costs and contributions made by family carers will be found in our gross domestic product, which is the peculiar and narrow form of arithmetic that we sometimes take more seriously than we should.
  I am interested in the cost of community care and who pays for it. At the moment, it is almost random. If a person becomes ill and is being treated in a national health service hospital, the costs are met by the NHS, with no direct payments from the patient. If the patient is cared for by a daughter or daughter-in-law, the costs will largely be met by the family, perhaps with some support from social security. If the person goes into a residential home and is below income support levels, the costs are largely met by the Department of Social Security. There is no consensus as to who should pay for the costs of aging. Should it be the elderly person if they can afford it, even if it means selling their main asset, their home, if they have one? Should the costs be paid for by the family, the state or the private sector? Those are important questions for the future that need to be grappled with.
  The debate is also important because of the social and moral argument. Unless we can get this right and truly provide community care, we all suffer in a social and moral sense. I know that this is something of a cliché, but surely there can be no greater challenge than to enable our elders —that is how we should think of them—to live out their lives in comfort and with dignity. That is why the question of policy is so important.
  Our Government and many others have waxed lyrical about community care over two decades. However, policy has been a slow train coming. It took reports from the Audit Commission and many other groups to embarrass the Government into setting up an inquiry under Sir Roy Griffiths. It then took some while for the Government to make up their mind what to do about that excellent report.
  994
  Then, at last, 10 years late, we had an Act of Parliament addressing the issues, and its implementation was delayed. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for hon. Members on both sides of the House to be worried about the rumours that there could now be further delay.
  I want to ask three questions which echo some of the issues that have already been mentioned by hon. Members. I know that the Government will want to take the questions seriously. Given the rumours, I am sure that they will want to take this opportunity to put the record straight and to reassure those who are worried. I am sure that Ministers are worried by the rumours.
  First, will the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 be implemented fully, and as originally stated, on 1 April 1993? If the answer is yes, as I hope it is, it is easy for Ministers to tell us that tonight. That would reassure the elderly, their families, the professions and social service departments.
  Secondly, are the Government satisfied with the quality and nature of the community care plans now coming forward? They will now have had an opportunity to study them. I have had an opportunity of studying several dozen, and many could not be regarded as plans as such. They contain broad statements of intent, sometimes repeating the broad statements in the White Paper and many good statements of philosophy, saying broadly what they would like to happen. However, I do not regard them as plans. Are the Government satisfied with that process?
  Thirdly, those plans may not be real business plans, because of the question of resources. How can one draw up a proper plan if one does not know what money can be spent? A Conservative Member made a sound point when he said that a company would not try to draw up a plan without an idea of the resources available. I am sure that this will be taken seriously by the Government, because the Conservative party is the party of private enterprise, and no doubt wants to run the Government as efficiently as the best companies. If it is not sensible for ICI or Glaxo to draw up business plans without an idea of how much can be spent in the forthcoming financial year, why does the Department of Health expect major organisations such as social services departments to draw up such plans?
  I invite Ministers to state clearly the financial arrangements that the Department of Health wishes to make. Will Ministers also confirm the existence of the working party on financial arrangements, known as the algebra group? Will they further confirm that the working party's officials are having some difficulty with the algebra? In the new spirit enunciated by the Prime Minister, will they state whether the working party's report will be published? There can be no state secrets.
  I was grateful for the broad way in which the Minister introduced the debate, because we cannot sensibly discuss this important Bill, which we all support, without considering its context. We have perhaps a few months left to get the policy right. All too often, it has been the sad experience of our social history that it takes some tragedy or case of abuse, and sometimes death, before institutions —including, with respect, the House and Government—act.
  The sad history of child care since the last world war is that it has taken tragic, sad and well-known cases of children being murdered before Government and the rest of society took the issue seriously. We already know of cases of abuse, which can occur in publicly and privately owned residential accommodation and, perhaps most

  995
  sadly, in the home where carers are caring for the cared for. We would all stand condemned if we provided resources for the important subject of community care only when public opinion was galvanised and shocked by cases of abuse and tragedies, which perhaps occurred because carers could stand it no more, such were the pressures and the lack of support that they were receiving, often because resources were not available.
  It will be a real test of our judgment and collective wisdom to see whether we can rationally analyse the situation and bring passion to bear on it. We have the evidence and experience to force Government—I mean that in a most decent way—to find the resources, to help the Department of Health to get those resources from the Treasury. We all have an interest in ensuring that.
  Perhaps we are at a turning point and soon will truly be able to say that this is the first chapter in which we start to turn the story of community neglect into a decent story of true community care.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: We should all be grateful to the Danish people for giving us an opportunity to speak about this important subject. We hope that the Government will bear that in mind and will not try to resurrect the discredited Maastricht Bill. That will give us more opportunity to debate important issues such as community care.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in thanking the Minister for the way in which he introduced the Bill, which has a narrow base but wider applications, as it amends a number of community care issues. The House is grateful for his introducing it with that in mind, as it has enabled hon. Members to speak in general terms about this important subject.
  Labour Members agree that expenditure on community care should be ring-fenced. Why do we say that? We do not share the startling view of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who said that he had faith in local authorities spending the money allocated to community care according to that definition. That view is not shared by the Government on a wide range of local government activities, and I dare say that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East would share the Government's view of, for instance, schools opting out of local authority control to avoid local authority expenditure allocation.
  Local authorities, having experienced cuts in rate support grant and revenue support grant since 1979, are faced with invidious and difficult priorities. Will they be forced to spend money on housing homeless persons, or will they improve community care by housing homeless persons who have been thrown out of hospitals for the mentally handicapped which have been closed on the pretext of community care? Will they incur expenditure under the Education Act 1981 by statementing children with special needs who will be required to have those needs provided?
  Those are the priorities that local authorities face. The Government cannot therefore apply the usual formula against ring fencing, which is that the priorities are determined by the local authority and it is its responsibility
  996
  entirely, thus evading the real point—that the Government, by making cuts, have stretched the services that local authorities provide while local authorities have taken the blame for their allocation of priorities. It is an invidious position for local councillors.
  One of the great advantages of a local authority making decisions is that it is accountable through the democratic process with which we are all familiar. Hon. Members who have been active in local authorities and who have taken part in local authority elections will be aware of that accountability. There is no such accountability in the private sector, to which the Minister paid lip service in his opening remarks in a quite extraordinary way. He said that it was, as it were, the pacemaker of community care. That simply is not true.
  Where community care is operated for private profit, the tendency will be to cut expenditure and maximise income in order to maximise profit. Private sector carers will so operate unless they are subject to strict inspections, but local authorities must, of course, bear the cost of ensuring that such inspections are made. That further cost is not recognised by the Government.
  Under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, local authorities are having to bring their own homes up to a standard higher than in the private sector so that they can examine old people's homes objectively and so that home owners cannot say, "The local authority homes are in an inferior condition, so how can they judge us?"
  The Government have not recognised that cost, which local authorities are having to bear. The Labour-controlled local authority in Bradford took over from the Conservative council, which was trying to sell homes and people lock, stock and barrel. It failed to do so, but the Labour-controlled local authority embarked on a programme of updating and improving local authority homes. It has been able to do so only by selling its properties—very reluctantly—which were declared as surplus. That revenue is being used for modernisation and improvement. The Government are not providing enough resources. They should face up to their responsibilities and allocate money for community care.
  It is important that the Bill is passed, to allow local authorities more flexibility. Schedule 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977 must not be narrowed, because in certain circumstances local authorities could be required to pick up the pieces for the private sector. We have not examined that very closely today, but we should do so, especially in view of the Minister's rabid obsession with supporting the private sector at the expense of the public sector. We should point out to him that the legislation contains the seed of rescue patterns which may be necessary because of the difficulties that the private sector might face.
  I cite a specific example for which the Bill is tailored. It involves Westwood hospital in my constituency—a hospital for the mentally handicapped, now called people with learning difficulties. I must say that parents and people who work in the hospital do not like the new nomenclature, because they think that it is an attempt to cover the problem with words and to make it seem that things are not so difficult as they are.
  Westwood hospital has been subject to a programme of putting people into the community for many years. In the first instance, the local authority was involved but the programme was more or less a disaster. It was called

  997
  "Operation Springboard", and it did not work. I recall that two people who were released into the community from Westwood hospital came to see me. They had been trying to get grants from the Department of Social Security for more than 12 months. They had had a difficult experience and received form after form which bemused them. They came to me to get things sorted out and I managed to do so.
  I am in contact with many of the people who work at Westwood hospital and many of the parents, so it occurred to me to ask the two people whether they could read or write. They could not. They had been going to a DSS office for 12 months, but nobody had asked them whether they could read or complete the forms being poured out to them. They were subject to care in the community, but clearly there was no care in the community for them. Incidentally, the arrangement ended in violence, and both went back to Westwood hospital.
  One problem with care in the community that the Government must face is that their cutbacks to local authorities and to district health authorities are forcing district health authorities to sell hospital sites. When the sites are gone and a difficulty arises with the care in the community programme because of a difficulty with or a wholly mistaken assessment, where are people to go if there are no havens such as Westwood hospital? The Minister should answer that question, but I do not think that he, his civil servants or anybody else in the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security have troubled about it.
  I revert to the example in greater detail because it is relevant to the legislation. Westwood hospital has been subject to a care in the community programme for many years. In 1988, it was agreed that the Westwood hospital site would become the site of a mixed community development. It is a green site of 30 acres or more in which people can walk around. It is like a college site in that it has security—I do not mean fixed gates or doors, but security from traffic. There are speed humps so that cars cannot speed around. It offers a tranquil existence which people who are mentally handicapped frequently need. Indeed, it offers the sort of tranquil existence that most of us need from time to time, especially when we have been in this place a few years.
  In 1988, in evidence to a planning inquiry about the Westwood site, the district health authority said:
  "In the event, the proposed phased movement of patients into the community in accordance with the "Springboard Project" did not prove successful. The Health Authority is nevertheless still firmly committed to the essential policy of care in the community. At Westwood, this will now be achieved by the creation of sites for housing whereby certain numbers of the houses will be reserved for use by the Health Authority by agreement with the developers."
  It was clear that it was to be a mixed site. It continued:
  "In this way, normal cross sectional communities will he created in which people with a mental handicap presently in the hospital, will be allocated domestic living units. The environment so produced will encourage the return of residents to the pattern of daily life. These proposals will have the effect of bringing the community to Westwood Hospital, in the form of a mixed housing development plan. The funds released from the sale of housing land will he allocated to capital works within the Yorkshire region although benefits will generally accrue to the Bradford area wherever possible.
  It is fully anticipated that there will be continued health care facilities and stair support. For example, certain of the more modern buildings within the hospital complex will be retained as community units such as a day care centre providing for 24 to 40 people."
  998
  That policy, presented to obtain planning consent, secured the consent but was then reneged on in a disgraceful and despicable way. The whole site is to be sold and only the nurses' home is to be converted to a 20-bed unit. That is absolutely disgraceful, and it is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) finds that people are cynical and have become disillusioned and disenchanted with administrative institutions which make fine promises but then renege on them and spurn the carers, many of whom are aging people growing weary of looking after their mentally handicapped children, often with great devotion. The plans that they supported are torn up virtually in their faces.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I think that my hon. Friend is aware that I have had correspondence with a number of people about Westwood hospital. I am personally familiar with one or two parents who have long fought for a proper resolution to the problem. The information provided by my hon. Friend shows what a kick in the teeth there has been for people who have struggled for a long time with handicapped members of their family who were involved with Westwood hospital. However, the experience that he described is not happening only at Westwood.
  I commend to my hon. Friend a press conference to be held in the House next Wednesday morning in the Jubilee Room. It is organised by Values into Action, an organisation concerned with exactly the type of experience that he outlined. Such events are happening not only in Bradford but across the country, and my hon. Friend is right to point them out to the Minister who must deal with them.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. RESCARE is a national organisation devoted to retaining the high standard of residential care in the public sector at sites such as Westwood which are decent and potentially marvellous sites.
  I have a letter from Bradcap—Bradford and District Care and Protection for Mentally Handicapped People—a group battling for parents and for people living at Westwood hospital. The organisation is very worried about the lack of development of Westwood's potential and about Westwood being abandoned and discarded. The letter states:
  "At a recent meeting organised at Westwood by the Community Health Council over 100 people attended and we were overwhelmingly in favour of Bradcap's plan, i.e. Retention of some land at Westwood including the excellent Recreation Hall, Occupational Therapy Unit, Hydrotherapy Pool, etc.
  The replacement of wards with more home-like bungalows. A sheltered environment for some of the mentally handicapped who need it for reasons of behavioural problems or vulnerability.
  Parents do not want their children at risk or as a stock in trade for ambitious businesses."
  That last sentence is a fair comment about the privatisation of provision for people who, whether they are mentally handicapped or elderly, are among the most vulnerable in our community.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would help to solve some of the important problems that he has mentioned if the Government, even before introducing the Bill, fully implemented the representation sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, so that the people he

  999
  mentioned would be properly represented when decisions affecting them were taken? Does he recall that that course of action was firmly supported by the Spastics Society?
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the key areas about which my local organisation is concerned is the representation which should be invoked by legislation, but which has not been invoked so far.
  At the meeting at Westwood hospital mentioned in the letter, when about 100 people were present to discuss the proposed closure of the hospital and the disgraceful selling of land, because nobody else thought of doing so I asked for a vote. Out of more than 100 people present, only two voted against the proposals which I have outlined, in which some sort of mixed use of the land would be retained.
  I shall deal directly with the Bill now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the greater flexibility for local authorities which it will retain—except for what is termed a lacuna. That means that a draftsman got it wrong and made a mess of things—but calling it a lacuna makes it sound so much better. If a plumber or an engineer had done that, he probably would have been sent down the road, sacked for having made a mess of the job, but that does not happen when the result is a lacuna rather than broken equipment.
  The Bill rectifies the lacuna by providing local authorities with more flexibility. The district health authority is now decanting patients from Westwood in pursuit of an utterly unscrupulous policy, so great dangers arise. I have been finding out where the patients will be allocated. About 120 of them will go to a company called AHP Rehabilitation Ltd.
  That firm made clear in its latest company returns that it is dependent on continued finance from the banks to stay in business. That is true for that private company. In fact, it is true for all private companies, as the case of Olympia and York—which was in a bigger way of business than AHP Rehabilitation Ltd.—demonstrates. With Olympia and York, all that happens is that the building stays empty—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying. I hope that he will confine himself as closely as possible to the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister's remarks may have extended the scope of the debate on the Bill, but talking about Olympia and York is taking things too far.
  Mr. Cryer: Perhaps I could draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the flexibility which the Bill restores. I am trying to explain that, if AHP Rehabilitation Ltd. gets into financial difficulties because the bank pulls the rug, the question will arise: who will pick up the pieces? Without the Bill, local authorities would not be an alternative choice. That is the problem. I asked the so-called chief executive of the district health authority exactly what provision the authority would make. Would there be a guarantee? Have funds been put to one side? I am still waiting for the answers. The Bill provides important background information, so that we can say that the local authority, with the backing of the legislation, will be an alternative organisation if the district health authority—that authority is going down a funny road, as I shall illustrate with two further examples—simply has not obtained guarantees and cannot provide the facilities.
  1000
  That opportunity is important. Without it, I am afraid that, if AHP Rehabilitation Ltd. goes into liquidation, it is not known what will happen to the 30 or 40 patients involved. We are trying to provide some certainty about that.
  Another group of patients will go to a firm called Care Solutions Ltd., which was formed as recently as October 1991. It has no background of care in the community, or of financial success to give the certainty that we should like to provide. Indeed, the company was formed so recently that there are no company returns. If the parents of mentally handicapped people who went into that company's care wanted to get hold of the directors to raise issues with them, they might have a problem. Three of the directors live in London, which may not be too convenient, but the fourth—a Mr. Pietro Fascioni—is an Italian national living in Lugano in Switzerland. It would he fairly difficult for a parent to get hold of that director and say, "There is trouble down at the home."
  The director lists his occupation on the company returns—as he is bound to do. His occupation is not that of a doctor, a consultant or anyone experienced in care in the community. That director lists his occupation—in the way which the Minister considers so wonderful—as "entrepreneur". People are being handed over to the care of an entrepreneur called Pietro Fascioni who lives in Lugano in Switzerland. The company may get into financial difficulties. We hope that it does not, but if it does, no capital background has been given and it has no records. So is it not reasonable that the local authority should be given the means, through ring fencing expenditure, to pick up the pieces so as to help protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society?
  Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
  Mr. Cryer: I shall finish my illustration first, and give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  The district health authority is even going back to mediaeval times; it is handing over more patients to an order of monks called St. John of God. Those people may have a perfectly decent record, but I wonder what is happening in our society when we are handing people over to a religious order to look after. If we are handing people over from the district health authority and its tender mercy, we should do so to someone with some degree of democratic accountability, such as a local authority. The Bill will help to bring that about.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend should be clear that the Bill as it stands needs amending to allay his worries about people such as the gentleman who he mentioned who lives in Switzerland. I am concerned about the limitations on the requirement to check out the owners and managers of homes in the private sector. I have come across several examples where people with what I can only describe as semi-criminal backgrounds are now directly involved in the private care business. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the Bill is in Committee, it would be useful to amend it to block the loopholes which allow such persons to be involved in caring for vulnerable people?
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is wise to point that out, and I have taken the matter up. I do not want local authorities to have to use the measures that we are considering—to ask the Government for money to pick up the pieces. The local authority should be concerned with

  1001
  other things, but we know full well that, when things go wrong in the private sector, it is always the community at large which picks up the pieces. Whether it involves a factory closing and people going on the dole, or anything else, we all pay. For example, in the case of Olympia and York, 2,000 civil service jobs are to be moved—but I had better not go down that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker, except by way of illustration. People from the Department of the Environment may have to pick up the pieces.
  It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, that if we are to have legislation, we might as well tag on to it additional advantages which will enable us to try to prevent the circumstances in which pieces occur and in which the whole thing breaks up.
  I have been on to the so-called "chief executive" of the district health authority to ask him what guarantees there are and how Mr. Pietro Fascioni fits into the picture—whether he is approved and whether he is more than an entrepreneur—but I am still not getting any answers. I believe that the health authority has been inefficient, careless and far too precipitate in decanting patients from Westwood hospital because it wants to sell it off.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is he in the Mafia?
  Mr. Cryer: One hesitates to make a judgment, but with a name like Fascioni, it sounds a bit like it.
  With all the difficulties, the Government should be prepared to allocate more resources to local authorities so that they do not face difficult competing priorities such as I have mentioned. Local authorities must have the opportunity to take over, if necessary, the care of people who are in private rest homes for the elderly or in homes in the community for the mentally handicapped.
  The Minister's predecessor was not especially helpful. He agreed with the idea of village communities for the mentally handicapped on hospital sites, but he gave no support to the objectors to the closure of Westwood hospital. The best solution would be to revert to the policy that the district health authority advocated at a planning inquiry in April 1988. The proposal was for a mixed development on the site which would keep tranquillity for people who are mentally handicapped. Some part of the site could be developed, but we should ensure that we do not put people into the community without adequate resources and without an adequate reserve if the community resources are faulty or the assessment mistaken.
  The people who work at Westwood hospital, and the parents of the patients there, feel that they have been badly betrayed by the move to so-called care in the community. They feel badly betrayed by the district health authority and by the Government because the Government have not allocated the necessary resources. It is about time that these bankrupt policies were changed.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made the point that we in the House owe a great debt to the people of Denmark for allowing us to have a short debate on community care in prime time. I say that in all seriousness. This is the first debate in the House on community care since April 1991. If nothing else, I hope that it will send signals to the Minister, to his colleagues
  1002
  and to his advisers that there is an unmet need and a pent-up desire in hon. Members of all parties who are concerned about what will happen before April next year and who want to raise many issues. We must respond to the points raised, although I accept that we cannot respond to all of them in Committee, which will probably be the week after next.
  The Government will make a rod for their own backs if they do not introduce their own proposals from time to time rather than leaving the task to the Opposition on Supply days, because there dare not enough of those days. The Government could then give reports to the House about the preparations, the decisions being made and the planning for the implementation of the community care reforms next year.
  It is no good simply waiting until April 1993—waiting for problems to arise and then having loads of requests for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20. I hope that the Government will meet the demand for information and the demand to share the experiences of the planning of the implementation of community care which have been expressed in the debate.
  I look forward to listening to the Minister and I hope that he will answer some of the questions. The one question that he must address is the first question that I raised, which has been raised by other hon. Members subsequently. We asked for an unequivocal and unqualified reaffirmation that the community care reforms will be implemented on 1 April next year.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Yeo: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will briefly respond to some of the points raised in an excellent and wide-ranging debate. There were moments when I regretted having opened the debate with such a wide-ranging speech, because it appeared to bring everyone else into order almost regardless of what he or she said.
  In answer to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), may I say that I noticed that, during the six days of debate on the Queen's Speech, the Opposition did not choose to address health or community care issues.
  Mr. Rooker: Let us not waste time on this. The Queen's Speech did not refer to health or to community care. That was the Government's decision. The Queen's Speech did not refer to unemployment. We chose subjects that were mentioned in the Queen's Speech, so let us have no more time-wasting on this nonsense.
  Mr. Yeo: It is not a question of time-wasting. I am responding to a point raised by the Opposition. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr reads through the Queen's Speech, he will see that there were references to health. It appears that they were not of sufficient concern to justify the Opposition choosing that subject for any of the considerable amount of debating time.
  I welcome the chance to debate matters with the hon. Member for Perry Barr and I hope that he will not be reshuffled too soon. I start with the point about which he is so concerned. Many other hon. Members have raised it today and some have even referred to rumours that our community care policies will not be implemented. I am not aware of those rumours, which is why I did not refer to them in my speech.

  1003
  It may occur to hon. Members that the whole purpose of introducing the Bill is to put in place the last legislative brick in the framework that is needed to bring about the third and final step in implementing our White Paper "Caring for People". What other purpose would we have in introducing the Bill if we did not wish to go ahead with the policy? It is the third step and, as I said, there were two other important steps in 1991 and 1992, and the White Paper itself is only a small step in a substantial shift of policy which has been—
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Yeo: I will not give way in winding up the debate. My opening speech was very much shorter than the majority of speeches in the debate. I will try to deal with as many points as I can, and I will not be able to do so if I keep giving way.
  The White Paper is but one component in a continuum of policy which is designed to achieve higher standards—
  Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help with a misunderstanding? The Minister referred to policies. He was specifically asked about the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. How can we persuade the Minister to respond to that specific point?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a different point of order. The Minister has said that he does not intend to give way in his wind-up speech, thus implying that there is a restriction on time for this debate. Will you confirm that there is no restriction on time for this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is further to a point of order that never was.
  Mr. Yeo: I make it clear that I will try to deal with the points raised in the debate which relate to the Bill. Unless I am to keep the House here for another hour or so, I cannot allow every hon. Member to intervene on points, most of which have no direct relevance to the Bill. I will try to deal with the points raised which relate to the Bill.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Perry Barr, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne), concentrated on the question of finance. Of course I appreciate how central financial considerations are to the successful implementation of the policy.
  I will make three things clear. First, the policy will be fairly resourced. Secondly, the transfer of funds from the Department of Social Security will be made in a transparent fashion and the basis of the calculation for that transfer of funds will be made clear. Thirdly, we will use the Government's powers to the full to ensure that when the money is transferred from the Department of Social Security no authority can misuse those resources.
  I very much welcome the acknowledgement by the hon. Member for Perry Barr of the role of the independent sector and of the value of the mixed economy. That was refreshing to hear, and I hope that those views are shared by his colleagues. They did not seem to be shared by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), whose
  1004
  hostility to the private sector came through very strongly. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South for continuing to articulate the old-fashioned socialist attitudes which ensure that Opposition Members stay in opposition.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr rightly mentioned the importance of other policies, including housing, social security and so on. I am glad to tell him that my hon. Friend the Minister of State already chairs an informal group of Ministers from other Departments dealing with the implementation of our policy. The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the disclosure of interests. Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, local authorities are required to keep a register of all homes. The register includes full details of home owners and of any company or other organisation which is involved and which has a financial interest in those establishments.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr, together with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), made a point about the availability of domiciliary services. I would not want to give the impression that we have not been making progress in improving domiciliary services. That remains a key objective. It is just as important as anything that we are doing in residential care. It is partly in order to encourage the development and diversity of domiciliary services that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an initiative for local authorities to work with the voluntary and private sectors to develop new and innovative forms of service in the domiciliary sector. As I have said, I am particularly keen to see private sector involvement in domiciliary care.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made an important point about the possibility of people moving either way in the spectrum. We certainly recognise that point. There can be a process of assessment followed by reassessment if people's needs change, and they can lessen as well as increase.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield made some vigorous points. It is certainly a novel criticism that we are spending too much money on income support to provide better care for old people. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the substantial increase in social services expenditure, which is up by a third in the past two years and up by almost two thirds in real terms since 1979. If the quality of care which is provided by independent sector homes is inadequate, local authorities need not and will not contract with them; but of course those same standards can reasonably be demanded of local authority homes as well.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield overlooked the role of assessment in the system. I do not share his view that voluntary codes are inadequate. I certainly am not convinced that a statutory framework is the right answer for specifying standards for what goes on inside homes. He also made a point about privacy. This is the first time that I have replied to a Second Reading debate with the benefit of having seen some of the amendments that will be tabled in Committee. There is an amendment on the subject that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, so I dare say that we shall pursue it in more detail in Committee.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst for his support. I have tried to respond to his concerns about finance.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) made a point about independent inspections. We already have

  1005
  independent inspections in place, and we shall monitor them to see that they cover the points about which the hon. Lady is concerned.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was kind in his tribute to me. I should not wish him to think that any of my past connections should lead to high expectations of what I shall deliver in my present job, but the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in the subject. On the Bill being confined to England, the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is that the provisions on residential accommodation in Scotland and Northern Ireland were not affected by the lacuna which has caused amusement during the debate.
  Let me assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the process of assessment is at the heart of our policy. Our policy is designed to ensure that those who can remain at home will do so wherever possible, with the benefit of better domiciliary and day care services. I have noted his point about advocacy, and I hope that we have a chance to debate that subect in Committee also.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) fell into the popular misconception that community care is to be implemented next April. As I have said, implementation is a long process, and next April is just one more step, although it is important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who missed the first hour of the debate, made a lengthy and characteristically wide-ranging speech, most of which had nothing to do with the Bill, and has nothing to do with the Bill, and he has left without hearing the replies. I must refer to his speech, however. Nothing gives me more confidence in the Success of our policies than to hear him express such great concern about 1 April 1993. He used similar phrases two years ago about the national health service reforms which are now proving to be the kind of success which I know this—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair, not the Minister, to decide whether an hon. Member is in order.
  Mr. Yeo: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will read my remarks. I hope that, by that time, he will have had time to read and understand the Bill. If so, he will realise that it would not be appropriate for the Bill to increase public expenditure.
  I assure the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) that we are already in discussion with local authority associations on a wide range of funding issues.
  Other points can be picked up in Committee. The debate has illustrated the wide support for the Bill, and I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Mauritius Republic Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a technical measure, required following the change of status in Mauritius on 12 March 1992 from that of a realm to a republic within the Commonwealth. The Bill follows well established precedents and seeks essentially to ensure that the operation of our existing law in relation to Mauritius is not affected by the change of status. Some hon. Members have some questions which I shall be happy to answer, but I trust that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is non-controversial.
The decision to become a republic was, of course, for the Government of Mauritius to take and did not in any way require the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
The new constitution of Mauritius makes provision for appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Hitherto, appeals from Mauritius have lain to Her Majesty in Council, but that is no longer appropriate now that Mauritius has ceased to be part of Her Majesty's dominions. The Bill therefore makes provision to enable Her Majesty in Council to authorise the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the new constitution of Mauritius to hear appeals direct from the courts of Mauritius.
I am sure that hon. Members will be happy to learn that the Government of Mauritius have told the Commonwealth Secretary-General that they wish the country to remain a member of the Commonwealth now that it is a republic. The Secretary-General has consulted members of the Commonwealth, who agree to this proposal.
I have no doubt that hon. Members will join me in wishing Mauritius and its people a peaceful and prosperous future.
7.37 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: Opposition Members have no difficulty in following the Minister's final words and wishing Mauritius and the people of Mauritius well for their future.
The Bill may be seen at two levels: the formal and the more fundamental. At the formal level, I wholly accept what the Minister said: it is a technical measure. Even if becoming a republic had been controversial in Mauritius —as indeed it had been, with two previous attempts by the Prime Minister to steer his country along the path to independence and his rejection of the Opposition view that there should be a referendum on the issue—it cannot be controversial in this country. It is a necessary piece of legislation, as the Minister has said, consequent on the decision of the Government of Mauritius in March to become a republic within the Commonwealth. The Bill was passed by the legislative assembly in Mauritius last year. The effect is that Sir Veeraswamy Ringadoo, the Governor-General, will become the non-executive President, and the Head of Government will be the Prime Minister, Sir Anerood Jugnauth.
The change brings the number of republics in the Commonwealth to 29, and reduces the number of

1007
constitutional monarchies to 16. It leaves Swaziland, with its national monarchy, as the sole African Commonwealth country which is not a republic. That perhaps puts this measure in context. Hence, the change of status is not unusual in any way and, as the Minister underlined, it is wholly within the competence of the Government of Mauritius to change its status, as it will.
We are, of course, glad to hear that it is the desire of the Government of Mauritius to remain a member of the Commonwealth, the world's oldest association of sovereign states. It shows the flexibility of the Commonwealth that such changes can take place under its umbrella. Indeed, in a world where increasingly regions are developing into blocs, it shows the value of the Commonwealth to find it uniquely straddling all the normal divisions in the world and acting as a bridge between regions.
I said that there were two levels—the formal and the more fundamental. At the more fundamental level, it can be said that Commonwealth membership entails adherence to certain values, even if in fact for many countries they can remain only an aspiration. Those Commonwealth values were last enshrined at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare in the so-called Harare declaration of 20 September 1991.
It may be of help to the House to spell out at least some of the principles to which each of the Commonwealth countries subscribed in Harare, and express certain anxieties about Mauritius. The Harare Commonwealth declaration said that the Commonwealth was a voluntary association of sovereign independent states, each responsible for its own policies. It also said:
"Its members also share a commitment to certain fundamental principles …Those principles have stood the test of time, and we reaffirm our full and continuing commitment to them today."
Those principles included
"the individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives".
The declaration continued:
"we pledge the Commonwealth and our countries to work with renewed vigour, concentrating especially in the following areas:
the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth;
democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances".
It also underlined the value of the Commonwealth in providing a means of monitoring elections and helping Commonwealth countries along the route to democracy,
"strengthening the capacity of the Commonwealth to respond to requests from members for assistance in entrenching the practices of democracy".
Those are the key Commonwealth principles, declared as recently as last October at Harare. The Minister here tonight and the Government of Mauritius will recognise that certain anxieties have arisen from the conduct of the elections held last year. Deep anxiety was expressed before the election by Dr. Navin Ramgoolam, leader of the Mauritius Labour party and son of See Woosagur Ramgoolam, who steered Mauritius to independence.
Dr. Ramgoolam appealed to the Prime Minister to allow Commonwealth observers to monitor the elections. He asked, for example, that the electors should be able to use their identity cards during the election, that
1008
transparent ballot boxes should be used and so on, because of his worries about the conduct of the election. Unfortunately, all his requests were rejected. The Prime Minister said in repect of Commonwealth observers, "Over my dead body."
In the event, the Labour party received 40 per cent. of the national vote, yet gained only three directly elected seats out of 60. It gained four seats as best losers. It emerged with 40 per cent. of the vote but only seven seats out of 64 in the legislative assembly. As the Minister is well aware, there have been several allegations of vote rigging during the election.
For example, in the edition of L'Express published only on Monday of this week, there is a quotation from Dr. Ramgoolam. May I say that L'Express is in no way allied with the Mauritius Labour party? He alleges that 4,000 votes were rigged in each constituency.
I cannot reasonably expect the Minister to respond to those allegations. In any event, there has been a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But the Minister should at least be aware of the allegations and, I hope, ready to express anxiety to the representatives of Mauritius when he meets them. I retrospect, it is sad that the Prime Minister of Mauritius was not prepared before the election to accept the reasonable requests by Dr. Navin Ramgoolam.
On perhaps a lighter note, one action of the Prime Minister subsequent to the election may commend itself to the Government. I understand that he has issued a 500 rupee bank note with his image on it. Perhaps more significantly, he has issued one for a mere 20 rupees with the image of his wife on it. I do not know whether our Prime Minister would be interested in following that precedent. Perhaps one might have a 50p Norma note. I suspect that our population would respond to that in exactly the same way as I understand that the bulk of the population of Mauritius have responded.
Having expressed anxieties about the conduct of the election, and knowing that this is a short debate and that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will certainly express other anxieties in relation to Diego Garcia, I finish on this note. As members of the Opposition, we accept that the Bill raises no point of principle in relation to United Kingdom law. With those few observations, I wish the people of Mauritius prosperity and a happy future within the Commonwealth family, as did the Minister. We value both our bilateral relations with Mauritius and the Commonwealth relationship between our two countries.
7.48 pm
Mr. William Powell: I begin by declaring two prejudices. My first is against republics, although not all republics. The republic of Venice was not a republic against which we should be particularly prejudiced. Also, I have to say that the United States of America, formerly one of the Crown dominions, has made a triumphant success of its period as a republic.
Human constitutional experience has taught us that a constitutional monarchy is the best form of government. It is the job of all statesmen, wherever they may be, to ensure stability, continuity and tranquillity, and those three principles have always been best met by a constitutional monarchy.

