Sitting of 15 June 1992

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

    Artistic Heritage
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he is taking to enable the United Kingdom to retain outstanding items of the nation's artistic heritage.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. David Mellor): As this is the first Question Time for the new Department, I hope that you will not object, Madam Speaker, if I preface my answer by saying that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have been delighted by the positive response to the creation of the Department. It has been welcomed on both sides of the House. I wish to make it clear from the outset that we welcome advice and assistance from all hon. Members. Views will be listened to on their merits. I hope that there will be the very minimum of partisan argument; certainly, I intend to proceed on that basis.
    The Waverley system of export controls is the foundation of our policy. Significant grants are made to the national heritage memorial fund. Several important tax concessions are available to assist the retention of pre-eminent works. I have, however, decided against listing certain works of art as a means of prohibiting the export of key heritage items.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the considerable concern about the inability, because of the high prices that now obtain, of our major public collections to purchase works of art that people attempt to sell on the open market. Will he examine closely the level of purchase grants of our national institutions and the rules that govern the acceptance of works of art in lieu of tax, which are frequently very restrictive and applicable only in certain clearly specified circumstances?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. Purchase grants have been frozen since 1985, largely because the substantial additional resources that have been made available to museums and galleries have gone into refurbishment and towards increasing the sums available for running costs. I note what my hon. Friend said, however. He knows that we have considerably increased the sums of money available to the national heritage memorial fund, which was of great assistance recently in the purchase of the Holbein portrait for the national gallery. I certainly intend to look at the various
    632
    ways in which we can ensure that pre-eminent works are not lost to the nation. I hope to have something further to say about that in due course.
    Mr. Sheldon: I look forward to hearing what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to say in due course, but is he aware that many great works of art were obtained in the last century when, by comparison with other countries, this country was far more wealthy than it is ever likely to be again? It is important that we do not lose important works of art. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is opposed to listing, we shall have to produce far more substantial sums of money than have been thought of so far. How does he intend to deal with that?
    Mr. Mellor: In recent years, we have managed to retain just over half the items that were listed under the Waverley rules. I accept that that is not good enough. For instance, I should like the acceptance-in-lieu scheme to be more widely used. We have a provision of £10 million a year. Although the amount was doubled, last year it was only £3.8 million. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art made the point about the availability of extra public resources. When I dealt with the question of the list, I was not in a position to say that extra resources would be made available, but I have not rejected that application. I have the need to meet the challenge of keeping such items in this country well in mind when I frame my public expenditure bids, although how far they will succeed in a difficult period for public expenditure remains to be seen.
    Mr. Brooke: In that context, does my right hon. and learned Friend make any distinction in his mind between British works of art and those works of art of other lands that were brought here at some stage in the past?
    Mr. Mellor: That point is certainly taken into account as part of the Waverley rules. The Waverley rules apply to pre-eminent works that originated from outside this country. Origin plays a part in the interesting judgments that have to be made according to the Waverley rules.
    Mr. Fisher: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary of State on his appointment and on the creation of his Ministry, which will be widely welcomed. I am less optimistic than he is about not resuming political hostilities. Before such hostilities resume, may I say that I hope that he gets a great deal of pleasure from, and does something with, his job? I also congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on rejecting the idiocy of the listing system and on his statement last week. Only his predecessor and Benito Mussolini thought that the system was a good idea.
    I am disappointed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's response to the question about unfreezing national galleries' purchasing funds. He knows that the increase in funds elsewhere does not address the problem. When he was Arts Minister before, he listened to the chairman and directors of those national galleries constantly urging him to unfreeze those funds. Will he now call together the chairmen of the trustees, the directors of those national galleries and the chairman of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art to discuss, on the basis that those funds will be unfrozen, how best to unfreeze them? If he does not do that, his Department will soon be known not as the Ministry of National Heritage but as the Ministry of National Heritage and Humbug.
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman's intervention deteriorated during its course. On his first comment, if I can help him into the shadow Cabinet by my appointment, that will be a job well done.
    I have noted the reviewing committee's view that extra public resources should be available for intervention. I have not rejected that view, although I have to fit it in with the various other things that we have to do. There is a range of ways in which heritage items can be kept in this country. We have heard about the acceptance-in-lieu scheme and we know that there is a douceur available for sales by private treaty which has been of great use in relation to, for example, the purchase of the Holbein. We know that, when I was last Arts Minister, the national heritage memorial fund received a substantial boost in resources which has been deployed very usefully. We also know that, in a prosperous nation in which wealthy people no longer have to go into tax exile, it is possible to have individual acts of beneficence, such as the decision by Sir Andrew Lloyd-Webber—I congratulate him on his knighthood—to purchase a Canaletto, which is now on public display. There is a range of ways in which things can be done. However, I do not ignore the role of public resources.

    Relocation
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about the future location of his Department.
    Mr. Mellor: I shall make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Hughes: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. There could rarely be two people who are more qualified to take on the job. I envy them it myself: I cannot think of a better job to do in government.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman will never get the chance.
    Mr. Hughes: The chance may come.
    When the Secretary of State evaluates the options for the location of his Department, will he consider seriously the office space in Rose court above the Rose theatre in Bankside on the south bank? The space is vacant and has been vacant since the Rose theatre was built. It is cheap and it would be much nearer than Canary Wharf. There could be no better location for the Department of National Heritage than Bankside, at the centre of Elizabethan greatness in England. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give that idea serious consideration?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. If he will kindly supply me with a list of all properties available in his constituency, I shall peruse it.
    Mr. Bowis: May I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that the location of his Department should be in something more mobile—perhaps a mobile home—so that he can spend quite a lot of his time touring the country and ensuring that central to his plans for the arts and heritage are the many centres of excellence in the regions, not least the region of London? Away from the west end, there are many superb ventures to support the arts, from the Hackney Empire to the Battersea arts centre.
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the Battersea arts centre came into the question. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. I must, however, disappoint the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)— who, sadly, is not in his place—who suggested that wherever the new Department was, it should be called Stan Flashman house. I reject that suggestion.
    Mr. Boyes: Wherever the Secretary of State locates his new office, will he recognise the importance of photography—
    Madam Speaker: Order. May we get the location of photography correct? The hon. Gentleman's question would then be in order. The question concerns the Department's location.
    Mr. Boyes: Wherever the Secretary of State locates his offices, I hope that he will recognise the importance of photography, particularly by buying pictures from young photographers—the men and women who will be the photographers of the future. Will he bear that in mind?
    Mr. Mellor: I will certainly do that. It was very generous of the hon. Gentleman to exclude himself by asking only about young photographers.

    Taylor Report
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he has any proposals to modify the recommendations of the Taylor report as they relate to football clubs in the current third and fourth divisions of the English league; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the policy for all-seater stadiums for Football League clubs.
    Mr. Mellor: I announced last week that I was re-examining the all-seating requirement, with a particular focus on third and fourth division clubs and clubs in the second division with low average attendances. I have set a four-week period for the receipt of further views, and I intend to make an announcement before the summer recess. I am grateful to the all-party football committee and others in the House for their advice on this important matter.
    Mr. Hicks: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's interim statement on that subject. Does he agree that, whatever arrangements are eventually introduced, there must be maximum flexibility? The arrangements must take account of sides such as my local team, Plymouth Argyle, which seems to vacillate between the second and third divisions with amazing frequency. Would it not be sensible to adopt a formula whereby, if the average attendance is less than 50 per cent. of the ground's capacity, the club should be eligible for exemption?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. I take the House with me when I say that we all agree that large clubs should be all-seater. Equally, we all agree that small clubs should not be all-seater if that is consistent with safety arrangements, as I believe it is. The difficulty is in deciding into which category each club will fit. That could be achieved by membership of a particular