1009
My second prejudice is that I do not like Her Majesty's realm to be diminished. One of the effects of the Bill will be to remove the Crown from the Government of Mauritius, albeit formally and constitutionally, rather than in any real sense. Nevertheless, the Crown will be removed from the constitutional expression of sovereignty in Mauritius, which will become a republic.
Having said that, I unequivocally welcome the Bill and the stages upon which Mauritius is embarking. My wife was born there, and my father-in-law served the Crown there as a colonial servant for a long time. My wife still has many relatives on the island, and her great-grandfather was its first archdeacon, when they were considered to be more important and useful than they are now.
I have had the honour of making two private and substantial visits to the island, and I also served as an officer of the British-Mauritius parliamentary group—alas, a group which is a great deal less active than it ought to be. I have some personal and family knowledge of the island, and I take this opportunity to say how well Mauritius has used its years of independence. If we are honest with ourselves, we will concede that not all the Crown dominions have made a success of self-government when they have become independent, but Mauritius has done so. It has successfully managed the transfer from one political generation to another.
I am bearing in mind the anxieties about elections expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Having regard to my prejudices about republics, if there has to be a republic it is best if it is one in which the president expresses the sovereignty of the country rather than being an active participant and promoter of its Government. If Mauritius becomes a republic along the lines of the Federal Republic of West Germany, the state of Austria or of Switzerland, where the presidency symbolises sovereignty, but does not lead the Government, it will be the best sort of republic. If a country has a presidency and a parliamentary democracy —as Mauritius has—it is more likely to make a success of republican government.
I hope that Mauritius will stick by the examples of countries that retain a presidency but also have a Prime Minister and a parliamentary democracy, as they are the most likely to secure those principles of statesmanship—stability, continuity and tranquillity.
There is no doubt that Mauritius has achieved remarkable successes since its independence in 1968. It is one of the most successful third-world countries. Considerable economic transformation took place during the 1980s. All credit to the Government and people of Mauritius for what they have managed to achieve, at a time when the common agricultural policy, among other things, has been making life difficult for the primary producers of agricultural products such as sugar. There have been special arrangements to allow quotas of Mauritian sugar into the European Community, but the massive production of sugar beet in Europe has not assisted colonies and islands such as Mauritius.
The Mauritians have diversified and followed many free market principles of economic management, and they are reaping the benefit. I noticed that there had been an improvement in the material condition of the people between my visits to the island.
Mauritius is an island of considerable beauty, 'with a remarkable coral reef, which manages to protect it from the ravages of the ocean in which it sits. Its people come
1010
from remarkably different cultural backgrounds and, on the whole, are making a success of living together in a comparatively small area. They have achieved a degree of economic diversification that is admirable, and the standard and quality of their lives has improved to an extent that is not only admirable and praiseworthy but a good example to other third-world countries which are trying to make a similar improvement.
From personal experience, I welcome the way in which Mauritius have been developing. I wish the Mauritians well in the years ahead as a republic, although I confess that I wish that they were not taking that step.
7.55 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My experience of Mauritius is not so deep as that of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), but I share his feelings about the warmth of the Mauritian people and the staggering beauty of the island.
Perhaps I should present my credentials for speaking. I was fortunate enough to be a member of an excellent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Japan and Indonesia in 1969, and was able to return via Australia and stop off at Mauritius. I did so partly because I had Mauritian friends from my student days in Edinburgh, and because the then Governor-General of Mauritius was that wonderful man, the late general secretary of the Labour party—Len Williams. I should like to think that he and his wife did a great deal to consolidate the good relations between Britain and Mauritius. Also, the unforgettable Ram—a tremendous figure—was a friend to so many of us in the Labour party at the time and was very kind to young Members of Parliament. I remember him with respect and affection. Therefore, like the hon. Member for Corby, I hope that I speak with warmth towards Mauritius.
I must raise three issues, of which I have given notice. I raised the first issue in the House more than a quarter of a century ago, at inordinate length. It concerned Diego Garcia and the 116s people. The brief background is this: the Ilois are a small minority of about 2,000 people, who were formerly residents of Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean. They are now resident in Mauritius. The Chagos islands were inhabited from about 1776 by a fishing company and leper colony under French rule. After the Napoleonic wars in 1815, they, along with Mauritius, came under British colonial rule and received new immigrants from Africa and India, and a successful copra industry. Those varied peoples developed a distinct culture and a Creole dialect.
Hopping a couple of centuries brings us to December 1966 and to the period preceding the independence of Mauritius. Britain demarcated the Chagos and other isolated islands from Mauritius as the British Indian Ocean Territory. Incidentally, the British Government of the day were a Labour Government. I am in no way criticising a Conservative Government, because many of the unsatisfactory events took place—I make no bones about it—under the Wilson Government, although those of us who are deeply interested did not realise some things until the congressional hearings of 1975.
In the same month in 1966, the British Indian Ocean Territory was leased to the United States for defence purposes for 50 years with the option of a further 20 years. From 1972, three further agreements were signed between the two countries allowing for military construction and

1011
expansion on Diego Garcia, which had become the main United States base in the Indian ocean. That happened under the Heath Government. Those agreements meant that the Ilois people had to leave and that was undertaken in a most secretive, underhand and shame-making manner.
The Ilois had the long-standing custom of visiting Mauritius for visits and shopping. From 1965 until the mid-1970s, the United Kingdom Government did not allow the Ilois people in Mauritius to return home. In fact, the Ilois were forced to squat in the slums of Port Louis or work in sugar plantations—a type of work to which they were not used. They had very little money, so some starved and all suffered great hardship. It will be no surprise to hon. Members that they were particularly vulnerable to any type of disease; such diseases are fought off easily by those of us from populated or industrial societies, but are very difficult to combat if one comes from a remote island such as Diego Garcia.
The copra plantations were run down and food imports were cut. From 1965 to 1971, about half the population of Diego Garcia were pressurised into leaving. The remainder —about 800—were assembled and removed at short notice in September 1971, at first to smaller islands not required by the military and then, in 1973, to Mauritius where they were left without help or compensation. The removal was carried out in secrecy until the facts became known at a United States congressional hearing in 1975 and after media coverage in the United States and the United Kingdom. The removal was completed surreptitiously. Although it is not relevant to the debate, I wonder which Ministers knew what was happening. I have talked to some of my former colleagues who were powerful Ministers at the time and they said that they knew nothing about it; I am sure that they are being truthful.
There has been a long fight for compensation by the Ilois and their supporters in Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Compensation was given to the last shipload of Ilois, who staged a demonstration on the removal ship. A small amount of compensation was available from 1973 to the islanders, but they did not receive it until 1978. In 1976, the United Kingdom Government paid £600,000 to the Government of Mauritius for the resettlement of the Ilois, but that was inadequate and there were also delays on the part of the Mauritius authorities.
In 1979, the United Kingdom Government offered the Ilois a further £1·25 million, but stipulated that the Ilois must sign a document renouncing their right to return to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I accept that that document was signed, but we should ask whether such a comparatively simplistic people—I do not mean that in any derogatory sense—should have been asked, under pressure, to sign such a document. What moral value resides in that type of agreement?
After consultation, most of the llois rejected the offer. There were demonstrations in 1980 and 1981, and the British Government agreed that talks between the two Governments and the Ilois should take place. That was in June 1981. The talks, in London, centred on the need for improved compensation. The Ilois asked for £8 million in order to give land, a house and some cattle to each family. The United Kingdom Government offered the original £1·25 million only and an extra amount of £300,000 for
1012
technical assistance. No agreement could be reached, but the Ilois, who were now desperate, decided to ask for compensation at an amount somewhere between the two sums. A final agreement was reached—a so-called full and final settlement—in March 1982.
The terms were that the Ilois were to be given £4 million in addition to the money already paid, and that the Mauritian Government would give land to the value of £1 million and that the money was compensation
"for all acts done by or pursuant to the Indian Ocean territory order of 1965."
However, Mauritius saw nothing in the wording of the agreement to preclude a return of the British Indian ocean territory to Mauritius. What exactly is the position of Her Majesty's Government on the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory in relation to Mauritius as covered by the Bill?
Compensation did not solve all the problems of the Ilois. There were delays in the payment, and although it was originally hoped to establish a job creation scheme, the economic situation of the Ilois was so desperate that they demanded an individual share-out. After improving their housing, many Ilois had nothing left and suffered from the high unemployment in Mauritius. They also attempted to gain compensation from the United States, but to date they have not succeeded. Yet the Ilois today are better organised and gaining in confidence. Although they are settled in Mauritius, almost all of them have expressed a wish to return home.
I have had it confirmed today by people who know Mauritius intimately that that is indeed the position—the llois want, as much as ever, if not more than ever, to go back, even only on a temporary basis at first, for such human reasons as attending to family graves.
Is there any question of their going back to an island which is now a massive military base? Coupled with that, what is the future of the Anglo-American agreement? Although the lease is for half a century with the option of another 20 years, have the circumstances altered because of developments in the so-called cold war, or will the base remain because of possible developments in the Gulf or in such countries as Iran and Iraq? Diego Garcia was, in fact, the main American staging post during the Gulf war. I repeat, it is a massive base.
What do Her Majesty's Government believe are the rights of those people who have been dispossessed? On their most modest request, will they be able to go back at least to tend their ancestral graves? I am told that that means a great deal to them.
The position is not exactly happy. I do not expect a favourable answer tonight. In a written question in the other place, the noble Lord Kennet asked the Government
"Whether in the light of the changed international situation they are considering any alteration in the arrangements that currently govern Diego Garcia, and whether its most recent population (other than the personnel of the United States Armed Forces) has expressed any wish to return there."
In reply, Baroness Chalker, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
"There are no present proposals to alter the arrangements currently governing Diego Garcia. The former plantation workers (Ilois) are now largely integrated into Mauritian and Seychellese society. Schemes agreed in 1973 and 1982 to facilitate their resettlement (at a cost to the United Kingdom of £4·65 million) have now been completed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 1992; Vol. 537, c. 28.]

1013
To interpret that parliamentary answer, it said that, from the point of view of the British Government, that was the end of the story. Indeed, on 24 July 1990 I did not do much better when I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
"what are his responsibilities in relation to the Ilois people from the British Indian Ocean Territories who are currently in Mauritius."
The present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then the Minister of State, Foreign Office, replied:
"None. All are Mauritian citizens, although some may also be British dependent territories citizens."—[Official Report, 24 July 1990; Vol. 177, c. 156.]
Then, on 24 October 1990, I asked
"what discussions he has had with the Government of Mauritius on the future of Ilois persons displaced from the British Indian Ocean territory resident in Mauritius."
The answer, again from the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was:
"None. Those concerned were given considerable financial assistance to resettle and their future now lies in Mauritius." —[Official Report, 24 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 217.]
That was a hard answer, and tonight I am really asking the Government to reconsider it—[Interruption.] I think I hear the Minister saying that he cannot reconsider it. At least he can refer the matter to his colleagues.
I want to know about the future of the base. Is it to be American for ever? It was given to the Americans on the basis of a threat relating to the Soviet Union and the red army in circumstances which have changed considerably. I appreciate that it may be unreasonable to expect the Minister to make a statement tonight, but there may be other occasions when such a statement could be forthcoming.
For the sake of completeness, I should read into the record the observations by the Secretary of State on a petition of 12 April 1988 from residents of the United Kingdom for action to secure the return of the Ilois people to Diego Garcia. Responding to that on 9 May 1988, the Secretary of State commented:
"Before the creation of British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965, the status of the Ilois on the Chagos Archipelago was as contract employees of the copra plantation owners. Neither they, nor those permitted by the plantation owners to remain, owned land or houses. They were employees, with licences to reside there at the discretion of the owners, and moved from island to island as the work required. With the establishment of BIOT in 1965 the plantations, by now in economic decline, were purchased by the Crown. When it was decided to make the islands available for joint defence purposes to the United States and United Kingdom governments, the future of the plantations could not be guaranteed, and they were eventually closed.
The Ilois were given the choice of returning to Seychelles or Mauritius; the majority, some 1,200 people, returned to Mauritius where they had close ties, the last arrivals taking place in 1973. Payments totalling nearly £5 million were made towards their settlement. In 1972 Her Majesty's Government paid £650,000 to the Mauritius Government. After years of disagreement about how it was to be spent, the Ilois settled for cash in 1978, by which time accrued interest had raised its value to £936,000. In 1982 the Ilois Trust Fund was set up with an ex-gratia payment of £4 million from the United Kingdom government, the express purpose of which was to assist with the settlement of the Ilois in Mauritius as self-sufficient members of the community. This payment represents a generous, full and final settlement of the Ilois' claims. It was welcomed as such by the Government of Mauritius which, for its part, provided land to the value of £1 million. The Ilois community in Mauritius were fully associated with the Agreement, and its representatives took part in negotiations as members of the all-party Mauritian delegation. In these circumstances a meeting between Her
1014
Majesty's Government, the Mauritian Government and the Ilois, as suggested in the Petition, would be inappropriate and serve no useful purpose."
It may have seemed inappropriate in May 1988, but could there not, in June 1992, be a change of heart on the matter? At least the subject should be reopened, and I am asking tonight for that to happen.
I am not talking about some sort of Sue Lawley desert island but about a people's homeland and a culture which, I am told, has not gone away. Indigenous people have rights on this planet. I urge that those rights be respected.
The House will be relieved to hear that the two other subjects that I wish to raise, and about which I have given notice to the Minister, will not delay hon. Members, because yesterday I was fortunate to catch Madam Speaker's eye and raised—as reported in Hansard at column 878—the issue of the mangroves. In Mauritius, as elsewhere in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, there are some lush mangrove forests with pristine coral reefs, which the hon. Member for Corby has seen and spoken of.
The combination of those two interacting ecosystems produces a vast amount of fish, shellfish and seaweed and provides sustenance and employment for local fishing communities. I gather that the situation in Mauritius is not so bad as it is in some places in the Indian ocean and the Pacific, where coral reefs are dead and mangroves have disappeared.
Considering how many people are now at Rio participating in important discussions, I am entitled to ask whether Her Majesty's Government, and the Overseas Development Administration, have a view about the protection of coral reefs and particularly mangroves. It is a highly important subject.
The third issue I raise concerns the situation of the Aldabra atoll, which I understand has an intimate connection with the Seychelles. A quarter of a century ago, I tabled more than 70 parliamentary questions on the subject. The Minister may consider that I have asked an undue number of questions tonight. They are nothing compared with what happened in the late 1960s when I was questioning the then Labour Government.
I sent those questions to eight leading Americans, such as Glen Seabourg, who was then a senior person in the Atomic Energy Authority and a friend of mine, to crusty old Senator Maclennan of Arkansas, to Ed Wenk, then secretary of the Marine Scientific Council, to Congressman Reuss and to Vice-President Humphrey, who was chairman of the Marine Scientific Council, who had been nice to me in Washington, just as he was agreeable to many other visitors.
They all sent those questions to Secretary McNamara, deluging him and asking for his comments. The final piece of good fortune was that the secretary of the Smithsonian, Dillon Ripley, was passing through London and I had the opportunity to see him at his hotel at midnight. He promised to take my questions to the President of the United States, which was his right as secretary of the Smithsonian. He kept his promise.
As a result of a combination of factors, and partly because of the excellent briefing by the late professor Sir Ashley Miles—it was the first time that the Royal Society had briefed a politician; he was the biological secretary —a head of steam was built up and it was decided that a staging post on Aldabra atoll would be a bad plan. Thank

1015
goodness it worked out that way, because it is a unique ecosystem, and since then it has been set up as a successful outstation of the Royal Society.
The story was further continued when the Royal Society, by amicable agreement, gave up its outstation to a combination of the Seychelles Government, with an input from the Mauritian Government, and the French and American academies of science. As I understand it, it is extremely well run and there are now proposals to have ecotourism of a very disciplined kind.
I would like to ask the Government in 1992 whether they have any locus in the problem of Aldabra. With the developments in Mauritius and, to complete the picture, it has to be said, in the Seychelles, are they certain that this unique ecosystem will be preserved for humanity as it has been during the past quarter of a century?
Aldabra is an extraordinary place, being unique not only for the giant tortoise of the Indian ocean but for the flightless rail and the pink-footed booby. What has defended this and made it all possible is its inaccessibility and the description of the coral as hard and sharp as razor blades. Long may that continue.
What I want to know is whether the advice from the Foreign Office is that all of that will be preserved for mankind or whether we may have problems of possible injury to this unique and important ecosystem. I thank the House for being patient.
8.21 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: I would not attempt to speak with the knowledge and experience of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Corby (Mr. Powell) on the island of Mauritius, but obviously, a Bill of this nature, which involves constitutional change, is always a matter of interest to someone from Northern Ireland. I share the regret of the hon. Member for Corby that the decision has been taken in Mauritius to cease to have the Queen as head of state and instead to become a republic. None the less, that is its decision, and for us this evening it is simply a technical matter to approve the Bill or otherwise. Certainly the Ulster Unionist Members will be supporting it.
I too had the privilege of visiting Mauritius as the guest of its Government some years ago, when I was a Member of another Parliament. As has already been said, it is a most beautiful island. One of the things that really impressed me about it was the fact that it is multiracial and multireligious, and such a combination is somewhat explosive in many islands in the world—we can think of Sri Lanka, Cyprus or even Ireland. There is always a problem when one has a mixture of religions and nationalities.
There has been criticism of the recent election in Mauritius, and some doubt has been cast on whether it was contested fairly and properly, but tributes should be paid to the way in which democracy has thrived in the multiracial society in Mauritius for the past 25 years since it became an independent state.
As I said, Mauritius is a beautiful island. It is good to see its sugar cane industry prospering and to know that the fishing industry is going well, which is more than we can say for the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. It is also good that tourism is flourishing in the island. It benefited considerably when South Africa was cut off from
1016
much of the rest of the world. Mauritius became very much a playground for many South Africans, and that helped the tourist industry to thrive and develop. I would strongly recommend that people go there for a holiday. It is somewhat far away, but it is well worth a visit, and the food is very good. There is still a strong French influence in Mauritius. I suspect that most people who live there do not call it Mauritius—it is more likely to be called Ile Maurice—but that is by the way.
There is one final point that I want to place on record, which will always be a lifelong memory of my visit to the island—the fact that a young man from Wales, who obviously has the surname of Jones, has dedicated most of his life to preserving the pink pigeon in Mauritius. It had almost become extinct. Only eight living birds remained. He dedicated his life to maintaining that breed of bird, and I am glad to say that he is being successful. I am glad to have this opportunity to place on record a tribute to his work.
8.24 pm
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This has been a short debate, but certainly one of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) demonstrated how, in the British Parliament, there is always someone who has contact with and experience in every area of the world, just as there is always someone who has experience and knowledge of every subject in the globe. One might include the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with his wide range of knowledge and the inquiry and interest that he pursues, under that heading.
Mauritius is certainly a success story. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby said, and as the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) also commented, the per capita income of the Mauritian people in 1989 was just under US $2,000 per year. I expect that the figure has risen since then, but that is the latest figure that I have. That is a remarkable achievement for a third-world country with very little natural resource in a part of the world where per capita incomes are low and for a country which is isolated by poor communications, which Mauritius undoubtedly is. Mauritius is also a success story in terms of democracy since its independence.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that the Labour party supported the Bill, and I am grateful to him for that. But he raised certain anxieties which I have no doubt will be considered by people at a high level in the Government of Mauritius. I am sure that the debate will be followed with interest in the newspapers of Mauritius and that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be read by a wide audience.
I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's allegations and criticisms, but I want to make one or two general points abut the constitutional arrangements in Mauritius over the years. As I say, it is an example of a small third-world country with historic connections with Britain, about which we all know, which has had considerable success in the path of democracy since independence.
The general election on 15 September 1991 resulted in a landslide victory for Sir Anerood Jugnauth's ruling coalition. As the hon. Gentleman said, 57 of the 62 seats were won by the ruling party, four Opposition Members were added under a best loser system, and all that is to be compared with 39 seats won by the Opposition in 1987.

1017
The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns that have been raised with him by his friends in Mauritius and, in particular, the distinguished parliamentarian, Dr. Navin Ramgoolam, the son of an even more distinguished father, if one may put it like that. I cannot comment on those allegations, but we understand that an appeal might come from Mauritius on the question of alleged vote rigging. We understand also that a candidate in the election has lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Mauritius for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee, but that final leave to appeal has not yet been granted. That matter will be for judicial consideration, and I have no doubt that it will be properly attended to by whatever judicial forums it goes before.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked a series of questions. We are all aware that he is a campaigner of tenacity. He demonstrated that again tonight. An issue that he first raised 25 years or 26 years ago remains one that he pursues today. He never lets go. I am sure that we have not heard his last word on the subject even tonight, and that as long as there is breath in his body the hon. Member for Linlithgow will continue to serve as a distinguished parliamentarian—as he has done ever since I first entered the House, and I know before—and to raise issues about which he feels strongly.
I will make some comments, but I am afraid that they will not satisfy the hon. Member for Linlithgow as a fundamental change of Government policy. We are strongly of the view that the future of the plantation in Diego Garcia could not have been assured at any early date. Once the trade in copra with Mauritius ceased, there was no viable economy in the islands.
In 1966, the then British Government—which the hon. Member for Linlithgow honourably admitted was a Labour Government—offered the choice of resettlement in Mauritius or in the Seychelles. As most of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia maintained close ties with Mauritius, the majority of them—some 1,200 people—settled there, with the final arrivals in 1973.
The hon. Gentleman told the story as he understood it. I am sure that he was carefully briefed at the time, maintained his notes in his files, and has refreshed his memory. His briefing was certainly fuller than that which I received, so I cannot comment in detail on all the matters that he raised. Nevertheless, I can confirm certain facts.
There were two substantial ex gratia payments to the Ilois people—a sum of £650,000 first, and a further sum of £4 million in 1982. That constituted substantial compensation of nearly £5 million, which is presumably worth double today. The money was administered for the benefit of the ex-islanders' community by a trust established by the Mauritius Government, who agreed to make available land for resettlement worth £1 million.
Those funds were made available to a total of 1,200 men, women, and children, and should be viewed as generous payments. No one could reasonably argue that those were not generous sums of money for just over 1,000 people. On a per capita basis, the total produces a significant sum of money for each individual concerned.
Mr. Dalyell: I was asked by The Sunday Times to review Sir Sonny Ramphal's remarkable book, "Our Country the Planet", and I invite the Minister and his advisers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to read those passages in which Sir Sonny argues at some length, and extremely convincingly, that no price can be put on rain forests.
1018
Equally, I suspect that there is no price that relatively simple people can be asked to put on their atoll. One cannot consider it in monetary terms—it is their being and their life. Their ancestors died there. One cannot say that they all arrived just like that—there were indigenous people there.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman shows himself the campaigner he is, in holding the view that one cannot put a price on a person's home in the way that I described the situation. However, the British Government have received no recent representation of which I am aware from the Ilois people. All the evidence we have—I know that the hon. Gentleman might challenge this—suggests that the bulk of the population are fully integrated into Mauritian society.
I cannot from this Dispatch Box tonight—the hon. Gentleman knows this—reconsider the answers that the hon. Gentleman was given. I am afraid that there is no possibility of the former Ilois plantation workers returning.
As to the mangrove swamps, the environment is one of our agreed priority areas for assistance to Mauritius. We note the reference in the Mauritius environmental action plan to mangrove swamps as nursery grounds for shrimp and fish. The problem has been properly identified in the eyes of the Mauritian Government, but it is not identified in the plan as a matter for donors' action. We have not been asked to assist in that area, so we have not taken a view upon it. If a request for assistancee were made, we would consider it.
We are very active in other environmental areas. Management assistance is given by the Severn Trent water authority to the Mauritius central water authority, and in the next aid talks we have to agree a project for assisting the environmental development of certain northern islets. Both projects represent contributions to the Mauritian Government's action plan, and we are also funding a scheme to assist the mapping of state lands.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred also to Aldabra. During business questions to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House yesterday, which were my guide, the hon. Gentleman referred to the matter of Aldabra's status, which he raised tonight. I am afraid that I took that to mean Aldabra's constitutional status, not its environmental status.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister is quite correct: I did mean Aldebra's constitutional status.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will comment on its constitutional status, but I cannot say anything about its environmental status—other than that I have some personal knowledge that Aldabra is a beautiful example of a pristine environment. The campaign against a staging post launched by the hon. Member for Linlithgow was described at the time by The Daily Telegraph as a personal triumph, and the hon. Gentleman should legitimately take some credit for the fact that no staging post was built on Aldabra.
The islands of Aldabra, Desroches, and Farquhar were returned to the Seychelles on their independence in 1976. They had historically always been part of the Seychelles group since the acquisition following the Napoleonic wars. The present constitutional position of the islands is not in

1019
any doubt. As far as I am aware, there is no claim to sovereignty in respect of those islands by any Government against the Seychelles sovereign.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has been more than courteous, and I thank him genuinely for the trouble that he has taken. May I leave him with one thought, however?
It would, of course, be fatuous to suppose that the Minister could make an announcement of substance tonight, but will he ask his colleagues, particularly the Foreign Secretary, whether they see a case for at least talking seriously to the Americans about the future of the lease—be it 50 or 70 years—in such changed circumstances? All this was done when the fear of Russia was still present. Now the ball game is different, and I should have thought that there was a case for at least reopening the discussion.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Again, the hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own incomparable way. I have no doubt that he will pursue the subject with vigour, as he pursues so many other subjects, but I can give him no undertaking that the Government will give serious consideration to the points that he raises.
I congratulate Mauritius on its achievements since independence, on sustaining a truly successful working parliamentary democracy, and on establishing a prosperous and rapidly developing economy. It has, on occasion, been described as a model for other developing countries—rightly, in my view. I am sure that every hon. Member wishes the republic a prosperous future—a future in which the friendly relationship that it enjoys with people in Britain continues, and in which the royal family are still loved, although it will no longer be a realm.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.
—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
8.44 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the Minister again for the trouble that he has taken.
Let me repeat that indigenous societies, however small, have some moral rights in the latter part of the 20th century to return to their homelands—especially when the uses to which their homelands have been put have been changed by world circumstances. That should be borne in mind even in the case of a small and rather simple people.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Island Communities (Argyll)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
8.45 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: I am sure that it is a relief to the Minister and everyone else concerned that this debate is not, after all, taking place in the wee small hours, as we had been warned that it might. I therefore welcome the opportunity of raising the question of the Government's economic and social policies for island communities in Argyll, which is a subject of paramount importance to my constituents, to me and, indeed, to all highlanders.
There are many islands, large and small, off the coast of Argyll. Argyll derives its name from the word Erraghaidheal, meaning in Gaelic "the boundary of the Gaels": as he takes stock, the Prime Minister might do well to note that it was at Dunadd, near Crinan, that—around 500 AD—the first seeds were sown from which Scotland grew as a unified nation and state.
What I want to examine tonight, however, is the Government's strategy, or lack of it, in regard to the islands and their communities. Theirs is a sad history. There is the jewelled beauty of Jura, once populated with a people living a life balanced with nature, and now almost empty. I am told that Jura used to export 1,000 head of cattle a year until the clearances and the appearances of the "white plague", as the sheep were called when they were brought in. Then there are the deserted and lonely glens of Mull, the families who are leaving Colonsay because no houses are available, and the indigenous folk of Coll, now a minority. All have suffered the ravages of time, the infamous clearances, Governments without vision, and depopulation, with the resulting loss of language, culture and traditions.
My particular concern, however, is to bring to the Minister's attention the plight of the island of Gigha. Gigha—not a Gaelic but a Norse name, meaning, I believe, "god's island"—lies three miles off the coast of Kintyre in my constituency. It has a population of about 140, with nine children in the school. Some people are—or were—employed in agriculture, fishing, fish farming, the hotel, the shop and the estate.
Today, the island is in the hands of a Swiss bank as a result of the owner—a property speculator—going bust. The previous owner bought it for an estimated £3 million, and sold it in 1989 for £5·4 million; today, it is once more up for grabs at an estimated £7 million.
In the previous debate on Mauritius the Minister observed that one cannot put a price on a person's home. According to a director of the Edinburgh agents, Savilles, who are advertising the sale of the island,
"Gigha is very much a little paradise on its own. You would buy it for its charm and privacy, to own your own little country."
That says it all. There is not a word about the people who live in the place. I visited the island recently. The hotel has been closed. Padlocks are snapped on to the doors of other properties. The mood of the people ranged from anger to despair. Some felt humiliated. All of them were anxious about their future.
The Minister is aware that I wrote to the Secretary of State in March of this year. I reminded him that this was exactly what I had sought to avoid when I tabled

1021
amendments aimed at controlling the sale of Scottish land during the passage of the Scottish Enterprise Bill in 1987. I wanted Highlands and Islands Enterprise to be vested with speedy and effective purchase powers to protect those living on Gigha from being exposed to the vagaries of a market that threatens their livelihoods and the whole character of the island.
I pointed out to the Secretary of State that
"the assumption that the island and its way of life could be used simply a s collateral in the affairs of a speculative property empire was offensive to anyone with even the most primary understanding of the need to maintain continuity in the rural economy, upon which much of our social stability depends."
I said also:
"We shall never achieve a stable and equitable society in Scotland if this kind of market practice is allowed to prevail in the disposition of its land, perhaps its greatest asset."
During the debate on the Highlands and islands Enterprise Bill, I was not talking about nationalisation of the land, or even compulsory purchase. In fact, I tabled a probing amendment on the powers of the former Highlands and Islands Development Board. I tried to persuade the Government that Highlands and Islands Enterprise should have powers relating to land use and its development, for the better quality of life of the people in the area. To have given Highlands and Islands Enterprise pre-emptive rights of purchase in limited cases, with suitable safeguards, to make better use of the land and to secure the social viability of a place such as Gigha was at the heart of my argument.
The Minister knows that Highlands and islands Enterprise was given the general function of economic and social development, together with training and environmental improvements, but I maintain that it is not possible to do that effectively without considering land ownership and land use. The Minister will be aware of television and press reports which highlighted the fact that huge areas of land in the Highlands and Islands are often bought and sold by unknown purchasers, or are owned by shadowy, anonymous companies incorporated in places such as Liechtenstein, Switzerland and the Caribbean.
The laws and conventions governing land ownership in Scotland go back to the dim and distant past. Only a few people have a real stake in that land. The power of land ownership has had profound influence on rural land use and rural communities. Do not get me wrong: there are good and bad landlords, and those who are deemed to be good care for and feel responsible for those who live on their land. However, until a Government have the courage to tackle the problem of feudal land ownership, it will remain a running sore and a cause of deep resentment and bitterness. The English had the good sense to get rid of their feudal system hundreds of years ago, in 1290. For us to retain in Scotland the titles of superior and vassal in this modern day and age is beyond belief.
To return to my letter to the Secretary of State, I was surprised and not a little taken aback when I received a rather curt reply not from the Secretary of State but from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). Its peremptory tone leads me to believe that it was not written by the Minister, who usually deals with these matters in a more courteous and understanding manner. At the end of his very short letter he said:
"The compulsory approach"—
although that is not exactly what I was advocating—
1022
"as Ian Lang made clear, is incompatible with economic growth and development."
What kind of an answer is that? Not a word was said about the social consequences. Reference was made only to economic growth and development. I do not understand how a Minister with responsibility for matters affecting the highlands and islands can adopt so irresponsible an attitude to the social economy of the island.
Even the most elementary understanding of the need for stability and continuity in a rural economy must acknowledge that to expose an island such as Gigha to unfettered market forces simply turns it into a shuttlecock for financial speculators. Failure to secure continuity in a rural economy such as this is one of the greatest dangers to its prosperity. That danger now faces Gigha because of the lack of an adequate policy over Scottish land disposal.
I had hoped that the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 would allow us to have a second bite at the cherry. There are powers to purchase in order to establish nature reserves. The Minister said that these are powers of last resort, to be used in emergencies. I do not advocate that Gigha should be made into a nature reserve—far from it —but the island faces an emergency.
Scottish Natural Heritage was established in order to secure the conservation and enhancement of the natural heritage of Scotland, the flora and fauna of Scotland, its geological and physiographical features, its natural beauty and its amenity. Section 3(1)(f) of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 also made it a duty of Scottish Natural Heritage to take account of the interests of local communities. How can SNH use the powers to protect the future of the island of Gigha? How are the contents of the Minister's recent letter compatible with the thrust of the Act which set out such admirable intentions?
The Government's stand-off attitude saddens me. Another example is the fact that the Kartli still lies wrecked off the shore of the island. Sadly, it was hit by a huge wave just before Christmas. It contains 400 tonnes of rotting fish which has not been removed and is now beginning to smell. The ship will soon break up and no Government Department seems to be able or willing to take responsibility for doing anything about it.
It is worth noting that this week the Government are going out of their way to rescue the investors at Canary Wharf in London by considering moving the Departments of the Environment and Transport out to that bankrupt development. Perhaps the Minister would consider moving a Scottish Office Department to Gigha.
I have endeavoured to acquaint the Minister with the problems facing my constituents on Gigha. I should like to suggest some solutions. First, he should purchase the island via either Highlands and Islands Enterprise, SNH or the Agriculture and Fisheries Department of the Scottish Office, which is already a landowner. Secondly, he should undertake a review of the laws governing land ownership in Scotland. Thirdly, he should agree to abolish the archaic feudal system.
By designating the islands of Argyll as environmentally sensitive areas, the Government have already acknowledged that they are of national environmental significance; that includes Gigha. How will the Government respond? What policy or strategy does the Minister have to deal with this? If the Minister's answer is negative, as regrettably I expect it to be, this Adjournment debate, if it achieves nothing else, will at least have served to show the prospective buyers of the island of Gigha the

1023
commitment and responsibility that I, and I hope the Minister, would expect them to discharge towards the islanders.
9.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on securing this Adjournment debate. I know that the economic and social well-being of the many small island communities in her constituency is a subject close to her heart, and her words will have struck a sympathetic chord with all who hold the islands of Scotland dear. In view of the many changes taking place in the hon. Lady's constituency, it is entirely appropriate that we should take this opportunity to take stock and examine the progress we have made.
I am delighted to be able to use this occasion to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the island communities of Argyll. This year, we have increased the budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Government's agency for furthering economic and social development in the highlands and islands, to £77 million. In recognition of the particular problems occurring in the hon. Lady's constituency due to the withdrawal of the United States Navy from Cowal, this sum includes an additional £3 million towards the regeneration of the Cowal area.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise has responded by awarding Argyll and the Islands Enterprise, the local enterprise company concerned, the highest allocation of resources of any local enterprise company in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network. Its budget of over £12 million has been increased by well over 20 per cent. compared with last year's budget. Thanks to Scottish Office policies, control over local matters is taking place at local level. Action to promote economic and social regeneration is being carried out by those who understand the area and have a stake in its future.
I have every confidence that Argyll and the Islands Enterprise under the chairmanship of Norman Walker will give priority to the island communities for which it is responsible, and will respond to local needs efficiently and effectively.
Our commitment to the people of Argyll and Bute is further illustrated by the substantial increase in the capital spending allocations that we have been able to give to Argyll and Bute district council for its non-housing capital programmes. Historically, the council has received an allocation of around £750,000 a year. We increased that to £825,000 for 1991–92, when it became clear that there would be problems in Cowal following closure of the naval base at Holy Loch.
Subsequently, we received the Cowal task force report. In the light of the implications of that report, we have increased the council's allocations further to £1·1 million for 1992–93, this figure being maintained provisionally for 1993–94 and 1994–95. An increase of 57 per cent. over the level of allocation the council received previously, amounting to £1·2 million over three years, gives Argyll and Bute district council greatly increased flexibility. I am delighted that we have been able to help, and I know that the council will respond in like spirit.
1024
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that the island of Gigha means God's island. I share her concern about the circumstances surrounding the proposed sale. The Scottish Office fully recognises how worrying recent events must have been for the people who live and work on Gigha, which is a lovely island with a population of about 150. Farming and fisheries, including fish farming, provide the main source of employment. The local hotel, which is well known to many visitors, is also important. This is a clear example of a fragile community on the periphery of Europe—precisely the sort of community whose wellbeing is treated by Highlands and Islands Enterprise as among its most cherished priorities.
I sympathise with those who lost their jobs, but we should not take a too pessimistic view of their situation. I am confident that, when the island is in new hands, there will be scope for their re-employment. Meanwhile, they are underpinned by the usual welfare arrangements and by the mutual help which is such a strength of Scotland's remote rural communities.
Tenancies are protected by the various housing and agriculture Acts. Farm leases are governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, under which a long-standing tenancy can pass to the successors of a deceased tenant. Landlords can serve incontestable notices to quit only where the successor is not a near relative. I shall be only too ready to look into any immediate cases of personal hardship on the hon. Lady's behalf. I feel sure that she will get in touch with me if I can assist.
For the longer term, I feel confident that Gigha will survive the present crisis. I know that Argyll and the Islands Enterprise fully recognise Gigha's problems of fragility and remoteness. It is monitoring the situation, and once the ownership position is clarified, it will stand ready to assist in economic and social development if and where a need is established. I understand why the hon. Member is so interested in the circumstances of the sale, but it is essentially a private matter which I am sure will be resolved by those concerned.
Highland land use has long been a particularly difficult and sensitive issue. Some appear to believe that all land in the Scottish highlands should be subject to a more or less compulsory purchase regime, under which a corporate body such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise had powers of purchase or direction. That power would be available if a corporate body believed that the land was being misused or neglected.
The Scottish Office is opposed to that approach. We believe that it is interventionist in character and that it assumes that corporate bodies are in a better position to determine how land should be used than those directly involved. We believe that land matters should be dealt with on the basis of consultation and mutual co-operation. We are confident that the future prosperity of the highlands and islands is best served by the removal of anti-competitive rules. We have no plans to introduce nationality or residence requirements for purchasers of land or property. The nationality of a landowner does not determine the quality of his management or the welfare of his employees.
This does not mean that we believe that the legal framework should be set in tablets of stone. At the Government's request, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is well aware, the Scottish Law Commission is carrying out a detailed review of property law in Scotland, including an investigation into

1025
the so-called feudal system. We intend to await the commission's detailed conclusions and recommendations before considering whether and what changes in the law are needed. That is still some time away; meanwhile, ownership matters should be resolved within the framework of existing law. Land ownership is not a matter on which I have a locus to intervene. However persuasive the hon. Lady is, I do not wish to adopt the mantle of paternalism in this matter.
The hon. Lady also asked about Scottish Natural Heritage. I shall make inquiries about whether it could conceivably have a role in Gigha, and if so, in what circumstances. If I may, I shall write to her about that.
The hon. Lady also asked about Kartli, the Russian vessel. We have taken an interest in the matter because of the implications for our environmental responsibilities. It has taken time for arrangements for disposal to be put in place because the owners responsible for such arrangements are from the new republic of the Ukraine, but United Kingdom lawyers acting on their behalf have appointed a salvage contractor to dispose of the cargo and vessel when the necessary funds arrive in this country, which we hope will be in the next few days. I am glad to confirm that there have been no adverse effects on the marine environment as a result of the incident, but we shall continue to keep a close eye on it.
I shall give some examples of assistance to island communities in Argyll. Practical assistance to island communities is a high priority of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise network. Projects which have been assisted in Argyll include the development of a shellfish farm, an adventure school, a chocolate factory, and workshop premises. Argyll and the Islands Enterprise in its first year of operation has in fact provided assistance towards 59 islands-based projects worth nearly £1 million, creating more than 60 new jobs. That is well above the job creation target which had been set, and it is a creditable performance.
There are also several large cases in the pipeline, ranging from tourist developments to environmental improvements. These are not isolated projects the Highlands and Islands Development Board, forerunner of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, long recognised the importance to island communities of economic and social development.
Assistance to cases in the Argyll islands has ranged from just a few hundred pounds in Tiree to tens of thousands of pounds in Islay. I am sure, for example, that the hon. Lady, like me, is delighted at the success of the Mactaggart Pool on Islay, an excellent example of a successful partnership of the voluntary sector, the private sector, public agencies and local authorities. HIDB also provided economic assistance to the refurbishment of the winter gardens in Rothesay, helping to retain a building of architectural value in a prominent part of the town. Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are following it with a new initiative—the Bute partnership—which has worked out proposals to regenerate Rothesay town centre.
These proposals have still to be endorsed by the partnership's main funding partners. Meanwhile, Rothesay has already benefited from projects such as the refurbishment of a hotel, creating 11 jobs, arid the relocation and development of a food manufacturing business.
1026
Perhaps it would assist the hon. Lady if I said a little about Cowal. The effectiveness of Scottish Office policies is illustrated by what is happening there. In little over a year from the United States Navy's announcement of its withdrawal from the base, the local enterprise company set up the Cowal initiative to prepare and implement an action plan for the area. The Cowal task force is now taking these proposals forward. Advance factory units are being built at Sandbank, the eyesore of Robertson's yard is being removed and the local swimming pool is being refurbished.
I greatly look forward to seeing these developments for myself, and I am in touch with Argyll and the Islands Enterprise about suitable dates. I will, of course, let the hon. Lady know well in advance when a visit to her constituency is arranged, and will be delighted if she will join me on that occasion, as she did when I visited Caledonian MacBrayne.
In the hon. Lady's constituency as a whole, Argyll and the Islands Enterprise is of course making a tremendous impact for the better. Its land renewal work at Oban is the largest single project of its kind in the whole of the HIE network area. Perhaps I could single out one general project which is of enormous significance for the whole of Argyll: the British Telecom Highlands and Island initiative.
This joint initiative between Highlands and Islands Enterprise and British Telecom is bringing enormous benefits to the Highlands and Islands. Throughout the whole of this remote area on the edge of Europe, access to the dial plus is now the rule. In terms of quality, the people of the Highlands and Islands enjoy a better service than, for example, anything available in comparable areas of rural England, such as Northumberland or Cornwall.
For business users, the system provides faster, cheaper and safer transmission of data. This facility enables distance or tele working, and reduces the obstacles once encountered by those working in remote rural areas, enabling them to compete on equal terms with those working in more accessible parts of the country.
The Government take every opportunity to stress the special needs of areas such as the islands of Argyll to the European Commission in Brussels. All possible steps are and will be taken to ensure that such areas derive the maximum possible benefit from European funding.
Argyll comes under the Highlands and Islands objective 5(b) programme, which aims to promote the development of rural areas. It is eligible for support from all three European structural funds—the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, commonly known as FEOGA. Under the Highlands and Islands programme of community interest 1988–91, the island communities in Argyll have benefited by almost £4 million from European regional development funding.
Within the communications sub-programme, almost £3 million was approved in support of projects such as cattle grid improvements, safety fencing, and pier fender upgrading on Mull; road and bridge upgrading and strengthening on Mull, Islay and Bute; and ferry service improvements to Coll and Tiree. To provide water services, to improve inadequate, inconsistent or poor-quality water supply to remedy the lack of adequate sewerage facilities, almost £1 million of European regional development funding has been made available to Arran, Tiree and Islay.

1027
Tourism development is important to the economies of the Argyll island communities. In support of that, the European Commission has provided over £100,000 to develop a heritage trail at Tiree and the creation of a residential centre in the sparsely populated south-west of Mull. The Argyll area also benefits from the LEADER community initiative, which aims to encourage diversification in rural areas. Out of the £4·5 million allocated to LEADER in Scotland, £900,000 was earmarked to be spent in Argyll between 1992 and 1994. The island communities will benefit from part of that allocation.
All this means that, in European terms, the islands of Argyll are given substantial priority and recognition. I assure the hon. Lady that we will not lose sight of the European dimension when working for the well-being of her constituency.
I shall touch briefly on the ferry services about which the hon. Lady spoke so passionately when we considered bus privatisation. We recognise that many small island communities are almost wholly dependent on the ferry service for contacts and trade with the outside world. Ferry services provide a vital transport service for both people and goods, and are therefore vital to maintain the social and economic development of the islands and to facilitate the growth of industries such as tourism.
We stand by the commitment to continue to provide financial support to Caledonian MacBrayne for ferry services which are necessary to maintain and improve social and economic conditions in the islands. Examples of that commitment to the continuing development of ferry services to islands off the Argyll mainland are the new linkspans on Coll and Tiree, which will become operational in June and provide a much improved roll-on/roll-off service to Oban.
Later this year, a larger vessel will be introduced on the service to Gigha, with increased capacity for vehicles and passengers and offering a full roll-on/roll-off service. Next year, it is planned that the Kennacraig-Islay service will be provided, with additional capacity and an improved standard of service. Those examples illustrate the Government's concern, and continuing commitment, to make available the resources required to maintain and improve essential ferry services.
It is worth my touching briefly on the reform of the common agricultural policy, which is also important to the hon. Lady's constituency. Agriculture and fishing, of course, remain vital elements in the economy of the islands. I am sure that the island communities will be well aware of the significance of the recent agreement on reform of the CAP. In the short time available, I will mention only a few key points.
The most important thing to note is that, on balance, the CAP reform package holds out real, tangible benefits for the agricultural community in the Scottish islands. In particular, it offers our farmers some relief from the prolonged blight of uncertainty.
The agreement reached two weeks ago in Brussels marks a turning point for agricultural policy in western Europe. In future, support prices for cereals will more closely reflect market prices, and agricultural support will be channelled more directly towards the farmer. That
1028
support will increasingly take account of the contribution that farmers and crofters make to the conservation of our countryside. Consumers will benefit through lower prices.
The final terms of the agreement represent a tremendous achievement for the United Kingdom negotiating team in Brussels and especially for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The EC Commission's attempts to discriminate against larger farms were comprehensively dismissed. That will come as a great relief to farmers in Scotland, where our flocks and herds and farms are larger not just than the European average but than the British average.
The Brussels agreement includes a new premium for beef farmers aimed at supporting extensive production. It retains support for livestock farmers in the less favoured areas, recognising just how important farming is in our remote and disadvantaged rural areas. For sheep and beef, the new arrangements should help to protect the livelihoods of farmers in the highlands and islands who have, in recent years, suffered from the growth of livestock businesses in the lowlands.
Of course, that is not the whole story. Agriculture in the islands will continue to face financial pressures. If we are to retain viable farming communities, we must help farmers and crofters to adjust. For that reason, specific programmes have been set up for farmers and crofters in the highlands and islands. The agricultural development programme, for example, has been in place since 1988. Since then, around 300 farm development plans and a similar number of livestock development plans have been approved for farms and crofts in the Argyll area and small islands alone.
Those plans will attract grants of more than £5·5 million for farm improvements and new businesses. That injection of resources will have wider economic benefits. The rural enterprise programme, which we extended last year to parts of Argyll, aims in particular to encourage new businesses in those areas linked to the agricultural holdings.
In the view of the hon. Lady's keen interest in environmental matters, I stress that we have given a substantial boost to environmentally friendly farming in Scotland with the recent announcement to designate five new environmentally sensitive areas and to extend and improve the first two ESAs. I am pleased to say that one of those new areas to be designated will be the Argyll islands, which will include the islands of Islay, Jura, Coll, Tiree, Colonsay, Iona, Mull, Gigha and other small islands. That announcement and the inclusion of those islands have already been given enthusiastic support by environmental bodies.
In common with the existing ESAs, those new schemes will be tailored to the local circumstances to help conserve areas of landscape, wildlife or historic values. The designation will allow many farmers and crofters in these islands to take advantage of enhanced payments for positive environmental management.
There are many other matters that I could mention, but the hon. Lady has not touched on them tonight. I end by thanking her for raising these matters. I will write to her on the subject of Scottish Natural Heritage.
I am sure that, even from this brief debate, the hon. Lady will appreciate that the island communities of Argyll are far from neglected. Every opportunity is and will be taken to ensure that those communities are no less advantaged than the more central areas of Scotland. In

1029
some ways, the islands of Argyll offer a quality of life unobtainable in mainland areas, which is why, if the hon. Lady invites civil servants to Gigha with great enthusiasm, she may find that more go than she expects. I have every confidence that Argyll island communities will continue to
1030
benefit from the Government's economic and social policies. I thank the hon. Lady for raising these matters tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-jour minutes past Nine o'clock.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit and running costs limit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Mellor
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The running cost limit for class XII, vote 4 of £2,410,000 will be increased by £3,164,000 to £5,574,000. The running cost limit for class VIII, vote 6, will be £8,356,000 as before on the transfer of responsibility for that vote from the Department of the Environment to the Department of National Heritage. The total running cost limit therefore becomes £13,930,000.

  The increase gives effect to the creation of the new Department of National Heritage. It takes provisions in respect of the functions transferred from the Office of Arts and Libraries, the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education to form the new Department. The increase will be met by payments from these Departments and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Football Grounds
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if there is to be a reconsideration of the policy towards the all-seating requirement at football matches.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government keep under continual scrutiny the safety of sports grounds. We continue to support the principles of improved spectator safety and comfort which were set out by Lord Justice Taylor in his final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster. In recent months we have been examining the all-seating requirement for Football League grounds in the context of the representations that have been made and our concern to ensure the highest standards of safety given all the factors involved, including the size of particular grounds, league status and the financial health of the clubs concerned. However, the safety of our sports grounds must remain paramount.

  We have decided that it would be wrong to review either the principle or the timetable for all seating at first division grounds in the Football League, the new premier league. It is essential that our top clubs meet the standards necessary to compete in Europe and make full use of the resources available to them to provide grounds of which we can all be proud. We also remain firmly committed to the principle of all-seating for the great majority of second division clubs.
  602
  However, there may be equally compelling reasons not to proceed with an all-seating requirement at all third and fourth division clubs in the Football League. We also need to consider the position of those second division clubs with very low average attendances. Further representations are being invited from a number of interested organisations to assist me in finalising our re-examination of these and related issues. I have set a four-week period for the receipt of these further views and I shall announce my conclusions speedily thereafter.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will make a separate statement about the position in Scotland.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Postgraduate Student Awards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will increase the amount of money available to research councils and similar bodies for funding postgraduate student awards.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The five research councils, the Royal Society and the Fellowship of Engineering receive substantial funding through the science budget to develop and maintain a world competitive United Kingdom science base. Within the resources available to them, the research councils are free to determine the numbers of postgraduate awards they make and the level of tax-free maintenance grant paid to students.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of the total work force of the civil service are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within the civil service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A total of 1·4 per cent. of civil servants are registered as disabled. This is above the proportion —1·2 per cent.—of people registered disabled in the work force as a whole. In addition, the civil service employs many people with disabilities who have chosen not to register. Progress on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service is reported on annually in the OMCS publication "Independent", copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

  My Department issues a revised code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service in 1990 and will continue to develop and spread best practice and to monitor progress. A recent initiative is the development by the Civil Service college of positive action training for staff with disabilities.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if there are any proposals to change the 1992–93 cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service—class XIX, vote 1—will be increased by £436,000 from £38,023,000 to £38,459,000. The Department's running costs limit will be increased by £3,759,000 from £45,339,000 to £49,098,000.
  603
  The increase is required to reflect the machinery of government changes announced after the general election and to cover the increased costs of physical security. The latter will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets have been set for his Department's executive agencies in 1992–93.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister for the Civil Service) has three executive agencies; the Civil Service college, the Civil Service Occupational Health Service and Recruitment and Assessment Services. The primary target for each agency is to cover its costs in trading terms from income. In addition, the following key targets have been set for each agency in 1992–93.

  Civil Service College

  (i) To earn £157,000 from consultancy.

  (ii) To attract amongst the students from the Civil Service —6,050 at Grade 7 or above, and 2,400 below Grade 7 who are in development schemes.

  (iii) To attract 2,100 students for externally validated qualifications.

  (iv) To attract 550 students from the private sector.

  (v) To earn 79 per cent. of course evaluations in the two highest categories.

  There is also a value-for-money target whereby the rating of college services as revealed by a detailed survey of the views of students must increase over the five-year period to 1995 by 10 per cent. more than the real cost of the college's output.

  Civil Service Occupational Health Service

  (i) To achieve a cost per productive professional day (including administrative and overhead costs) of £267 or less.

  (ii) To achieve an average cost per case referral of £24 or less.

  (iii) To earn 78 per cent. of customer post-service evaluations in the two highest categories.

  (iv) To turn round within 40 days 65 per cent. of case referrals where additional information is sougth and within 15 days 87 per cent. of referrals where no additional information is sought.

  Recruitment and Assessment Services

  (i) To achieve volumes of business of 470 comprehensive recruitment schemes, 180 partial recruitment schemes and 1,000 consultancy days.

  (ii) To achieve income of £565,000 from the sale and marketing of biodata and tests, £160,000 from publicity services and £60,000 from 'Helpline' and related ad hoc services.

  (iii) To increase productivity by 15 per cent. over forecast 1991–92 levels.

  (iv) To improve the quality of service to recruitment customers and achieve the following ratings in customer sign off reports—Overall satisfaction 86 per cent.—Administration 81 per cent.

ENVIRONMENT

  Competitive Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which responsibilities have been transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of National Heritage in relation to compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.
  604
  Mr. Howard
  Responsibility for sport, including policy on compulsory competitive tendering for the management of sports and leisure facilities, was transferred from my Department to the Department of Education and Science in November 1990, and thence to the Department of National Heritage when it was established, in April 1992. My Department retains responsibility for compulsory competitive tendering generally and for implementation of the relevant legislation.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and if he will give an estimate for 1992–93;

  (2) if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his latest estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  The information in respect of paid publicity and associated staff costs for my Department (including agencies) is:

  £ million

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  4·2

  1987–88

  4·8

  1988–89

  6·9

  1989–90

  31·5

  1990–91

  7·5

  1991–92

  8·1

  1992–93

  117·7

  1 Estimate.

  Expenditure is not broken down between different publicity media. Information relating to financial years 1979–20 to 1984–25 inclusive is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the English local authorities in receipt of part of the £15 million allocation of supplementary credit approvals for recycling investment during 1992–23 and the total amount allocated to each authority.

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

  Authority

  Amount £'000

  London authorities

  Camden

  177·365

  Croydon

  180·000

  Ealing

  460·000

  Greenwich

  86·000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  86·000

  Haringey

  18·000

  Havering

  11·000

  Hounslow

  80·861

  Kingston upon Thames

  13·000

  Lambeth

  20·000

  Merton

  50·000

  North London Waste Authority

  600·000

  Richmond upon Thames

  40·000

  605

  Authority

  Amount £'000

  Southwark

  78·000

  Sutton

  183·000

  Waltham Forest

  162·000

  Metropolitan Authorities

  Barnsley

  65·000

  Bolton

  25·000

  Calderdale

  25·500

  Doncaster

  67·000

  Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority

  90·000

  Kirklees

  10·700

  Leeds

  1,412·000

  Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority

  85·000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  160·000

  North Tyneside

  10·000

  Salford

  12·000

  South Tyneside

  24·420

  Sunderland

  10·000

  Wakefield

  44·000

  Walsall

  95·000

  West Yorkshire Waste Management Joint Committee

  979·000

  Wolverhampton

  155·500

  County Councils

  Berkshire

  20·000

  Cambridgeshire

  181·000

  Cheshire

  225·000

  Cornwall

  254·000

  Devon

  215·000

  Durham

  100·000

  Gloucestershire

  95·000

  Hampshire

  430·000

  Hereford and Worcester

  55·000

  Humberside

  40·000

  Leicestershire

  320·000

  Norfolk

  80·000

  North Yorkshire

  74·000

  Oxfordshire

  400·000

  Somerset

  54·000

  Staffordshire

  5·500

  Suffolk

  15·000

  District Councils

  Adur

  430·000

  Allerdale

  30·000

  Alnwick

  3·000

  Arun

  10·000

  Bassetlaw

  6·500

  Bath

  17·000

  Blaby

  7·500

  Bolsover

  30·000

  Bracknell Forest

  150·000

  Braintree

  15·000

  Brighton

  115·000

  Bristol

  185·000

  Broxbourne

  40·000

  Burnley

  40·000

  Carlisle

  19·000

  Castle Morpeth

  60·000

  Castle Point

  12·000

  Chelmsford

  12·000

  Cherwell

  6·000

  Chesterfield

  7·400

  Copeland

  35·000

  Cotswold

  60·000

  Darlington

  12·000

  Derby

  50·000

  East Hampshire

  70·000

  East Yorkshire

  10·000

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  5·000

  Exeter

  15·000

  Gedling

  31·000

  Guildford

  75·000

  Harborough

  6·000

  Harrogate

  21·750

  Hartlepool

  148·000

  606

  Authority

  Amount £'000

  Hastings

  55·000

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  45·000

  Isles of Scilly

  41·500

  Leicester

  65·000

  Lewes

  110·000

  Luton

  56·000

  Malvern Hills

  38·000

  Melton

  42·000

  Mid Devon

  4·200

  Mid Suffolk

  24·000

  Milton Keynes

  2000·000

  Newark and Sherwood

  25·000

  Northavon

  55·000

  North Dorset

  4·000

  North East Derbyshire

  45·000

  North Hertfordshire

  6·030

  Norwich

  199·000

  Nottingham

  149·700

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  8·000

  Oxford

  110·000

  Plymouth

  45·000

  Reading

  43·000

  Restormel

  58·000

  Rother

  35·000

  Rushmoor

  16·000

  Ryedale

  76·000

  St. Albans

  120·000

  Scarborough

  88·000

  Scunthorpe

  78·500

  South Derbyshire

  32·000

  South Somerset

  176·000

  Test Valley

  262·680

  Tewkesbury

  18·000

  Thurrock

  14·000

  Tonbridge and Malling

  152·800

  Waverley

  15·000

  Wealden

  600·000

  West Dorest

  48·000

  Woking

  107·000

  Wokingham

  16·700

  Wrekin, The

  94·000

  Wycombe

  5·000

  New Housing
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enable local authorities to play a more active role in the facilitation of the building of new homes by housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has recently issued a consultation paper which includes proposals aimed at co-ordinating decisions on the initial allocations of Housing Corporation funding with local authorities' housing strategies. The paper builds on authorities' role as enablers, which involves facilitating the development of social housing by housing associations or other providers, for example by the use of planning powers, or by providing land for housing. It proposes a framework for discussions on housing needs, and the allocation of resources to meet these needs. These discussions will involve housing authorities; the regional offices of the Housing Corporation, who are the main providers of public funding for new social housing; and the regional offices of my Department.

  Copies of the consultation paper, which is entitled "The Development of the Local Authority Housing Investment Programme Process", are in the Library; responses are invited by 26 June.

  Coastal and Marine Planning
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans have been made to establish a governmental body responsible for the strategic and co-ordinated approach to the planning and regulation of activities in the coastal and marine environment.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke North on 14 May[Official Report, column 197].

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will re-establish grants for energy conservation in the domestic sector.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department provides grants to householders on low incomes for energy efficiency measures through the home energy efficiency scheme. Finance to encourage energy efficiency measures in housing is also made available through house renovation grants and minor works assistance, local authorities' council housing repair and improvement programmes, the green house demonstration programme and estate action.

  The Energy Savings Trust announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 13 May Official Report, column 136, is also expected to make grants available to improve energy efficiency.

  Separate arrangements for grants to householders on low incomes for energy efficiency measures apply in Northern Ireland and are administered by the Department of Economic Development.

  Opencast Mining, Baddesley Ensor
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the report of the public inquiry into the application for an opencast coal mine at Baddesley Ensor in north Warwickshire to be published.

  Mr. Baldry
  The inspector's report is being considered, and will be published as soon as a decision has been issued. I shall ensure that the hon. Member is sent a copy at the same time.

  Ozone-destroying Chemicals
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that the production of all ozone-destroying chemicals such as CFCs, HFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and halons will be stopped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Montreal Protocol, which phases out the production and supply of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform, will be reviewed in November. The United Kingdom is co-chairing the official level negotiations towards that review. The United Kingdom Government and the EC are committed to phasing out these substances by the end of 1995 at the latest and are urging other parties to the protocol to do the same. Both United Kingdom CFC producers will cease production no later than that date. HFCs do not deplete ozone and cannot, therefore be controlled by the protocol.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to start publication of council tax property valuations so that appeals can begin; and what pattern publication will follow.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Valuation lists for all billing authorities will be compiled at 1 April 1993 and will be deposited at the billing authority's principal office for public inspection, as well as being available at the local valuation office. Taxpayers who wish to appeal will be able to do so after 1 April 1993.

  The first council tax bills will include a notification of the band of the property. Occupiers of those properties which are exempt from the tax and who therefore would not receive a bill will be sent a separate notification of the band of the property.

  Draft lists will be provided to billing authorities between 15 November and 1 December 1992 and will also be available for public inspection.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of homes have been valued by estate agents for the new council tax; when the operation will be completed; what is his estimate of the total cost; and how much of this cost will be borne by central Government.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Valuation Office Agency have contracted private sector valuers to assist them with the valuation of 57 per cent. of homes in England. The contracts required the work to be completed by 31 May 1992. The cost of the contracts in England is under £18 million, entirely borne by central Government.

  Cash Limits
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, I propose to make the following changes;

  (i) the cash limit for Class VIII, Vote 5 (central environmental services etc.) will be reduced by £659,000 from £315,931,000 to £315,272,000, to enable £660,000 of additional resources to be transferred to Class VIII, Vote 8 for research by her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  (ii) the running cost limit for Class VIII, Vote 7 (Property Holdings and Central Support Services) will be reduced by £8,643,000 from £56,844,000 to £48,201,000. This is as a result of the transfer of administration costs to Class VIII, Vote 8 in respect of a part of the Directorate of Central Support Services which has been absorbed into the Department's Construction Directorate and the transfer of administration costs of Parliamentary Works staff to the House of Commons and House of Lords' Votes.

  (iii) the cash limit for Class VIII, Vote 9 (Revenue Support Grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Offices services, etc. England) will be increased by £56,500,000 from £29,473,833,000 to £29,530,333,000. The increase will provide for payments of additional grant for local education authorities in respect of the extra costs associated with the teachers' pay award, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 February.

  609
  As the result of these and other changes the Department's running cost limit has been increased by £500,000 from £201,116,000 to £201,616,000.

  All the above changes are either claims on the Reserve or are offset elsewhere and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Council Tax
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lay the special grant report covering the payment of grant for the costs of preparing for the council tax.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today laid before the House the special grant report which provides details of the grant I propose to pay to billing authorities for their revenue costs in preparing for the council tax. The amount of grant is £85·975 million. This grant will help authorities in the smooth implementation of the council tax.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to make any change to the running cost limit on PSA Services Vote in 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the running cost limit for Class VIII, Vote 12 will be reduced by £33,748,000 from £50,195,000 to £16,447,000 mainly due to the re-ordering of appropriation in aid provision between certain subheads to reflect a better classification of receipts.

  Waveney district council
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take against Waveney district council following the issue of a notice under part I of the Local Government Act 1988 on 24 July 1991 in respect of building cleaning work.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration the response which Waveney district council has made to the notice served on the authority on 24 July 1991, and has today given a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 in respect of their building cleaning work. The effect of this direction is to preclude the authority from carrying out building cleaning work after 31 March 1993.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) those authorities whose expenditure servicing capital exceeds the relevant forecast standard spending assessment for the year 1991–92, stating for each that figure, the amount actually spent and the deficit as a percentage of that sum and (b) a second, or integrated, list of those authorities likely to be in that category for the year 1992–93 together with the relevant standard spending assessment estimated expenditure and percentage deficit.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 May 1992]: The information requested for 1991–92 has been placed in the Library. It is not yet possible to produce comparable figures for 1992–93.

  Mortgage Rescue Schemes
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 238–39, if he will make a statement following his meeting with the Council of Mortgage Lenders on 2 June; and what is his latest estimate of the number of households (a) assisted to date and (b) likely to be assisted in the whole of 1992 by mortgage rescue schemes initiated by members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders as part of the package agreed in December 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 June 1992]: Ministers met mortgage lenders yesterday to review progress on tackling repossessions. They were encouraged to hear the lenders' assessment that repossessions in 1992 will be significantly lower than they would have been without the package of measures announced by the Chancellor last December.

  The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that measures taken since December will save some 55,000 repossessions this year: 40,000 as a result of new procedures for dealing with arrears cases; and 15,000 as a result of the direct payment to lenders of the mortgage interest element of income support.

  The Government welcome the lenders' recognition that further efforts are necessary to tackle the arrears and repossessions problem. It agrees that lenders should continue to look at the whole range of options available for addressing this problem, including formal mortgage to rent schemes, shared equity arrangements and more generous repayment terms.

  The Government continue to regard the level of repossessions as an important issue and will follow closely the progress lenders are making in tackling it.

WALES

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement concerning the provisional revenue support grant for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 22 May to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) at column 277.

  Block Release
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) males and (b) females were on day or block release in Wales in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Figures for higher education corporations, voluntary colleges, and further education institutions maintained by local education authorities are given in the following table for the year 1990–91. Comparable information is not available for the University of Wales as students on part-time courses are not enrolled as day release or block release.

  Students enrolled on part-time day/block release courses

  Number

  Males

  19,121

  Females

  8,054

  Child Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of(a) up to two year-olds and (b) over three year-olds are currently in publicly-funded child care places in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information held centrally relates to children under 5. The numbers of publicly funded child care places in Wales at 31 March 1991 are shown in the following table:

  Full day care

  Sessional care

  Provided by the local authority

  275

  275

  Children in private or voluntary facilities paid for by the local authority

  211

  731

  486

  1,006

  Rate per 1,000 population aged 0–4

  2·5

  5·3

  Queensferry School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has under the heading of capital allocations to enable the replacement of Queensferry county primary school, Deeside, Clwyd, to be built by the 1993–94 financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The statutory responsibility for the provision, repair and maintenance of school buildings rests with the local education authority. It is for Clwyd county council to determine its own priorities for capital spending between the various services from within the resources at its disposal as well as on the projects within those services in the light of its own assessment of needs.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will visit Queensferry county primary school;

  (2) if he will meet the staff and governors of Queensferry county primary school;

  (3) if he will meet the parent teacher association of Queensferry county primary school.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his proposals for the payment of grant in respect of council tax preparation costs incurred by billing authorities in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today laid before the House the special grant report for 1992–93 which sets out my proposals for the payment of grant towards the revenue cost of implementing the council tax. The report sets out grant allocations to individual billing authorities and the conditions that I intend to impose on the payment of grant. A copy of the report is being sent to all local authorities in Wales today.

  I have also made credit approvals available to billing authorities to cover the estimated capital cost of preparation work.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any changes will be made to the cash limits of his Department in 1992–93.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 8 will be increased by £5,447,000, from £1,265,078,000 to £1,270,525,000.

  This increase allows for an additional £4,941,000 to help provide, from 1 April 1992, for the pay awards recommended by the Reports of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine, and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, as announced on 10 February 1992. The increase also covers a transfer of £506,000 from class XIII, vote 1 for the cost of Welsh patients treated in spinal injury units.

  The £4,941,000 for the pay awards recommendations will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales the total amount of money which has been allocated in career development loans in Wales in the latest year for which figures are available; and how much has been allocated to(a) males and (b) females.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply. The total value of the loans issued in Wales during the year ending 31 March 1992 was £1,048,280—£655,156 for males and £393,124 for females.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Promotional Material
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what colours were used on the Industrial Development Board's promotional material in the May edition of the German magazine, "Automobil Produktion"; what is his policy on using the colours of the Republic of Ireland's flag in such material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Due to a mistake admitted by the German publisher, the colours orange, white and green were used in the IDB's promotional supplement in the German automotive magazine. Fewer than 40 copies of the magazine were distributed, and the publisher has undertaken to remove the colours and reprint the supplement at his own expense before general circulation to the German automotive industry. It is not the policy of the IDB to use the national colours of the Republic of Ireland in any of its promotional literature.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Anglo-Irish secretariat at Maryfield is operational during the present inter-party talks at Stormont; what is its function; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The British and Irish Governments announced at an Intergovernmental
  613
  Conference on 27 April that no further meetings of the conference would be held before the week beginning 27 July. As envisaged in the statement of 26 March 1991, the secretariat at Maryfield is accordingly not required for that period to discharge its normal role of servicing conference meetings provided for in article 3 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and is not doing so.

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a business plan for the Compensation Agency will be published.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The Compensation Agency's business plan for 1992–93 will be published today. The plan explains the agency's business and organisation and sets out assumptions about work loads and resources which underpin the plans and targets identified for the agency this year. I have made arrangements for copies to be placed in the library.

  Emergency Provisions Act
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 to be available.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Consultants Fees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total sum paid out in fees by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year up to and including 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Mr. Mates
  The information for 1979–80 to 1983–84 is only available at disproportionate cost. Information for the years 1984–85 onwards is as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  2,352,311

  1985–86

  2,427,200

  1986–87

  2,742,192

  1987–88

  3,363,213

  1988–89

  4,260,116

  1989–90

  4,835,757

  1990–91

  4,239,223

  1991–92

  4,246,115

  1992–93

  15,368,383

  1 Estimate.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability living Allowance and Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been made for disability living allowances and attendance allowance for each month since February.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available figures for claims1 registered for disability living allowance were:
  614

  Number

  February

  72,407

  March

  123,985

  April

  67,888

  TOTAL

  264,280

  1 These numbers include new claims, "top-up" claims from existing recipients of attendance allowance and mobility allowance and claims made on the grounds of terminal illness.

  The latest available figures for claims received for attendance allowance were:

  Number

  February

  59,871

  March

  71,084

  April

  51,816

  TOTAL

  182,771

  Benefit Claims
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for social fund loans in the London borough of Lambeth were refused on the grounds of inability to pay; and if he will show this figure as a percentage of all applications for loans in Lambeth.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter 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.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will undertake a survey to discover the number of people who are in receipt of respite care.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 15 May at columns 223–24. As no distinction is made in the level of income support paid between temporary and permanent residence in a residential care or nursing home, there would be no advantage for social security purposes in collecting such data and it would not justify the cost involved.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide further assistance to citizens advice bureaux to enable the staff to deal with applications for disability living allowance and attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have worked closely with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and other organisations of and for disabled people on the introduction of disability living allowance and disability working allowance and the new claims process for attendance allowance. As part of our continuing commitment to help staff in citizens advice bureaux provide advice and information, we have offered suggestions on the training material and guidance NACAB issued to all its CABs and provided them with free copies of the disability handbook, as well as arranging for every individual citizens advice bureaux to hold stocks of the claim packs. We have also helped to fund the purchase of the Sweet and Maxwell guide on the new disability benefits.
  615
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take such action as necessary to simplify forms DLA 1(A) and DLA 2(A) relating to disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The introduction of the new claims process for disability living allowance has been widely welcomed by disabled people and their organisations. Indeed, they were both closely involved in developing and testing the claim pack DLA 1(A). Nevertheless, we are closely monitoring the effectiveness of the claim pack and are currently undertaking a review of the current draft and are making improvements where necessary to ensure that it continues to be as user-friendly as possible.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Birkenhead on behalf of his constituent Mr. M. Ritchie of 11 Highfield crescent, Birkenhead, on his claim for mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no record of any correspondence from the hon. Member to Ministers concerning his constituent's claim. However, I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the hon. Member recently wrote direct to the mobility allowance unit concerning this matter, and a reply was sent to him on 1 June 1992.

  European Senior's Pass
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made towards securing agreement across EC member states on the adoption of the European senior's pass.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It has not yet been possible to secure Communitywide agreement to the adoption of the EC over, 60s card. No member state has yet implemented the card and officials are continuing their discussions with their counterparts in the Commission and other member states in an effort to resolve outstanding problems.

  Pensioners Living Overseas
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what recent discussions have been held between officials from his Department and representatives of the Australian Government concerning the uprating of pensions paid to British pensioners residing in Australia;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recent meetings held in Canberra between representatives of the Australian Government, and officials from his Department on arrangements for the payment of pensions to British pensioners residing in Australia.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Officials of the Department met their counterparts from the Australian Department of Social Security in October 1991 and in March 1992 to discuss issues relating to pensions paid to United Kingdom pensioners living in Australia. In view of the substantial costs involved, the Government are unable to make any commitment, at this stage, to change their policy of not uprating pensions paid to British pensioners living in Australia.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on the payment 616
  of pensions to British pensioners living overseas in countries with which there is no reciprocal social security agreement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  British pensioners living abroad in countries, outside the European Community, with which the United Kingdom does not have a reciprocal social security agreement providing for annual upratings of benefit receive their state retirement pensions at the rate current when they left this country or when they became entitled if they were living abroad at the time.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for attendance allowance on grounds of terminal illness were received in the first three months of 1992; how many of these claims are still outstanding; what was the average length of time taken to process successful claims; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many claims for attendance allowance were received in the first three months of 1992; how many of these claims are still outstanding; what was the average length of time taken to process successful claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Pursuant to my reply of 12 May, at column 100, I regret that the following information was incorrect:
  A total of 164,412 claims for attendance allowance were received in the first three months of this year. The number of these claims made on the grounds of terminal illness is not available.

  The correct information is as follows:
  A total of 185,596 claims for attendance allowance were received in the first three months of this year. The number of these claims made on the grounds of terminal illness is 21,184.

EDUCATION

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications for voluntary-aided status have been received from(a) Anglican schools, (b) Catholic schools, (c) Jewish schools and (d) Muslim schools since 1979; and how many applications in each category have been granted.

  Mr. Forth
  The complete information requested is not readily available. The following table gives the information requested in respect of applications decided since November 1988 and includes one lapsed application in respect of a Muslim school. This excludes schools formed by the amalgamation of existing voluntary schools.

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  Church of England

  6

  2

  Church of England/Methodist

  2

  1

  Roman Catholic

  7

  4

  Jewish

  4

  2

  Muslim

  2

  0

  School Governors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what efforts are being undertaken by his Department to ensure that women are granted adequate training and have equality of access to be selected as school governors.

  Mr. Forth
  Women have equal opportunity to become school governors and the majority of school governors —53 per cent.—are women. The same training opportunities are open to all governors.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to establish mechanisms to ensure that equal opportunities issues are taken into account as part of the school inspection strategy.

  Mr. Forth
  The detailed arrangements for school inspections under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will be a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspectors for schools.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Education how many full-time equivalent academic staff are employed at(a) each institution funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and (b) each institution funded by the Universities Funding Council; and how many students are enrolled at each.

  Mr. Forman
  Numbers of full-time equivalent academic staff and students in each institution funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council are given in table G6 of the "Annual Monitoring Survey of Further and Higher Education Student: Staff Ratios—Academic Year 1989–90—Interim Report" published by the Department of Education and Science and lodged in the Library.

  Numbers of full-time and part-time academic staff and students in each institution funded by the Universities Funding Council are given in tables 14, 15 and 31 of "University Statistics 1989–90—Volume One: Students and Staff" published by the Universities' Statistical Record and lodged in the Library.

  Polytechnic Staff
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the percentage change in real terms of the salaries of academic staff in polytechnics between 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Forman
  The percentage change in real terms of the salaries of academic staff in polytechnics between 1979 and 1990 was 24·2 per cent. Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time staff there were in institutions funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, or its earlier equivalent, in 1979 and at the last count.