    635
    division or by maximum gate. We are considering that important detail and I will bear my hon. Friend's advice in mind.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although improved arrangements for safety inside stadiums are very welcome, the public outside stadiums also need to be safeguarded against the activities of the kind of empty-headed, beer-bellied louts who once again besmirched our national name in Sweden this weekend? Is not the key factor that they should be kept as far away as possible from alcohol?
    Mr. Mellor: I did my best to express in Sweden what I feel certain is the feeling in the whole House about the disgraceful behaviour of a small minority of British—
    Mr. Wilson: English!
    Mr. Mellor: —of English football fans in Malmo at the weekend. That have very strongly reinforced my view that alcohol and football supporters—certainly English football supporters—do not mix well. We need to bear that in mind for the future.
    Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister accept from me the congratulations of all football lovers in the House for taking the stand that he took with regard to relaxing the Taylor recommendations and for listening to the football world, while ensuring that safety standards are not relaxed as a result of the review? Will he now consider the related problem of the admission charges of certain premier league clubs, which receive Football Trust moneys, which are forcing many genuine football fans away from those grounds? Will he meet the Football Trust and urge it to ensure that its grants are related to realistic admission prices?
    Mr. Mellor: Before the Football Trust decides what grants to make available, it must bear in mind resources available to clubs. Increases in admission prices are plainly a matter for the directors of the clubs concerned; they are not my responsibility. However, I hope that all clubs will use their best endeavours not to price out of their grounds their most loyal supporters, some of whom do not have the means to withstand major increases in seat prices.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the serious damage that is done to the finances of the third and fourth divisions—and, indeed, to the second division
    —by the deal that has been struck between the BBC and BSkyB for the coverage of live matches? Will he now link his responsibility for sport with his responsibility for broadcasting and acknowledge the simple truth that, far from extending people's freedom of choice, the proliferation of channels is restricting freedom of choice for many people—including many of my constituents who, like his, will no longer be able to watch live league football? Does he not think that that is a disgrace? Is it not time that he used his authority to encourage the football authorities to think again?
    Mr. Mellor: When the Broadcasting Act 1990 was going through Parliament a couple of years ago, it was never suggested that league football should be on the list of protected events. Not so long ago, live league football was not available on any channel. It would be wrong for us to seek to intervene in the ability of the premier league to sell its product as it chooses. The real test for the
    636
    premier league will be what it does with the money. I hope that the arrangements will lead not to an escalation of transfer fees and of the money paid to footballers but to an improvement in ground conditions, so that fans are housed in ways more appropriate to the 21st century than to the beginning of the 20th.
    As for broadcasting, there is more choice for sport on television today than there has ever been. We have to accept that we cannot opt out of the satellite revolution —nor should we try to do so. It would be perverse if we in Britain, one of the great centres of broadcasting, were somehow or other to try to restrict the development of satellite broadcasting from which so many other countries are benefiting.
    Mr. John Carlisle: As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) said, the Taylor report was primarily concerned with hooliganism within grounds, but last night's scenes in Sweden, disgraceful as they were, highlighted problems that could exist outside grounds, whether in this country or elsewhere. What consultations has my right hon. and learned Friend had with his colleagues in the Home Office regarding those so-called fans, who would have been recognised on television? Were British police there? Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any ties through which those people can be brought to justice and, I hope, banned from football grounds in this country?
    Mr. Mellor: The British police were much in evidence in Malmo and are working very closely with the Swedish police. Assistant Commissioner Malcolm George of the Greater Manchester police is leading our police team. The police have been looking at the videos that were taken of the incidents and have been identifying fans. Some of those fans who can be proved to have committed criminal offences are being charged in Sweden. If convicted, they could be prohibited from entering football grounds in the United Kingdom. Even if they are not convicted, if they can be identified, their names can be provided to other countries which may be hosting football matches. If those countries see fit, they can exclude those players—[Interruption.] There may be a few players whom we want to exclude as well, but that is another matter. Those countries will be able to exclude those fans from admission. That is very important. Half a dozen fans were excluded this time. It should be more the next time England plays abroad.
    Mr. Fatchett: Further to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to his hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), does he accept that Opposition Members totally condemn the behaviour of a small number of English football supporters? Will he recognise that their behaviour has put back the reputation of English football and damaged England's reputation in Europe?
    What steps were taken to liaise with the Swedish police so that known troublemakers were recognised and isolated, and appropriate action taken? Was the Football Association responsible for selling tickets to individuals who have already been prosecuted for offences in this country? If so, what action will be taken to stop a repeat of the events of the past two nights? Will the Secretary of State make it clear to other countries with which English

    637
    football is involved that the Government will take every possible action to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened in Sweden?
    Mr. Mellor: No one can ever guarantee that some people will not behave badly. There was great understanding on the part of both UEFA and the Swedish authorities of the real job that the football authorities, the Government and the police in Britain have done to improve arrangements. That included supplying the Swedish authorities with the names of nearly 300 known troublemakers so that they could be excluded if Sweden saw fit. It also included the advice which was formally minuted in the Council of Europe minutes of the official meetings before the championship that beer should not be served to English football fans.
    I very much regret that, once again, we have had the opportunity of proving that beer and certain English football fans do not mix. That is not to say that that in any sense excuses the lamentable behaviour of some of those fans, flying in the face of the warmest of welcomes. Certainly, everything possible is being done to ensure that those who can be identified as playing a part in those events are arrested. Already, serious charges have been preferred by the Swedes. I certainly hope that serious charges will be preferred wherever there is evidence to justify it. I hope that we shall be able to exclude those convicted from going to football matches again for a long time.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Secretary of State agree that the action that is taken following the incidents during the weekend in Sweden should fall on the heads of those who perpetrated those deeds, thereby protecting the vast majority of fans who went to Sweden to enjoy the matches, were peaceful, and did, indeed, enjoy the matches?
    Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt about that. When I walked around Malmo yesterday, there was plenty of evidence of fans who appreciated the warmth of the welcome that they had received and themselves apologised to local residents for what had happened. I also make it absolutely clear that the Swedish authorities have done nothing to blow up the incidents out of proportion. If anything, they have sought to minimise them. There is no question but that there was anything other than a warm welcome in Sweden for Britons, whether football fans or others. I congratulate the Swedes on the generous hospitality that they showed us and on their willingness to overlook the disgraceful behaviour of a small minority.

    Heritage Assets, Greenwich
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will visit Greenwich to consider how the unique heritage assets of the area can be best promoted and preserved.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State visited the national maritime museum on 26 May, and I am a regular visitor to the borough.
    Mr. Raynsford: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I stress that the unique and special element of the national heritage represented by the centre of Greenwich is more than merely the national maritime museum and requires
    638
    urgent attention. Does the Minister recognise that the current appalling levels of traffic congestion are destroying and damaging that unique location? Is he prepared to discuss with his colleagues at the Department of Transport effective measures to restrict that traffic before the unique assets of the nation's and Greenwich's heritage are damaged irreparably?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I will. I should like to take the matter up with the borough itself. I visited Greenwich last Thursday, taking advantage of the one-line Whip, and renewed my acquaintance with the centre. I agree entirely that there is a tremendous problem of traffic, both around the centre and further along towards Woolwich. I have a long association with St. Alfege's church, as one of my forebears spent a long time just before the second world war raising funds to repair the roof. Unfortunately, he did not inform the Luftwaffe. There is a tremendous heritage in Greenwich, which needs protection, and the borough will receive a great deal of attention from me because it has some of the most wonderful secret parts of our heritage —for instance, the Trinity museum of 1616. I am well aware that there is more to Greenwich's heritage than the national maritime museum.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend consider whether there are ways of encouraging Greenwich, like other boroughs, to contribute to the process of drawing tourists away from the main pressure points so that not only Greenwich receives environmental improvement? The site of the royal arsenal in Woolwich and Eltham palace in my constituency could be opened so that people could gain from the heritage of the whole borough. That would require co-ordinated action.
    Mr. Key: Yes—and I have enjoyed singing in Eltham palace in my time. I visited the Woolwich arsenal site last Thursday evening to see how well the Ministry of Defence is playing its part. I was disappointed with the old entrance to the Woolwich dockyard area, but we could do something to improve that, too.

    Arts and Media
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the national arts and media strategy document.
    Mr. Mellor: I regularly talk to the chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain. I last saw him on 2 June to discuss a range of issues, including progress on the Arts Council's national arts and media strategy.
    Mr. Hall: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Secretary of State recognise the excellence of the work done by local authorities in promoting the arts? For example, my own borough of Warrington has spent £350,000 on refurbishing its art gallery. It has staged several art exhibitions and in July will hold the premiere exhibition in the United Kingdom of the exciting Czech artist Jaroslav Cita. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he will fully consult local authorities in drawing up any future arts and media strategies and that they will be fully involved in the delivery of that strategy?
    Mr. Mellor: I hope to have an opportunity to see for myself what Warrington does during one of my visits to

    639
    the north-west. I have no doubt that the arts benefit most through generous Arts Council funding, combined with strong support from local authorities for local artistic activity. When I was Minister for the Arts, I had regular contact with local authority representatives, who serve on regional arts boards and who meet formally under the umbrella of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I look forward to continuing to meet those representatives in my new post.
    Mr. Jessel: I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government on the substantial increase in funding for the Arts Council in recent years. Has he noticed, however, that the Arts Council document makes scant reference to the fact that much of the greatest heritage in British and European art has a religious or patriotic inspiration? The document contains long sections on women's and feminist art, black art, disabled art, gay and lesbian art, young people's art, old people's art, and so on. Have the authors got their priorities right?
    Mr. Mellor: I am sure that that is a perfectly legitimate question for my hon. Friend to direct to the authors of the document. At present, it is only a consultative document. I gather that I am to receive the finished product in September, and I shall read it with interest then.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be very much a hands-on Minister, and he has an awful lot of things to put his hands on. If, however, responsibility for funding the national arts bodies is to be taken away from the Arts Council, has it a future? Does the Minister envisage it remaining in its present form during, say, the next 12 months?
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me that. I have no ambitions to take over the funding of national bodies. Given a structure in which more funding decisions are made regionally, I think that the key question is what size the Arts Council should be. I also think, however, that the continuation of the Arts Council should be very much part of my plans—although we should seek mechanisms to ensure that the maximum amount spent by the Treasury for the benefit of the arts goes to arts organisations, and is not syphoned into excessive bureaucracy.
    Mr. Brandreth: I bring my right hon. and learned Friend greetings from the city of Chester, which is the European capital of national heritage, and salute the Government for increasing arts funding by 60 per cent. in the past 12 years or so. May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend, however, that in his considerations with the Arts Council it is important to bear in mind the contribution of the amateur, as well as that of the professional to the world of arts?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes—and I am sure that that is true in politics as well.