  Mr. Forman
  The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council annual record of staff and students shows that 58,283 full-time equivalent staff were in institutions funded by the council in academic year 1990–91, the latest year for which data are available.
  618
  The PCFC was established in 1989. Comparable data for 1979 are not available for the institutions currently funded by the PCFC.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has any changes to announce to cash limits on Votes within his responsibility for 1992–93.

  Mr. Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XI, vote 1, Schools, research and miscellaneous services, will be increased by £50,000 from £766,485,000 to £766,535,000.

  The increase represents the transfer from the Home Office of £50,000 from the Government seized assets fund for educational projects in connection with drug abuse. The increase will he charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  European Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the outcome of the meeting of the EC Education Ministers in Luxembourg on Monday 1 June.

  Mr. Patten
  I attended the meeting on Monday 1 June of the Council and the Ministers for Education meeting within the Council, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Higher Education. The Council and the Ministers adopted conclusions on the development of environmental education and open and distance learning; and the Council adopted conclusions on the evaluation of future Community programmes concerning education and training. The Council and the Ministers discussed issues arising from the implementation of the LINGUA programme and the proposed amendment of the convention defining the statute of the European schools.

HEALTH

  Home Helps
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the provisions obliging local authority social services departments to provide home help services to all elderly people in their area who are in need of such services.

  Mr. Yeo
  The statutory basis for the provision of home help service to elderly people is contained in the following legislation:Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948;
  Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970;
  Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968;
  Section 21 and Schedule 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  Dentists
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 12 May,Official Report, column 85, whether the Health Department and the general dental services committee have now reconsidered the appropriate fee scale for 1992–93; and if she will make a statement.
  619
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), on 2 June at columns 466–67.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any changes will be made to the cash limits and running cost limit of her Department in 1992–93.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 1 (hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England) will be increased by £20,190,000 (from £18,544,309,000 to £18,564,499,000). This increase allows for an additional £76,258,000 to help provide, from 1 April 1992, for the pay awards recommended by the reports of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine, and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration, as announced on 10 February 1992. This is partly offset by transfers of £49,562,000 to class XIII, vote 4, (family health services (part) and NHS trusts' external financing etc., England), reflecting an increase in the NHS trusts' aggregate external financing limit; £6,000,000 to class XIII, vote 3 (see below) for payments to and on behalf of recipients of blood and tissue infected with HIV and £506,000 to class XVI, vote 8 (hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales) for Welsh patients treated in spinal injury units. The remainder will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 3 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be increased by £21,428,000 (from £801,053,000 to £822,481,000). These increases provide for £14,936,000 for the Department's London accommodation strategy; £742,000 to meet, from 1 April 1992, the review body recommendations mentioned above and £6,000,000 from class XIII, vote 1 for payments to and on behalf of recipients of blood and tissue infected with HIV. These are partly offset by a transfer of £250,000 to the Department of Social Security national insurance fund for the Stillbirth (Definition) Bill, while the remainder will be charged to the reserve.

  The Department's gross running cost limit control is increased by £1,851,000 from £267,385,000 to £269,236,000.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any changes to announce to the running cost limit for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the running cost limit for class XIII, vote 6 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) will be increased by £261,000 from £45,741,000 to £46,002,000. This reflects an increase in running costs provision of £96,000 in the national health central register area for additional services to the family health service central unit, and £165,000 for the childhood cancer birth linkage study. The increases will be matched by an increase 620
  in appropriations in aid and will be met from within the existing resources of the Department of Health (class XIII. vote 3).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Offences (Statistics)
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were recorded in the latest year for which figures are available, by people who were on bail at the time those offences were committed.

  Mr. Jack
  The information as requested is not available. The Home Office is discussing with the police, through the ACPO crime committee, how best to ensure the regular collection of data from police forces on offences committed by people on bail. Home Office research and planning unit paper 65 "Offending while on bail: a survey of recent studies", which is in the Library, gives estimates of the rate of offending by people on bail and of the number of offences committed.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress which Her Majesty's Government hope to make, and the goals which they hope to achieve, during their presidency of the European Communities, as regards the work programme on migration policy set out in the report from the Ministers responsible for immigration to the European Council meeting in Maastricht on immigration and asylum policy dated 3 December 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are fully committed to carrying forward the work programme during the United Kingdom presidency, and are currently considering to what aspects of it we should give priority. We will reach final decisions in the light of the ministerial discussions at the conclusion of the Portuguese presidency.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made so far under the Portuguese presidency of the European Communities as regards the work programme on migration policy set out in the report from Ministers responsible for immigration to the European Council meeting on immigration and asylum policy on 3 December 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Discussions have been held under the Portuguese presidency on a number of matters which are included in the work programme adopted by EC Ministers concerned with immigration in December 1991 and subsequently approved by the European Council.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government intend to sign the convention applying the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985 between the governments of the states of the Benelux economic union, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to his Department's running costs limits.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To reflect a number of machinery of government changes affecting my Department, the Home Office running costs limit will be reduced by £588,000, from £1,450,608,000 to £1,450,020,000.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number of(a) juveniles and (b) young adult offenders in Feltham young offenders institution who, at the end of the week ending 1 May 1992, had been on remand for (a) more than three months, (b) more than six months and (c) more than one year;

  (2) how many (a) juveniles and (b) young adult offenders in Feltham young offenders institution on the latest date for which figures are available had been on remand for (i) between one and two weeks, (ii) between two weeks and one month, (iii) between one and three months, (iv) between three and six months, (v) between six and nine months, (vi) between nine months and one year and (vii) over one year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 May 1992]: The information requested is not recorded centrally. The latest readily available information is for 31 March 1992 and is given in the table.

  Untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners aged under 21 held in Feltham on 31 March 1992: by age group and length of time since first reception into a Prison Service establishment1

  Number of prisoners2

  Initial remand into Prison Service establishment

  Feltham

  Other3

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Aged under 17

  Aged 17 and under 21

  Aged under 17

  Aged 17 and under 21

  Up to 1 week

  5

  35

  —

  —

  Over 1 up to 2 weeks

  —

  34

  —

  —

  Over 2 weeks up to 1 month

  1

  57

  —

  2

  Over 1 up to 3 months

  1

  92

  3

  5

  Over 3 up to 6 months

  4

  58

  —

  4

  Over 6 up to 9 months

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Over 9 months up to 1 year

  —

  3

  —

  1

  Over 1 year

  —

  3

  —

  1

  All lengths

  11

  288

  3

  13

  1 This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes any time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Those initially remanded to another establishment.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) juveniles and (b) young adult offenders had been held on remand in custody in England and Wales on the latest date for which figures are available for (i) over three months, (ii) over six months and (iii) over one year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 May 1992]: The information requested is not recorded centrally. The latest readily available information is given in the table.
  622

  Untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners aged under 21 held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 March 1992: by age group and length of time since first reception into a Prison Service establishment1

  Number of prisoners2

  Length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment

  Aged under 17

  Aged 17 and under 21

  Up to 3 months

  67

  1,977

  Over 3 up to 6 months

  18

  513

  Over 6 months up to 1 year

  2

  113

  Over 1 year

  —

  31

  All lengths

  87

  2,634

  1 This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes any time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions for soliciting for immoral purposes were issued in the Portswood division of the Hampshire Constabulary in 1990 and 1991; how many were successful; and what was the average fine;

  (2) how many cautions for kerb crawling were successfully undertaken by the Portswood division of the Hampshire Constabulary in 1990 and in 1991; and how many were issued to people living (a) in the city of Southampton, (b) the rest of Hampshire and (c) other places;

  (3) how many prosecutions for kerb crawling were successfully undertaken by the Portswood division of the Hampshire Constabulary in 1990 and 1991; and how many of those prosecuted lived in (a) the city of Southampton,(b) the rest of Hampshire and (c) other places.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: Information available centrally, relates only to the court proceedings for Southampton and other petty sessional divisions in Hampshire and to cautions for the NA hole of Hampshire police force area. Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  No males were prosecuted for soliciting in Southampton petty sessional division in either 1989 or 1990. There was only one prosecution for kerb-crawling in 1989 and none in 1990. The person was acquitted.

  Information on kerb crawling for Hampshire police force area and England and Wales is given in the attached table below.

  Table

  Number of males, prosecuted, found guilty and cautioned for kerb-crawling in Hampshire police force area and England and Wales, 1989 and 1990

  Number of males

  Hampshire police force area

  England and Wales

  Prosecutions

  1989

  2

  992

  1990

  —

  1,360

  Convictions

  1989

  1

  891

  1990

  —

  1,215

  Cautions

  1989

  —

  243

  1990

  5

  227

PRIME MINISTER

  Friendly Fire Incident
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how and when he discovered the names of the American pilots involved in the friendly fire incident in the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I do not know, nor do I believe it necessary for me to know, the names of the pilots.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if there are any proposals to change the 1992–93 running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: Other Services Vote.

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the running costs limit for the Cabinet Office: other services (class XIX, vote 2) will be reduced by £2,482,000 from £22,892,000 to £20,410,000. This reflects the machinery of government changes announced after the general election.

  Dalai Lama
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to encourage the Chinese authorities to facilitate a visit by the Dalai Lama to Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: We continue to urge the Chinese Government to start a dialogue with the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama. We hope that such a dialogue would open the way for the Dalai Lama to return to Tibet.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Liwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what efforts have been made by her Department to ensure equality of access to training programmes for both men and women.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) have a contractual requirement to ensure equality of opportunity in all their activities. TECs have flexibility to tailor training to meet individuals' needs in both content and delivery, both to ensure equality of opportunity and so that people may continue to meet their domestic commitments while training. Furthermore, they are required to pay necessary child care costs to those in the employment training and youth training guarantee groups.

  Equality of training opportunity will be recognised and encouraged by a new national training award recently introduced to be awarded for the training of women.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to ensure that the Health and Safety Commission produces bilingual leaflets and posters for mass distribution within Wales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Decisions on the publication of guidance on health and safety in languages other than 624
  English are for the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE). They are very conscious of the needs of Welsh speakers and are seeking to improve the services they provide to Welsh speakers in Wales.

  A Welsh language version of the poster, "Health and Safety Law—What You Should Know", and three leaflets in the agricultural series are already available in Welsh.

  The development of HSC's and HSE's policy on Welsh language will naturally take into account the measures to be enacted in the new Welsh Language Bill which was announced in the Queen's speech.

  Employment Protection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to extend equal employment protection to part-time workers and to institute pro rata benefits for women and men in part-time work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Many important rights—including those relating to sex and race discrimination, trade union membership/non-membership and health and safety—already apply equally to all employees, irrespective of hours of work. All union members also have important statutory protections against misuse of union powers. Extending all employment protection rights to employees regardless of their hours of work or on a pro rata basis, however, would place excessive burdens on employers and reduce opportunities for part-time work.

  Women Workers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken by her Department to encourage the employment of women returners.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is for women themselves to choose whether or not to return to work, but my colleagues and I take every opportunity to encourage employers to adopt working arrangements which allow all parents to balance their employment and family responsibilities. These include flexible hours and holidays, job sharing, career breaks, part-time working and, where appropriate, help with child care. Many employment service and training and enterprise council programmes have inbuilt flexibility which benefits women returners. Our commitment to encouraging more out of school and holiday child care schemes will particularly benefit women who wish to resume work when their children start school.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to ensure that the equal value regulations of the Equal Pay Act 1970 are implemented in full.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 have been fully in operation since 1 January 1984.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to revise the Equal Pay Act 1970 to ensure that women in sex-segregated industries are not prevented from benefiting from the Act.
  625
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Equal Pay Act 1970, as amended, provides that a woman who is employed on like work, work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation study, or work of equal value, to a man employed by the same or an associated employer is entitled to equality with him in the terms of her contract of employment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to extend the scope of the Act in the way suggested.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to assist the pursuit of equal pay claims by women employees through taking steps to minimise the expenses incurred by the claimant and the delays in application.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Industrial tribunals are intended to provide a cheap, speedy and relatively informal means of resolving disputes arising out of the employment relationship, including the Equal Pay Act. In consequence under part IV of the Legal Aid Act 1988, legal aid is not available for representation before industrial tribunals. However, according to an applicant's financial circumstances he or she may be able to obtain from a solicitor, without cost, legal advice and assistance with preparation of an application to an industrial tribunal.

  The Equal Opportunities Commission has made a number of recommendations for changes to the Equal Pay Act 1970 some of which, the commission states, will reduce the time taken to deal with equal value applications. These recommendations are currently under consideration.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the funds allocated for political education purposes for the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans. The Equal Opportunities Commission receives grant in aid from the Government to work toward the elimination of discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity between men and women generally, and to keep under review the working of the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time spent by the chairmen of the training and enterprise councils in their posts; and if she will make a statement on the length of time she expects chairmen to serve.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Less than one third of TECs have had a change of chairman since becoming operational. It would therefore be inappropriate at this stage to calculate an average length of time that individuals spend as TEC chairmen.

  As long as an individual remains eligible for the position of TEC chairman, there is no present length of service expected.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, following the House of Lords decision in Delaney v. Staples, she will now introduce regulations to extend the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals.
  626
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 22 May 1992,Official Report, col. 347.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any changes will be made to her Department's cash limits or running costs limits for 1992–93.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the following changes will be made:The running costs provision for class VI, vote 1 will be decreased by £1,378,000 from £329,474,000 to £328,096,000 changing the departmental running costs limits from £1,206,423,000 to £1,205,045,000. This change is the net effect of transfers to the Department of Trade and Industry (class IV, vote 2) and the Department of National Heritage (class XII, vote 4), and transfers from the Home Office (class IX, vote 3) and the Cabinet Office (class XIX, vote 2), reflecting the transfers of various responsibilities between these Departments and my own.

SCOTLAND

  Quarry, Elderslie
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the proposal to develop a quarry at Windyhill farm, Elderslie.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The hon. Member wrote to my hon. Friend on this matter on 2 August 1991. A reply to that letter was sent on 21 August. No other representations have been made.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends residences not fit for human habitation, as defined in Wylmac v. Community Charges Registration Officer, Strathclyde, to be subject to local council tax.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I intend to make an order shortly, under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which will define those dwellings which will be exempt from the council tax. As far as dwellings such as that which was the subject of Wylmac v. Community Charges Registration Officer, Strathclyde, are concerned, it is our intention to exempt from the council tax those which would currently be exempt from the standard community charge.

  Football Grounds
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there is to be a reconsideration of the present policy towards all-seated requirement at Scottish Football League grounds.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government keep under continual scrutiny the safety of sports grounds. In recent months., we have geen examining the all-seated requirement for those Scottish Football League clubs with grounds designated in terms of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 as being capable of holding more than 10,000 spectators.

  We have decided that it would be wrong to review either the principle or the timetable for all-seated grounds in the

  627
  Scottish Premier League or at Hampden Park and Murrayfield. It is essential that those major Scottish grounds should be all-seated, bearing in mind the large attendance frequently attracted to those grounds. It is also essential that our top football clubs meet the all-seated standards necessary to compete in Europe and make full use of the resources available to them to provide grounds to a standard of which we can all be proud.

  However, there may be circumstances in which standing accommodation can be retained at those first and second division grounds presently required to become all-seated, where average attendances are very low in relation to actual ground capacity. Representations will be invited shortly from a number of interested organizations in a review of all-seated policy for those grounds. No changes in policy will be made unless the Government are satisfied about the safety implications of allowing limited standing accommodation to remain at those smaller grounds.

  I will make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to make any changes to the cash limits for 1992–93 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to three cash limits:

  (a) The cash limit for class XV, vote 13: education, arts and libraries, Scotland, will be increased by £1,250,000 from £259,024,000 to £260,274,000. The increase in provision is required to fund further improvements to Hampden Park. This increase is offset by a reduction in the SO/LA2 cash block.

  (b) The cash limit for class XV, vote 20, revenue and rate support grants, Scotland will be increased by £47,700,000 from £3,458,500,000 to £3,506,200,000. £41,000,000 of this increase in provision will fund an additional reduction in non-domestic rates poundages as a further step in the Government's united business rates policy. The remaining £6,700,000 is an increase to local authorities in Scotland following an addition to the amounts being distributed to local authorities in England and Wales.

  (c) The cash limit for class XV, vote 25: hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland, will be increased by £10,800,000 from £2,590,645,000 to £2,601,445,000. The increase is required to provide £11,000,000 towards the costs of the pay awards recommended in the reports of the review bodies for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine, and on doctors' and dentists' remuneration (Cm. 1811, 1812 and 1813) and £1,800,000 to cover the costs of a scheme of payments for patients who contracted HIV through blood or tissue transfer. The increases are partially offset by a reduction of £2,000,000 in respect of rephasing of health board banking arrangements.

  (d) In addition, the cash block SO/LA2, which covers net capital allocation to local authorities and new town net capital expenditure, will be reduced by £4,052,000 from £272,033,000 to £267,981,000. This will partly offset increases in other cash limits.

  All the increases mentioned will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and therefore will not increase the planned total of public expenditure.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average annual pension paid to retired local government officers in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: For the year ending 31 March 1991, the average annual pension, including increases in line with movements in the retail prices index, paid to retired local government officers under the local government superannuation scheme was £2,014. More up-to-date information from the local authorities which administer the pension scheme is not yet available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Marks
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he will introduce legislation to implement the EC directive on trade marks;

  (2) what representations he has received on the consequences of not introducing legislation to implement the EC directive on trade marks by the end of 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations on the need to implement the EC directive on trade marks by primary legislation. Thirty letters were received last autumn and more recently Sir John M. Banham, the Director general of the CBI, Mr. Christopher Morcom QC and Mr. Richard C. Abnett, the President of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents wrote. However, as my hon. Friend is aware, pressure of parliamentary time made it impossible to include the Trade Marks Bill in the legislative programme set out in the Gracious Speech.

  We are now reviewing the available options for implementing the EC directive. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

  Recycled Feedstock
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to encourage greater procurement of tissue product using recycled feedstock by Government Departments and public bodies.

  Mr. Leigh
  The 1990 White Paper on the Environment —"This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200)—and the first year report (Cm 1655) affirmed the Government's commitment to favouring recycled products where they are available of adequate quality and where they represent value for money. This message was reinforced in the Government's environmental action guide for building and purchasing managers, which was published in August 1991. All Government Departments are looking to develop strategies to improve their environmental housekeeping by the end of 1992; this may well lead to further increases in the procurement of recycled products, including tissue products, by Government Departments.

  Power Lines
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what guidance he has issued or discussions he has had with the electricity companies to limit deaths and injury to birds by overhead power lines;
  629
  (2) whether any specific guidance notes are issued for marking power lines that cross estuaries, creeks and wetland habitats.

  Mr. Eggar
  Electricity companies when formulating overhead power line proposals have a statutory duty towards the environment which includes taking account of any wildlife in the area concerned. Where consultation with local interests shows the possibility of danger to birds, the fitting of bird diverters may be agreed by the company or otherwise may be imposed as a condition if consent for the line is granted.

  Marine VHF Radio
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions there were in 1991 for unlicensed marine very high frequency sets.

  Mr. Leigh
  During 1991, seven people were prosecuted for the unlicensed use of marine very high frequency equipment.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of officials and type of craft used by his Department to enforce very high frequency marine radio licences and the areas they cover.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department's Radiocommunications Agency has 97 field officers deployed around the United Kingdom who are responsible for the enforcement of the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, including the licensing of marine very high frequency radio equipment. The officers have five rigid inflatable boats for this work.

  Communications Agency
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms of reference of the radio investigator service of the Communications Agency.

  Mr. Leigh
  The objective of my Department's Radiocommunications Agency's radio investigation service is to ensure that authorised radio users can operate without undue interference. The RIS priorities are to tackle interference which could endanger lives and to help those whose business operations are disrupted as a result of interference. After these priorities have been met, the RIS deals with other interference complaints.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Benign Energy Sources
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the total investment planned to develop(a) coppicing and (b) other benign energy sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry new and renewable energy programme expects to invest £24.3 million in 1992–93, of which £2.6 million is directly attributable to biofuels, including £547,000 for work on short rotation arable coppice. Complementary work on miscanthus, another energy crop, costing £45,000, is being funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Relocation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants in his Department he is considering for relocation from headquarters buildings; and if he will list the areas currently under consideration for relocation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Radiocommunications Agency of the DTI is currently considering the possibility of relocating 350 staff from its offices at Waterloo to docklands.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have taken place with the trade unions in respect of relocation of civil servants from his Department's headquarters buildings.

  Mr. Eggar
  The trade union side has been consulted and kept informed about the progress of the Department's programme of relocation reviews. They have been closely involved in discussions about relocation and are currently involved in discussions with the Radiocommunications Agency about the planned move to docklands.

  Telecommunications Act
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received a report by the Director of Telecommunications for the year 1991 as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes. The eighth report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1991. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit and running costs limit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class V, vote 3 (administration) will be increased by £32,000 from £43,263,000 to £43,295,000 in respect of a transfer for statistical surveys from the Central Statistical Office. The running cost limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £40,719,000 from £264,643,000 to £305,362,000 being the total of the running costs amounts on class IV vote 2 and Class V vote 3 after machinery of government changes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations or actions Her Majesty's Government have made or taken to stop the slaughter in the Sudan whether by terrorism or famine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned at the continuing loss of life in Sudan.
  631
  We have been one of the main bilateral food aid donors to Sudan, providing over £46 million worth of emergency humanitarian assistance—both bilaterally and through the EC's emergency aid programme—since the present food crisis began in November 1990. This figure includes 71,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid. We have pledged a further 27,000 tonnes in response to this year's appeal by the UN special emergency programme for the Horn of Africa. We have also played a leading part in efforts by the international donor community to ensure that relief is effectively provided throughout the country.

  We have regularly made our views on terrorism plain to the Sudanese Government, particularly in connection with the release from prison last year of those responsible for the Acropole Hotel bombing in 1988, in which five Britons died. We have also stressed that we would regard it as unacceptable if Sudan were to provide support for terrorist groups.

  Bougainville
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards independence for Bougainville; and what help Her Majesty's Government are giving Bougainville in the aftermath of the damage to the environment by copper mining.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government regard Bougainville as an integral part of Papua New Guinea and views the Bougainville problem as an internal matter of Papua New Guinea. We are not aware that the Papua New Guinea Government is seeking any help from foreign governments in connection with copper mining on its territory.

  Cambodia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government is providing to Cambodia for its mine-clearing programme.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The UN transitional authority in Cambodia's mine clearance training unit is led by a British commander supported by 10 other personnel. The United Kingdom is also contributing financially to the mine clearance training programme through payment of our assessed contribution—6.1 per cent.—to the costs of UNTAC. We have given the HALO Trust, a British non-governmental organisation working in Cambodia, £60,000 to help its mine survey work in Cambodia on behalf of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

TRANSPORT

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the increase in carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen discharges to the atmosphere that would result in the United Kingdom from the upper projections of road traffic in his Department's White Paper "Roads to Prosperity".

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Forecasts of emissions of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from road traffic sources are currently being prepared and will be published in due course. The actual increases in emissions will depend on 632
  the success of the Government's policies to increase fuel efficiency and cut gaseous emissions as well as other factors such as economic growth, levels of road congestion and changing patterns of land use. Tigher controls on the amount of oxides of nitrogen which can be emitted by vehicles have been agreed in the European Community. There is also considerable scope for improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles, which will lower the emission of carbon dioxide. We are examining ways of encouraging improvements in fuel efficiency with our partners in the European Community.

  Greater Manchester Relief Road
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when is his Department's preferred route for the M56 to M62 section of Greater Manchester western and northern relief road to be announced.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I cannot give a firm date. Preferred route announcement would follow consideration of the consultation response.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to ensure that there will be no reduction in the quality or frequency of any rail service, subsequent to sale of any relevant part of the network to private operators.

  Mr. Freeman
  We will be announcing our proposals in due course. They will be directed towards improving services for passengers and freight customers.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate for the total cost of extending the Jubilee line.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest approved estimate of the total cost of extending the Jubilee line is £1.5 billion, at June 1990 prices.

  Great Crested Newts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action he is taking to protect the population of great crested newts, Triturus Cristatus, at Bamfield, Cambridgeshire; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received from Dr. Clive Cummins relating to great crested newts; and what response he has sent.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following receipt of Dr. Cummins' letter of 5 February 1992, consultants dealing with environmental issues arising from the upgrading of the Al to motorway between Alconbury and Peterborough, were instructed to carry out further site investigation. They have confirmed that Barnfield pond, which is in the garden of a private house adjacent to the A1, contains a number of great crested newts. English Nature will now be consulted before deciding appropriate action. A reply to Dr. Cummins' further letter of 14 May 1992 will be sent shortly.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been expended by his Department in the London Docklands development corporation area from the date of its inception until the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's capital expenditure in docklands between these dates was as follows:

  £million

  Docklands light railway

  229·5

  Improvements on the A13

  14·5

  Relocation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants in his Department he is considering for relocation from headquarters buildings; and if he will list the areas currently under consideration for relocation.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Up to 50 posts in the Department's London docklands division will move to docklands shortly, about 220 central services posts will move to Hastings by April 1993 and 250 marine directorate posts will move to Southampton in May 1993.

  A review of the case for relocating from London over 500 posts in the highways, safety and traffic command is in progress; and consultants will be reporting on the Department's headquarters accommodation needs and options for meeting them. Decisions about future accommodation requirements and locations will be taken after the completion of these studies later this year.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place with the trades unions in respect of relocation of civil servants from his Department's headquarters buildings.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Officials have twice met the Department of Transport's trade union side—TUS—to discuss headquarters accommodation and relocation following the decision to demolish 2 Marsham street. The TUS was consulted about the draft terms of reference for a study by consultants of future accommodation needs in London and options.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce fiscal instruments to encourage energy-efficient investments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The existing tax regime already gives relief for capital investment by businesses on equipment, including energy efficient products. By providing a broadly neutral tax system for businesses, with a common rate of capital allowances for investment in equipment, we allow businesses to decide where their money is best spent. Fuel savings provide the best incentive for businesses to make energy-efficient investments.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there will he any changes to the Treasury's running costs limits in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury's running costs limit for 1992–93 is being increased by £1,290,000 from £90,913,000 to £92,203,000. This increase reflects the net effect of staff and functions transferred to the Treasury from the Department of Trade and Industry, and from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office—OPPS. This change will be reflected in a token supplementary estimate which will be presented for parliamentary approval in due course.

DEFENCE

  RAF Logistics
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Royal Air Force Logistics.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am today able to report, as the basis for formal consultation between the Department and the trade unions and other interested parties, the outcome of detailed studies into the structure and location of the RAF Logistics Command. A consultative document is being passed to the local and national trade unions concerned today.

  The Government accepted last year the recommendations of the PROSPECT study into the future size and structure of the Ministry of Defence. Central to the study's recommendations was the principle that only a small core headquarters should be retained in London, with the remaining functions being redeployed. For the RAF, the report recommended that the staff of the Air Member for Supply and Organisation should move out of London, and together with associated elements of RAF Support Command, which would be abolished, form a Logistics Command the headquarters of which will be located at the current RA FSC headquarters at Brampton near Huntingdon. The purpose of the studies now completed has been to establish the best long-term locations for the remainder of the staffs affected. Apart from Brampton, these staff are predominantly in London, At Harrogate, RAF High Wycombe, RAF Stanbridge in Bedforshire, and RAF Swanton Morley in Norfolk. The Defence Codification Authority and air technical publications branches in Glasgow were not involved in these studies.

  The Logistics Command will comprise three major functional groupings; the maintenance group, which is a defence support agency, and which was not considered in these studies; the group responsible for communications and information systems; and the support management group. The work of all these is underpinned by the technical and computing services provided at R AF Swanton Morley and RAF Stanbridge.

  The studies have recommended that to the maximum extent possible the units carrying out these functions should be collocated in the Brampton area. This would make maximum use of the existing headquarters at Brampton, and of the nearby station at RAF Wyton which as a result of planned changes has significant potential for reuse. A crucial consideration was the cost of providing both office accommodation and married quarters for collocated staff. In particular, complete reprovision of the

  635
  poor quality buildings on the existing Harrogate site would be extremely expensive compared to the smaller degree of new construction and conversion which would be required at Wyton.

  If the recommendations of these studies are confirmed following consultation, the initial moves would be of predominantlyy RAF staff from RAF High Wycombe. Subsequent moves out of Harrogate, London, and Swanton Morley would take place over the period 1994 to 1997. RAF Swanton Morley and the MOD site at Harrogate would be released for disposal. These recommendations have been arrived at only after the most exhaustive study of a wide range of options for the future Logistics Command, including nine sites in the north and East Anglian sites.

  The Department is very conscious of the difficulties which surround such a large reorganisation. The Ministry of Defence is the largest Government employer in Harrogate, and one of the largest in North and West Yorkshire, and some compulsory redundancy cannot be excluded. Everything possible will be done to avoid or minimise redundancies at all the locations concerned. Staff will where appropriate be transferred at public expense. In addition there are some opportunities for employment in other Government Departments in the areas concerned, and the Ministry of Defence will co-ordinate closely with these Departments to maximise the opportunities. In addition, anyone made redundant will be compensated under the terms of the appropriate pension scheme. They will also be entitled to participate in the Department's counselling and outplacement service.

  These recommendations are subject to the full consultative procedures agreed between the Department and the Trade Unions.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards contractor operation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

  Mr. Aitken
  An invitation to tender for the full contractor operation of AWE is being issued today to the four companies who have expressed an interest in carrying out the work. These are British Aerospace, GEC, Rolls-Royce and the Hunting-BRAE consortium.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he can announce any changes to the class I limits and running costs limit for 1992–1993.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary summer supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:—

  Class I cash limits

  £,000s

  Vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit

  1

  10,576,703

  + 89,454

  10,666,157

  2

  9,593,000

  - 202,397

  9,390,603

  3

  1,933,308

  - 34,432

  1,898,876

  4

  1,577,000

  + 151,873

  1,728,873

  5

  559,789

  + 4,784

  555,005

  These changes decrease the block defence cash limit slightly by £286,000 from £24,239,800,000 to
  636
  £24,239,514,000. They reflect the finalisation of the internal costing process and the net effect of transfers between the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments. As was explained in paragraph 7 of the "Introduction to the Class I Estimates" booklet—HC 237—I—presented on 10 March 1992, because of the major changes resulting from the implementation of the new management strategy, the original estimates could not be constructed in the normal way.

  The running costs limit is unchanged.

  Soviet Warheads
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial arrangements have been made about the package of assistance to the former Soviet Union for the dismantling and transportation of nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Aitken
  Further to my answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 428, the package of assistance is being provided to the former Soviet Union as a gift. The 1992–93 costs, of which £10 million is being charged to the reserve, will be met from class I, vote 2, subhead H8, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary summer supplementary estimate.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Television Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has access to a live television feed of the Chamber of the House in his office; and what is his policy towards providing this facility in hon. Members' offices.

  Mr. Newton
  In my Whitehall office, I have access to a spur from the feed to the Prime Minister's office.

  As regards the possibility of supplying the clean feed to Members' offices, the Select Committee on Broadcasting published a report on this subject at the end of the last Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 323 of Session 1991–92). The Committee recommended
  "that the clean feed should be made available for inclusion in the package of television services whose provision in Members' offices is currently under consideration by the other relevant domestic Committees".

  As the Broadcasting Committee acknowledged, its proposal requires the approval of the House as a whole. I hope to be in a position to arrange the necessary debate in the not too distant future.

  Office Cost Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on what date he received the report on the office cost allowance from the Top Salaries Review Body.

  Mr. Newton
  My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), received the report on 14 February.

  As I have already stated, I hope to be able to inform the House soon about our plans for publication.

  Members' Staff
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) how many hon. Members employ(a) none, (b) one, (c) two, (d) three, (e) four and (f) five or more employees from their office costs allowance;
  637
  (2) how many hon. Members have not yet given any of their staff a contract of employment; how many individual staff do not have contracts; what action he is taking to ensure contracts are provided; and how many hon. Members have been contacted in order to point out that contracts should be issued.

  Mr. Newton
  As many Members who were elected for the first time at the recent general election have not yet notified the Fees Office of appointments of staff, any details supplied at this time would not be representative. Fees Office staff, when seeing new Members, are stressing the need for staff to be given contracts of employment and job descriptions.

  Procedure Committee
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee which have yet to be put before the House and specify, in each case, if he intends to put them to the House for decision.

  Mr. Newton
  Full details of the work of the Procedure Committee during the last Parliament, including the extent to which its various reports and recommendations have been considered and implemented, are set out in the Fifth Report of the Committee for Session 1991–92, which was published on 20 May.

  I have no immediate plans to put any specific reports before the House because the next consideration of procedure is likely to be a further debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, whose recommendations include a number of those made in earlier Procedure Committee reports.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of the total work force in the Privy Council Office are registered as disabled; what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people within the Privy Council Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no registered disabled among the 31 staff currently employed in the Privy Council Office. Direct recruitment is rarely undertaken, but application forms and selection procedures conform with the relevant equal opportunities code of practice.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the total number of agricultural holdings in Britain (i) in 1979 and (ii) in 1992; and if he will give the Government's estimate of the number of agricultural holdings in the year 2000.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1979 the total was 295,000 and in 1991, the latest for which figures are available, there were 274,000. No forecast is available for the year 2000.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions have taken place regarding the implementation of a de-commissioning scheme for certain United Kingdom registered fishing vessels.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government's proposals for effort control and decommissioning were set out in the recent consultation document.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position concerning common agricultural policy reform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about progress on reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made to the House on 22 May.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of the British contribution to the common agricultural policy for 1991; and what percentage this contribution makes of the whole common agricultural policy funding.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to give a figure. The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, not to individual parts of the budget such as the common agricultural policy. Moreover, the United Kingdom's contribution to the budget is reduced by the abatement —£2,366 million in 1991–92—to reduce our overall share and this cannot realistically be allocated to the different parts of the budget.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to preserve hedgerows and encourage planting of new ones.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department encourages farmers to preserve and maintain our hedgerow stock through the farm and conservation grant and environmentally sensitive area schemes, and through the advice given by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

  EC Beef Regime
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent of fraudulent trading within the common agricultural policy beef regime; and what has been the estimated cost to public funds.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to estimate the extent of fraud in the common agricultural policy, since, by
  639
  definition, undetected fraud cannot be measured. No separate figures are available for fraud within the beef regime; however, overall in 1990, 819 cases of irregularity (the definition of which goes wider than fraud) in EAGGF guarantee expenditure were reported by member states with a value of 138 mecu (£98 million). These cases represent about 0.5 per cent. of EAGGF guarantee expenditure in that year. However, fraud is clearly a serious problem and must be tackled vigorously.

  Fanning Regulations
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the burden of regulations on the farming community.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department participates fully in the Government's deregulation initiative. I am determined to keep the burden of regulation EEC and national as light as possible.

  Recreational Events
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with land owners and the Forestry Commission in respect of its property in England about charging for access for recreational events.

  Mr. Curry
  I have had no such discussions but the Forestry Commission negotiates with the interests concerned when reviewing its charges for specialist recreational activities, such as orienteering and motor rallying.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve animal welfare within the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in discussions with European Community counterparts about animal welfare.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government will continue to press for the high standards of animal welfare which apply in this country to be adopted throughout the European Community. We will give a high priority to animal welfare during the United Kingdom Presidency of the Community, and will seek to ensure that the Community acts on the principles of the declaration on protection of animals which was agreed at Maastricht following a United Kingdom initiative.

  Seismic Surveys
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making with his investigations into the effect of seismic surveys on fishing stocks in the Solent and surrounding waters.

  Mr. Curry
  No work has yet been carried out in the United Kingdom on the effects of seismic surveys on fish stocks, but ELF Enterprise Caledonia which is undertaking the seismic survey west of the Isle of Wight, has agreed to fund research which will examine its effect on bass.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to assist farmers to deal with fallen stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government are taking a number of measures to help alleviate the problems of disposal of fallen stock. They include:provision of free advice and literature on the various methods of disposing of fallen animals, including safe burial;
  the exemption of animal carcase incineration under 50kg per hour from regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which makes the purchasing of small scale incinerators a more attractive investment;
  issuing shortly for public consultation a planning policy guidance note on pollution and waste management including incineration;
  funding research and development in the field of animal waste disposal, including a £0.5 million programme to determine which rendering processes destroy certain pathogens;
  helping the rendering industry to examine alternatives to landfilling meat and bonemeal derived from specified bovine offal; and
  identifying investment in the animal by-products sector as a priority area for EC grant aid.