    Tourism, Bolsover
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to visit Bolsover castle, Hardwick hall and Ogston reservoir to promote tourism in the area.
    Mr. Key: I should be very happy to make such a visit when a suitable opportunity arises.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Minister decides—or dares—to go to Bolsover, he had better take some money with him and change the standard spending assessments for Bolsover and other local authorities to those which apply to Westminster and Wandsworth so as to improve the infrastructure, promote tourism in the area and get rid of the dioxin that is blighting it. If he decides to go without any money, we shall take him to Ogston reservoir which, despite the drought, is still deep enough to submerge a big fat Minister.
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gentle and friendly welcome, and I look forward to being given tea and sympathy in his ancestral home when I visit his constituency. It is just as well that in my previous incarnation I was a local government finance Minister. If only the hon. Gentleman's county council and other local authorities would stop mucking about and get down to some hard business, we might get somewhere.
    To reply specifically to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, I was indeed distressed to hear that the walls of Bolsover castle are crumbling in spite of the hon. Gentleman. I understand that research is being done by the Building Research Establishment and I shall read it with great interest. I also look forward to visiting Ogston reservoir. The hon. Gentleman should be proud to represent Hardwick hall, Bolsover castle and Ogston reservoir, which have an excellent record on tourism. An increasing number of people visit that part of the world, despite the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Currie: Would it not do wonders for tourism in Derbyshire if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were taken at his word, locked up in Bolsover castle and the key thrown away, and if he were then encouraged to make an exhibition of himself up there? I assure my hon. Friend of a warm welcome in south Derbyshire. May I invite him to take another look at the potential for tourism of the Trent and Mersey canal which runs right through my constituency?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her warm and friendly welcome and I look forward to visiting her constituency when I am in that part of the world. She is absolutely right to draw my attention and that of the House to the potential of waterways in tourism. Water is crucial there, as it is for urban regeneration schemes, and it is an important part of our tourist industry as well as our heritage.

    Arts Administration
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairs of the regional arts boards to discuss further devolution of arts administration.
    Mr. Key: I look forward to meeting all the chairmen of the regional arts boards in due course. The Arts Council will submit to me by October its proposals for further delegation of its funding responsibilities.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister give an assurance that he intends to press ahead with the process of devolution? Bearing in mind the important part played by local authorities such as Nottinghamshire county council and the east midlands, will he assure us that they will have an important role in the process? The Minister will be aware

    641
    of Nottinghamshire county council's fine support for opera. Will he attend the opening of the new community opera in September in Mansfield?
    Mr. Key: If that were possible, I would be keen to do so, and I look forward to hearing more details. Yes, it is clearly our intention to press ahead with those reforms, which will be of great benefit in terms of more local accountability and will encourage more access to, and interest in, the arts locally.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact on the pools industry of the introduction of a national lottery.
    Mr. Mellor: The consultation period on the White Paper finished on 1 June. We have had a number of responses from the pools industry. We shall be considering its views, and those of other respondents, before bringing forward proposals for legislation.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the course of examination of the implications of the national lottery he will look at examples elsewhere in the world? Does he recognise that there is no example anywhere in the world of a pools industry thriving alongside a national lottery? Given that the football pools industry employs 6,500 people, mainly women, that last year £300 million came into the national Exchequer from football pools, and that in areas such as Greater Liverpool many people depend on the pools for their jobs, will he give great consideration to the consequences for those employed and consider bringing a national lottery, should there be one, to an area such as Merseyside to compensate for the jobs that will be lost?
    Mr. Mellor: I shall certainly bear those points in mind, along with the others made. One is always keen to look at international experience, although I am not sure how well developed pools industries are in other countries compared with that in our own. I want the national lottery to be a great success, as I believe do most hon. Members. I do not see the national lottery as meaning the end of the football pools. Far from it—many people who do the football pools will continue to do so: it is part of their way of life. The hon. Gentleman should not be too gloomy about the future of the football pools.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence rose— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I begin by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his inspired appointment. Is he aware that nowhere in Europe has a national lottery killed off a football pools industry where the football industry is strong and the pools industry is efficient? Can he tell us whether any of the pools in Britain have applied to run the national lottery, and whether he has told them that if they are so feeble and weak that they cannot bear the idea of competition they will not be much use running the national lottery?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. and learned Friend will have noted the pleasure that his knighthood has given his many friends in the House and I join them in congratulating him.
    I wish to consider with care a number of issues relating to the football pools. I believe that it is absolutely clear
    642
    that the industry can continue, and that it cannot and does not expect to have the right of veto over other developments. I cannot help feeling that the national lottery, as my hon. and learned Friend proved in a debate that he instigated a few months ago, is an idea whose time has come. We want to ensure that the maximum benefit from the proceeds of the national lottery goes to the many things that we all care about, but which, unfortunately, are never in pole position to obtain major increases from the Treasury.

    Edinburgh Festival
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to make an official visit to Edinburgh during the 1992 international festival.
    Mr. Key: Both my right hon. and learned Friend and I look forward to visiting the Edinburgh festival.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful and pleased to hear that the Secretary of State will visit Edinburgh during the festival and I assure him that he will receive a warm welcome from the people of Edinburgh and of Scotland. However, had the Secretary of State visited Scotland today, he would have been subject to an intensely warm reaction following his thoughtless comments about "British" football fans when referring to the disgraceful behaviour of English fans. May I remind the Minister that no Scottish fans were anywhere near Malmö, and that not one Scottish supporter has been in any kind of trouble? The same—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time, not a statement.
    Mr. Key: I am not quite so sensitive to that particular problem as the hon. Gentleman. I have a Scottish wife and I am a Scottish-registered teacher.
    On the main question, I look forward to visiting the Edinburgh festival and this year, as in previous years, it will be a huge success given its increased funding. I look forward to making some progress with my knowledge of the arts in Scotland, after too long an absence since I had my first job there as a school master. I also look forward to visiting the Perth repertory company, which has an outstanding record. Incidentally, that theatre was saved by my cousin.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Disclosure of Evidence
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the rules on disclosure of evidence in criminal cases.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the guidelines governing disclosure in criminal cases.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Law and practice on disclosure have developed substantially in recent years, both before and since the Attorney-General's guidelines in 1981. In their evidence to the royal commission, the Law Officers have recommended that the rules on disclosure be given statutory force based on fairness and practicability.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Attorney-General for that reply. However, given that the police and prosecutors—some of them now in high places—appeared in the past to conceal evidence that was inconvenient to them, what will the Attorney-General and the Government do to restore public confidence that there will be full disclosure and justice? In trying to restore public confidence, will he assure us that the May inquiry will be completed and that it will not be gagged by some of those same people in high places?
    The Attorney-General: While I do not know of any evidence of a conspiracy by prosecutors in high places, there are lessons to be learnt from recent cases. I believe that if we have a statutory framework along the lines of the evidence that my prodecessor and I have submitted to the royal commission we shall make progress in overcoming those serious problems.
    Mr. Mullin: Has not the suppression of inconvenient evidence by the Director of Public Prosecutions been a feature of all recent major miscarriages of justice? If the Attorney-General has read the judgment in the Judith Ward case he will see that the judges said that the DPP's attitude towards disclosure, about which the court questioned her several times, remained "opaque to the end"? Will the Attorney-General make that attitude less opaque?
    The Attorney-General: As I have already said, there are lessons to be learnt from the Judith Ward case, among others. I do not accept some of the ways in which the hon. Gentleman has put them, but the lessons involve prosecutors, those who assist them, the police and those who present cases. The essential factor is fairness and competence so that people know what to disclose and that they do so in a way which makes it properly useful to the defence.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an idea of the timing involved in the introduction of any statutory application of the rules on disclosure? Does he accept that statutory applications will enable all parties involved in the criminal process to understand where their duties lie and thus know exactly where they stand?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Unless people understand what is expected of them, it is much easier to fail to do so, without malice underlying that failure. The royal commission is to report in approximately a year's time. It will then be necessary to consider carefully what it recommends, but, against that time scale of a year to report, it should be possible to judge roughly how long it will take.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In considering disclosure of evidence, will my right hon. Friend balance the matter by abolishing the right to silence?
    The Attorney-General: One of the recommendations put forward by a number of people, including my predecessor and me, is that to achieve a fair trial from everybody's point of view there should be wider disclosure, subject to safeguards, by the defence of their case as well as by the prosecution of theirs. That is more likely to lead to justice, which requires not only that the innocent should not be convicted but that the guilty should be convicted.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do three things? First, will he amend the Attorney-General's guidelines so that unused evidence is always supplied to the defence, unless withheld with the consent of the trial judge on public interest grounds? Secondly, will he seriously consider the judicial supervision of investigation in serious criminal offences? Thirdly, will he now try to ensure that, alongside the prosecution, the defence always has equal access to forensic facilities?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman's third point is well taken. As for his first two points, it would not be appropriate to seek to amend the guidelines as a formal act prior to the report of the royal commission. On judicial supervision, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to something like an investigating magistrate system, that would be an enormous step to take in our system and we must await the royal commission's report. However, there are recommendations for more court involvement in disclosure in the evidence that I and my predecessor have given.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in the early 1970s when I was practising, it was a matter of honourable practice that barristers disclosed evidence, even if it was against their interests as prosecutor? Anybody not doing so would be considered a dishonest practitioner. Is that not still the position at the Bar and should not anyone discovered behaving dishonestly be disbarred?
    The Attorney-General: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. Anybody caught acting dishonourably should be disbarred. However, there is more to it than honourable practice. One must also have a definite practice and, as my hon. Friend knows, practice has changed considerable since the early 1970s. Following the Confait case, changes were made and then the Attorney-General's guidelines were introduced. Those have been developed in common law. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point.