  The Department also intends to press the Community to move forward as rapidly as possible under the provisions of the EC Animal Waste Directive, to adopt animal health rules for knackers yards so as to ensure that they can continue their key role after 1995.

  Poultry
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position on relaxing the regulations of the Zoonoses Order concerning poultry.

  Mr. Soames
  I have already introduced a number of changes to the salmonella control measures in the light of developing circumstances and scientific knowledge. I will continue to keep the measures under close review.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number and percentage of(a) broilers and (b) laying hens in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which had (i) signs of bone defects or were (ii) seriously lame on reaching the slaughterhouse, in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Soames
  These figures are not collected centrally. However, in 1989 a survey commissioned by the Department indicated that 29 per cent. of hens from battery cages had damaged bones by the time they reached the stunner. Handling techniques were addressed in the light of these results and we plan to commission a further survey so see what changes have resulted. We also have a continuing programme of research into leg problems in broilers.

  Whaling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy during the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers to seek a ban on whaling within EC waters and by EC nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Whaling, in any form, is already banned within United Kingdom fishery limits. No whaling for commercial or scientific purposes is believed to take place within other member states' fishery limits. The United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain, as members of the International Whaling Commission, are bound by the IWC's moratorium. The Community prohibits trade in whale products through its implementation of the convention on trade in endangered species.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to support the French Government proposal for an Antarctic whale sanctuary; if he will encourage other International Whaling Commission member states to support the proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The proposal by the Government of France for a sanctuary in the southern hemisphere is due to be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Glasgow at the end of June. Details of the French proposals have only just been received and will receive careful study. The proposals address a number of questions to the commission's scientific committee, whose advice we shall also need to evaluate.

  Sandeels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received for the creation of exclusion prohibition areas against a directed sandeel fishery on(a) Dogger Bank, (b) off Shetland and (c) in the south-west mackerel box; and what proposals he has for introducing this.

  Mr. Curry
  I am considering representations from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. Sandeel fishing is not permitted at present off Shetland. Small mesh fishing in the south west mackerel box is for species such as horse mackerel for human consumption as well as possible industrial end uses. The EC Commission has undertaken to present a report on industrial fishing before 1 September 1992. We will seek to progress any action on this report during our Presidency of the Community.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received for the establishment of a total allowable catch for sandeels; and what proposals he has to introduce this.

  Mr. Curry
  The most recent representation is from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. Sandeels are naturally a very short-lived species and it is not possible to set realistic total allowable catches by the usual procedures. Currently limits are set by licence for the west coast of Scotland or a quota arrangement between the EC and Norway.

  Industrial Fishing
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends making to advance restrictions on industrial fishing while holding the EC presidency.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission has undertaken to present a report on industrial fishing before 1 September 1992. We will seek to make progress on this issue during our Presidency.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been made to him in respect of industrial fishing in the south-west mackerel box.

  Mr. Curry
  This year I have received six letters.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will increase the level of grant aid to farmers for installing pollution control measures.

  Mr. Curry
  Our 50 per cent. grant rate is already exceptionally high. The normal maximum rate which member states can pay for this type of grant under EC regulations is 35 per cent. and our higher rate was only agreed by the Commission because the grant was carefully targeted on specific types of investment.

  GATT
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with EC Agriculture Ministers concerning the Uruguay round of GATT talks and the levels of reduction in agricultural subsidies in the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  The GATT round negotiations are regularly discussed by the Agriculture Council. We have strongly supported the Commission in its attempts to find the basis for an early and balanced agreement which would meet the objectives of the round as regards reductions in agricultural support world wide. The recent agreement on CAP reform will strengthen the Commission's position in these exchanges.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation he has received regarding the reform of the common fisheries policy to provide for a package of social measures to assist individuals and communities affected by a contraction of the fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Curry
  Our officials have received representations from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations about social measures.

  Officials have also participated in discussions held by the European Commission, within the framework of the mid-term review of the CFP and the reform of the structural funds, about possible socio-economic proposals. The Commission's ideas are at a very formative stage and it is too early to say what they will formally propose or to what areas the proposals may apply. The Government will ensure that the needs of United Kingdom fishermen are taken properly into account as discussions continue.

  Brown Hare Syndrome
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hares in Britain were found to be suffering from European brown hare syndrome in the most recent year for which figures are available.
  644
  Mr. Curry
  Although the Department is aware of an apparent decrease in the incidence of European brown hare syndrome in Great Britain, the disease is not notifiable and so comprehensive data are not maintained.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Noble Lords Noble Lords—Took the Oath.

Environmental Protection Agencies
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in establishing the environmental protection agency for Scotland and the proposed similar agency for England and Wales.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, The Government intend to create environment agencies for Scotland, England and Wales at the earliest legislative opportunity. We are currently examining the results of the recent separate consultation exercises and will announce our plans for the agencies as soon as possible.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. I welcome the progress which has been reported in Scotland, where the Secretary of State for Scotland possesses all the environmental functions and his own corps of inspectors. However, what is happening in England and Wales? I ask that because a year ago there were high hopes for a body which would exercise overall vigilance to forestall pollution and damage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as my noble friend will appreciate, in the consultation paper published by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales four options were spelt out. A large number of responses were received in answer to them. The Secretary of State is currently considering which of the options should be the one to go forward.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, in view of the fact that some sea defences are no longer cost effective to maintain, can the Minister assure the House that the proposed environmental protection agencies will be given sufficient funds to enable them to compensate landowners where land is lost through flooding?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Baroness will appreciate from the answer that I have just given that we are considering a number of options which set out what might be the appropriate model for an environmental protection agency in England. At least one of those options would not embrace anything to do with sea protection, which will remain with the National Rivers Authority. In those circumstances, we will need to know what particular model is to be selected for England and Wales before a complete answer can he given.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord given any indication of the length of time involved? I know that he has given some clues as to the period of consultation, but is there any possibility of him giving the House some idea of a likely timetable for the legislation? As regards Scotland, will it at least include the much-promised establishment of a national parks authority?
Does the Minister agree that some effort will be needed to consolidate as much of the legislation on environment as is possible? While I fully understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Nicol about compensation for landowners—and I believe that that will be necessary—I hope that the legislation, if it comes, will be much more thoroughly drawn than the present legislation which has caused a great deal of discomfort and criticism in Scotland on the question of compensation to landowners.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question regarding a national parks authority, the short answer is no. I cannot go further than to say that the plans will be announced as soon as possible. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there was no mention of that in the legislative programme announced in the Queen's Speech. However, I should indicate to the noble Lord that drafting of the Bill will proceed as soon as possible so that we are in a position to take advantage of an early legislative opportunity.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for following my noble friend but I have a most important question to put to the noble and learned Lord. He referred to an environmental protection agency for England, but may we all assume that there will also be an environmental protection agency for Wales?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, in my original Answer I referred to environmental agencies for Scotland, England and Wales. Certainly Wales will not be excluded from the ambit of an agency.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend explain the division of responsibilities among the environmental protection agency, English Nature, and similar bodies in Scotland and Wales?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend's question is no. The particular model which is to be selected for the environmental protection agency has not yet been established.

Package Holidays: EC Directive
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What impact they consider the proposed EC directive on package holidays would have on school exchanges and twin town visits; and whether they will seek either amendment of the directive or a derogation for the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, most school exchange visits would not be affected as they do not constitute packages as defined in the directive. Town twinning visits are also usually organised by volunteers who act as agents for the individual customers. In these cases they, too, are unlikely to be organisers as defined in the directive, and the requirements of the directive will not apply to them. Therefore, I see no need to seek any amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for that reassuring Answer. I take it to mean that the proposals, whatever their merits in other directions may be, will not affect either school exchange visits or representatives of towns with twinning arrangements. Can my noble friend confirm that that is right?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the proposals will not affect these two areas because those arranging such visits usually act as agents for the school or the group of town people and then request organisers to deal with the package.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please inform the House what advantages the Government consider will accrue to the United Kingdom if the proposed directive comes into operation? If they do not see any particular advantage to the UK, will the noble Baroness ensure—or ask her right honourable friend to ensure—that the directive is returned to the Commission with the request that the Commission itself may perhaps take a package holiday?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not feel that this is the time in European matters for me to be quite as assertive as the noble Lord asks. Perhaps I may say more seriously that the Directive was adopted unanimously. We believe that buying a package holiday is very important for many people. They buy "off paper" and such a holiday constitutes a great deal of pleasure in their lives. The Directive offers protection to the customer and we are delighted to support it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Baroness has confirmed, as I suspected, that the Directive has already been approved and therefore there is no question, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, requests, of there being either an amendment or a derogation for the United Kingdom. Can the noble Baroness therefore tell us when the Department of Trade and Industry will issue the appropriate regulations, primary legislation, or whatever is required, to put the Directive into United Kingdom law? What is the timetable on that? Secondly, are the Government satisfied that in the case of all people taking package holidays, whether they come from schools or elsewhere, that if travel companies go bust there are satisfactory arrangements for people to get their money back?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to reassure the noble Lord that the answer to
1022
the latter part of his question is the purpose of the Directive. I am also pleased to say that we know of no instance where a British tourist on a foreign package holiday has in the past lost money. However, we are very conscious of the costs this Directive could have put on independent travel operators—those offering greater choice than the normal package—and there has been considerable consultation by the department. The Directive will be in force by the end of this year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Directive has anything to say about the insurance of children on school exchanges? Is she aware that in recent years there have been some pretty horrific accidents on school exchanges? That is the most serious effect. Is she also aware of the considerable evidence that teachers are now very reluctant to become involved in school exchanges for that reason?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter of great concern, but it is outside the scope of the Question and the Directive.

Local Authorities: Job Creation
3.16 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to offer any incentive to local authorities to create jobs by undertaking new industrial or construction projects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government believe that local authorities already have appropriate powers and resources. They have the discretion to decide what should be done to create jobs in their own individual areas. We have no plans to provide any additional incentive to local authorities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I hope that those local authorities who are complaining will take note of what he said because there are many who wish to increase their housing production, the building of welfare centres and, indeed, administrative centres. The construction industry believes that it can build some of the projects that local authorities feel they ought to have. Therefore, I should be most grateful if the proposition of the Question could at least be considered.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am always eager to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. He may be very pleased to hear that this year, 1992–93, total council spending by central Government is some £30 billion. We are spending £700 million on schools; £1.7 billion on hospital buildings by the NHS; an extra £68 million for prison refurbishment and 21 new prisons over the next two years; £325 million for maintenance and repair and £106 million for new buildings. We are spending the money and no doubt the construction industry will be one of the beneficiaries of that.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to say something extra about the local authority money—which was gained through the sale of their own council properties, and which I endorsed —which is being held by the Government, thereby preventing local authorities from building?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course this is an old chestnut that comes up from time to time. I think that the whole House realises that if we were to relax the rules on capital receipts those areas that happen to get the highest receipts would then be in the position of being able to spend more money, whereas the current system depends on need rather than on high capital receipts.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his Answer to my noble friend Lord Molloy the Minister implied that the Government had no additional plans to involve the local authorities. But frequently the Government have quoted the Audit Commission's report when it suited them and when it was in support of their policies. Is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that the very recent report by the Audit Commission on the question of local authority housing, while making some criticism of local authorities makes a very strong case that the Government are leaving local authority housing drastically underfunded. Bearing in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, this is not a chestnut, it is a reality. The Audit Commission is saying quite clearly that billions of pounds are needed to put the existing council houses in stock and bring them up to a sufficient state of repair with reasonable amenities. Will the Government for once take another look at the situation and do something positive in this matter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what I am aware of is that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has that Question down on the Order Paper for Wednesday, 10th June. I shall be delighted to answer it then.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, has the Minister read reports claiming that between now and the end of the year some 300,000 construction workers are likely to be laid off? Does that not give an excellent opportunity to build affordable housing rather sooner?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the construction industry and those people who worked in it but who have lost their jobs over the past couple of years. However, there is some good news on the horizon. In the first quarter of 1992, new orders were up by 3 per cent. compared to the fourth quarter of 1991, and by 4 per cent. on the first quarter of 1991. We can already see that there has been a substantial improvement.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although we have had this Question many times, part of his Answer is new, at any rate to me? It is that although some areas have money they cannot spend it because other areas do not have money. Why prevent those which are in a position to do something from doing so because others cannot? It
1024
seems to be a principle that runs against the general idea for which I believed the Conservative Party stood.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are several principles at stake here. The first is that we must control public expenditure. Money spent by local authorities adds to overall public expenditure. Secondly, money which comes from capital receipts is spent partly on redeeming debt, and that is an important factor. The third principle is the one I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the Minister read the interesting report which highlights the fact that homelessness in rural areas is higher than it is in many inner city areas? The reason is, of course, that many council houses in the country have been sold thus reducing the stock. Added to that, the buying of houses for holiday homes has produced a serious situation. Surely, the release of money to rural areas to build houses would benefit many people.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the sale of council houses in itself does not reduce the overall housing stock. On the question of homelessness, especially in rural areas, the Government have taken many initiatives during the past few years to improve the situation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a result of a well-directed shaft from his noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, he appeared to change his ground on the use of housing resources? In his first supplementary answer he appeared to say that there were some areas that had a great deal of money but no housing problem and they should not be allowed to spend the money while, on the other hand, there were areas with a housing problem which did not have much money. That may have been reasonable, but then in his reply—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, I am coming to that. In reply to his noble friend the Minister said that the matter was one of control of public expenditure. Will he explain what is government policy, because those councils with a housing shortage which are desperate to build new houses and which have a great deal of money would be interested to know the real reason?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the two answers are compatible. There are two different reasons for coming to the same conclusion. We do not want to overspend from the public sector, and we do not want local authorities which have had substantial receipts to be able to spend all that money in one go in their local areas. Furthermore, the whole provision of social housing —if I may call it that—is not just the preserve of local authorities. Housing associations and the private sector are making great inroads into the provision of that housing.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, have any calculations been made as to the cost to the Inland

1025
Revenue of lost taxation and the cost to the Department of Social Security of paying unemployment benefit and income support set against the cost of having construction workers employed on building houses for homeless people? There is also the cost of homelessness and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Have those calculations ever been made, or do not the different departments speak to one another when it comes to costings?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the question is substantially wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but I am conscious that part of it will be answered in a few minutes by my noble friend Lord Henley.
Lord Stallard: My Lords—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, my noble friend was seeking to ask a question. I wonder whether we could have one more question and then move on.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is one way to resolve the dilemma posed by the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy; namely, that as local authorities can use 100 per cent. of their capital receipts for building for immediate resale that would be an excellent way for them to help the construction industry in these difficult times?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting and useful point. It is one that I am pleased he has brought to the notice of the House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, we have a certain amount of time to spare, if I may say so. May I therefore put to the Minister another question, if the Leader of the House will permit me? In his Question my noble friend refers to undertaking new industrial projects. As I understand it, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the Minister said that local authorities were undertaking plenty of new industrial projects. Will he give examples of where local authorities have been encouraged by the new, dynamic, all-seeing, all-dancing Department of Trade and Industry to introduce new industrial projects into the rural areas about which the noble Lord was talking?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is not the role of the Department of Trade and Industry; it is the role of local authorities which can often be key players in creating job opportunities or regenerating run-down sites. Perhaps I can expand. That input can take various forms: the assembly of land for sale to a developer; the provision of infrastructure to new or regenerated industrial or office sites; and the bringing together and co-ordination of interested parties from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Many local authorities provide advice centres or funding for local enterprise agencies. There is an enormous amount that local authorities can achieve and do achieve. I hope that that will continue.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the construction industry has tens of thousands of skilled artisans who are now unemployed, and expert managers who cannot find jobs? If he would only agree that the principle of the Question should be examined, I feel sure that he would be rewarded, because the construction industry would be willing to supply him with information so that local authorities which need schools, hospitals and welfare centres could be provided with them and construction industry unemployment could be reduced.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am hopeful that with the extra money that the Government are providing this year for substantial infrastructure projects the construction industry will be one of the main beneficiaries.

Unemployment: Loss of Tax Revenue
3.29 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they do not attempt to estimate the loss of revenue to the Treasury as a consequence of unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we do not estimate such a figure because it would depend, for example, on projecting for those who are currently unemployed what their tax liabilities and earnings would be once they had found a job.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that Answer. I appreciate that this is a difficult area, but does he agree that for Ministers, as for motorists, poor visibility provides no excuse for not looking? Does he agree that since the Government have no estimates of their own they are not in a good position to challenge other people's? Is he aware that the Unemployment Unit has calculated the cost of unemployment to the public sector borrowing requirement at £24.8 billion a year? Will the Government accept that figure until they can come up with a better one?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally disagree with my noble kinsman. Merely because we recognise that it is impossible to make such guesses as to the costs does not mean that we have to accept other people's assumptions. Many different assumptions have to he made, as I said in my original Answer, about what any individual might earn and spend after obtaining a job. Because those assumptions can range so widely, the result is likely to produce a figure which, in the end, is pretty meaningless.
Lord Desai: My Lords, will the Minister agree that while it is not possible to give a single figure, a variety of figures may be given, allowing for the Treasury's usual range of errors? We should still have a better idea of what the minimum and maximum costs could possibly be. Will the Minister also agree that even the minimum may turn out to be not less than about £15 billion?
Lord Henley Lord Henley My Lords, I shall neither agree nor disagree with any figure. My feeling is that even if one tried to produce minimum and maximum figures, the range would be so wide as to render them entirely meaningless.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that as long as our currency is tied rigidly to the deutschmark—a policy much favoured by the political party to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, belongs —there will he high and continuing unemployment, as the unfortunate unemployed millions in France can testify?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point but it is another Question.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the range of figures given by respectable economists is quite narrow? One of the most respectable sources is the House of Commons' own statistical unit model. Will he also acknowledge that not surprisingly these figures closely coincide with the public sector deficit which mainly arises from unemployment?
Perhaps I may help the noble Lord with the figures. Basically, the loss of revenues are believed to be about £11 billion a year. The cost of direct benefits is believed to be about £9 billion a year, giving a total cost of about £20 billion a year at the low unemployment figure that the Government publish. Will the noble Lord agree that that financial and human cost is not a price worth paying?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I neither accept nor disagree with the figures put forward by the noble Lord. It may be that respectable economists, as the noble Lord referred to them, have put forward certain figures. However, respectable economists have been wrong in the past. There is no particular reason why they should be right on this occasion. As I said when I originally answered the Question, one has to make too many assumptions to produce any reliable figures at all.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may pose the same question to the noble Lord as I asked previously. Why is it that departments seem to be unable to speak to each other and to make calculations rationally, when every other human being on the planet can see that one cost must be set against the other?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Countess had been listening to my Answer, she would now know exactly why we cannot give the figures for which she asked. However, I assure her that all departments speak to each other.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is my noble kinsman telling us that because the figures are difficult to discover, they really do not matter? Is that argument compatible with the prudent stewardship of public money?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have not said that at all. I said that the figures which we could produce would be meaningless, and that therefore, there is no point in
1028
producing them. Obviously, we accept that the costs of unemployment, both personal and financial, are great. But as I said earlier and repeat, the figures we may produce would be meaningless.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to the pensions and other benefits payable in respect of service in certain judicial, and related, offices and in certain senior public investigative offices; to amend the law relating to the date on which the holders of certain judicial offices are required to vacate those offices and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to functions relating to the management of Her Majesty's Home Civil Service; and to make provision about parliamentary procedure in relation to legislation for Northern Ireland making corresponding provision with respect to the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a

1029
manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House has agreed to a commitment being discharged in regard to two consolidation Bills. I imagine that it will do this in regard to a third Bill. These three Bills will in due course be submitted to the committee of this House and another place which sits upon consolidation Bills. I believe that the House would wish to know that the committee is looking after, first, a Bill to protect a member of the animal kingdom; secondly, a consolidation measure which one hopes improves the lot of employees; and, thirdly, a Bill which is to improve the lot of the ordinary citizen.
I do not believe that we ought to dismiss these three Bills at Committee stage without at least the good wishes of the House being extended to the joint committee of both Houses which has been newly appointed. We hope that the committee will have an interesting Session dealing with the important function—as I know the noble and learned Lord agrees—of consolidation measures.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the House would wish to extend its good wishes to the joint consolidation committee, when appointed. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will recollect, these Bills were examined in the last Session of Parliament by the then joint consolidation committee. As a result of agreement between the two Houses the Bills do not need to go through that procedure this time. However, that in no way detracts from the message which the noble Lord wishes to send to the joint committee, when appointed. I heartily endorse those wishes.
On Question, Motion agreed to

Pittenweem Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 28 [Prints, samples etc in criminal investigations]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 21, line 44, after ("record") insert ("and any copies").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the criminal proceedings part of the Bill, Part II. Clause 28 concerns people who have been arrested and are in custody and from whom prints and other impressions have been taken. Clause 28(3) states:
"The record of any prints or impressions taken under subsection (2) above shall be destroyed immediately following a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the person or on the conclusion of such proceedings".
Amendment No. 30 is a simple amendment. It is a protective amendment. It seeks to ensure that no copies of prints or impressions are left floating around in the prosecutor's offices, in police stations or elsewhere. No doubt the police and the Crown authorities would like on occasions to keep copies of such impressions but I submit that that would be contrary to the presumption of innocence. By destroying not only the record but also any copies of the record the public mind would be put at rest as regards the fact that a record was not being kept by the authorities in a secret place. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have listened to the noble Lord's comments. As he will be aware, the Interpretation Act provides that words in a statute in the singular include the plural. Clause 28(3) accordingly already requires all records (and therefore all copies) of prints and impressions taken to be destroyed in the appropriate circumstances. The existing law in relation to the destruction of records of fingerprints or impressions taken from persons in detention is contained in Section 2(5) (c) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. As the Committee is aware, the statutory provision there does not expand on the definition of "record".
I can inform the Committee that under the existing procedures where further copies are made of fingerprints obtained under Section 2 of the 1980 Act,

1031
all copies in the hands of the police are sought out and destroyed when required by subsection (7) of that section.
I would be willing however to table an amendment on Report in order to clarify that the legislation applies to more than one record and on that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Transcript of customs interview sufficient evidence]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 23, line 3, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to page 23 of the Bill. Clause 30 deals with the admission of interviews between an accused and officers of the Customs and Excise department. Subsection (2) states:
"Subsection (1) above has effect in relation not only to criminal proceedings commenced on or after the date on which this section comes into force but also, if the trial diet is on or after that date, to criminal proceedings commenced before that date".
That provision would appear on the face of it to create a problem. If a trial has started before this Act comes into force but the Act comes into force during the duration of the trial, these provisions might apply. I have tabled the amendment to seek clarification because obviously the governing words are the words,
"to criminal proceedings commenced before that date".
Perhaps now or at a later stage the Government can clarify what the phrase "proceedings commenced" means and when for the purposes of this Act proceedings will be deemed to have commenced. There has had to be resort to the courts and to the Appeal Court on occasions in the past to determine what is meant by that phrase. In a provision of such importance as the one we are discussing it would be helpful to have the phrase covered by an interpretation clause. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): The noble Lord has made a technical point. I am quite happy to take the matter away and consider it. As the noble Lord will appreciate, this matter concerns only whether or not one needs evidence in relation to the transcript itself rather than the question of admissibility of the evidence relating to the interview. However, I shall be happy to clarify this matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for giving that undertaking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 30 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I wish to make a point briefly in relation to Clause 30(1). This provision constitutes an extension of the admission of evidence in transcripts. Already such evidence is admissible as
1032
regards interviews between police officers and accused persons. I am not saying that the provision in Clause 30(1) is a dangerous extension but it has been extended to,
"a person commissioned, appointed or authorised under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and an accused person".
The Law Society has made an objection to that provision. No amendment has been tabled to it but the society is concerned about the circumstances in which any such statements or interviews might occur. I accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that admissibility is a different thing to evidence of what is said but in most cases the police are governed by strict rules as regards cautioning. Usually a representative of the accused is present during the course of an interview. I make these observations now as I wish to ask the Government whether it will be the case that no interviews will take place under the extension of interviewing procedure with its evidential consequences on the part of an officer authorised under the Customs and Excise Management Act without a caution having first been administered and the appropriate common law rules being applied. The accused should also be given the opportunity to have a solicitor present before an interview that is to be recorded takes place.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I can inform the noble Lord that the present position is that all interviews by Customs and Excise officers are conducted under guidelines based on the Scottish Office home and health department's memorandum of guidance. The police use that for similar interviews. Therefore the same principles apply. Before a suspect makes a statement he is formally cautioned and he may have a solicitor or legal representative present during the interview. I repeat that the only matter that is raised by the clause concerns the proof of the interview rather than the interview itself.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I suspected that that might be the case. Now that the noble and learned Lord has confirmed it, I hope the fears of the Law Society will be allayed.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Evidence from abroad through television links in solemn proceedings]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 23, line 39, leave out ("is in the interests of justice") and insert:

("(i) is in the interests of justice; and

(ii) in the case of an application by the prosecutor, is not unfair to the accused").

The noble and learned Lord said: When a similar clause to Clause 31 was before the Chamber on a previous occasion concern was expressed about the safeguards contained in the provision. In particular it was suggested that there was a need to stress that the interests of the accused should be protected.
On this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has tabled Amendment No. 32 on the Marshalled List. Having seen that amendment, the

1033
Government have considered the position. The Government are, of course, aware of the need to protect the fundamental right of an accused person to a fair trial. It was precisely with that principle in mind that Clause 31, as it appears in the print of the Bill, includes a provision to the effect that an application for use of the procedure could be granted only if the judge were satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice for the application to be granted. That provision is contained in subsection 3(b) of the proposed new Section 32A.
Nonetheless, we have considered carefully the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. On reflection we consider that it would be appropriate for the provision to make clear on the face of the statute itself that the judge should not allow the procedure for taking evidence by live television link from abroad to be used if it would be unfair to the accused. We considered that that was already implicit in subsection (3) (b) but we are quite happy to make it explicit on the face of the Bill.
Therefore, the amendment before the Committee takes account of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord and at the same time recognises—and this is an important matter—that applications under the section may be made either by the prosecutor or by the defence. The drafting of the amendment adds that the specific requirement relating to the protection of the accused applies where the application for use of the procedure is made by the prosecutor. In that way the requirement of protection of the accused is made explicit on the face of the Bill.
I hope that that serves to clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment, which affords the extra measure of safeguard in general law under Clause 31 of the Bill, which introduces Section 32A into the Act of 1980. It meets the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, on 1st May 1990 when this question was last before the House on another Bill, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Having read the report of that debate I see that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, took that point.
The amendment subsumes the spirit of my amendment, Amendment No. 32, which I shall not move. It also bridges the gap of disparity of treatment as between Clause 29, which amends Section 32 of the 1980 Act on the admissibility of audio and video records which includes in substance that safeguard and Clause 31 which, without the amendment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, would not.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and, in particular, to parliamentary counsel for having taken the matter on board at such short notice and for having produced such an excellent result, a much improved form of drafting to my drafting of Amendment No. 32.
In the meantime I hope that the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend may commend itself to the Committee without prejudice to the merits of Amendment No. 33, which I shall move in due course.
1034
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 23, line 44, at end insert:
("(5) This section shall not apply in proceedings brought against any person under the War Crimes Act 1991.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with an amendment of the procedural law of Scotland to admit live television into the courtroom in criminal proceedings under the 1991 Act. To that extension of procedural law there is no general objection. However, there is the most serious objection to the use of that type and quality of evidence in proceedings under the War Crimes Act at all events, and in particular for any purpose connected with identification. I remind the Committee that on a free vote on 1st May 1990 your Lordships so decided on the fifth day of the Committee stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill by a majority in excess of two to one against the Government.
The debate on 1st May 1990 (as reported in Vol. 518, cols. 933–960 of Hansard) was conducted on the assumption, as appears from the report, that war crimes trials would ensue, both in Scotland and in England, an assumption which remains valid today in view of the War Crimes Act.
Today, on this side of the Chamber, we labour under a two-line Whip although no other party has any whip. As a result, like last Tuesday, Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber will not have heard the argument on the merits of the amendment. On Tuesday, noble Lords obeyed the Government Whip and Amendment No. 3 was defeated. However, as appears from Hansard, the merits of the argument conducted on the Floor of the Chamber were unanswerable and were unanswered.
Today, very few noble Lords on this side of the Chamber are present to hear the argument as there is an important matter proceeding elsewhere. Therefore, it is all but inevitable, one supposes, that the amendment, although previously accepted by your Lordships, will be lost on the Whip. However, I seriously question whether matters concerning the procedural law of Scotland in criminal proceedings are a proper matter for political controversy.
I also question whether the statutory imposition on Scotland of Clause 31, unamended by the amendment, is for the "better Administration of Justice" in Scotland in a war crimes trial. Those words are the savings proviso of Article XIX of the Act of Union which enables our Parliament to impose regulation upon Scotland. If, in the opinion of the Committee, Clause 31 unamended is not for the better ordering of the administration of justice in Scotland then, without that savings proviso of Article XIX, it is unconstitutional and Amendment No. 33 should be accepted.
However, the Committee is asked by the Government to assume that Clause 31 as it stands is for the better ordering of the administration of justice in a war crimes trial in Scotland; so to accept the rectitude of its statutory imposition on Scotland,

1035
without excluding its use in a war crimes trial, without regard to the merits of any debate; and so to reject this amendment.
In a matter which ought to be wholly devoid of political controversy, especially in view of the somewhat strained relationship between Scotland and England at this time, the Committee may well think that, apart from the constitutional aspect of this statutory imposition, it would have been wise or concessive to have afforded a free vote. A formal request to that effect has been refused. I am advised that it is proper and in order for me to draw the Committee's attention to this matter and, even at this late stage, on the Floor of this Committee I respectfully ask the Government, which I support, to think again and to withdraw the Whip.
On 1st May 1990 the Government introduced both Clauses 29 and 31 of this Bill in two parts of Amendment No. 292 to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. The substance of the amendment which I move today was included in Amendment No. 293ZA, drafted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who is in his place. In fact the amendment was carried against the Government by 137 votes to 62 votes.
My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said (at cols. 956 and 957 of Hansard) that he wished to have what is now Clause 31 if there were to be a war crimes prosecution. He also said that a judge in Scotland would exclude the evidence or refuse to allow the TV link for the purpose of identification. If such be the case, it would be most interesting for the Committee to know for what other purpose such evidence is to be used in these trials and whether the Government would accept an amendment excluding use under Clause 31 for the purposes of identification in war crimes trials. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate may care to deal with those matters.
It is accepted that under Article XIX of the Act of Union, Scotland retains its substantive and procedural laws in criminal proceedings indigenous to Scotland which differ from those in England, subject to statutory imposition only for the better administration of justice in Scotland. But it is one of the admitted purposes of Clause 31 that it should be used in war crimes trials, and a statutory imposition to be used for such purpose is wholly unacceptable as an aid to conviction. That could assuredly not afford the better administration of justice in Scotland or anywhere else in the world. It is without the Constitution.
In the debate on 1st May 1990 the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, made an important contribution (cols. 940 to 943), as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The essence of their argument was put in short form by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who limited his observations to what is now Clause 31 of this Bill, excluding Clause 29 which was included in the first part of government Amendment No. 292.
In conclusion, I wish to refer the Committee to two short passages in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce (at cols. 947 and 948). In a sense, it says it all. The merits and substance of the
1036
argument are exactly the same today as they were when these words were said. The noble and learned Lord said:
"The Committee has to consider whether the changes proposed in Amendment No. 292 are appropriate to be made in the context of a war crimes trial. The Committee will have to decide that matter on the basis of two simple considerations. First, there is the argument about changing the rules after the offence has been committed… It has been admitted that those provisions are included in order to deal with war crimes. Many Members of the Committee may feel that it is not right to change the rules at this time. These criminals should he tried under the rules which existed at the time when they committed their offence. I say no more about it…
"The other point that requires a few more words is whether the changes are appropriate to be made in the context in which we are considering them".—[Official Report, 1/5/90; col. 948.]
He then referred to the notable contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and concluded:
"We cannot do justice to an accused charged with a war crime committed 50 years ago in a remote country by permitting evidence to be given in distant countries, possibly under the control of a foreign official, possibly of a foreign judge, simply because it is relayed by way of television to the court".—[col. 949.]
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who spoke later in the debate, found the argument "absolutely irrefutable". The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, as the experienced advocate that he is, described the situation as "totally grotesque". I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: I should like briefly to support the amendment moved so well by the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway. His speech said it all. On 1st May 1990 this Chamber decided by a large majority that a clause similar to this one, allowing a television link, should not be applicable to war crimes trials.
It is perfectly well appreciated that in Scotland there may be need for a clause in the form of Clause 31—the new Section 32A. A similar clause has been introduced in England and the argument is: if England has it, why should not Scotland have it too? There is no dispute about that. The dispute is about whether it is appropriate that such a clause and such a power should be capable of being used in relation to war crimes trials.
Perhaps I may straightaway dispose of one argument. It is said that England has this clause unmodified; why should not Scotland have the same? With respect, that is a completely invalid argument. The clause was introduced into English law in 1988. That was before any question of war crimes trials had come up. The legislation was passed in 1991. It would not have been possible or appropriate to introduce into the English legislation a disapplication in the case of war crimes. But contrary to that, in Scotland this clause arises when war crimes trials are over the horizon or are actually being conducted. It is necessary to face squarely here and now the question of whether it is right that the provision should be capable of being applied in a war crimes context. This

1037
Chamber decided to the contrary in 1990. With great respect I submit to noble Lords that in all honesty and consistency the same course ought now to be taken.
I shall not go over the arguments on the merits. They are well in the minds of noble Lords. The Committee has been reminded of some of them by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I shall summarise the basic points. The exemption suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rests on the essential and constitutional right of a person accused of a criminal charge to be confronted with his accusers. That is a basic right. He has a basic right to see his accusers face to face. Trial by television link is directly contrary to that basic right.
The logistic difficulties are absolutely enormous. Everyone has them in mind. They have been underlined time after time. For example, let us consider a case with possibly 40 witnesses scattered all over the world, some of whom, all of whom or one of whom it is proposed should be allowed to give evidence by television link. The logistic difficulties are insurmountable. One has only to consider the position of the defendant. Is he to be allowed to have his witnesses brought into the court by television link? How is he to do that in the face of the prosecution evidence?
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, raised another point in the previous debate. What about a witness whom one wishes to be recalled? That is a situation which often occurs. The witness may be in Estonia. The television set may have been removed. How will one get him back to the television and cross-examine again on further points that may arise during the trial?
All those points are extremely serious. I take it that the answer from the Government Bench is to leave the matter to the judge. One has to make an application to the judge and the judge will not allow evidence by television link to be given if he believes that justice cannot be done. However, that argument was completely destroyed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, on the last occasion. I speak with the appropriate deference of an English lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord told us the Scottish position at first hand. In Scotland one does not have witness statements as one does in this country. In this country one has statements by witnesses on either side in writing, signed by the witness and exchanged between the parties. In Scotland the judge does not see such statements. He has the indictment and nothing else. Therefore, how can one ask a judge, who is without knowledge of the whole state of the evidence, to rule on the question whether there should be one television link or 40 television links? The argument of leaving it to the judge simply does not wash.
One has to face the fact that we are dealing with war crimes, with an attempt to convict someone on evidence that is 50 years old, relating to a thousand miles away and based on a number of witnesses whose memories are very poor. We have to take warnings from the examples that are before us. The Canadian case—the only war crimes case which has occurred in that country—has completely broken down in the face
1038
of the inadequacy of the evidence. The Demjanjuk case gives rise to greater disquiet every time one considers it. Australia is having the greatest difficulty in getting its trial on its feet. One has only to recall other civil cases—one concerning a noble Member of this House; and another pending in Scotland on which the judge has gone to the Baltic States in order to try to take evidence—to see how incredibly difficult and inconsistent all the evidence is. That is inherent in the facts of the case. One cannot get away from it. It means that it is totally impossible to try to apply this untried procedure to a case of war crimes.
It is an untried procedure introduced into English law and to be brought into operation gradually in suitable cases in respect of children's evidence, and possibly in fraud cases as recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. It is untried procedure in criminal cases. It is completely untried in relation to war crimes trials and ought not to be applied to them.
I appeal to the Committee to retain the decision that was taken in May 1990 and to add the amendment to the clause. It would give the Scottish lawyers what they wish. It would give them the benefit of the clause for general purposes, for children, fraud and so on, but would make it clear that it is not to be applied in the case of war crimes. I beg to support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I rise to support the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. It goes without saying that in so doing I have not changed my mind since 1990. At the outset perhaps I may say that on this side of the Chamber there is a free vote on the matter because it arises from consideration of the principle of prosecuting war crimes. If there is a free vote on that issue, it follows logically and in fairness to all that there should be a vote on subsidiary issues relating to possible prosecution.
If there is ever to be a trial of a war criminal, the likelihood is—I say it, I hope, without prejudicing anyone's position—that it will be in Scotland. One would hope that if the alleged criminal is in Scotland, he will be tried in Scotland and not shipped off to some other part of the country where the Scottish rules of procedure might not apply.
Fairness is the cornerstone of justice. If we erode that principle of justice we head for severe and serious trouble regarding not only the concept of justice, but the rights of the individual. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, we depart, of necessity perhaps, from having the accused confronting his accusers. The accused cannot go into the country where he has been accused of having killed people 50 years ago because the likelihood is that he would not get out of that country again. But to be deprived of that right is limitation enough; we shall have to be content with second best evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, reminded us of the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, about

1039
identification. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. If the evidence is not about identification of an alleged war criminal what on earth is it about? Are we to have the ludicrous position of a witness saying, "I was at the graveside. I saw the man with the rifle. He ordered his troops to shoot 50 people. They shot. He fired as well. All the people were killed. The grave was filled in". (That is the sad picture that has been depicted over the years of the way such things happen.) Are we to go through this charade: that at the point at which the prosecutor in any other case would say to the witness, "Can you identify the man who was in charge of that brigade? Can you identify the man who gave the order and indeed joined in shooting those poor people?" the whole proceedings come to a halt? If that is so, what is the use of the evidence? It is evidence in a vacuum.
If that was the Government's view in 1990, why is identification not made an exception in the very acceptable amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger? It is not only the accused who will be identified; as has been pointed out, there will be the witnesses in his support. What will happen—it is a dangerous matter—is that a witness will not be shown a possible accused. He may be shown a photograph of an accused which was taken 40 years ago. That will be shown on a television link to some old person miles away. It is dangerous enough in court to ask people to identify persons by ancient photographs. How much more dangerous will it be to present a photograph on a television screen and to ask the witness to look at a photograph of a man 40 or 50 years younger than he is now?
Difficulties abound in this field. We have the current case abroad of the gentleman who was named Ivan the Terrible. He was convicted not as a result of evidence given by television link but as a result of confrontation with the witnesses. They swore on oath, no doubt doing the best that they could, that the man in the court whom they could see face to face was the man known as Ivan the Terrible. It was a flesh to flesh, eyeball to eyeball positive identification.
What has since happened? According to the defence in the appeal now being run there may have been another man who resembled the accused and he is being said to be Ivan the Terrible. If that is true a gross injustice has been done to the accused. Therefore, we should be most careful not to introduce into the court procedure methods of obtaining evidence which run severe risks of causing unfairness to the accused. It does not matter whether the case involves a breach of the peace or a war crime we; return to the issue of fairness. That is why I support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his amendment.
In a recent civil case in Scotland the judge went with counsel to a foreign part to take evidence. The client was left in Edinburgh with a telephone link. Whether that was evidentially successful we do not know but at least it presents an alternative to the taking of evidence by TV links. I do not know the details of the way in which the evidence is taken or the rights of cross-examination and the law that will apply. We have covered that course a few times. However, I say
1040
that the amendment is in the interests of justice to the state and to any individual who comes before the courts in Scotland. Accordingly, I support it.
Baroness Phillips: As a layman perhaps some of the noble and learned Lords will clear up a matter for me. Why should the provision relate only to war crimes? If a murderer is brought before a court will he be able to say that certain evidence cannot be introduced because he is claiming exemption under a certain Act? The provision will soon be extended to almost every crime and an accused might say, "No, you cannot try me because I am this and I am that". Surely the issue is being complicated unnecessarily.
I cannot recall any war criminals being tried in Scotland. There may be a lot of them lurking about somewhere but the matter is purely hypothetical. The noble Lord is merely following up an issue about which he feels strongly. I am sure that with the usual eloquence and the ability to change the facts, in which members of the legal profession seem to be trained, learned Members of the Committee will convince me that a different principle is not introduced. However, I believe that it does bring in a different principle because if one can claim an exemption under this Bill by reference to a particular Act what is to stop anyone having several Acts included and also claiming exemption? Luckily Members of the Committee have a free vote. I remain completely unrepentant about war criminals and I am sorry to say that I shall vote against the amendment. However, I should like an explanation on that point of law.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I too as a layman may intervene in the debate which naturally has been dominated by some noble and learned Lords, as was Tuesday's Committee stage of the Bill. I wish to make a few points. First, I was not in this Chamber when the War Crimes Bill came here for the first time. If I had been I should have agreed with the majority and voted against the Bill, asking Members in another place to think again. They thought again and reached the same conclusion; that they wished the Bill to pass. In my view the proper course was to allow them, as Members of the elected Chamber, to have their way. They had been asked to think again on what in my view were sensible grounds. However, for other reasons they wished to have the Bill on the statute book and proceeded along those lines.
I have more than a slight suspicion that today we are rehearsing the debates on the War Crimes Bill and are not debating and discussing the merits or demerits of television links. It appears to me that if the Members of the Committee who have spoken are right about the demerits of television links those demerits are right for all criminal law and not for this particular law. As a result of some small experience that I had on such an issue some years ago I am convinced that many court procedures try to ignore modern technology, whether it is tape recordings or videos. We have moved forward a little on that but not as much as we should have done. However, we should not ignore the use of television links. They may be especially important in fraud trials and in some drug trials when international evidence is required.

1041
I believe that rather than have a narrow argument about whether the War Crimes Act should be excluded from the provisions of the clause we should argue the general principle of whether it is right to have television links. We should not return to arguing the merits and demerits of the War Crimes Bill as, I am afraid to say, my noble friend Lord Campbell has done. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said that it does not matter whether one is concerned with the breach of the peace or a war crime. If that is what he believes about using television links we should be invited to oppose the whole principle—
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I made that observation in the context of the question of fairness.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I appreciate that the issue was fairness but I should have thought it related to whether television links were fair. I believe that Amendment No. 31A, which we have accepted, includes sufficient qualification to enable the court to hear an argument if, say, the defence in a war crimes trial or any other trial believes that it would not be in the interests of justice or fair to the accused. A defence counsel would put that argument before the court and if he won it the judge would be duty bound not to use the television link procedure.
That qualification, which we have passed and which is wise, should enable the Committee to pass Clause 31 without adding the amendment that we are now invited to consider. If we do not do so and agree to Amendment No. 33 we shall be rehearsing an argument about the War Crimes Bill. We shall not be looking at the merits and demerits of television being used in court. We should not do so in this Chamber because we have already done so in debate and in returning the War Crimes Bill to another place—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord misunderstands the point. I accept unequivocally that war crimes trials take place. That is the law of the land. Accepting that they take place I am concerned only to ensure that the accused have a fair trial. I am not going over the old argument about whether war crimes trials should take place, and I do not challenge the Government's decision. All I am doing is to explore with Members of the Committee how we can have fair trials. I suggest that it is impossible to have a fair trial by television link because 50 years after the event there is no cross-examination of an aged witness before the jury. This is quite another question.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I take on board the point made by my noble friend. However, there could easily be other trials—fraud or drug trials —which involve elderly witnesses. In those cases exactly the same arguments could be paraded: that television may not be the best link. In a modern world I believe that television is probably quite adequate as long as the court and defence counsel are agreed and believe that it is fair to the accused to use that procedure.
Many of the arguments which I have heard, which I would have agreed with on the day when the War
1042
Crimes Bill originally came before your Lordships' House, apply whether the witness is in court or whether he is at the other end of a television link. Therefore, I believe that when the Division comes, I shall resist the temptation to replay the War Crimes Bill and shall support the Government.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord asked us a very fair question which deserves an answer. He asked what is the connection between war crimes and television links. As I see it, it is in one word: namely, identification. Both matters involve difficulties as regards identification.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked what is distinctive about war crimes: it is that by definition they must have taken place not less than 47 years ago. Therefore, they have inherent difficulties.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. We have accepted the verdict of another place. However, it is true also that it is usually more difficult to identify a person on a film than it is in the flesh. There are many distinctive movements and appearances which one does not pick up nearly as easily on film as one does when one sees the person in the flesh. Therefore, here we have not one difficulty as regards identification but two difficulties. It is the argument in favour of the amendment that the one difficulty compounds the other and that although we may accept one difficulty, accepting both of them together is a work of supererogation.
I add only one point. There is no such thing as a crime so terrible that an innocent person should be convicted of it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Clause 31 is word for word the same as subsection (2) of the clause which was introduced in Committee into the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill two years ago. A similar amendment to that clause was won in a Division on that occasion. At a later stage of the Bill's passage through Parliament the clause, as amended, was dropped.
It certainly appears that the Government may have considered that, having been amended, the clause could not serve their purpose although there is opposition to it from, among others, the Law Society. The Law Society feels that it does not fit in with the adversarial system and it is uncertain as to the ability of juries to make an assessment of the demeanour of a witness when evidence is taken by television link. It feels that miscarriages of justice may result. Those miscarriages of justice would not only be in war crimes trials but would be in other criminal trials.
The noble Lords, Lord Macaulay of Bragar and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, have given notice of their intention to oppose the Question That Clause 31 stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, shakes his head but I know that the Law Society in Scotland is not happy with that clause.
If suspects in war crimes trials are to be disadvantaged by the use of a form of evidence which many do not consider good enough, particularly on questions of identification, for other suspected

1043
criminals, there must be a greater danger of wrongful convictions taking place. The more heinous the crime, the more important it is—at least, that is how it seems to me—that everything possible should be done to ensure that a suspect gets a fair trial. The crimes in these cases are particularly heinous; to be wrongly convicted of being a war criminal would be a rather different matter from being wrongly convicted of, perhaps, shoplifting or a breach of the peace. Therefore, we should be more rather than less strict over the rules of evidence. The face of British justice has been looking rather tarnished lately, as several cases of wrongful conviction have come to light, most recently the case of Judith Ward. Quite apart from the morality of it, is it really wise to risk further wrongful convictions eroding still further our reputation, and this time in Scotland?
Yet the Government would appear to be determined to secure a conviction, even a wrongful conviction, at all costs. The argument—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will use it—that we are trying to thwart the will of the elected Chamber is surely flawed in the wake of the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. Where it is possible to travel freely to and from former eastern bloc countries, it must be possible even if more expensive and inconvenient, to arrange for witnesses to travel to Scotland to give evidence. And I remind the Committee that in February the Court of Session sat in Vilnius in order to take evidence from Lithuanian nationals.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has already pointed out that evidence, taken in a case still in progress in Scotland, from witnesses who were under duress was rescinded when the witnesses were examined face to face and were no longer under pressure. I wonder whether that would have happened had the second examination been by television link.
In the event that this amendment is carried, I believe that the Government are contemplating taking war crimes suspects resident in Scotland to England to be tried where video evidence is accepted. I really must advise them not to do so. It may not be technically in contravention of Article 19 of the Treaty of Union, but it seems to me that to drag possibly innocent residents of Scotland to England to be tried, when there is no other reason for doing so, in order to be reasonably sure of a conviction, which could not have been obtained under Scottish law, contravenes the spirit of the treaty, and that is how it will be seen. In the present political climate in Scotland, I believe that to do so would be unwise.
Finally, I must add that it is not helpful to solving the constitutional problems in Scotland for the Government to put a heavy Whip on a Committee stage of a Bill which is about matters which are not contentious in party political terms so that sensible amendments to a Scottish Bill are defeated by hordes of Peers tramping through the government lobby without, in many cases, the foggiest idea of what they are voting about.
Lord Hylton: I suggest that the Government have a duty to explain to the Committee what safeguards
1044
there will he and how they will work out in practice both in ordinary cases and a fortiori in war crimes cases.
The matter of cross-questioning has already been mentioned this afternoon and I hope that the Government will have a lot to say about that. I notice that the clause mentions only the giving of evidence and says nothing about cross-questioning.
I would mention also the question of definition of TV pictures and whether or not they are adequate. There is also the matter of sound quality to consider. Who decides whether those factors are acceptable? We must remember that it may be a matter of transmitting in both directions; that is, from the foreign country to Scotland and from Scotland to the foreign country.
Finally, I would mention the matter of interpreters and interpretations for witnesses who may have an imperfect command and understanding of the English language. What provision will there be for interpretation and how will it he controlled?
Lord Grimond: I rise to support the amendment. I need do so only briefly due to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He laid out arguments which have often been laid before us previously, but which nevertheless are relevant at this time.
The amendment applies only to war crimes. It may be that we are departing too far from the old principle of confrontation in court and the examination of the demeanour of those who give evidence. But that is not the question before us at this time. The Committee may feel that the matter was decided during the course of the war crimes debate and the eventual passing of the Act, because it was decided that this type of evidence should not be available in war crimes trials. It may be felt therefore that it is anomalous to reintroduce it in this curious form today.
Confrontation is extremely important in all trials but particularly in matters of identification in trials where the offences were committed over 50 years ago and in circumstances where it is difficult to find out exactly what happened. That seems to me to be the one overwhelming argument for objecting to television in those cases.
I should like to emphasise what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, regarding a recent trial for libel in Scotland. In that case the judge went to a Baltic state to take evidence because he required to see and hear for himself the demeanour and language—no doubt translated—of those who were giving evidence. A case of libel is far less important than would be a war crimes case. But in that situation it was thought possible and desirable for a judge to go to the Baltic state to take evidence. I hope that the Committee will not depart from the principle laid down in more serious cases that the evidence should not be available through television alone.
Lord Gridley: Perhaps I may make one or two comments on what I have just heard. I was in total agreement with the speaker from the Cross Benches. Whatever we do in this connection we must be extremely careful to ensure that the evidence we

1045
obtain in connection with bringing criminal prosecutions is sufficient. The Government have a bounden duty to see that it is satisfactory and safeguarded in every way.
I form that judgment for the simple reason that during the last war I was in a country that was taken over by the secret police of the Japanese, whose rule lasted for four-and-a-half years. During that time I learnt the difference between the kind of rule exhibited there and the type of rule which exists in the House of Lords and our Parliament in this country generally.
One was taken in for questioning—interrogation —by the people who operated the secret police. They adopted the attitude that they were absolutely determined to obtain an admission of one's guilt. That was the situation under which that country laboured for all those years. When the person being interrogated did not give the answers required, he was tortured until either he passed out or confessed. There is one gentleman in this House who suffered in that way.
In this country a person is taken in for questioning and an investigation is held. If the evidence is sufficient to make us believe that the man has committed a crime, then he is charged and eventually found guilty. But in that other place one was forced to plead guilty under the most frightful torture; one made an admission to get them to stop.
We returned to that country after that situation had operated for a number of years and found many people in opposition. The people who had made false admissions when they were not guilty were opposing those who were trying to run the country at the time. We are saying that we will bring people from those areas to give evidence after all those years and bearing in mind the circumstances under which that evidence was obtained. Unless satisfactory evidence is produced by Her Majesty's Government, we must hear a great deal more of what the Government intend to do to ensure that justice is done, bearing in mind the horrible circumstances that existed at that time. The danger is that justice may not be done when we try to administer justice ourselves after all these years.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: Perhaps I may make one practical point. It is widely recognised that dock identification is unsatisfactory. By "dock indentification" I mean the identification by a witness of an accused person in the dock for the first time since the crime was committed. In those circumstances, in Scotland and probably in England, it is the practice, where possible, to hold identification parades at some time between the commission of the offence and the trial of the accused.
War crimes trials are special in two respects. First, it would seem almost certain that there will have been no opportunity for an identification parade to take place to enable the witness to identify the accused prior to seeing the person on television. Secondly, and almost more important, the immense passage of time which is likely to have elapsed since the witness last saw the accused means that enormous changes may
1046
have taken place in the appearance of the accused. It would be difficult enough for a witness in the witness box to identify the accused; it would be doubly difficult if he was asked to identify the person via the television.
Those of us who have presided in the High Court in Glasgow will have seen witnesses brought in to identify an accused for the first time. They gaze round the court and their eye alights upon two burly policeman and one small man sitting in the dock. "That's him", they say. Occasionally they may identify a member of the public or a juror. There are considerable difficulties involved. The passage of time and the lack of opportunity for an identification parade makes war crimes different from the normal run of the mill trial.
The Earl of Selkirk: I make only two observations on this matter. First, Scotland has long been—for at least 300 years—extremely sensitive on the question of evidence. That is laid down clearly by our institutes. I need mention only one example: even if one judge is deeply impressed with one witness, that is not enough; there must be two witnesses on all occasions. That has become fundamentally the rule that applies.
I do not know what the opinion of the Committee is in regard to television. I wonder whether anyone has listened to a set and found that they cannot hear a word or whether they have found it difficult to hear arguments advanced on television. It may be that if one goes to a strange island or a different part of the world the television may not be as good as ours. What are we to do then? The television people should show that they can transmit evidence with absolute clarity and without the slightest dubiety as to what it stands for. This is not the stage for that to happen. There is another stage to be taken. I am very glad to have listened to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and my noble friend said today. We should not begin this process until we are better prepared. I support the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: It is with great diffidence that I enter this debate. I took a very prominent part in the proceedings of this House in connection with the main War Crimes Bill. I remind the Committee that we tried to resist the main mischief not only once, but twice. We did not accept the rethinking of the Government and another place after the first round. We objected to their verdict the second time. The main mischief is really the original War Crimes Bill. We did our best in this House to stop it. It should be remembered that we tried to stop the main mischief over the whole field of war crimes legislation as it is now enacted in the War Crimes Act.
We lost the main battle. The present matter is incidental to the mischief that we were unable to stop. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, reminded us that we stopped the 1990 Bill as it applied to English trials of war crimes. Now the Government are resisting the application to Scotland of the exclusion that we decided for England.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may put the

1047
record straight. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that it was a Scottish Bill and not an English one. I say that just to keep the record straight. It was the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1990 and not an English Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. It is an extremely complicated matter as between English and Scottish law. The point is that underlying what the Government are now doing is their desire to pursue an individual case in Scotland. They do not feel that the way is clear at present to use television evidence which they have sought and possibly in some form already obtained. Therefore, behind this particular case lies the politics of the matter.
The War Crimes Act is designed not for fair trials, but for convictions. One must bear in mind the background to this matter. I shall not enlarge on it. There is no room here to talk about fair trials. I do not believe that there ever will be a fair trial in the circumstances of the mischief enacted not only here but in other countries as well. However, no conviction has yet been achieved in comparable circumstances to those concerning our War Crimes Act. Your Lordships' Committee should not be swayed by the Government's desire to facilitate a prosecution which at the present moment they feel they cannot make. Rather than give up the prosecution voluntarily they are prepared to go through the tedious process involving time and trouble in bringing a trial. No doubt they will be relieved at the end of the day for a jury to acquit the accused.
One must consider what is happening in Canada at the present time where a jury has acquitted an accused of all charges. But the case has not been finished with. The way in which accused persons are being held under the threat of ultimate trial and destruction is terrifying. Australia has got nowhere and neither have we. We are not going to get anywhere. Let us be candid about it: it is the forces of Jewish politics and the abhorrence of the world at the crimes which were committed which stand in the way of looking at these matters dispassionately and in the interests of what we believe to be justice. We would never permit a similar situation to arise for any other set of crimes other than those which are involved in the present war crimes legislation.
It is a tragic affair from beginning to end. It is time that we faced the truth of what cannot be done. My conclusion is that the members of this Committee should honour their previous decision and decide that they are not prepared to facilitate the use of this kind of evidence in a war crimes trial. We should not give the Government any encouragement to embark on a trial of this nature in Scotland.
The Earl of Perth: What worries me about the debate is that, quite apart from the legal side, I see questions arising on the constitutional side. That is a very serious matter. I have heard several Members of the Committee refer to what is happening as being a challenge to the Act of Union. That becomes much more serious when I learn that there is to be a two-line Whip. Therefore it is almost certain that it will be the
1048
English vote which will overrule—if it does overrule, and there is a good chance that it will not—the Act of Union and force us to do something which we in our wisdom believe to be wrong.
The Law Society of Scotland has come out quite firmly against the proposal. What is the good of all our judgments and the opinion of Scotland if they can be defeated by the manoeuvre of having a two-line Whip and getting the various English Peers to take part? I hope that this issue will be considered very seriously. Added to the weight of all the arguments which have been heard from the legal and humanitarian points of view and many others, I beg the Government to resist the temptation and to call off, as was suggested, the two-line Whip and remember that this matter is of real importance to Scotland.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I would not worry myself so much about the English vote, if it can be so described, if the English vote had been sitting in this Chamber while this debate was taking place. The reality of the matter is that when the Division Bells ring scores of Peers who have not heard this debate will come into the Chamber and vote. They will no doubt secure for the Government the majority that they want. I have been a Member of this House now for approaching 20 years. I cannot recall any occasion concerning an issue of high legal significance of the kind we are debating today when the Opposition parties have said that they have no Whip on the issue, but the Government have. It seems to me that of all the issues on which there should not be a party vote it is the matter which we are debating today.
I do not propose to go over all our debates on the War Crimes Act. My view then was that it was a profound mistake; and, as has been made quite clear, the issue that we are debating today is quite different. We are talking about whether the novel procedure of television links should be introduced in cases that will turn primarily on evidence of identification, and whether the new procedure should be applied in cases where defendants will be defending themselves against acts that they are alleged to have committed 50 years ago. I repeat that it seems a profound error that this very important issue is being treated in this way by the Government Whips. I very much hope that even at this stage we shall be told that the Government will not insist on a party vote on this matter.
5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I had not intended to participate in this debate; but, in the light of some of the remarks that have been made, I should like to say just a few words. First, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, on the admirable way in which they have opened this debate and supported the amendment. I am sure that we all agree that the War Crimes Act will almost inevitably prove unjust in cases of identification. I have no doubt that after a passage of 50 years, it will be almost impossible justly to identify a culprit in a court today. For that reason, I believe that this House very properly objected to the War Crimes Act. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we

1049
held that view, we have been overborne by the decision of the Commons, and it is a decision that we accept. Therefore, the position is that the War Crimes Act obtains today and we have constitutionally accepted it.
The question is this: is it right that in this Bill for Scotland there should be television-link evidence? I think that the general view will be yes. The next question is: is it right that television-link evidence should be used in a war crimes trial? I think that there is no doubt that television-link evidence in a war crimes trial would be both unfair to the accused and would not be in the interests of justice. Therefore, in my view, the amendment that was moved by my noble and learned friend meets the whole of our worry. I have no doubt that, if it was a question of identification in a war crimes trial, those defending would go before the court and suggest that such evidence could not be in the interests of justice, and that it would be unfair to the accused.
The protection that would be available in a war crimes case is already written into the Bill. I remind the Committee that under Clause 31 the court must also be satisfied as to the arrangements for the giving of evidence by a witness. For that reason, I believe that there is already sufficient protection, and I shall support the Government.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: We have had an interesting discussion on the amendment that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In replying to the debate, I begin by repeating that, as the Committee will be aware, provision along the lines provided in Clause 31 already exists in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That provision was brought into force for England and Wales in November last year in respect of cases of murder, manslaughter, or serious and complex fraud. I must remind the Committee that at no stage in, for example, the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill, which became the Criminal Justice Act 1991, was any attempt made either by this House or anywhere else to disapply the provisions of that Act to war crimes trials that might take place in England.
I do not understand that most Members of the Committee can have any basic objection to the principles behind Clause 31. It is surely right that we should take account of and use all the technological developments that occur in order to ensure that the courts in Scotland and England have available to them the best methods of obtaining evidence. This is simply one of a number of provisions in this Bill and in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 that are designed to bring the advantages of new technology to the courts in Scotland.
I repeat the important point that Clause 31 is of general application to solemn proceedings. The effect of Amendment No. 33 would be to create a special evidential regime for war crimes trials. If the amendment were accepted, in those proceedings—and only in those proceedings—evidence by live television link from abroad would not be possible. That would
1050
be in contrast to what happens in other proceedings, such as in murder cases, if Clause 31 were to be brought into effect.
We believe that it is wrong in principle to create a different evidential regime for proceedings under the War Crimes Act. In that respect, I fully endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said. If it is the case for war crimes, why not for all sorts of other crimes also? It is important to remember how limited the scope of the War Crimes Act is. That Act established jurisdiction over certain persons who would not otherwise have been susceptible to the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts in respect of murder, culpable homicide or manslaughter, contrary to the laws and customs of war. I stress that the important purpose of that Act was to establish the courts' jurisdiction. As several members of the Committee have said, that measure was enacted in the face of your Lordships' opposition; but, as has been accepted by your Lordships, it was enacted in accordance with established constitutional procedures and it is right that we should respect and not in any way seek to frustrate the law that is now on the statute book.
I do not wish to open up a discussion of the general merits of the War Crimes Act or of war crimes trials in general. I simply advise the Committee that this matter should be considered as one of principle. What does principle suggest about the trial of any individual who has been made subject to the jurisdiction of our courts? In my submission, principle surely tells us that that trial should be conducted according to the same rules of evidence and procedure as would apply in any other case of, say, murder, which was tried at the same time in the Scottish courts. If Clause 31 is enacted without the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell, then that is what will happen. In any other case of murder—however old the case may be—if appropriate, live television evidence could be used. As the clause stands, in a war crimes trial the same provision would apply. That is what even-handed justice requires.
If, on the other hand, the Committee were to pass the amendment that very basic principle would cease to apply. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, wishes to intervene. I gladly give way.
Lord Grimond: I am much obliged. I am certainly not a Scottish lawyer. I am a wholly out-of-date English lawyer. However, can the noble and learned Lord tell me for what crimes a person can be prosecuted after 50 years, except war crimes? Surely war crimes are in an entirely different category from other crimes. Therefore, to say that they must all be dealt with in the same way is irrelevant. Can the noble and learned Lord tell me what crimes there are for which one can be prosecuted when the offence took place 47 or 50 years ago?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Whatever the position may be in England and Wales, the position in Scotland is that there is no proscription applying to crime at all. A person could be prosecuted for any crime after 50 years. That is the position in strict law

1051
in Scotland. It applies, for example, to an ordinary murder as it would apply to a war crime. Therefore, on that matter, there is no difference.
In looking at the amendment, the underlying assumption seems to be that it would somehow or other assure greater justice for the accused. But would it? Members of the Committee should notice that the clause as it stands—and I make this point in particular because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, mentioned it—would give the accused in a war crimes trial the right to ask for the evidence of defence witnesses to he taken by live television link. One can easily envisage circumstances where an accused might make such an application if, for example, one of the witnesses whom he wished to call to testify to his innocence of the crime was unfit and unable to come to court and give evidence. If the amendment is passed, then, at a stroke, the accused in a war crimes trial would lose that right—a right which would be available if he was being charged with and tried for any murder in a court next door. Is that just and fair to the accused?
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked what safeguards would be available. Members of the Committee should look very carefully at the safeguards in Clause 31. In the first place, no application in a war crimes trial for the use of the power under this clause would ever be made except after consideration by the Lord Advocate, whoever he might be. I can tell Members of the Committee that whether that Lord Advocate was myself, or any of my successors of whatever party, the traditions of the office would absolutely ensure that his decision on the matter would be taken in the light of the interests of justice. Moreover, among those interests, one of the foremost would be the right of the accused to a fair trial. I repudiate completely any suggestion from any quarter that in the Bill the Government are somehow or other showing a determination that convictions will be achieved in an unjust way or that a prosecution would be taken unjustly. That seems to me to be totally inconsistent with the traditions of the office of Lord Advocate.
Plainly, in considering whether any application should be made to use the provision, the Lord Advocate, or whoever it may be, would scrutinise what kind of evidence the witness would be expected to give and whether it could be properly taken by live television link. Members of the Committee have given examples of the kinds of evidence which it is thought could not properly be taken by live television link. But, of course, there is a range of types of evidence. At one extreme there could be rather formal, technical evidence; for example, evidence from an archivist regarding what certain records contained. That archivist may not be an old man. Indeed, it may be a young lady who could give the evidence perfectly well on a television link. Would it be necessary for her to come all the way to Scotland to give that evidence?
That is one end of the range. At the other extreme there is the kind of evidence about which we have heard; namely, that which turns entirely on an issue of identification. Members of the Committee have pointed out repeatedly the difficulties which could
1052
arise in such a case. Is it really thought that the Lord Advocate of the day would be blind to those self-same problems? Is it thought that he would not take the matter into account when deciding whether to make any such application? It is really outrageous to think that that would be so. Indeed, there could be a whole range of cases at the middle stage where the Lord Advocate might have to decide very carefully whether an application should be made. The whole point is that the application would be considered in the light of what the Lord Advocate thought would be proper, having regard to the interests of justice.
But let us suppose—for suppose we must—that the Lord Advocate goes wrong. He may get the balance wrong. What then? At that point he will go into court. Members of the Committee must look at what the provisions, and the provisions as amended by the Committee this afternoon, provide. It will be seen that the way in which the subsection is framed is such that an application under subsection (2) will be granted only if "the judge is satisfied". Therefore, the judge has to be satisfied that the evidence is necessary, that the granting of the application is in the interests of justice and that it would be fair to the accused.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, had killed the matter stone dead by saying that we did not have witness statements in Scotland. If witness statements were necessary in order to ensure that the trial was conducted fairly, then, in the absence of such statements, the Crown would not succeed. The Crown has to satisfy the judge. If the absence of such statements meant that the judge could not be satisfied, then he would not grant the application. That is what the subsection says. The judge has to be satisfied.
I submit that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was correct when he said that the clause, especially as amended by this Chamber, contains all the safeguards which are necessary to ensure that a fair trial is available. I find far-fetched the idea that somehow or other judges in Scotland would not be alive to, and be acutely aware of, all the kinds of problems which have been mentioned today.
Let us further suppose that the application is granted but that, during the course of the trial for some reason or other when the provision is applied, something goes disastrously wrong and one finds that the effect of the evidence has been so to disrupt and cast doubt on the proceedings that the accused could not get a fair trial. Do Members of the Committee think that the Lord Advocate or the Advocate Depute prosecuting the case would be blind to the situation? He would surely have to take that into account. In such a situation, and in accordance with the kind of duty with which he is familiar, he might well conclude that it was not possible for a fair trial and desert the diet; that is, abandon the proceedings.
However, supposing that that was not done but that, nonetheless, it was apparent to the accused's advisers (the defence counsel) that the whole thing had become unfair. In such circumstances, an application could be made to the court to have the trial stopped on the grounds that a fair trial was not possible on the grounds of oppression. That remedy is open to the

1053
defence in any such trial. Those are the safeguards which are built into the provision in the statute and which exist under the general law which applies in criminal trials.
I do not apologise for this long account of these safeguards because in considering this matter the Committee has to take account of all of them. If the Committee does so it will conclude that this is a safe system.
If, on the other hand, the Committee accepts the amendment that will send a signal that we have, for other prosecutions in Scotland, a second-rate system which does not adequately ensure the interests of justice and the rights of the accused. The slur would not be confined to Scotland. I repeat that this matter is already covered by statutory provision in England and the Committee would be casting doubt on the provision which applies to murder, manslaughter and complex and serious fraud in England. There is no doubt that such a link could be used in a war crimes trial in England.
Again, if the Committee were to pass this amendment it would be casting doubt on the arrangements which could be applied in an appropriate case of a war crimes trial in England. I believe that it would be wholly wrong for the Committee to promote such doubts.
I therefore suggest that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is bad because it would set up a special and different system for trying persons accused of war crimes. That is bad in principle. The principle suggests that the procedures should be the same as in any other case. Those procedures are designed to protect the rights of the accused. The clause is good as it stands and in the light of what I have said I ask my noble friend to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The Committee will have formed a view on the merits of the amendment and certainly it is not my intention to reopen arguments in order to convince, but surely we do not have to entertain the type of emotive defence of the role of the Lord Advocate to which we have just now been subjected. In any event, if I may say so, I found some of the observations of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate wholly unconvincing.
Perhaps one of the reasons why I found them unconvincing stems from what another Lord Advocate said whom I shall quote:
"I hope that one thing is clear. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, may have said, I have never sought to disguise the fact—I repeated it in my opening remarks —that I should like to have this provision if there is to be a war crimes prosecution".—[Official Report, 1/5/90; Col. 957.]
That was in 1990. That is why the Government require this provision. Why do they require it? They require it as an aid to conviction not as an aid to acquittal.
Having, I hope, dealt with that I should like to deal with something else. It is suggested by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate in some of his remarks to the Committee that "Oh, it's all the same. A war crimes trial is no different from any other trial.
1054
We just have exactly the same system and what a marvellous system it is." By and large it is a marvellous system. But does the Committee remember the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, who explained that war crimes "are so very different"? The noble and learned Lord explained why. I shall not bore the Committee with the details. It is all very well for the Lord Advocate to ignore, so to speak, the opinion of a noble and learned Lord with experience of this order or, indeed, the contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
There are one or two scattered observations that I wish to make. The Committee will be relieved to hear that there are only a few. The first is important. There is no challenge, no hint of confrontation whatever with the Government on the War Crimes Act. The only question that arises is one of procedure to ensure a fair trial for the accused in a war crimes trial. The second matter is that if the Committee is minded to adhere to the opinion which Members of the Committee have already expressed on an exact replica of this situation in 1990 on a free vote, there is no confrontation with another place; and there was no confrontation on this matter with another place in 1990. The Committee is fully entitled to express its opinion and another place on this occasion, for all the Committee knows, might well accept it.
That is a matter for the other place to decide. Therefore, to speak in terms of any hint of confrontation is, frankly, wholly misconceived.
The next brief point, which was taken by several noble and learned Lords, is that it is utterly essential that in a war crimes trial, having regard to 50 years delay and having regard to the age of the witnesses, none of whom can be much younger than me—that is, 75—it is essential that the evidence from old people with fading recollections—and I charge the recollection of any Member of the Committee as to what precisely happened in the last war; I cannot totally remember—
Lord Campbell of Croy: I certainly can.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My noble friend said that he can. I can remember broad outlines, but it would be difficult to swear to precise details. It is a matter for your Lordships. In any event, it is essential that with old witnesses their evidence should be laid before the jury and cross-examined according to our traditional procedures. That is a fundamental requirement of justice in a stale evidence case.
If what it comes to is that these men—and it may be so, I cannot say that I know it is so, but I suspect that it is so —cannot be brought to trial without this television link evidence as an aid to conviction or as an aid to raise the prima facie case, then the Committee may well think it better that they should not be tried at all.
Finally, I express my gratitude to Members of the Committee, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for what he said about this place having to deal with this matter under a strong two-line Whip, a matter which concerns the procedure of criminal law in Scotland. I also thank most sincerely

1055
the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his words which put the Members of the Committee who were able to hear it on clear guard about the constitutional position as between this country and Scotland on imposing laws upon Scotland which are not, in the opinion of the Committee, for the better administration of justice. I commend the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 80.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Judd, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Auckland, L.

Kintore, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Longford, E.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brightman, L.

Lyell, L.

Brookes, L.

Lytton, E.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cadman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mersey, V.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Carver, L.

Molloy, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Monson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mustill, L.

Cross, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Perth, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Portland, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dormer, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dundonald, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Foley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Foot, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Gisborough, L.

Selkirk, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gridley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Slim, V.

Halsbury, E.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Terrington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton, L.

Wharton, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wilberforce, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

1056

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lucas, L.

Aldington, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bauer, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Beloff, L.

Mountevans, L.

Bessborough, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Biddulph, L.

Nelson, E.

Blake, L.

Northbourne, L.

Blatch, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Boardman, L.

Orkney, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Butterworth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Phillips, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Carnock, L.

Prentice, L.

Chalker, B.

Renton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rodger, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rodney, L.

Colwyn, L.

Romney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cranborne, V.

Sandford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Digby, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Downshire, M.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Strange, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E [Teller.]