    Hillsborough Disaster
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the right of relatives of those killed at the Hillsborough stadium disaster to reopen, legal proceedings.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has received a number of representations from Members of this House and will take a decision on an outstanding formal application for consent under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 as soon as possible.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister understand the sense of grief felt by many people, including my constituent Philip Hammond whose boy was tragically killed at Hillsborough, and their sense that no line can be drawn on the issue until every legal remedy has been exhausted? Will he therefore assure the House that that announcement will not be long in coming and that he will try to understand the feelings of the relatives involved, who do not feel that the inquest process has been exhaustive?
    The Solicitor-General: I am conscious of the continuing grief and anxiety of the many individuals affected by that

    645
    tragedy. For that reason, the decision must be carefully considered—and it will be. We shall make a decision as soon as possible.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991.
    The Attorney-General: Both the Metropolitan police and the Crown prosecution service have dedicated teams examining the evidence relating to alleged war crimes. It has been possible to narrow and focus the area of investigation, but the question of prosecutions must await completion of individual investigations and a careful scrutiny of all the evidence obtained.
    Mr. Townsend: Is it not disgraceful that this country is about to follow the old Soviet Union and modern Israel in staging vindictive war crimes trials? Is it not true that we are dealing with only three elderly individuals, all former citizens of the Baltic states? Is it not also highly unlikely that any one of them would be alive to be sentenced if he were found guilty? Would it not be wise to bring this whole stupid business to a rapid end?
    The Attorney-General: The investigations followed a statutory enactment in accordance with the will of Parliament, but any prosecution decision will be taken in accordance with the principles that apply to all other prosecutions, in which fairness to all parties, including the accused, is an important, if not an essential, part.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that prosecution for war crimes is not regarded as a stupid business, as has been alleged, by anyone with any real or certainly any personal involvement in the mass murders concerned? In view of the decision of the House, by an overwhelming majority from both sides, will the Attorney-General please confirm that when the evidence is ready, it will be assessed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that she will decide, as he has said, on the ordinary principles of our law, whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecutions will proceed as swiftly as is possible and proper?
    The Attorney-General: The evidence, as and when or if and when it appears and appears to be sufficient to give rise to a prosecution, will be assessed against the ordinary criteria, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Cotton
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about aid to cotton-producing countries; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): None, previously.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that many cotton-producing countries—India, Pakistan, China and Egypt—force their cotton farmers to sell their cotton at
    646
    well below world market prices, thus giving their cotton spinners an unfair advantage? Will he encourage countries receiving British aid not to harm British industry in that way—even if the Opposition spokeswoman likes to bite the hand that feeds her?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree that the practice is wrong, but it is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. He is aware of anxiety about the practice of double pricing raw cotton in some cotton-producing countries and we have made known our views on double pricing under the relevant GATT consultation procedures.

    ODA Budget
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the overseas development budget in 1992–93; and what is planned for 1993–94.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Provision for aid to developing countries is £1,831 million this year and £1,899 million for 1993–94.
    Mr. Riddick: Are those not enormous sums, and do they not demonstrate the Government's massive contribution and commitment to helping the poorest countries and people? Does my hon. Friend agree that by failing to tackle the problem of overpopulation in Rio world leaders have failed to tackle what is probably the most fundamental and pressing difficulty facing the third world today?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, they are indeed enormous sums. The issue of population figured rather more significantly at Rio than had at one time seemed likely, and we helped to give it the prominence that it deserved, against the reluctance of some countries to do so. The issue was and has been actively promoted by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.
    Ms. Abbott: Will the Minister accept that the Government's aid budget is not in line with United Nations guidelines and that although overpopulation is an issue, it is not the fundamental cause of poverty in the third world? The fundamental cause of poverty, hunger and suffering in the third world is the economic relationship between those countries and the west—and that includes trade and aid. It would be very unfortunate if the issue of population, which is a real one, were used to divert attention from the failings of the Government in relation to aid.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I never said that population was the overall problem. As I have said, we have a very large aid budget, which has been growing substantially in the past five years. It is 3 per cent. larger this year than last and it is certainly of a significant size.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Recognising that the United Kingdom's aid budget is indeed large, will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the sixth largest budget in the world? Will he also confirm that there is a spurious intellectual quality about the 0.7 per cent. target that the United Nations seems to want to foist on us? Finally, does he agree that what is important is not only how much is spent on aid but how much gets to the people who need it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, I can confirm that ours is the sixth largest programme in the world, and it is extremely

    647
    well targeted. The quality of our aid is recognised internationally—especially the fact that it helps the very poorest people in the world.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How can the Minister say that it is an enormous budget when it has been cut by half in the past 13 years? It is not the sixth largest in the world; it is the 14th largest when calculated as a proportion of GDP.
    Do the Government intend to revise their ODA spending plans, as published in the public expenditure White Paper? Will the Minister revise those figures for the next three years as a result of Rio?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can see that the hon. Gentleman supplied the information on which the Leader of the Opposition based his remark the other day that the aid programme had been cut in half since 1979. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. Gentleman should help his right hon. Friend better than that. Since 1979 the size of the aid budget has more than doubled in nominal terms.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind the third world and the aid lobby that the most effective way to sponsor economic development in the third world is to encourage private investment and the adoption of a social market economy?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to emphasise private investment and the adoption of a social market economy. As he knows, much of our aid is targeted on countries that adopt good government practices, which include the adoption of sensible financial policies which lead to economic prosperity and growth.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister and the Prime Minister reaffirmed at Rio our commitment to 0.7 per cent., and now we have had a further clear statement of that target, but shall we ever be given a statement of the timetable for achieving it? Or shall we continue giving less than half the figure that we have accepted as the minimum that we should commit to countries far less well off than our own?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government reaffirmed our commitment to the United Nations aid target. The important thing is to make progress as the economy grows. In the past five years, the aid budget has grown by 8 per cent. in real terms. In other words, the budget has grown in periods of growth, and this year it is 3 per cent. higher than last.
    Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend undertake to review our aid programme to India in the light of the good government criteria in view of that country's appalling human rights record in Kashmir and the Punjab?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend knows, the Indians have enormous problems with terrorism in the Punjab and Kashmir. All terrorist matters must be properly dealt with. There have been abuses in India, but we have taken them up with the Indian Government and I am happy to say that they have announced the appointment of a human rights commission, which we have welcomed. We want progress on that to attend to these difficult matters.

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the EC Environment and Development Ministers meeting on 5 May regarding the signing of an effective convention on biodiversity.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At the joint Environment and Development Council on 5 May, Ministers reaffirmed their strong support for the conclusion of effective conventions on climate change and on biological diversity, to be signed in Rio.
  Mr. Wareing: What will be the cost to the British Government of signing the biodiversity treaty, and what amount is being avoided by the United States which that country would have faced if it had signed the treaty? Is it not deplorable that the richest country on earth should seek to evade its responsibilities? Will the Minister tell the Prime Minister that when he assumes the chairmanship of the European Council on 1 July, Britain will expect the European Community, through him, to exert maximum pressure on the United States to take up those responsibilities?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is simply not possible to put a figure today on the cost of implementing the biodiversity convention, which will be implemented over many years. It is important that the convention was signed, and most important that it contains more than 150 signatures. We are already giving a great deal of financial assistance to help developing countries with biodiversity conservation. The amount is more than £10 million bilaterally each year. We have committed more than £40 million to the initial funding of the global environmental facility, and nearly 50 per cent. of the funds spent so far in that area have been for biodiversity.

  Street Children
  Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on providing overseas aid targeted to help street children.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Improving the health and social development of children is a major objective of the ODA and we aim to provide for children to be the direct beneficiaries of our programmes.
  Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply and I thank the Prime Minister for having put this country's moral stamp of approval on the programme for helping street children by visiting the street children centre in Rio. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Foreign Office is looking in particular at Guatemala and trying to persuade it to take positive steps to help street children?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is shortly to make a statement, visited the San Martino refuge in Rio de Janeiro last week. The United Kingdom's interest in the fate of these unhappy children is well recognised and understood by experts in Brazil. We are a leading country in this area.

Earth Summit
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the United Nations conference on the environment and development in Brazil. I represented the United Kingdom at the conference together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside. I should also like to report to the House on my visits to the United States and to Colombia. During the past week, I have also had meetings with a number of other Heads of Government.
As the House will know, the Rio conference agreed to legally binding conventions on climate change and biodiversity. It agreed a declaration setting out clear principles for sustainable development, a declaration on the management of forests and, in Agenda 21, a framework for action carrying us into the next century. We also agreed to establish a Sustainable Development Commission under the United Nations to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21. My right hon. and hon. Friends played a leading part in the negotiation of these agreements. In particular, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment played a key role in negotiating a text on climate change which the United States was able to sign. The United Kingdom has been able to go further than the convention requires by making a firm commitment, provided others do so as well, to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
I was the first Head of Government of the G7 to commit myself to attend the Rio conference and to encourage others to do so. The results have not gone as far as some would wish. As in any initiative there have had to be compromises. The United Kingdom could have gone further on climate change than the convention provides. We wanted to see binding commitments on forests, but have, for the time being, to content ourselves with a declaration. But the undertakings that we have made are substantial. There is a firm commitment by all participants to further action.
There will also be a substantial commitment of new funds. The existing global environment facility will remain the sole multilateral mechanism for meeting obligations under the two new conventions. The Government support a $2 billion to $3 billion replenishment of that facility. We also plan to make available substantial financial resources, for conservation, biodiversity, energy efficiency, population planning and sustainable agriculture.
In addition to these agreements I launched three specific British initiatives. The first, the Darwin initiative, reflects our position as a world leader in conservation and the use of the world's resources of biodiversity and natural habitat. The initiative will place at the disposal of other countries the experience of, among others, the royal botanical gardens at Kew and Edinburgh, the natural history museum at London and the world conservation monitoring centre at Cambridge. The aim will be to carry out studies of available natural resources; to establish goals for research and monitoring; to develop inventories
650
of the most important species; and to promote international co-operation and techniques for conservation.
The second initiative is for a partnership in global technology. The intention is to give developing countries better access to environmentally sound technologies, by sharing information and by direct contacts with British companies. To launch this initiative, we shall organise a technology partnership conference next year.
We were in constant touch with non-governmental organisations in preparing for the Rio conference and 12 representatives of NGOs and other organisations attended the conference as advisers to the British delegation. Their role has been a vital one in arousing public awareness and in offering expert advice. If we are to make real progress under Agenda 21 it is desirable for the NGOs to be fully involved. The third initiative, therefore, is for the United Kingdom to convene a global forum of the NGO community next year to build up their role in the next phase.
Before the conference, I paid brief visits to the United States and Colombia. President Bush and I discussed a wide range of issues, including some which will be raised at the President's summit with President Yeltsin starting tomorrow. We had a detailed discussion of the GATT round. We are both working for an early agreement. An agreement would be of enormous benefit to the world trading system, including, specifically, the developing countries.
My visit to Colombia was the first visit to south America by a British Prime Minister. Britain has a considerable stake in the country. We are the third largest investor; 22 subsidiaries of British companies work there. The recent BP oil find at Cusiana was the company's largest oil discovery for a quarter of a century. The purpose of my visit was to reaffirm our support for Colombian democracy, her market economy and her brave and successful fight against drug trafficking.
The Government are already contributing aid worth nearly £20 million to the fight against drug trafficking. It has had considerable success. Drug crops destroyed in Colombia represent lives saved in this country. I therefore reaffirmed our commitment to helping Colombia. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will visit the country later this year to assess the programme and how best to carry forward our help.
I agreed also with President Gaviria a number of initiatives to develop our trade relationship, and look forward to the President's visit to this country next year.
At the Rio conference, the countries of the world took on a substantial commitment to safeguard the environment on a global basis. In that respect, Rio was a milestone. Britain played a leading part in securing those agreements. A lot of work still remains. I am today writing to other G7 and European Community Heads of Government proposing that, at the Lisbon European Council and the Munich summit, we should adopt an action plan to carry forward immediately the agreements made at Rio. We have already gone a long way towards achieving a cleaner, safer world in which all of us share responsibility for our environmental inheritance. In that respect, Rio was a landmark.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister recall that, at the end of the conference, the United Nations chairman urged Heads of Government

651
not to go away in a mood of self-congratulation? It is clear that that was advice which the right hon. Gentleman chose not to accept.
Will the Prime Minister understand that the success of the conference will be measured not so much by the declarations which it publishes, even less by the fancy names invented for initiatives, as by the actual result that it produces? That is particularly so when even the declarations turn out to be less positive than was originally hoped.
If, as the Prime Minister told us a moment ago, Great Britain could have gone further than the convention provides, why were we instrumental in weakening the wording of the climate convention? As the obligation to stabilise levels of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000 has been modified as an "aim", what effect does the right hon. Gentleman believe the declaration will have in practice?
How effective does the right hon. Gentleman believe the biodiversity convention will be without the support of the United States? Will he commit himself now to use what he tells us is his special relationship with President Bush to persuade the Government of the United States to change their mind? Will he make it clear this afternoon that he hopes that the United States will do exactly that? What sort of lead does he believe he is giving to the world by refusing to accept EC directives on protecting the environment and by destroying Oxleas wood and Twyford down simply to develop motorways?
Does the right hon. Gentleman support the dilution of Agenda 21 of references to the need for the rich countries of the north to reduce their consumption of resources? Does he share our view that the statement is deficient as it no longer advocates, as the first draft did, a call for a permanent ban on commercial whaling, nor urges a reduction in the number of nuclear power stations? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Earth charter is a stronger or weaker statement than the Stockholm declaration, which was explicit about the effect on the environment of the continued production of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing? Why does the Rio declaration make no reference to the banning of the international trade in toxic waste?
Does the Prime Minister realise that one of the documents signed—I believe by the Secretary of State for the Environment—actually included a commitment to freedom of information? Does he propose to keep that promise, or is it indicative of his attitude of picking and choosing from the treaties according to the Government's convenience?
Does the Prime Minister understand that the real test of his commitment concerns his willingness to provide the essential resources that will turn public relations into practical policy? Can he give an explicit answer about the promises that he made to provide £100 million to support the aims of the summit—a subject on which he did not even touch this afternoon? Was all of that new money? Was any of that new money? Or is it simply a reannouncement of funds that have already appeared in public expenditure statements?
The Government are already suspect because of their attitude towards the writing off of the debts of developing countries. The Trinidad terms, about which the Prime Minister boasts so often, amount to little more than 1 per cent. of Government-to-Government debt, and there is no provision for commercial debts or debts to institutions.
652
The Prime Minister must understand that his commitment in this whole area will remain in question while this country's record on overseas aid remains at its present abysmal level. It is deplorable, but not surprising, that there is no commitment to achieve the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. The Prime Minister boasts—as he will again this afternoon—that our contribution is about to increase from 0.27 to 0.31 per cent. It was 0.51 per cent. and rising when this Government came to office 13 years ago. Until that failure is rectified, no matter how often the right hon. Gentleman attempts to pretend otherwise, no one will accept that the Government are prepared to assist the developing world in a way that is essential if the environment is to be truly protected.
The Prime Minister: Even by the right hon. Gentleman's standards, that contribution was fairly graceless and ill-informed. I shall endeavour to deal with his points. He said that I was engaged in an exercise of self-congratulation, but if he had either read my statement, which was provided to him before I made it, or listened to what I said, he would have heard me expressly say that more needs to be done. It is difficult to draw from that any suggestion of self-congratulation.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a dependency on results, and of course that is right. It is precisely what I said, not least when I spoke to the conference last week.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question about why the climate convention was changed, it was changed because, without the negotiating skills of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, there might not have been a climate convention to sign at all.
On the subject of Agenda 21, that represents a very high level of political commitment for integrating environmental concerns across a whole range of policies—industry, agriculture, land use. It gives a role to international bodies, national Governments, local authorities and businesses. It is a very far-reaching and worthwhile agenda.
The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not realise that the £100 million to which he referred is our portion of the replenishment of the global environment facility of $2 billion to $3 billion. It is new money, as I expressly stated last week and as I am happy to make clear again today.
On the question of the Trindad terms, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be critical of what is the largest ever debt write-off for small countries and poor countries ever proposed by any Government. It was proposed by us, agreed with the Commonwealth, pushed through the United Nations and fought for by us through the Paris Club without a shred of assistance from the right hon. Gentleman, other than carping from the sidelines.
On the subject of the 0.7 per cent. commitment, it was expressly reaffirmed that we would reach that as soon as possible. I note with some interest that, although the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) may have talked about the 0.7 per cent. commitment for some time, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) makes no commitment whatsoever to moving towards it within any measurable time.
Sir Peter Tapsell: In his talks with President Bush, did my right hon. Friend discuss the newly proposed Franco-German military force outside NATO?