Flather, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Goschen, V.

Trumpington, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Waddington, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wakeham, L.

Howe, E.

Westbury, L.

Joseph, L.

Wise, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Evidence of children on commission]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 23, line 48, after ("may") insert ("on cause shown as to why it is inappropriate or impracticable for the child to give evidence in court").
The noble Lord said: This is a short amendment relating to obtaining evidence of children on commission. It proposes to insert after the word "may" in line 48 on page 23 a qualification that the court may grant permission for the evidence to be taken,
"on cause shown as to why it is inappropriate or impracticable for the child to give evidence in court".
Again, the same principles apply that if possible a witness should be in court. The amendment was put down so that such a motion should not be given by the court too readily without a proper examination of the reasons why there should be a departure from procedure. In one view at least, it may encourage what I may call "lazy" prosecutions. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I fully understand the principle which lies behind the noble Lord's amendment. However, the point to which he adverts is governed by the provisions of Clause 34. They show

1057
that in these applications certain provisions of Section 56 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 apply. These lay down the situation in which such applications can be made. They can be granted on cause shown to the court such as having regard to the possible effect on the child, if the child were required to give evidence in default of the application or if the judge were satisfied that it is likely that the child would be better able to give evidence if the application were granted.
I shall not go through the various criteria but they limit carefully the circumstances in which the applications can be made. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 24, line 1, after ("commissioner") insert ("who shall be legally qualified").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the same section relating to the qualifications of the person who is to take the evidence from the child. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that the person appointed as commissioner should be someone with legal qualifications. It is important that the proceedings should be properly controlled by a person with experience of court procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Again, the idea behind the amendment seems to me to be proper. It is that the commissioner who is appointed should be legally qualified. I cannot think of any occasion on which a court has ever appointed a commissioner who was not legally qualified. I therefore anticipate that the court would always in practice appoint a commissioner who was legally qualified, because the commission would be part of the trial proceedings over which the judge would normally preside. It may be that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. If not, I am prepared to take it away and consider it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about it being unlikely that an unqualified commissioner would ever be appointed but it is really a protective qualification. If it does no good, it does no harm. If the noble and learned Lord is prepared to give the amendment further consideration, then I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 24, line 11 after ("accused") insert ("nor his representative").
The noble Lord said: It may be convenient to deal with Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 together.
1058
Amendment No. 37 originally stood in the name of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Morton of Shuna. The latter hoped to be here and apologises to the Committee for his absence, but he is engaged on judicial business. I agreed that at least I would present the amendment in his name to the Committee for its consideration.
Amendment No. 36 deals with the question of who should be present when the child gives evidence. In Clause 32(3) it is a qualification that neither the accused nor his representative should,
"be present in the room where such proceedings are taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked me to present Amendment No. 37 to the Committee as a probing amendment. He asks why it is necessary that the accused or his representative should be able to watch the child as well as to hear the proceedings. He raises the question, for example, about what happens if the accused is blind. That may not be a good example, but I put the matter before the Committee in order to ascertain the Government's reasoning behind the words "watch and". I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
Lord Meston: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I wonder whether he can inform me what opportunity under this procedure an accused person would have for his case to be put to the child witness. If the amendment is accepted and neither he nor his representative is present, it will presumably depend upon the commissioner having an idea of what is or might be the accused's defence and putting the appropriate questions to the child witness. That seems to me to be a rather unsatisfactory position.
In all these situations, the interests of the child witness must be balanced against the interests of the accused. These are always difficult and sensitive cases; but I wonder what is envisaged here procedurally and what opportunity the accused would have for his case to be put, and for appropriate questions to be put to the child.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: When I read Clauses 32 and 33 on child witnesses, I was a little perturbed over exactly the same point as has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I became even more worried when I saw the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, proposing to take the representative of the accused out of the room in which the evidence from the child was being recorded on video.
My anxiety has been almost brought to a head by certain matters in the Scottish press and elsewhere concerning the situation in Orkney, and more recently in Ayr. The evidence there seems to turn on child witnesses. I am a little anxious that if the amendment were to remove the representative of the accused from the room, it is based on the assumption that child witnesses are totally trustworthy and reliable. I do not personally believe that children are any more reliable as witnesses than adults. Indeed, from past experience which I had as a school teacher, I am not sure that they are even necessarily as reliable as adults.

1059
I appreciate that children must be protected from difficult and upsetting situations; but there must be a balance between that protection and subjecting their evidence to the same critical analysis as the evidence of any other witness in a case. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I should like to hear my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate reassure me that the interests of the accused are not put at risk under this clause, and especially under the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not think I could have put the case against the amendment more clearly than the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, have done. The principle behind the procedure in Clause 32 is that evidence should be taken from the child but that it should be taken under the appropriate legal safeguards. As has been said, while the interests of the child are important and it is important to reduce strain on children, one can never lose sight of the fact that one is dealing here with a criminal trial where the rights of the accused are important.
What is sought is to strike a balance in the clause by stating that the accused himself will not be present and that will reduce strain on the child. However, there was no intention that his representative would not be present. If his representative were not present, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, should find it difficult to see how appropriate questions could be put in placing the accused's case to the child witness. Therefore it seems to me important that the accused's representative should be present. For that reason I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
As regards the words "watch and" in line 19 on page 24 of the Bill, the position there is that it was thought appropriate that the arrangements should be made so that the accused, like other persons in the court, should be able in accordance with the usual provisions to see the witness. The demeanour of the witness is often a matter of great importance. It is part of the general proceedings of the trial. It would be wrong if the accused were deprived of the possibility of seeing the witness. A blind accused, of course, could never do that, but here we are dealing with the ordinary run of the mill kind of situation. It is envisaged, for example, that where screens are being used they should be such that they enable one-way vision. Technology does not seem to have advanced that far but by the use, for example, of closed-circuit television the accused could both see and hear the witness. I ask the noble Lord again to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In Amendment No. 36 I was thinking of possible intimidation or some kind of confrontation that might affect a child's evidence. However, I am persuaded by the eloquent arguments presented from all parts of the Committee that the amendment is bad. Accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Concealment by screen of accused from child giving evidence]:
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Additional matters for court to take into account
.—(1) Section 76 of the 1975 Act (Preliminary diet) shall he amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after "(c)" there shall he inserted the words "that there are documents the truth of the contents of which ought in his view to be admitted, or that there are any other matters which in his view ought to be agreed, the court may make such order as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
(3) The existing subsection 1(c) shall become 1(d) and in that subsection after "(a) or (b)" shall be inserted the words or (c)".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to amend Section 76 of the 1975 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act as regards preliminary diets. The object behind the amendment is to see whether we can knock some evidential sense into protracted trials such as fraud trials where a vast amount of documents are produced. There has been recent experience in more than one court of circumstances where the documents are not admitted by the defence, presumably on the instructions of the accused. That rather ties the hands of his representative.
The end result in one trial—I understand this was the case although I was not present—was that a considerable number of representatives from various commercial firms were paraded through the court merely to speak to the document itself or, if the document was a copy, to explain where the original was. Such a procedure is not fair to the public or to the jury who have to listen to such a parade of evidence. On any commonsense view such matters could and should have been agreed beforehand.
At the preliminary diet stage before the trial has commenced the amendment suggests, in relation to the judge, the following words,
"that there are documents the truth of the contents of which ought in his view to be admitted, or that there are any other matters which in his view ought to be agreed, the court may make such order as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above".
The proposed new subsection (3) is merely consequential.
This is a matter of some concern particularly where cases are funded by public funds and legal aid. These matters should be streamlined in the public interest. The accused always has the right to silence and he does not need to admit to anything. Amendment No. 38 is a suggestion only but the Government may consider setting up a committee to consider how this matter can be dealt with. There is also the question of whether photocopies should nowadays be accepted as a substitute for the original. Many other issues could be regulated in the way I suggest. If they were so regulated the tedium would be removed from fraud and other trials and a more streamlined system would result in major cases than we have at present.
Sections 7 to 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 clearly set out a procedure for England. It would be worthwhile, I believe, for the Government to consider

1061
those sections and see whether there is scope for adapting the principle to the Scottish system. If that were done, by the time a case came to trial the issues would be focused and the appearance of many side issues before the court would be avoided. I have tabled this amendment in a constructive attempt to assist the better administration of justice. I am sure the Government will accept that. The amendment also stands in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The intention behind the amendment is laudable. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter in the absence of both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morton and Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. Any measure which can be taken to improve the operation of the criminal justice system and avoid unnecessary delays and inconvenience to those involved is to be welcomed. The noble Lord has given a good example of a trial where this provision would have saved the time and money not only of the taxpayer but also of jurors and witnesses brought from all over the country to attend such a trial. A great deal of time, expense and worry would have been saved if the agreement the noble Lord spoke of had been secured in advance of the trial.
My only concern about the amendment is this. During my time as Lord Advocate I had understood that it was the practice for such matters to be brought before the court at a preliminary diet relying on the provisions which exist already in Section 76(1)(c) of the 1975 Act. I say with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that I rather wish that either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, had been present today because I should like to know whether the judiciary in Scotland are now choosing to define Section 76(1)(c) in a different way or whether they consider it does not allow for some examination of the issue of admission of documents. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment but I should like to seek the views of both of the noble and learned Lords who put their names to the amendment. If it is their view that Section 76(1)(c) is too restrictive I would be prepared to look at the matter favourably.
Of course there are wider issues which have to be examined to see whether we can improve the methods whereby uncontentious evidence can be agreed before a trial starts. The noble Lord will be aware that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate is already pursuing various schemes and initiatives, such as giving police officers' statements to representatives of the accused. However, I readily accept the noble Lord's view that even such initiatives may not be sufficient and we may have to look at some of the approaches which have been followed on this side of the Border.
6 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for that information. As I understand it, that last experiment is confined to summary procedure.
1062
One of the problems with the operation of Section 76(1) (c) is that what happens is dependent on the party making the application to the court and the court has no authority to bring the parties before the court. The principle behind the amendment is that the court will be given the power to bring the parties in a trial before the court; for example, where there are a great many documents or matters which the court considers could reasonably be agreed.
Perhaps I may say in passing that it might be a constructive exercise to consider the way in which some trials have proceeded where documents have not been agreed and the cross-examination which took place by representatives in the course of the trial. That might be an instructive exercise, although one would not necessarily find anything wrong. That might be reflected in another place in respect of remuneration, but we do not need to go into that aspect at this time.
In the light of the Minister's undertaking I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Date of commencement of sentence]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No.39:
Page 25, line 44, leave out ("(other than an offence in respect of which imprisonment for life is mandatory)").
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: At an earlier stage I indicated to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that I would accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 26, line 1, leave out ("paragraphs-") and insert ("words—
"or spent in custody awaiting extradition to the United Kingdom;").
The noble and learned Lord said: Broadly speaking, the intention behind the amendment is that when imposing a sentence of imprisonment or detention the court should either make allowance for time spent in custody on remand or awaiting extradition to the United Kingdom or should give reasons for not doing so.
There is a defect, which the amendment seeks to correct, in that the first mention of the extradited prisoner is in the new paragraph (c) which Clause 38 seeks to insert into Sections 218 and 431 of the 1975 Act. It is therefore merely implied that the courts are to have regard to time spent in custody awaiting extradition. Something more than an implication is required and the amendment provides that something by including a reference to such time in the existing words which are to become paragraph (a) of either section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Prosecutor's consent to or application for setting aside of conviction]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("either in court or in chambers").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the section dealing with the situation where the prosecutor consents to an application for the setting aside of a conviction. The objective behind the amendment is to ensure that everything takes place in public. Presumably a person who appeals has already been convicted. It is therefore important that if the conviction took place in public the disposal of the appeal should also take place in public. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The effect of the amendment would be to remove the requirement that the proceedings under the clause could be heard in a location other than the court or chambers. We consider that undesirable. The procedure under Clause 39 is part of the appeal process and as such should be subject to the normal rule that judicial proceedings should be conducted within the precincts of the court. The clause as presented to the Committee in that respect mirrors the existing provision in Section 453 of the 1975 Act, and I am not aware of any difficulties which have been encountered in that regard in the operation of the section.
The provisions in Clause 39 are intended to provide an accelerated method of bringing an appeal to a speedy conclusion, thereby minimising the expenditure and time involved for all concerned. The procedure is dependent on the Crown deciding, either on its own initiative or at an early stage of appeal, that there are no grounds for sustaining a conviction. For that process to work the reasons should be clear, as Lord Justice General Cooper stated in 1947 in O'Brien v. Adair:
"where some fatal flaw in the proceedings has been discovered, or where new facts have come to the Crown's knowledge".
In considering those proceedings the judge will require to have all the relevant papers which have been transmitted to the High Court by the inferior court. He may well require to hear parties and to have ready access to his clerk or to the justiciary office.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am interested in the explanation given. However, if the case is heard in chambers how do the public become aware of the fatal flaw and the reason for the person who has been convicted walking free? I do not know whether there is an answer to that point or whether I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It may be that if the matter is considered in chambers the public would not be admitted. I have indicated that the procedure is part of the appeal process and intended to accelerate matters. We do not think that it should be done anywhere; it should be done either in a court or in chambers within the confines of a court building. That would seem appropriate, notwithstanding the accelerated and less formal approach that has been adopted.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I appreciate the need for acceleration of the formalities. However, that explanation does not meet the case. For example, a person who has been assaulted and thinks that the person who has been convicted of that assault is in
1064
prison may walk down the high street and see the person who assaulted him walking down the road. He will ask, "Why is he walking about? He should be in prison". If there is no public forum in which the release can be certified then justice is not seen to be done.
However, I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord said and I shall have a close look at his words in the report of the debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Obligation of prosecutor to disclose information
.—(1) Section 83 of the 1975 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) The prosecutor shall be obliged to disclose to the accused all information which he has in relation to the allegations made in the indictment." ").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the prosecutor in a case should be obliged to disclose to the accused all information which he has in relation to the allegations made against the accused person
The reason for the amendment is that there is some confusion as to the duty of the Crown in relation to supplying material to accused persons. There have been considerable problems in cases in England, as Members of the Committee will be aware, which have led to notorious appeals. In those cases the defence had not been given relevant material —reports as well as statements—which would have assisted the defence and perhaps obtained an acquittal in the first place.
At least one judge has said that there is no obligation on the Crown in Scotland to tell the defence anything and that it is up to the Crown to decide what is appropriate. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, expressed the view that he would always assist the defence and I am sure that that is quite true.
This amendment has been tabled on the basis that it is time to stop playing hide-and-seek in the prosecution system between the Crown and defence on relevant issues. It should not just be a matter for the Crown to obtain a statement or a report relevant to the inquiry, look at it, stick it in a file and then proceed to trial on what it considers is important. The defence should be entitled to see anything that has been recovered in relation to the prosecution, subject of course to cases of national security or the safety of the witnesses. But such matters can easily be dealt with.
In Scotland there is a theory of confidentiality of witnesses' statements which occurs when a person makes a statement to the procurator fiscal. So far as I am aware it does not have any legal basis and is illogical. If someone makes a statement to a policeman at the scene of, say, a murder, he does not enjoy any privilege at that time. There is no confidentiality and he may be taken before the court to give his evidence.

1065
As a person who is of value in a case has to give evidence at some time, it seems artificial to hide behind at least the theory of confidentiality. One wonders how many witnesses being precognosced by procurators fiscal are told that their statements are confidential. If so, I wonder how much confusion that causes. If a witness is told that, he may very well think he can say anything he likes about the case, on the basis that he will not be called to give that evidence in court.
I recall very clearly a case from central Scotland where the second witness in the case was a man who had reported an embezzlement within his firm. He had given a statement and specifically said at the bottom of that statement: "I am giving this information in strict confidence on the basis that it is not to be founded upon". He found himself as number two in the Crown List in the High Court to give evidence against the accused.
There is also police involvement. I recall a case in which a policeman went into court to give evidence and in the course of that evidence said that the accused person had made a very damaging admission. Defence counsel asked, "Were you not seen by a solicitor for the defence?" He said, "Yes". The defence counsel said, "You didn't tell the solicitor for the defence that, did you?" and the policeman, who was a very senior officer, said, "He never asked". So the policeman's view was that if the solicitor does not ask the correct question, he will never get the answer.
That information was in the Crown precognition and should have been made available to the defence. We are supposed to be moving into an atmosphere of openness. This is an area which should be open, to ensure fair trial and that no injustice will occur—so far as it is possible to avoid injustice within the courts when dealing with human testimony.
It may be time for the Crown Office to take a close look at all the principles behind this matter and—again, like the other amendment—consider whether this point might have a beneficial effect on the administration of justice in the long run. It will give people a feeling of security and a sense that they know everything about the case before it starts, so that they do not have to go fishing after a conviction. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The issue raised by the noble Lord's amendment is undoubtedly most important. It is one which must be in everybody's mind today following the Judith Ward judgment this morning. The matter of disclosure is one to which all concerned with the prosecution must attach the greatest importance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, the position in Scotland at present is that there is no legal duty to disclose information to the defence. The purpose of this amendment is to seek to alter the position in law. However, what matters is not the legal position but what the Crown sees as its duty in practice, whatever the law may or may not provide.
On that matter I can explain the position quite clearly. The overriding principle is that the Crown must always act in the interests of justice. As part of
1066
that general approach, all members of the Procurator Fiscal Service are reminded that they must disclose to the defence any information which supports the defence case even though it may be damaging to the Crown case. They are also instructed that they should provide assistance to the defence if it is necessary to enable witnesses for the defence to be traced. The overall aim should be to try to ensure that the true facts of any case are laid before the judge or jury.
I believe that that approach is well understood by procurators fiscal and Crown counsel. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, knows, it is very common in our courts for the prosecution to lead, as part of its case, the evidence of witnesses who contradict that case to a greater or less extent. That is entirely proper since in that way the Crown is laying out, so far as it can, a true basis on which the jury is to decide.
Such then is the present position. For the future, as noble Lords may be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has undertaken to consider carefully the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the English system, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Runciman. I should have thought that the commission may well have recommendations to make on this matter and on the related and separate but equally important matter of police disclosure of information to the Crown authorities. For my part, I shall pay close attention to what is said by the Royal Commission and consider whether any further changes require to be made. Indeed, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that the example of handing over police statements —admittedly, only in the case of summary proceedings —is an indication that these matters are under consideration.
The noble Lord indicated that the doctrine of confidentiality has been widely applied in Scotland. That again is something at which I intend to look.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged for that full and informative answer. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord's comments will have been noted with interest by defence counsel and solicitors for the future. There is certainly among some people a slight feeling that on occasions they do not get full co-operation. I accept that in 99 times out of 100, if approached, the Crown will be co-operative. I hope that it will always remain that way.
In the light of that explanation, which will be noted in the appropriate quarters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Right of prosecutor to appeal in solemn cases
.—(1) Section 228 of the 1975 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) The prosecutor in such proceedings may so appeal on a point of law—

(i) against an acquittal in such proceedings; or

1067

(ii) against a sentence passed in such proceedings".").

The noble Lord said: Again this is an amendment of a probing nature to see whether anything will happen in relation to the right of a prosecutor to appeal in solemn cases. It would mean the insertion of a new clause in the 1975 Act, that in such proceedings the prosecutor could appeal on a point of law:
"(i) against an acquittal in such proceedings; or
(ii) against a sentence passed in such proceedings".
I understand that at the moment the prosecutor has no such right. As the Committee will be aware, from time to time there are occasions when the public feel that their hands are tied by the judicial system because what is perceived to be an inadequate sentence has been passed for a serious crime. It would be invidious to detail particular instances but I have no difficulty in recalling cases which have upset either the public or relatives of the victim, cases in which a very serious crime was not met with what was considered a reasonable sentence. I accept, however, that the public do not hear the whole case and do not see the reports placed before the judge. The reason for this amendment is to give the prosecutor such a right, which would be exercised very sparingly.
It is important to remember—I am sure that we are all aware of it—that the victim has no representation in court and the family of the deceased has no representation in court. They are dependent on what comes out at the end of the legal machine, so to speak. I can think of cases of reckless driving causing death —bad culpable homicide. What should plainly in the public view have been murder becomes culpable homicide and, on the face of it, a trivial sentence is passed on the assailant. That makes the public feel that justice is not being done and that in serious cases the interest of the offender may supersede the interest of the victim or the victim's family. Are any steps being taken at present to consider introducing to the prosecutor the right of appeal in solemn cases?
The Committee will appreciate that it is a probing amendment. I look forward to hearing the reply from the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The amendment probes on two fronts. The first relates to the possibility of the Crown appealing on a point of law against an acquittal in solemn proceedings. Such a change in the law introduces a completely new concept which is quite contrary to what has always been regarded as a fundamental principle of our law: that once someone has been acquitted by a jury he is forever free from the risk of any further prosecution.
Limited departure from that principle has been made in connection with appeals. However, the amendment is a far-reaching proposal. I do not know of any proposal at present in the minds of those considering such matters to introduce an appeal against an acquittal in solemn proceedings.
If one turns to the matter of sentence, the effect of the amendment would be to give a right of appeal on a point of law against an inadequate sentence. However, as I understood the noble Lord, he raised a rather more general point relating to the matter of appeal against sentence generally. The noble Lord may recall that there was indeed a commitment in the
1068
Conservative manifesto in Scotland that a Crown appeal against lenient sentences would be considered. That is indeed the position. It will be considered. In due course a proposal on that line may he brought before Parliament.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I did not appreciate that an appeal concerning law against acquittal would harm the jury system. I was not so keen on that proposal but rather prefer the second which was meant to be disjunctive; the word "or" appears. The amendment may be badly framed. However, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation. I look forward to further developments. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Majority verdict in solemn proceedings
.—Immediately preceding section 154 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Majority verdict in solemn proceedings.
153A.—(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence unless 10 members of the jury vote in favour of a guilty verdict.
(2) The verdict of the jury shall be publicly recorded and the number of jurors voting in any verdict shall be publicly announced." ").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment which may be regarded as rather radical. The Committee know that there are three verdicts in Scottish criminal courts: guilty, not guilty and not proven. The "not proven" verdict is unique to the law of Scotland. Whether or not it is a good verdict in the public interest is another matter. It has been used on many occasions.
In Scotland one has a jury of 15. When one talks of the presumption of innocence, if seven people out of 15 are not prepared to convict that must surely constitute reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt. Yet in Scotland over the years people could be hanged or receive life sentences on the single majority vote out of 15 jurors. It is sad sometimes that people go down after a verdict of eight votes to seven. There is a sense of injustice and that there has been a reasonable doubt. In reality the majority always leaks out. We have this great theory that no one knows the majority. But there have been many occasions when for one reason or another the number leaks out. I do not suggest impropriety on anyone's part. Indeed, I seem to recall one case not so long ago in which the Appeal Court had knowledge of the majority—but I speak off the top of my head on that issue. It is a silly procedure unrelated to modern times.
The amendment proposes that,
"no person shall be convicted of any offence unless 10 members of the jury"—
out of the 15—
"vote in favour of a guilty verdict".
That still leaves a majority of 10 to five. That is a ratio of two to one. It seems eminently more reasonable than convicting a person on a single majority vote out of 15.
The second suggestion is that the verdict of the jury should be publicly recorded and that the number of jurors voting in any verdict shall be publicly announced. That does not seem to harm the system.
Perhaps I may refer to the "not proven" verdict. As the Committee gather, I am not terribly keen on it. At one time it used to be defined by judges. There was a classic definition in 1964 in the case of M'Nicol by the late Lord Justice General Clyde. However, in recent times when judges have tried to explain the not proven verdict, they have got into an awful fangle. So far as I am aware the judges are now warned not to try to define that verdict. If the judge cannot define it, how is the jury supposed to know what it means? It is a fudge of a verdict. It is time we moved into the 20th century and modernised the jury system by bringing in a proper system that reflects guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The present system does not do so. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As with the previous amendment, this amendment takes us to a fundamental principle of Scots law; namely, that a jury shall reach its verdict by a majority decision and that the details of that decision should remain confidential to the members of the jury.
That principle has stood for centuries and I would wish to have very strong arguments advanced and extensive periods of consultation with all those involved in the criminal justice system before beginning to address a possible overturning of that vital tenet of Scots law. We are not in a position to know what occurs in the jury room. That is another basic principle of our law. I am therefore not in a position to say whether a move to a majority of 10 would alter the way in which courts would have to operate in the time required for juries to reach their decision, or whether there would be any substantial alteration.
As the noble Lord says, around the courts one tends to hear rumours of what the majority was on any day. But I am sure that I do not need to remind the noble Lord of the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in that respect. While there may be majorities of eight to seven, the system appears to have worked well. If any change were to be contemplated I believe that there should be a study of the matter. That might mean having some adjustment to the 1981 Act so that reviews, analyses and research with regard to juries could be undertaken.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble and learned Lord raised a point which interests me. Does he say that research into the proceedings in the jury room is inconsistent with existing legislation or would it be possible?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord may remember the express provision in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which ensures that no one can interview jurors to find out exactly how they voted. As I understand it, on this side of the Border, one Attorney-General in the past has allowed some limited access to jurors, but I believe that such access related
1070
to questions such as did the jury find the room big enough, warm enough, or airy enough, were there sufficient toilets, and such matters. But I believe that on both sides of the Border research on how the jury reached its verdict and the majority would be considered beyond the bounds of the Act.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may ask from where the amendment originates. Is it the noble Lord's own amendment? He raises a fundamental amendment at a late stage in the Committee stage. Does he raise it without any particular basis or consultation? It may be appropriate to raise it, but how can such a fundamental amendment be raised in this way? For my own information perhaps he can explain that, because I am interested.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I do not have any source material for research; but the amendment comes from my experience and conversations with practitioners. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction that a person should be convicted by one vote out of 15. This seemed an appropriate forum in which to raise the matter and presumably it is the only opportunity that we shall have for a long time to amend the law of Scotland. I appreciate that it makes fundamental inroads into the present system.
The noble and learned Lord said that the system had worked well. That raises the question: worked well for whom? If one were at the receiving end of an eight to seven majority, I do not think that one would consider that the system was working well or that it was fair. In order to achieve a better balance of fairness in the system it is time that we looked at the issue. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that perhaps research could be conducted and that he should come back in due course so that we can debate whether the idea is good or bad. The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is that the provision came from what I care to pass as a brain and is based on my experience in the courts and on conversations with practitioners. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Rules and orders]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 43A:
Page 28, line 36, after ("section") insert ("6(3),").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment corrects an omission. It is intended that an order on the provisions in Clause 6, like other orders of that kind, should be subject to affirmative resolution. A reference to subsection (3) of Clause 6 therefore requires to be inserted in Clause 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 44:

1071
Page 34, line 20, leave out ("four") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: The amendment was tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Morton of Shuna. I have undertaken to raise it before the Committee. The object of the exercise is to give more time to receive reports. Apparently some members of the judiciary find that reports are not submitted within the four-week period required in the legislation. It is believed that six weeks would be a more practical period of time. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There have been problems and for that reason it is proposed to extend the period from three to four weeks. I hope that extension is sufficient. I understand that a period of six weeks would provide even greater flexibility but that would permit too much slack to enter into the system. There is a risk that the normal period for adjournments might rise to new levels.
While I appreciate that preparation for reports is undertaken against a tight deadline and that additional time would be welcomed, I have yet to be convinced that in all cases the system would benefit from such a large extension of time. The intention must be to ensure that having convicted an offender of a crime, the appropriate sentence should be passed down as soon as possible thereafter. The system has coped more or less with the three week requirement, and an extension to four weeks will resolve some of the anomalies without introducing too much slack into the system. I should prefer to go no further at this stage.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sure that the noble and learned Lords who tabled the amendment will note the Minister's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 44A:
Page 37, line 13, after ("3") insert ("of the Schedule").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 44B:
Page 37, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) In section 12 (photographing and measuring of prisoners)—

(a) for the words "The Secretary of State may make regulations as to" there shall be substituted the words "Rules under section 39 of this Act may provide for"; and

(b) the words "such regulations" shall cease to have effect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 48. The amendments would correct an anomaly in the existing provisions of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 44C:
Page 37, line 47, after ("large)") insert:
1072

("(a) after the word "institution", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or committed to a prison or remand centre";

(b) after the word "sentence" there shall be inserted the words "or committal";

(c) for the words "or young offenders institution" there shall be substituted the words ", young offenders institution or remand centre"; and

(d)").

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment corrects another minor defect in the existing provisions of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 44D:
Page 38, line 28, leave out ("that") and insert ("the 1975").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals and Revocations]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 41, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert: ("In section 12, the words "such regulations".")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Anatomy (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
6.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to define the arrangements for the use and custody of bodies left for the purposes of teaching anatomy. It also sets out requirements for the licensing of persons to practise anatomy and for the licensing of premises in which it is to be practised. The order will replace the Anatomy Acts of 1832 and 1871, which still apply in Northern Ireland, and bring the law in the Province into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. In short, this is a parity measure which will do for Northern Ireland what the Anatomy Act 1984 did for the rest of the United Kingdom since it came into force in 1988.
The structure of the order is simple and follows closely the provisions of the Anatomy Act 1984. It would therefore be tedious to subject your Lordships to a detailed explanation of each and every article. I propose therefore to concentrate on the main provisions.
Article 4 forms the core of the order, and sets out the conditions which must be met before anatomical

1073
examination is carried out. The body must be lawfully donated, the death must be registered, the premises must be licensed and the person carrying out the examination must be authorised. Similar conditions apply to possession of the body, or "anatomical specimen" as it is defined in the order.
Article 5 deals with licences. Any person wishing to practise anatomy will require a licence granted by the department for that purpose. The premises in which anatomy is practised will require to be licensed, and a licence will also be required to possess parts of bodies following completion of anatomical examination. In addition, the licence-holders will be required to maintain records of bodies (and parts of bodies) held in his or her possession, and to keep records of anatomical examinations.
Article 6 specifies what constitutes lawful examination. The anatomical examination of a body is lawful if the body has been lawfully donated; that is donated by a person in writing during his or her lifetime, or orally in front of witnesses during his or her last illness. In addition, a person having lawful possession of a body may authorise its use for anatomical examination where, after reasonable inquiry, there is no reason to believe that the deceased had previously made any objection to his or her body being so used, and that surviving relatives would object to such use.
Article 6 also defines the period for which a body may be retained for examination. Under the 1832 Act a body could only be retained for 6 weeks. The 1971 Act subsequently provided for the extension of the period to 2 years but advances in science now mean that a body can be kept in good condition for up to 3 years, the maximum period specified in the order.
Article 7 provides that it shall be unlawful to retain a body or part of a body following the expiry of authority—that is, after 3 years—or after anatomical examination is completed. However, paragraph (4) of this article allows for an exception to this requirement in cases where a licensed person, or a person authorised by him or her, needs to retain part of a body for research or teaching purposes. The conditions to be fulfilled before such retention is lawful are set out in Article 8.
Articles 9 and 10 cover the system for issuing licences and empower the department to make regulations for the orderly conduct of examinations and the decent disposal of bodies and parts of bodies after examinations have been concluded.
Article 11 re-enacts the provision in the 1832 Act which empowers the department to appoint inspectors of anatomy. The inspectors' powers and duties are set out in Article 12.
Present-day circumstances are of course radically different from those which gave rise to the introduction of the 1832 Act. Medical schools did not at that time have an adequate supply of bodies for the purpose of anatomical examination, and it was not unusual for newly buried corpses to be removed illegally from graves by body snatchers or "resurrection men", as they were known, for sale to medical
1074
schools. Among the more notable practitioners of this art were two infamous gentlemen known as Burke and Hare.
Nevertheless, even in modern times, it is necessary to regulate the practice of anatomy in order to ensure (and perhaps more importantly assure) the public that proper arrangements are made for the use and custody of bodies donated for the purpose of teaching anatomy. The order therefore is a necessary updating of the 1832 and 1871 Acts. It relates to a limited, but important, sphere of activity. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.—(The Earl of Arran).
6.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on his appointment to the Northern Ireland Office and I wish him well in his challenging post. I should like also to take this opportunity of placing on record our appreciation of the work of the noble Earl's distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, during his tenure of office as Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office.
I now turn to the draft order which is before the House, and I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I believe that the order was considered this morning by the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place. Perhaps the Minister will confirm—I am sure he can—that it was given a safe passage.
I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the main purport of the order. As he said, it is not a unique order addressing a unique situation or providing a unique answer. It has a precedent in the Anatomy Act 1984. The order extends the provisions of the 1984 Act without a single amendment, so far as I can see, to Northern Ireland. However, it provides that it is not to have any retrospective effect and rightly so. I have not been able to ascertain why it has been necessary to wait eight years for the 1984 Act to be so extended to Northern Ireland. Can we safely assume that the eight year delay was justifiable?
We support the order, but perhaps I may be allowed to mention briefly two other points. First, Article 6 provides that a person, during his last illness may, in the presence of two or more witnesses, authorise his body to be used for anatomical examination. A probate lawyer will be extremely familiar with the need for two witnesses to be present at the same time. It is not clear to me whether the two or more witnesses referred to in Article 6(1) are to be in each other's presence. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that small point.
I was also rather surprised to read in Article 6 that any surviving relative of the deceased may object, in the circumstances set out in the article, to the body being used for anatomical examination. It surprises me that the right to object is not confined to the nearest surviving relative but is available to any relative who can establish any degree of kinship with the deceased. It has occurred to me that that could