653
If so, have any preliminary decisions been taken by Britain and the United States about our future attitude towards that force?
The Prime Minister: Yes, that was one of the matters that we discussed over the weekend. We both take the view that the Franco-German force should be part of the enhanced Western European Union, itself a part of NATO and primarily subordinate to NATO. We see the troop build-up, including troops from France and Germany, as being primarily at the instigation of NATO and of no other body.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The good news about Rio is that it is a small step forward towards facing up to the environmental challenge that now confronts us all. The bad news is that, if this is the best progress we can make, we shall, I regret, be once again doing too little, too late. The good news about the Prime Minister is that he showed an early commendable enthusiasm for joining Rio. The bad news is that, when he got there, he was able to deliver so little.
The Prime Minister has told us that money is the root of all success, so is he happy that the total amount of resources available from the developed countries to tackle this problem now amounts to around a twentieth of what the United Nations estimates is necessary? Is he satisfied that, even after he has, as he promised, raised the percentage of gross domestic product to be spent on third-world aid and development, that sum will still amount to only slightly over half what his Government inherited in 1979? The Prime Minister tells us that he has made a start. Has he any idea how much further both he and his fellow world leaders have to go in order to face up to this challenge?
The Prime Minister: There is part of what the right hon. Gentleman said with I self-evidently agree, for I expressed the same thoughts myself earlier. It is a step forward. It is not as far forward as many of us would wish to go. I cited in particular forestry and climate change—both important areas where the United Kingdom would have been prepared to go further and faster than some other countries at the summit. The summit represents an agreement that has been signed by almost all the 170 nations. The right hon. Gentleman will know and understand the difficulties of getting an agreement that is satisfactory to everyone from a gathering of that size.
The true importance of Rio, apart from the agreements made, is the fact that so many countries and so many Heads of Government attended the conference, and that they have set a new benchmark on which to build co-operation in the future. It would not be wise to underestimate the importance of that. It simply could not have happened even two years ago; It has happened now. It has happened and it has delivered some success, although not as much as the right hon. Gentleman or I would have wished. It provides a benchmark on which to build in the future.
Resources are growing. There is the commitment of both developed and developing nations to use the resources for environmental purposes, which is required so that we can make more progress. As the right hon.
654
Gentleman will know, some of the developing countries were unable to reach agreements on some of the areas in which agreement falls short of what our ambitions may be.
On the United Kingdom's commitment to aid, I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we have the sixth largest aid programme in the world and arguably the best in terms of direction. It buys more in purchasing power terms than it has ever done, and that is what matters to the people receiving the aid.
Mr. Jim Lester: Will my right hon. Friend listen to those of us on this side who have taken a considerable interest in this question for a considerable time? We welcome his commitment and his involvement, and we welcome his statement and the fact that he has come straight back to the House to make it. Does he agree that, unlike the rather cavilling remarks from both Opposition parties, the truth about the convention and the agreements signed is that Agenda 21 is the real way forward, with 27 separate blueprints for action in many areas? As those blueprints are developed, the funds necessary to carry them through should follow. That is when we want to see the increase in resources. The resources will follow the plans agreed between developed and developing countries so that they can be funded to happen.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The follow-up is extremely important, and the follow-up mechanisms agreed under the United Nations will monitor that. That United Kingdom is well placed in that, because we already have an established system of annual White Paper reports such as no other developed or undeveloped country yet has. In Agenda 21, we have collectively produced a very flexible framework for countries developing their own sustainable development programmes, and for bilateral and multilateral discussions to see how those countries might be assisted.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Prime Minister ask the relevant officials or Ministers to look at the proceedings on the Plant Varieties Act 1983, and especially at the debates on the amendments moved by Mr. Frank Hooley and myself in relation to plant breeding in this country, to the concentration of plant ownership and to the iniquity of the manner in which the third world and its biological and botanical resources were being used? When the Prime Minister has that report, will he send a letter to me about it? From those debates, it becomes clear the aspirations that the Prime Minister now expresses are not compatible with the Act which his Government put on the statute book.
The Prime Minister: I never cease to admire the hon. Gentleman's memory. I undertake to examine the clauses in the Act against the agreements reached over the past few days and then to write to the hon. Gentleman. I will do that with great pleasure.
Sir Giles Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on his commitment and energy at the Rio summit? Does he agree that, to take things forward, a new structure for world trade is clearly vital? From his discussions with President Bush, does my right hon. Friend genuinely believe that the resistance so far shown by the American President has finally crumbled into acceptance of the need for an urgent resumption of discussions?
The Prime Minister: I am certainly seeking, as I have said both to our European Community partners and to the United States, a swift resumption of the direct discussions on GATT so that we may reach a speedy conclusion. I should have liked to see a conclusion reached before now. I should certainly like to see a conclusion reached by the end of the month, beyond which we run into timetabling troubles with the presidential election.
The matter is of immense importance, and the judgment that we make in the United Kingdom, especially after the agreement on the common agricultural policy, is that we are nearer an agreement on GATT than anybody realises or than anyone imagined just a few weeks ago. With good will, there is an agreement to be had, and I hope that all sides will come together and reach that agreement without delay.
Mr. Bernie Grant: I certainly welcome the fact that, on this issue, the Prime Minister appeared to be following a different course from the Americans, and I hope that that trend will continue. However, I have a question about the Prime Minister's visit to Colombia. When he discussed matters of trade with the Colombians, did he raise the question of bananas? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Colombians and others are trying to swamp the European Community with dollar bananas after 1 January next year, to the detriment of our traditional suppliers in the Caribbean like the small country of Dominica, 70 per cent. of whose foreign exchange earnings are gleaned from bananas? Did the Prime Minister tell the Colombians that we did not want their rotten bananas if they were not prepared to pay decent wages to their workers? Can he confirm that he is still committed to the accord between the European Community and the banana growers about their supplies to the European Community after 1 January next year?
The Prime Minister: I did spend some time discussing bananas with President Gaviria and I had an opportunity a few days earlier of discussing them with Honduras and Costa Rica to follow up on earlier discussions with the Windward Islands and some of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. There is a way forward to protect the access to Europe of South American bananas and to protect the position of the ACP countries, for many of which banana access to the European Community remains of vital interest for there is not easily to be seen another way in which they can sustain their livelihoods. I spent some time discussing that, and we are in touch with the Commission about how an agreement might be reached that would protect both parties to it.
Sir John Wheeler: Whatever the achievements of Rio, does my right hon. Friend agree that, without the serious issue of control of the growth of world population, the progress that is promised from Rio will come to nothing? What has the United Kingdom done to promote the control of the world's population through the Rio conference?
The Prime Minister: I made the point in Rio that population control was an important issue, although it also touches on deep moral concerns that are of great personal interest to millions of people around the world. We have a very substantial educative and birth control programme operating in many countries around the world, and that will certainly continue.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Could the Prime Minister tell us more about the Darwin initiative, because it sounds a little like the citizens charter—bland and ineffective? Does the Darwin initiative have a missing link and no teeth?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so little faith in the skill and expertise of the professional bodies in this country to help on questions like that. The essence of the Darwin initiative is to draw together and build on the United Kingdom strength in biology and taxonomy and to use the skills available at Kew and elsewhere—not least, of course, the natural history museum—in the interests of this country and of the world in general. We probably have more significant experience in legislative and regulatory protection of habitats, not least through the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission and the development of sites of special scientific interest, than almost any country in the world.
We expect the Darwin initiative to carry out preliminary country studies of natural resources and biodiversity in other countries and so help and advise those countries. We will clarify goals for them. We will promote international co-operation and benefit-sharing arrangements. That is just a dipstick sample of the sort of proposals that we have that will come under the general heading of the Darwin initiative. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it. Certainly the countries at Rio welcomed it.
Dr. Liam Fox: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is simplistic for the Opposition parties to concentrate only on the amount of aid rather than the quality of aid, as the Government have done? Notwithstanding that, the amount of aid that the Government are proposing is a real increase, unlike the bogus figures proposed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
The Prime Minister: It is simplistic, as my hon. Friend says, but it is also typical, as he will learn. We spent about £1,789 million on aid in 1991–92, which is 3 per cent. more than in 1990–91, and we plan to continue growing in real terms to £1,975 million by 1994–95.
Mr. Bob Cryer: If the Prime Minister is so concerned about increasing expenditure on the poverty section of the world, when is he going to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP? Is it not disgraceful and hypocritical of him to go on, on behalf of his Government, to talk to the countries which are most vitally affected by poverty, which in turn is having adverse effects on the planet, when his Government are spending £10,000 million on Trident nuclear weapons and another £10,000 million on maintenance of those nuclear weapons—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he used the word "hypocritical"—
Mr. Cryer: Of the Government.
Madam Speaker: No, the word to me was "hypocritical" of the Prime Minister and his Government. If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw it and make quite clear what he is saying so that we have it on record and it is correct, I should be very much obliged.
Mr. Cryer: Well, the Prime Minister is part of a collective responsibility, so it applies to the whole collective responsibility, does the charge of hypocrisy, Madam Speaker. There is no question about that. They are all in it together, and it is hypocritical of the Government—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cryer: —to go to a conference like that being prepared to spend at least £20,000 million on the means of mass extermination. Why does he not go to such a conference by cancelling Trident and saying, "We are going to spend the money on preserving and developing the planet"?
The Prime Minister: Trident, although the hon. Gentleman has always signally failed to recognise it, is there to protect us and to deter others from attacking us. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is because of the strength of our defence commitment that he has the opportunity to stand here and make his remarks about the Government. I look forward to his continuing to do so, because ever time he expresses his views in that way, it does no good to him, no good to his party and a great deal of good to us.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: On my right hon. Friend's visit to Colombia and the appalling problem of the spread of drug taking in the world, is not one of the great problems the fact that the peasant farmer in Colombia and South America gets much more money growing drug-producing crops than any other? Did the Colombians tell him whether the crop substitution programme was actually working?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we did discuss that, and the various measures that we were able to help the Colombians with to track down the drug difficulties at source and to eliminate the fields where the drugs were growing. It is not a problem that will be solved in the short term. They need a lot of help; they are getting a lot of help. They will need a lot more assistance, I suspect over a large number of years, before we can really get to grips with the problem and remove it.
The steady growth of United Kingdom assistance has not only led to much better training of indigenous police and military personnel seeking drugs but has been of great encouragement to the Colombian Government to produce their own resources to add to those provided by ourselves. It is a problem that will go on for a long time. One of the other aspects that the Colombians were very keen to emphasise would help them would be the increasing amount of investment from overseas to provide the better quality of life that lay at the root of my hon. and learned Friend's question.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can the Prime Minister confirm that two of the principles that imbued many of the delegates at the conference were a belief in greater equality and a belief in the need for democratic co-operative planning—two principles which he will confirm are anathema to the modern Conservative party? Can he confirm that it is of no surprise to many of us that a party which has presided over great inequality between rich and poor in this country has done so little to bridge the gap between rich and poor internationally in the 1980s?
658
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one lesson that we can learn from the way in which the environment has been degraded and the way in which so many people have had their lives threatened internationally, is that the problem will not be solved by the untrammelled operation of market forces?
The Prime Minister: On the substantive part of that question, the hon. Gentleman's view is not shared by Governments in Latin America or by Governments in eastern Europe. It is shared by few Governments, outside Cuba, anywhere in the world.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As development aid of £1,800 million per year works out at a tax of more than £100 on each household in Britain, and at a time of world trade recession some of our households cannot easily afford that sum, is it not monstrous for Opposition Members to disparage it?
The Prime Minister: I believe that we make a substantial contribution in aid in terms of the size of our aid, the consistency of our aid, the quality of our aid and the direction in which our aid goes. It is uniquely well targeted. That is well understood by countries around the world. From time to time, the Opposition have called for an increase to 0.7 per cent. over five years. They have never mentioned to people that that would add £2,400 million each year to public expenditure, at a time when they have the nerve to lecture us about the borrowing requirement.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Prime Minister knows that the value of aid programmes to the third world is largely negated by the appalling debt burden which those countries have to service. Have the Trinidad terms of which he has spoken been adopted by other donor countries? Were any further forums held and were proposals made at them to discuss debt alleviation during the programme in Rio?
The Prime Minister: The Trinidad terms have been adopted by several countries, although there are still some in the G7 which have not adopted them. I said last year that we would adopt them unilaterally if there was not a collective agreement in the G7 by the end of the year. There are still some difficulties with some countries. I hope and believe that we shall persuade all of them to adopt the Trinidad terms before too long, although some still have difficulties. Beyond that, we have to look at what is possible.
The Trinidad terms initiative builds on the Toronto terms initiative. They are the two largest debt initiatives taken anywhere in the world in the past 10 years. They are both British initiatives. The first was taken by Lord Lawson and the second was taken by myself during my period as Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall look in future to see what more can be done, but we first need to ensure that all countries are signed up to the Trinidad terms initiative. Otherwise, there is a danger that we should go further and no longer be able to bring other countries or the commercial banks along with us. As was said in an earlier question, both of those are vital to assist the countries who need to see their debts progressively written off.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the prominence given at Rio to population growth as a cause of