1075
lead to difficulties. It probably has not done so otherwise there would have been an amendment to the 1984 Act.
Finally—and possibly this is a point of more substance—should there not be a right of appeal where a licence granted under the order is revoked under Article 9(7)? Whatever be the climate in the last century and whatever the climate in 1984, is it not important in the climate of 1992 that the revocation of a licence should be seen to be fair and to be properly done? To that end it should be possible to appeal the decision.
I have no more questions or comments to offer on the order and I hasten to confirm that we support fully its provisions.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his warm good wishes for the future in what is, as he says, a challenging job. I thank him also for the kind words which he has expressed about my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Belstead.
First, I can confirm that the order was considered in a Commons Standing Committee and was approved.
As regards the other points raised by the noble Lord, he was courteous and thoughtful enough to give me notice of those points, which is helpful to your Lordships' House. The words "surviving relatives of a deceased person" are not defined in the order or in the corresponding Anatomy Act 1984. I agree that any relative can object and his or her objections will be respected. Of course, that applies only to cases where the deceased has not made a written request or an oral request duly witnessed by at least two persons.
The noble Lord inquired also whether both witnesses to an oral request must be present at the same time. I can confirm that is necessary in order to provide proper corroboration of a person's wishes in that particularly sensitive area.
On the question of licences, there is no provision for an appeal against the department's decision not to grant a licence. It is similar to the position in Great Britain where the absence of an appeal system does not appear to have caused any problems. However, where the department decides not to grant a licence under the order, the applicant will be notified in writing of the decision and of the reasons for it.
The first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, concerned the question of time and why it has taken so long to introduce the order. It is regrettable that from time to time we experience delay in bringing forward legislation comparable to Great Britain Bills. In this case the delay was brought about by the competition for resources within the DHSS. In the recent past the department had to administer the passage of Orders in Council on health and personal social services and on food safety, both of which were lengthy, complex and essential and had to be introduced by a specific date in order to maintain parity with Great Britain. In addition, six orders subject to negative resolution procedure were introduced. By contrast to that urgency, the existing
1076
anatomy Acts, while in need of updating, provided adequate framework for continuing the practice of anatomy.
I hope that I have been able to answer the majority of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maxwell Companies: Pensions
6.51 p.m.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the position of pensioners in the Maxwell companies is fully safeguarded.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the Question three weeks ago out of deep concern that the plight of the Maxwell pensioners was not being sufficiently scrutinised either in Parliament or in the media. I hesitate to say that it was entirely as a result of my setting down the Question, but during the past three weeks there has been a great improvement in the situation. Much more information is now publicly available in the area of political discussion than was available at that time.
I make clear that I am not in the least concerned this evening with the issue as to how it may be possible to prevent catastrophes of this kind happening in the future. That is a matter for another debate on another day. I am concerned only with what can be done to help the pensioners in their present position. For that purpose the relevant facts are reasonably clear, give or take the odd £100 million—I suppose "take" is perhaps the more appropriate word in the circumstances than the word "give".
At the time of Robert Maxwell's death there were around 35,000 members of pension funds being operated by companies under Maxwell's control. Of that number some 15,000 were in the Mirror Group Newspapers' fund. That proved to be an enlightened employer and the position of its employees regarding those funds appears to be reasonably secure. Of the remaining 20,000 or so, 9,000 are already pensioners and the other 11,000 members of schemes who have not yet reached retiring age.
Those pension funds appear to have been raided by Maxwell to the tune of something in the region of £500 million, largely by the means—there is no need to go into detail—of the certificates of investments held by the pension funds being deposited by or on behalf of Maxwell in various banks as collateral for loans. The loans were advanced by the banks to Maxwell and used by him in various ways to bail out his failing companies. In the result, the companies having failed or being about to fail, the loans cannot be repaid and the banks are therefore retaining the certificates of investment. The pension schemes have therefore lost their funds.
Situations have occurred where the funds have not been available to meet the pensioners' claims. In April of this year 240 pensioners in a scheme run by a company known as Headington found that their payments to their pensions were suspended altogether.
Next month 5,500 pensioners in Maxwell Communication Corporation are threatened with having their pensions drastically reduced by around 75 per cent.
That is the background to the matter, expressed, I hope the Government will agree, broadly correctly. The second matter with which I hope the Government will agree is that the hardship sustained, and about to be sustained, by those pensioners is intense. It goes without saying that many of them who contributed to pension funds throughout their working lives have now found suddenly and unexpectedly that their homes are at risk because they cannot meet mortgage repayments. They have found that the whole basis of their future family life and security is in danger of being destroyed.
The third factor with which I am sure the Government will agree is that those pensioners are totally blameless. Many of them never worked for Maxwell in the whole of their lives. They were members of companies and retired from those companies years before Maxwell took the companies over and managed to get his hands on the pension funds and assets. Many of them had to join pension schemes as a condition of their employment. All of them regularly paid their contributions prudently and sensibly in the almost certain knowledge that in due course their position would be safeguarded upon their retirement.
In recent months other groups of people have experienced similar misfortunes. For example, there were those who, in a quest for higher interest rates than may have been obtainable elsewhere, invested in Barlow Clowes. Others, in pursuing similar higher rates, deposited money in BCCI. Others, knowing that they were involved in an enterprise that was not by any means risk free, became members of Lloyd's. I do not seek to make any comparisons between those people. I simply draw attention to the fact that in no way whatever can the Maxwell pensioners be criticised for anything that they have done. They are ordinary decent people who led honest, hard-working lives; who were prudent, as they were expected and indeed required to be by their companies, but who perhaps lacked among their number certain influential people who might have been able to raise their plight rather more vocally than has been done up to the past few months. They are people whose futures are in real danger of being irreparably ruined.
The final point with which I have no doubt the Minister will agree is that the situation is urgent. It cannot wait. It is not a question of anyone saying on behalf of the Government that inquiries will be made and that in due course there will be legal investigations of this, that and the other and the position may then be resolved. It is a matter where urgent action is necessary if the position of those pensioners is to be safeguarded.
In those circumstances I ask the Minister whether or not he agrees that the community as a whole has the moral duty in this situation to ensure that those pensioners are safeguarded. If that duty rests on the community then it rests on the Government acting on
1078
our behalf and using, if necessary, the funds which the community contribute to the Government in order to assist those pensioners.
I am old-fashioned enough to believe that it is not for the Government to say that they cannot use government money on this occasion. I do not believe that there is government money, but only money which people have contributed to the Government in order that it should be used as desired by them. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord this evening that the Government should recognise in the first instance that they have the responsibility to fund any shortfall in the pensions.
I say the responsibility as distinct from the liability. First, I believe that the Government have the responsibility to make up this shortfall forthwith and urgently. The next task of the Government should be to resolve liability issues in order to ensure that they take the lead now in keeping these people in the manner in which they could reasonably expect to be kept. The Government will then be able to recover sums from the various sources which I suggest are available to them. No doubt there are a number of sources which the Government will want to look at. They will want to look at Maxwell's estate, which may take a little time judging by the recent revelations concerning some of the more complicated dispositions of money in Liechtenstein.
Secondly, the Government will want to look at the position of the trustees of the various pension funds to see whether any of them were acting in collusion with Robert Maxwell in disposing of the investment documentation in the way that was done, or to see whether they were negligent in the way in which they carried out their duties. In either event clearly those trustees can be pursued for their contribution to fund the consequences of this disaster.
Thirdly, the Government will no doubt look with care at the role of the Department of Trade and Industry. The pension funds which were raided were managed by two companies, Bishopsgate Investment Management (BIM) and London & Bishopsgate Investment (LBI). They were both Maxwell companies for all practical purposes. He owned 75 per cent. of one of them, and 100 per cent. of the other. In April 1988 the DTI licensed London & Bishopsgate Investment to deal in securities. It did that in a situation in which it must have known that Maxwell had an overwhelming majority shareholding in that company. The DTI must have known that about 17 years earlier Maxwell had been declared a person who was unfit to hold office in any public company.
Having licensed the company in that way, the DTI then handed over its responsibilities for the supervision of those companies to the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation—better known as IMRO. That is the next area where the Government will want to look carefully to see where liability attaches. Almost immediately after the companies were handed over and came under the supervision of IMRO in June and July 1988, that body authorised the two companies to trade. It knew at the time that Maxwell had become not merely the principal shareholder but the chairman of both

1079
companies. It also knew of Maxwell's reputation as it had been ascertained in a previous inquiry many years earlier. IMRO had a very clear duty to supervise the running of those two companies. I understand that an executive of the Association of Mirror Pensioners wrote to IMRO in October of that year suggesting in terms that by investing the proceeds of the pension funds in MCC the pension funds were being placed at risk. The letter asked that an inquiry should be made by IMRO into the operation of those two Maxwell companies.
IMRO made an inquiry and received in return—not entirely surprisingly—a 75-page letter from Maxwell's lawyers. IMRO let the matter rest there for about two and a half years. IMRO made no further inquiries and did not visit the premises again until September 1990. On that occasion these two companies were managing many of the pension funds, and IMRO reported that everything appeared to be in order. IMRO went so far as to say that nothing was known which was adverse to Mr. Robert Maxwell. That was in September 1990. Therefore, there is clearly a case to be looked at as regards IMRO.
There is also the case to be looked at of the banks which accepted these pension fund securities as collateral for loans to Maxwell's private companies. Those matters will have to be examined with considerable care to see whether the banks may have been negligent in doing what they did, and whether they can now be persuaded to refund some of their ill-gotten gains on the very simple basis that the securities they were handling were stolen property.
The last body that the Government might wish to consider is in rather a different category. It is the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF). I say at once that I do not suggest for one moment that NAPF is in any way responsible for what has happened. It consists of a large number of pension funds almost all of which are run quite impeccably by trustees who are devoted to the interests and welfare of their pensioners. The fact is that those funds handle altogether between £250 billion to £300 billion. Those funds have risen enormously in value over the past year or two as a result of the rise in Stock Exchange values. As a result, many of them are considerably over-funded. Many of them have been able to increase the benefits payable to pensioners. As they have no alternative, companies have been obliged to declare pension scheme contribution holidays.
It is not impossible that a very small voluntary levy might be contributed by those pension funds. That might go a considerable way to help in this crisis. To meet the whole of the amount necessary would be less than 0.1 per cent. of their assets. That would be barely noticed. It would have the effect of only slightly shortening the length of the contribution holiday being taken by the employers. In its way it might resemble the liability which is accepted by all insurance companies by law since the Policy Holders Protection Act passed in 1975 where if an insurance company gets into difficulties levies are made throughout the insurance industry.
I know that it is important not to take any step to discourage companies from operating their own
1080
pension schemes. I also know that the Government are about to embark on new pensions legislation in order to ensure that disasters of this kind never happen again. It might be possible for the Government, when they embark on that new legislation and consult with the NAPC, to discuss with that body whether a small, generous gesture by that association and its members might help substantially to resolve the present position and smooth the path of the legislation which is being considered. Those are the various bodies that the Government will no doubt want to investigate in order to consider from where, in the long term, the resources will come in order to fund the pensions.
There is one other action that the Government could take immediately that would have immediate effect. They could bring into effect by regulation Section 58B of Schedule 4 of the Social Security Act 1990, perhaps retrospectively for a matter of only a month or two. By that means, company pension schemes that find themselves in financial difficulties could become creditors of the parent company. That would be of material assistance, especially in relation to MCC. I understand that that might have the immediate effect of reducing the apparent deficit by something like 50 per cent.; but it is a matter which needs to be dealt with urgently. A regulation would have to be laid. It would have to be laid before the long Recess if it was to come into effect before the long Recess and to have the desired effect. The Government will therefore no doubt want to consider taking that step urgently.
The Government will also want to consider persuading the banks—if they can—to release the securities that they are holding as collateral. They will also want to pursue the other trustees; to examine the role of the Department of Trade and Industry; and, even more critically, that of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation. They may want to talk to the National Association of Pension Funds to see whether some form of voluntary support can be obtained from the association.
All those steps, if taken, are bound to take some time; but I believe that if they are taken there is a very strong probability that most, if not all, of the appalling deficit will be recovered in due course. The problem is that "in due course" is too long to wait. The need is now and it is urgent. I should like to ask the Government tonight whether they accept that in those circumstances they have the responsibility in the first instance to ensure that payments continue to be made to existing pensioners. I do not believe that a substantial sum is involved at this stage. The payments should continue to be made by the Government while they go about their business of examining the sources from which, in due course, they can be repaid and the pensioners' interests can be safeguarded. It is not any answer for the Government to say—as they have tried to do — that at least the pensioners have the guaranteed minimum pension. That is no help to those who retired before 1978; and it is quite insufficient help to those who have retired since.
I hope that the Government will indicate tonight that they accept that there is a very real problem that

1081
has to be dealt with urgently. I hope that they will recognise that the pensioners cannot be fobbed off with talk about inquiries "taking their course", about "in due course" and about this, that and the other perhaps being done. I ask the Government to come out firmly and to say that they accept the ultimate responsibility on behalf of the community as a whole for the welfare of these unfortunate people.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the compassionate and constructive way in which he has raised this Question in the House tonight. I have no knowledge of the law affecting pension funds and nor am I a master of high finance, but I do have personal knowledge of some of the people who have been affected by the action of the Maxwell companies. I know only too well of the distress and anxiety that has been caused to many of those pensioners, and especially to those who have now been advised that their payments will cease altogether at the end of this month.
The instance which I know best is of an individual who jointed Atwoods in 1955. In 1960 that firm started a pension fund to which he contributed. The firm was eventually taken over, in the form of AGB Research Limited, by Maxwell. My friend's final period of service was with that company. For 25 years from 1960, he paid into a pension fund which he thought would make his eventual retirement much easier and give him a pleasanter way of life. Fortunately for him, he was also in a position to take out an independent pension, administered by the Norwich Union, which has not been affected by the Maxwell affairs. In that sense he is fortunate because he still has a little additional income. However, the loss of his Maxwell pension, through the takeover of ABC Research plc, and the apparent misuse of that company's pension funds, mean that he has lost over 50 per cent. of his income. That is a distressing situation in which to find oneself after one has contributed for 25 years and been retired for seven years. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said action is needed now because the pensions will cease in three weeks' time.
I can understand that the Government want the banks to honour their moral commitment to the Maxwell pensioners but, faced with a massive reduction in their income in three weeks' time, those pensioners want some assurance now that if the banks do nothing the Government will either reimburse the funds or assure the pensioners that they will continue to receive some payment.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Social Services looked at this question before the general election and recommended that the incoming Government should begin discussions with the banks to point out the moral if not the legal responsibility of the banks to return the pension fund assets that are in their keeping. Have those discussions taken place and, if so, have the Government anything to report?
1082
The Secretary of State for Social Security said, when he was the last government's Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that a Securities and Investments Board inquiry was being made into the conduct of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation in respect of the Maxwell pension funds and that it would be published. That was two months ago. What progress has been made with that inquiry and when can we expect the report to be published?
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has referred to Section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990. I have a Question down for Written Answer, but I shall be happy if the Minister could answer the point tonight. That provision serves to make pension funds the creditors of companies that have become insolvent. Why cannot those provisions be invoked in this instance?
I accept that the Government are now to review pensions law. I hope that that review will recommend action to prevent future Maxwell-type operations, but it will not necessarily help today's victims. I understand that IMRO will be reporting on its performance and that SIB is still to give its view of IMRO's role. However, it seems to me as a layman that the structure of the regulatory framework shows such weakness that the Government, who have ultimately sanctioned this regime, have some responsibility to the unfortunate Maxwell pensioners.
I cannot help feeling that the leader in Tuesday's edition of the Evening Standard got it about right when it stated:
"The trustees of the Maxwell pension fund were poodles. The auditors were, to say the least, absent-minded. The lawyers were not looking in the right direction. The banks who transferred the pension fund's money looked no further than the face value of the securities they were handling. The Bank of England was doing something else at the time. The Securities and Investments Board was out to lunch … The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation was twiddling its thumbs … The buck was passed from well-manicured hand to well-manicured hand, and it seems to have come to rest in Liechtenstein, where the pensioners cannot get at it."
That is perhaps rather a graphic description, but it sums up the fact that nothing in the regulatory protection mechanism seems to have functioned as it should in this case.
Parliament passed laws obliging employees to pay into a pension fund. Parliament passed laws to protect those funds. Parliament, through its Ministers, did not keep a close eye on the regulators. Therefore, I believe that it follows that, at the very least, Parliament should pay pensions to the several thousand Maxwell employees who are now to be deprived of their retirement pay. I look forward to the Minister's answer with interest.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I also congratulate him on the appropriateness of his timing. We are all very grateful to him. Robert Maxwell built up his empire in the 1980s largely by acquisition. The 80 or so companies which he acquired had two things in common: for the most part they were associated with

1083
the printing industry, but almost invariably they also had healthy and abundant pension funds. Therefore, as the noble Lord mentioned, men and women who had never worked for Maxwell found themselves and their pensions transferred along with their company to his tender loving care. Their pensions funds were acquired, moved, transferred, lent, diverted, raided, sent abroad or finally declared missing presumed stolen.
It is possible that a bandit with Maxwell's agility would have torn through any safety nets which were set to protect those pension funds. But those safety. nets were thought to be stronger than they turned out to be. They should perhaps have given him more trouble than they did. It is because of that that I want to argue that the law must be changed.
I am well aware that we are judging the situation with hindsight. But the report of the Select Committee on Social Security of another place on the operation of pension funds which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has made it all too clear that various bodies might have exercised a whistle-blowing function. Some of them probably should have done; indeed, the pensioners certainly believe that they ought to have done. However, because there was no overarching body, no one stepped outside their narrow remit until too late.
Who might have signalled the alarm? One turns first to the professional advisers—namely, the lawyers and the accountants working to professional codes who were employed by Maxwell—who might have flagged their concerns. For example, the accountants (an outstandingly reputable firm) nonetheless serviced both the Maxwell companies and the Maxwell pension funds, despite what was to become, with hindsight, a conflict of interest.
Accounts for the year ending 5th April 1990 were received well over a year later. The management letter voicing areas of concern, which might be thought somewhat to have qualified those accounts, was not seen by the pensioners and it is not clear that it was even seen by the trustees. Therefore, the trustees were unable to detect until too late that Maxwell had moved pension funds out of the top 100 companies—a warning signal which might have been given by the accountants that came too late.
The next whistle-blower might have been the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service, a body set up to liaise between pension schemes and their members when there is a breakdown in communications. The advisory service was contacted back in March 1990 by one of the Bristol companies taken over by Maxwell in 1987. The advisory service might have used that early warning to indicate concern and to scrutinise the patterns emerging in the Maxwell pension funds. It did not do so, and another opportunity was lost.
I turn next to the Occupational Pensions Board. Its function is to ensure that schemes have enough resources to guarantee the minimum pension, within the broader considerations of gender, equity and the like; that it is checked annually. That in turn presumes a company's financial health. The OPB might perhaps have taken a wider view of that role than it felt it could
1084
do given its resources and its` remit. Back in 1982, the OPB had been calling for the abandonment of trust law as a framework for the pension industry (a framework that permitted the Maxwell defalcations), but by 1989 it had changed its mind, which is regrettable.
The OPB clearly took a scrupulous reading of its role. Not so the next possible whistle-blower; namely, IMRO, the investment management regulatory organisation body which carries the regulatory functions sub-contracted by government under the Financial Services Act 1986 to the Securities and Investments Board. Its job was to vet business records, the reputation, integrity and competence of management. As Sir Leon Brittan said in another place at the time:
"Powers will be transferred to the agency only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the agency's rules were adequately protecting investors".
Yet, despite the DTI report of 1971 mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which stated that Maxwell should never again be regarded as fit to run a public company, the DTI licensed London and Bishopsgate Investment Limited three days before the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force. Moreover, IMRO licensed Bishopsgate Investment Management thereafter, even though the first company was 75 per cent. and the second 100 per cent. controlled by the Maxwell family. IMRO said that "nothing adverse" was known—a judgment that strains credulity. Either IMRO was not given sufficient powers to protect pensioners, in which case the Government defaulted on their responsibilities under the 1986 Act, or IMRO was given sufficient powers but it failed to exercise them. In that case, IMRO, the sub-contracting regulatory body, defaulted. Can the Minister tell the House which of those he thinks is the more appropriate explanation? Can he also tell us what he believes the standing of IMRO to be? The Select Committee in another place said that IMRO had no real understanding of what it was approving for membership. Does the Minister agree?
I now turn to the banks. The great commercial banks are powerful professional bodies. They lent large sums of money to Maxwell secured by pension funds. Did no bank ever see or ask to see any consolidated accounts, all the assets or all the debts? Moreover, what of the role of the Bank of England? It is widely believed by newspaper financial commentators that it played far too passive a role; it cannot, it should not, but it did stand aside from issues vitally affecting the integrity of the City.
I turn finally to the Government. Here it may be thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, already argued, that the Government defaulted on the responsibilities which were uniquely their own. Their superannuation fund office might, as the Select Committee's report says, have undertaken a policing role. But it did not, given its resources. Moreover, the Government stood behind IMRO, and IMRO failed to provide the industry with the regulatory powers that it was widely believed to hold. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, mentioned, the Government had the capacity to put in place much earlier the Social Security Act 1990. They failed to use the protective

1085
framework that the Act permitted. Only very belatedly have the Government brought into play the rules limiting self-investment to 5 per cent, and the crucial Section 58B mentioned by both previous speakers has still not been brought into force.
We all appreciate that companies which fund all but a small fraction of their pension schemes may collapse. But as the Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Tony Newton, said in another place, that is precisely why we need to avoid double jeopardy —that when an employee's company and his job disappear, his pension should not be taken as well. That is why Section 58B is so significant. It would have ensured that any default in pension schemes would have become the debt of the company. If Section 58B were to be put in place speedily, it would do much to reduce the hardship of the Maxwell situation.
But, over and above that, the Government have a liability. I say that because the Government have failed to take due regard of EC Directive 80/987 which required member states to protect the pay and pensions of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employers. That was due to take effect by 1984. The Government have not introduced that protection. Cases have been fought and won in Italy on the basis of that directive; but here that directive has afforded no such protection.
The Government also have a wider responsibility because trust law was devised by medieval England to protect the real property of the legally incompetent, women and children; it was stretched in the 20th century to apply to occupational pension funds, but it has proved too frail a framework. A sequence of committees and reports have called on government for a new legal framework for pensions—for example, the Wilson Report in 1980, the OPB in 1982 and the Gower Reports of 1982 and 1984—but the Government have done little or nothing. So lawyers and accountants and the formal and statutory bodies, like the OPAS, the OPB, IMRO, the banks, the Bank of England, the DTI and the Government, have collectively failed the Maxwell pensioners. Just because no one had collective responsibility, just because there was no overall regulatory responsibility, Maxwell could and did make mayhem.
I repeat that we are judging the Maxwell situation with hindsight, but every financial figure I know fears that there may be other Maxwell type situations lurking; not so huge perhaps, but lurking with the potential problems to shadow the pension scene.
Sir David Walker, the departing chairman of the SIB has, in his annual report published in today's Financial Times noted exactly that—that the regulatory structure of the industry is too fragmentary and its splintering undermines its effectiveness.
So the system has failed the Maxwell pensioners. Headington pensioners have already had their occupational pensions stopped. Several thousands this month, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has mentioned, can expect to see their pensions reduced by some 70 per cent. Mr. John Smethhurst, of the Manchester Action Group, reports one disabled
1086
pensioner of 78 with an ailing wife of 80 who can neither sell his flat nor afford its service charges—who having retired before SERPS, cannot even receive the guaranteed minimum pension. This disabled 78 year-old is now "looking for work".
The Government have to act fast as pension companies, I understand, are deluged with pensioners seeking to remove their moneys, fearful of the Maxwell fate. The industry needs stability and confidence to be restored because, after all, after a house pensions represent the biggest financial personal investment anyone makes and represent, collectively, some 70 per cent. of the equivalent wealth tied up in the nation's housing stock.
So it is a matter of public policy because society wishes to protect against poverty in old age and the vehicle for that is the pension. If that framework is insecure, as it is now, so will be that individual provision—that individual willingness to save against one's old age. It is also a matter of public policy because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said, before 1988 all employees were required to contribute if their employer offered an occupational scheme. They had no choice in the matter.
It is also a matter of public policy because, as with the Barlow Clowes affair, a regulatory agency set up via the SIB by government had responsibilities subcontracted to it by government on which it may have been negligent. Just as the DTI accepted a degree of culpability in the Barlow Clowes affairs, we are dealing with investors who were seeking to speculate. How much more, then, is the culpability when dealing with employees and the elderly who are seeking only to provide security and safety for their old age?
The letter dated 6th April 1992 from Sir Robert McCrindle on behalf of the Prime Minister suggested precisely this. The letter suggested that an elector, through his MP, should approach the Ombudsman,
"either by the Department of Trade and Industry or IMRO, then, of course, we may be in a similar situation to that which prevailed in the case of the Barlow Clowes investors".
Sir Robert McCrindle added,
"I hope you will ponder this thought".
Will the Minister perhaps comment on that letter and especially the significance of that last sentence which clearly invites electors and others to make an approach in the expectation that the Government accept some culpability for the situation.
If, then, the Maxwell affair is a matter of public policy, which I hope to have argued, may we now ask Ministers what the Government will do? The Minister will, of course, observe the existing statutory obligations to ensure the guaranteed minimum pension; the equivalent of SERPS. He has no choice, it is his statutory obligation. But at best, as has already been said, this will provide only 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the pension that might otherwise have been enjoyed because SERPS, of course, has not matured. What will the Minister offer to those who retired before 1978 who will otherwise get absolutely nothing? In the interim it is clearly not acceptable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, that the elderly should face severe hardship. Therefore, will the Government keep the funds open so they may pursue their debts? Will

1087
the Government "drip feed" for this purpose as recommended by Tory members in another place? Or do they perhaps have other ways of keeping these funds open?
Will the Government employ Section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990—I understand that no question of retrospectivity arises—so that pension plans may become creditors of the Maxwell company assets? Alongside that, can we expect the Bank of England to exert pressure on commercial banks to return some of the securities it received on behalf of the Maxwell companies to ensure continued pension payments? I understand that the bank is holding £217 million and here I think one should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, of the National Westminster Bank, who has said he recognises the moral as well as the legal considerations that are engaged in this situation.
Will the Government commit themselves to a major reform of pension law? That might, for example, introduce stricter controls over stock lending. It might produce a limited number only of standard schemes for trustees, rather than the employer free-for-all. It might, for example, have 50 per cent. of trustees representing employees and pensioners. It might require independent trustees and an independent chairman. It might require that such trustees be properly trained and that they and the pensioners be given annual reports and annual accounts with appropriate expedition and which might also require that professional advisers might not be placed into a potential conflict of interest simultaneously advising both company and pension funds, thus to reconstruct the Chinese wall.
In such legislation do the Government propose to strengthen the regulatory functions needed; perhaps not only a strengthened OPB properly resourced in order to monitor, strengthen and support trustees, but alongside it an independent pensions tribunal to consider pension disputes —for example, on the control of a scheme which is beyond the reach and range of a pension ombudsman and perhaps on the model of the employment appeals tribunal? Given that all employees must now have an employment contract, should not legislation require that such an employment contract would spell out the contributions and defined benefits associated with its pension scheme?
Finally, will the Government encourage industry to set up a compensation scheme for fraud, funded by a levy on the industry analogous to the situation in the United States, Japan, France, Germany and most of Europe? Perhaps it could be modelled, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 which performs a similar function for life assurance. The managers and beneficiaries of the better pension schemes may be unenthusiastic but, as with ABTA bonding for package holidays, it is now vital to reassure pensioners that their deferred pay is safe from fraud.
Three years ago, encouraged by the Government, people put their savings with entire confidence into buying their homes —"as safe as houses"—and into
1088
their pensions. To paraphrase Nye Bevan, it takes a disaster to destabilise the one; it appears to have taken a Tory government to have destabilised both.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for raising this Question and giving us the opportunity this evening to discuss the problems and potential problems facing so many of the pensioners and pension scheme members of Maxwell companies.
Perhaps I may first say that Her Majesty's Government do totally share the deep concern that has been expressed by all speakers about the potential serious loss of pension rights facing many thousands of those scheme members because of what appears to have been a gigantic fraud perpetrated against them. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that we also recognise the urgency of the situation and the need to act quickly.
A number of points have been raised which I should like to deal with in turn before I set out what the Government are doing and how we see the issue. First, I turn to the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) might consider providing some sort of safety net out of the vast assets of its extensive number of members; assets which he estimated at about £300 billion. I certainly would not dispute that figure with the noble Lord.
There is a problem, as the noble Lord will know, in that pension funds are held in trust in the interests of their members and therefore, under present trust law, it would not be possible for trustees to give money to other pension funds. Certainly we take note of the noble Lord's suggestion and it is one aspect that could be considered in the review of pension law to which I shall be referring later, which was mentioned by the noble Lord and others.
Secondly, all three speakers mentioned Section 58B and asked whether the Government should consider bringing that into effect as soon as possible. We are actively considering what action should be taken and will take note of the comments made this evening; but I must stress that there is a large caveat in that the powers under Section 58B of the 1990 Act are limited and would not necessarily guarantee the return of the missing money. That would depend upon what assets there were and what preferential creditors there are who will be higher in the list than pensioners. I think I am right in saying that the powers under Section 58B relate to an ordinary debt and not a preferential debt.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put down three Questions for Written Answer. I hope to be able to answer them shortly. I have answered the Question on Section 58B to some extent already. Two of the Questions relate to the responsibilities of my department and one to those of another department. I hope that we shall be able to respond to her shortly; and I apologise for not being able to respond before she spoke.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also referred to various bodies which might have called attention to the problems. Investigations are under way, as she will

1089
be aware, to discover what went wrong; but at the moment I prefer to confine my comments to the effects of what happened and leave the investigations to determine the cause. As I understand it OPAS was a voluntary body, and I do not see its duty to be the Government's watchdog.
The noble Baroness mentioned the letter from Sir Robert McCrindle. We feel that enough inquiries are under way at the moment without adding any more. We do not accept that there is evidence of maladministration by a government department. We have also been advised by the Parliamentary Commissioner, who I understand issued a press release to this effect earlier today, that the activities of IMRO are outside his jurisdiction. In other words, he cannot look at its activities. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that as the ombudsman has said that the matter is beyond his remit, that must be the case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Why did Sir Robert McCrindle, writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, not apprise himself of that fact before advising electors that that was the way they should pursue their legitimate grievances against the Maxwell administration?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer for Sir Robert McCrindle who after all is not a member of the Government and who was writing in his private capacity, albeit on behalf of the Prime Minister, during the course of the election campaign. Our advice from the Parliamentary Commissioner is that he does not have the power to investigate IMRO's activities.
As I said, I think it would be helpful to put on record the Government's current understanding of the scale of the problem being faced because of the Maxwell affair. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spelt out what he saw to be the scale of the problem, and I am broadly in agreement with him. However, as I am speaking on behalf of the Government it would he helpful for me to spell out in broad terms what we see the issue to be. There are some 35,000 people (pensioners, pensioners' dependants, employees and former employees) who have claims on funds from which Maxwell took assets. Of those affected, just over 15,000 are pensioners or their dependants. Of those 15,000, approximately half are likely to have their pensions rebuilt by the employers concerned—the noble Lord mentioned the Mirror Group—or there will be sufficient funds for the full payment of pensions. That estimate is based on the funds currently likely to be available to Maxwell schemes. Clearly, if substantial assets were to be recovered, the situation would improve dramatically.
As the House will be aware, the definitive picture of how the crime took place and the overall situation facing Maxwell pensioners are still not clear. The Serious Fraud Office is still pursuing its investigations into that complex matter. The report on the actions of IMRO has not yet been published. It is for IMRO and SIB to decide when it should be published, and I hope that it will be published soon. The process of
1090
identifying missing assets, establishing their ownership and, wherever possible, securing their return to the pension funds where they were originally held will take a considerable time to achieve.
The noble Lord mentioned the banks' moral obligations. That was a matter raised by Mr. Frank Field and others when they saw my right honourable friend and it is a point that has been passed on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Many of the powers under the Financial Services Act, including the power to recognise IMRO and the other self-regulating organisations, have been transferred to the SIB. SIB is conducting with IMRO detailed reviews of IMRO's exercise of its regulatory responsibilities for Bishopsgate Investment Management Limited and London and Bishopsgate International Investment plc, covering both the operational aspects and the appropriateness of the regulatory regime. Full reports of the findings and conclusions will be published. I cannot comment on the part IMRO may have played, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, requested, until that report is published.
It is also important to note that the sooner it is possible to resolve the more tractable questions of ownership the sooner the many pensioners who have not been reassured that their pensions are safe can be saved the anguish of uncertainty. It is the uncertainty which is the principal problem for many people at the moment. In those circumstances, I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong for anyone deliberately to seek to protract legal disputes. The Government therefore look to everyone involved to resolve those uncertainties as quickly as possible. The more that advice is heeded, the more pensioners can be rescued from uncertainty.
In saying that, I do not overlook the current hardship being faced by some Maxwell pensioners, not merely in terms of anxiety and uncertainty but in terms of the pensions that have been lost. To date, all Maxwell pension schemes have continued to pay in full those pensions which were already in payment. The one exception, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is the Headington Pension Scheme whose 240 pensioners have not been paid their May or June pensions. The pension scheme trustees, with whom close liaison is maintained, hope that they may recover sufficient to resume payments to their pensioners. Because of the current shortfall of funds, however, those pensioners with guaranteed minimum pensions have been brought back into the state scheme and, where appropriate, SERPS will now be paid directly by the DSS. We expect those payments to start this month.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pressed me as to whether I agreed that the Government and the taxpayer have a moral duty to find the money to top up those funds. It must be remembered, as I said, that a number of detailed investigations into the Maxwell pension funds are under way. We need to establish what went wrong and how much of the funds will not be recoverable before we decide whether to take any

1091
further action. It would not be right at the moment to use taxpayers' money when it is not yet clear whether the pension funds are due money from the banks.
It is also worth emphasising for the record the procedures that are followed when a contracted-out occupational scheme like the Maxwell scheme is in the process of being wound up. Existing legislation provides protection for those members of pension schemes who have been contracted out of the state earnings pension scheme, SERPS, which was introduced in 1978. If a scheme is wound up, there is statutory provision designed to protect the guaranteed minimum pension which contracted-out schemes are required to make.
If there are not sufficient funds in schemes to secure that level of pension, the Government ensure through SERPS that scheme members receive a pension equivalent to that which they would have received, had they remained in SERPS and not joined a contracted-out scheme. So no one will be worse off than they would have been had they remained in SERPS.
I accept that, as all noble Lords mentioned, there will be a number of pensioners who were members of schemes and who retired before 1978 and therefore do not qualify for this protection. I also accept, as various noble Lords said, that only a small fraction of the current occupational pension of many will be made up by the SERPS entitlement. I should be the last to pretend that this provision, in itself, is in any sense a remedy for the terrible situation faced by Maxwell pensioners. But I think it is important to put on record the protection that is currently offered by the present scheme.
We recognise that there may be many pensioners who are already facing severe financial difficulties as a result of Maxwell. I mentioned the 240 members of the Headington pension scheme who lost their May and June pensions and there will be others who will possibly lose 70 per cent. of their June entitlement. For this reason we have alerted all our Department of Social Security benefit offices to the difficulties facing Maxwell pensioners and the fact that they may need access to help on an urgent basis, where payment of their full pension has been interrupted.
Obviously I cannot comment on an individual disabled pensioner who is suffering severe problems and who was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. My advice would be that he should contact his local social security office which will be able to advise him, or anyone in a similar position, on any benefits for which they may be eligible, in addition to their state pension. Income support ensures a minimum income and automatic entitlement to help with rent or mortgage.
Those not entitled to income support because they have other resources may be entitled to other help—for example, with housing costs. We have amended the income support rules to ensure that anyone in financial difficulties because of a temporary break in their occupational pension payment can claim full income support entitlement immediately.
I have indicated that the trustees of the Headington Pension Plan hope to be able to resume payments in
1092
the future. I am also aware that the other pensioners who have been mentioned —4,000 pensioners in the Maxwell Communication Works Pension Scheme—are facing the prospect from July of reductions of 70 per cent. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 75 per cent., the figure I have is 70 per cent. It is slightly academic, but I wish to have that on the record.
In regard to this, it should be emphasised that there is no question of any of the Maxwell pension funds being wound up immediately because of lack of funds and their trustees not being able to pursue the recovery of assets. Recent legislation has ensured that pension funds appoint independent trustees whose principal and continuing obligation is to seek the return of assets. We are in close contact with all trustees and none has indicated that there is any danger of funds ceasing to pursue the assets. The process in which the Maxwell pension funds are engaged is likely to take some time, possibly years, finally to complete. But we shall keep a close eye on these developments.
I trust that what I have said clearly indicates the current degree of protection that is offered by statute to the Maxwell pensioners and pension scheme members. As I have also indicated, we consider it very much a priority to resolve the question of the return of assets to pension funds as quickly as possible, wherever that is justified.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman and Lady Hollis, raised the matter of the Select Committee on Social Security and its report on The Operation of Pension Funds. It made a number of recommendations on the action the Government as a whole should take in relation to the Maxwell affair. Indeed, it focused attention very much on the whole framework of law and regulation of occupational pension schemes.
One of the committee's recommendations was that there should be a review of this whole area. The House will be aware that we made a commitment to hold such a review in our election manifesto. We shall shortly be announcing details of the review and responding to the detailed recommendations of the Select Committee. I think that would be the time when it would be wise to consider whether or not—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said—the trust law is appropriate or what reforms are necessary. I do not believe that the noble Baroness can expect me tonight, in repeating our election pledge that there will be a review, to say exactly what will be its outcome. Obviously, the point of a review must be to come to various conclusions after carefully considering all the items that are relevant.
In the meantime, we shall take what further action is appropriate as the Maxwell situation develops and keep the plight of pensioners of the schemes concerned closely under review.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I apologise for intervening. He will remember that he and I, together with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, took the Social Security Act 1990 through the House. It included the power for the Government to introduce by regulation the restriction of pension funds to 5 per cent. self-investment. The regulation has now been introduced, after two years. The power

1093
was given in the 1990 Act and the Minister has not answered why the regulation was not introduced sooner.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the limitation on self-investment to 5 per cent. is much more complicated than it might originally have appeared to him, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and myself when the 1990 Act passed through the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord can remember, but in correspondence which I had with the
1094
noble Lord, Lord Stallard, he mentioned a particular pension fund which wholly owned its parent company because the original owner of the company had generously given it to the pension fund. One had to look at a vast variety of problems which arose and therefore it took quite a long time, as the noble Lord knows. The regulations have now been brought forward, but whether they would have made any difference in this case, I do not know. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  GORDON'S GIN: DUTY ON SPIRITS AND ALCOHOL CONTENT
  GORDON'S GIN: DUTY ON SPIRITS AND ALCOHOL CONTENT
  PRISONERS' TRANSFER BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS—REPORT
  PRISONERS' TRANSFER BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS—REPORT
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS: STAFFING
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS: STAFFING
  FOOD INDUSTRY: EC POLICY
  FOOD INDUSTRY: EC POLICY