659
environmental decline? Will he assure me that a greater share of the ODA's budget will be targeted on population policies? Will he encourage non-governmental organisations not to be so timid about investing in population planning?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, we now have a better relationship with the non-governmental organisations than for many years. I will draw the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development to the first half of my hon. Friend's remarks. We shall be able to develop many of these matters with not only the domestic but the international NGOs. That is one reason why we decided to convene a conference here in the United Kingdom at some stage next year to bring NGOs from all over the world to discuss how the matter is developing and what further they and we collectively might do.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that at the Earth summit it was suggested that the third world, which still has to pay more to the rich part of the world in debt payments than it receives in other forms of assistance, needs $125 billion to run as fast as it can to keep standing still? If it was possible for the Government in the past five to six years to allow the top four clearing banks in Britain to write off debts—that is a liability on taxpayers—of more than £4,000 million, surely it makes sense, and the Prime Minister should have said it in Rio, for the Government to say that, instead of allowing the banks in Britain to write off debt, the British taxpayer should use the money to write off the debts of the third world? In that way, we should not have been handing out money to Maxwell and those other crooks in the City.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman really should not let his obsessions run away with him. In fact, many of the debts written off by the banks to which he now objects were third-world debts.
Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his leadership before and at the Rio summit was widely acknowledged—not, of course, by the armchair critics on the Opposition Front Bench, but throughout the developed and the developing world? That was not least because of my right hon. Friend's insistence that Rio was a first step and not an end in itself.
Following the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) about population, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's contribution should be the expansion of opportunities for population control? That means not merely birth control but enabling children to survive, so that families in the developing world—and mothers in particular—have confidence in the survival of their children, and therefore do not see any need for families to be so large. Surely, that is exactly the sort of targeted, effective aid with which Britain can give a lead in the future.
The Prime Minister: Many of the problems of population control can be dealt with to a large extent by the provision of better education, both about population control and about the opportunities that are available to people in the third world. I suspect that one of the difficulties in many countries where families are often very large is caused by the fact that, to an extent, children on working land can represent wealth. Many problems are
660
also caused by ignorance of the mechanisms of birth control: that is why I consider the international educative programmes so important.
Miss Joan Lester: Talking of population control, the Prime Minister will be aware that Brazil has demonstrated a unique way of controlling its population over the years—by shooting children in the streets. I heard the Prime Minister say during a broadcast that he would raise the killing of Brazilian street children with Brazil's Head of State. Did he do that, and, if so, what was the outcome? Did any discussions take place with other countries outside the official meetings about how pressure could be put on Brazil to stop this barbaric practice?
The Prime Minister: As I believe the hon. Lady knows, there are two tiers of government with different responsibilities for caring for the street children. As I discovered whether I went to Brazil, many of the children have come down to the city from the Favellas that surround it. The climate is conducive to such action, and the children tend to leave their homes because they are deeply unattractive. There are many of them, and it is extremely difficult to deal with them.
I discussed the matters at some length with President Collor during our meeting last week, and he set out the scale of the programme to which he is committed—a programme totalling some $7 billion—to help the children. He described it as one of the Government's top priorities. The Government are seeking to take action, and to persuade the other tiers of government to do the same, although they are acutely conscious of what else needs to be done.
We are able to help in some ways, through the Government and also through non-governmental organisations bilaterally, and I hope that we shall do so. We have also invited Dr. Paulo Melo, the president of the Rio State Commission on the Assassination of Schoolchildren, to visit the United Kingdom to discuss the way forward. We may then be able to see what further action, if any, we can take.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the significant role that he played in the Rio agreements, which history will mark as a watershed in environmental action. Will he confirm, however, that sustainable, market-led economic growth is a precondition for environmental improvements, rather than an alternative to them? Will he also confirm that the success of the Rio summit will depend on detailed follow-up, country by country, of its provisions—which in turn will depend on the environmental monitoring machinery that is available in those countries? The machinery is good in Britain, but, sadly, not of the same quality in the rest of Europe.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right in each of his propositions. That is why the countries present agreed to establish a Sustainable Development Commission as the principal mechanism for the United Nations to follow up the agreements made in Rio. The essence of the commission's task will be to follow up commitments, and the details of how that can be done will be finalised in the General Assembly this autumn. Clearly —as my hon. Friend said—success will depend on the

661
political commitment of states. I hope that they will all participate at a high level, and I assure the House that we shall do so.
Mr. John McFall: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Agenda 21 proposals pale into insignificance in the light of the statement by the United Nations secretariat that $125 billion should be made available even by the end of the century? Has the Prime Minister anything to be proud of following his return from Rio, given that an inflow of $31 billion in debt repayments from the south to the north will continue?
In connection with tariff and non-tariff barriers, the third world is denied $75 billion, and each and every taxpayer in the United Kingdom must pay more than $6 for the folly—the criminality, almost—of banks that lent money to the third world in the 1970s.
The Prime Minister: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into the obsessions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because I rather wonder what he would have said in the 1970s if the banks had declined to lend to the third world. These proposals are not, as the hon. Gentleman said, my proposals, but proposoals agreed by 170 nations and set out after a great deal of preliminary discussion prior to and at the conference. They point out that sustainable development is not, as the hon. Gentleman appeared to imply, the concern of Governments alone. Agenda 21 gives a role to international bodies, national Governments, local authorities, businesses, NGOs and individuals. All of them, not just Governments, have a role to play.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Prime Minister promised substantial extra resources, but just 10 minutes earlier his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a minuscule increase over the coming years. Who is telling the truth? What is the dipstick test for that?
The Prime Minister: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to the answer that I gave a few moments ago, the answer to his question would have been clear to him. I announced an extra £100 million commitment to the global environment facility, a rising line of aid set out in public expenditure programmes and further resources to be considered as usual at public expenditure rounds.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the Prime Minister aware that 1 billion people, a fifth of the world's population, do not have access to clean drinking water, and that each year 3 million people, mostly children, die poisoned by their drinking water? What action did he take at Rio to reduce that total?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find that problem addressed in the Agenda 21 programme, and he may care to examine it. There are a whole series of propositions in it.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister accept that the past 10 years of the world's economic policies through the International Monetary Fund and the World bank have led to an unprecedented growth in the power and influence of multinational corporations? In that respect, does he not regret that the United Nations has closed its office that monitors the
662
activities of multinational corporations, and that he and President Bush personally ensured that any reference to the activities of multinational corporations was written out of the text at Rio? Does he not think it is time that the world monitored those who control 80 per cent. of the world's trade, dump most of the world's toxic waste and destroy the environments of most third-world countries? Does he not think that they deserve some democratic accountability?
The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman says about what President Bush and I allegedly wrote out of the text is absolutely nonsense. I do not know where he gets this rubbish from, but he should go back to his source and check again.
Mr. Tony Banks: In acknowledging the Prime Minister's role in Rio, will he tell us why Baroness Chalker allegedly choked on her pina colada when it was pointed out that the British contribution to overseas aid was down to 0.27 per cent. of our gross domestic product? Was that because she felt ashamed of that record? Does the Prime Minister in any way share that sense of shame?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting or misunderstanding what my noble Friend said. She was pointing out the difference between the calendar year issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the financial year figure—
Mr. Skinner: Come on, Brer Rabbit.
The Prime Minister: The Bolsover tar baby clearly does not understand that we carry out our particular public expenditure commitments on a financial year basis. During the financial year, the position was 0.3 per cent., as it has been. The outturn may be slightly larger. The 0.27 per cent. figure is simply because so much of the expenditure was in the last quarter of the year.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Prime Minister in his speech at Rio said that money was the root of all success. Can he give an absolute assurance to the House that the £100 million that he has promised to the global environment facility is new money and will not be taken from other parts of the overseas development budget? Considering the scale of the global development problems, is not £100 million—just 0.02 per cent. of our GDP—pitifully inadequate?
The Prime Minister: The agreement was for the replenishment, by $2 billion to $3 billion, of the global environmental facility. That agreement was reached by all the countries that were there. The £100 million is our share of that agreement, and that is why the figure comes to that. The time scale will depend on the speed with which the global environmental facility actually needs that particular sum, but, yes, it is new money.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations who said at the weekend that the rich countries have a vested interest in seeking solutions to the problems bedevilling the poorer countries? Vested interests aside, surely we should be talking in terms of principles. Will the Prime Minister assure us that his Government will continue to defend the interests of those ACP cane-sugar producing countries, particularly in the

663
Council of Ministers at Brussels? Some of the member states of the European Community seem to believe that they have no obligation to defend those interests.
The Prime Minister: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), I set out the position on the ACP countries and the difficulties that they face over bananas under the GATT round. I made it clear that we were keen to protect their position. They have no other obvious source of income in the short term, or even in the medium-term, and we wish to preserve their position. Clearly it is right to talk about having a general interest in the remarks of the Secretary-General. That is why so many of the developed countries have such large aid programmes.
Mr. Chris Smith: Judging from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Prime Minister appears to be unaware of the fact that, when a commercial bank writes down a debt in this country and claims corporation tax relief as a result, it does not at the same time have to cancel the debt to the developing country concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "That's it."] As a result, the British taxpayer is subsidising the bank rather than the people of the developing world?
Does the Prime Minister not realise that, unless a far more serious approach is made to tackling the problem of debt than anything dreamed of in the Trinidad terms or beyond, we shall not achieve environmental progress or sustainable development throughout the developing world?
The Prime Minister: In so far as I could hear the question over the yapping coming from the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway, the banks are writing off debt and we have put considerable pressure on them to make sure that they do write off the debt. It is important that they should continue to do so, and we shall certainly see that they do.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Given the Prime Minister's statements on population control, I wonder whether it is true that his Government have cut their contribution to the United Nations fund for population control by 63 per cent.
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is the case, and I think that the hon. Lady will find that out.
Mr. William O'Brien: How does the Prime Minister justify the role of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who lectured other nations at Rio on the need to improve the environment and to reduce emissions of poisonous fumes into the atmosphere, when at home he allows the use of orimulsion, the dirtiest means of generating energy? He has allowed its use without any restrictions on cleaning its emissions. Will the Prime Minister undertake to stop the use of orimulsion because of the damage it is doing to the atmosphere in this country?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, all that is subject to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. He will also know that the United Kingdom has a comprehensive strategy for the environment, as set out in our White Paper, which is rolled forward annually. It is an open process with a commitment, a report, a review sequence and a public right to information on a scale that no other country has yet managed to equal. I must say that I find it extraordinary that Labour hon. Members are so often ever ready to run down what is done in this country rather than to acknowledge the lead that is so often given by this country, not least by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As the Prime Minister knows, I spent a week in Rio, and I was fully aware of the build-up of hope and anticipation during that time. It was fuelled by the constant briefing of the press and media by Ministers and PR men. Did not the death of the Prime Minister's supposed good intentions take place in the meaningless platitudes, weasel words, caveats and smell of back-room fixes cobbled up by him and his aides at Rio? Is it not true that the failure to agree a target date for achieving 0.7 per cent. of GNP by the year 2000 can only mean that the burden of shouldering the environment and development crisis has been left to the world's poorest countries and people? Is not the message from the United Kingdom Government, "It's business as usual—carry on polluting, and carry on dying"?
The Prime Minister: If that is so, perhaps the hon. Lady can explain why the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would not commit himself to any extra money whatsoever for that purpose. It is about time that the Opposition looked at their position before criticising the growing British aid programme.

Points of Order
4.26 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to ask whether you have received a request from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement on the revelation that the Government had intelligence information in the years before Maxwell's death that he was acting dishonestly. As those intelligence data were collected before 1989, the House needs to know why the Department for Trade and Industry granted an investment licence to two Maxwell companies in April 1988, which he later used to pillage those pension funds.
As those intelligence data were also presumably collected after 1989, how can the Government, including the Department of Social Security, not have known that Maxwell was dealing dishonestly with the pension fund moneys and therefore have been in a position to stop the plundering? Above all, we need to know why the Secretary of State, a week ago, misled the House—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase his statement. He knows that no Minister misleads the House, and I should be glad if he would withdraw his statement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Mr. Meacher: Of course I withdraw that phrase.
We need to consider why the Minister said:
"nor is there any question of Government accepting responsibility".—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209. c. 23.]
In the light of that revelation, the Government clearly have a responsibility. Will you, Madam Speaker, secure an early statement so that we can have a full inquiry into the matter?
Madam Speaker: The first question that the hon. Gentleman raised was a matter for me. The point of order that he raised with the Chair was whether any Minister had asked to make a statement. The answer to that is no. That was a direct matter for me but, the other matters which the hon. Gentleman raises are for those on the Front Bench, who no doubt have noted his comments, and not for me as Speaker.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request for a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security about a conference on the Maxwell fund apparently to be held on Wednesday in Liechtenstein? I ask that question because I telephoned the Swiss embassy—it looks after that country's interests—to ask what is happening, and was told that such a conference is to take place in two days' time. I want to know from the Minister whether United Kingdom representatives will attend, bearing in mind that public money is now involved in trying to help the victims of that swindle. I have also been in touch with the pensioners who are affected—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman puts a point of order to me. He cannot put a question to a Minister through me. I have received no information from the Government that they seek to make a statement on the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This concerns a matter that I have raised with you before, and that you treated with your characteristic courtesy. This afternoon, during Question Time, we had to suffer lengthy replies from those on the Front Bench. I know that you have commented before about these overlong answers to Back Benchers' questions. Could you impress upon those on the Treasury Bench the fact that many Back Benchers like to get in to ask questions, and that these overlong answers, these mini-statements, go down very badly with us?
Madam Speaker: I have already made a statement on that matter. Whether it is those on the Front Bench or those on the Back Bench, I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I was not actually going to raise a point of order.
Madam Speaker: In that case, it was my mistake. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I heard you properly, you said that, as far as you were aware, no Minister had asked to make a statement about that crook Maxwell and the fact that the Government knew of some of his activities years ago, through GCHQ? Can we get this matter resolved? If the Government do not want to make a statement, which is scandalous, has anybody asked that a statement be made? If nobody has yet made that request, I am doing so now.
Madam Speaker: I have already made a decision on that matter, and those who have been interested and involved in it know the decision that I have made.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I raised with you a point of order about the work of the Select Committee on Social Security looking into the Maxwell affair. You undertook, on behalf of the House, to get together those on the two Front Benches so as to ensure that the Select Committee meets at an early opportunity. Today, the Financial Times reported that the intelligence services had information on the sort of activities that our Select Committee could examine. It could also bring the Secretary of State before it at the earliest opportunity to see what part the Government played in keeping from the public gaze the intelligence information about Maxwell's fraudulent behaviour.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the statement that I made last week, he will see that I have already made known my views on the establishment of the Select Committee. I shall leave it at that.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). During the investigations by the Select Committee on Social Security into the affairs of the Maxwell pension fund, the Government gave no evidence about any security information on Robert Maxwell that they might have had. If they withheld that information, what sanctions can be taken against the Ministers who were responsible for those Departments at that time?
Madam Speaker: I have already on one occasion made it clear that that is not the type of advice that I am prepared to give across the Floor of the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together 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.).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  REVENUE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)
  That the Rvenue Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &.

  LICENSING (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c —[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Boundary Commissions Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the work of the parliamentary boundary commissioners so that their reports can be presented in good time. The issue, as we all appreciate, is whether the next general election is likely to be fought on up-to-date boundaries or on boundaries that are nearly 20 years out of date. The Bill makes no changes in the rules for boundary revision that we adopt in our democracy because it is generally acknowledged that those rules work well. It gives effect to a timetable that hon. Members on both sides have been expecting the boundary commissions to follow for some time. The only arguments for opposition to the Bill will be arguments in favour of delay and of fighting a general election on out-of-date figures on population distribution. I trust that such arguments will not be advanced too strongly.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will, but I want to make some progress before I do so.
  The essential background to the Bill is as follows. Since the current boundaries were drawn up, population changes have caused wide disparities in constituency electorates. Perhaps I may remind the House of how wide those disparities are. In England the figures range from just over 42,000 to more than 100,000. There are similar, although not quite as marked, disparities in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has a span of 24,000 electors between the largest and smallest constituencies. The gaps between largest and smallest for Wales and Scotland are 41,000 and 55,000 respectively.
  Obviously in Wales and Scotland geographical features combine to mean that some constituencies can legitimately remain smaller, but most of the disparities, including many that have developed in recent years, are simply the result of today's mobility of population which the previous statutory timetable did not recognise. The disparities in the numbers of voters in each constituency are unacceptable and they can increase extremely rapidly.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way so early and I understand the point that he is making—but it is not just a matter of numbers. They may be the concern of the boundary commissions, but it is also a fact that in constituencies such as mine, where the electorate is down to 46,855—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bye bye!"] I can assure Conservative Members that it will not be "Bye bye" to me. The problems generated by those 46,000 people, however, are considerably greater than those of the 90,000 constituents in a Tory, rural, affluent area. Surely there ought to be some consideration of that.
  Mr. Clarke: I would not attempt to deny that the borough of Newham suffers from a wide range of social

  669
  problems which impose a considerable burden on the constituency work of its Members of Parliament. But it is a novel proposition to say that in deprived parts of the country a vote should be given twice the weight of that in another English constituency because of the workload imposed on the Member of Parliament or the problems faced by constituents. That proposition has never been taken into account before, and I am sure that the House will not want to introduce it in this Bill.
  But for the proposals in the Bill there would be a serious risk of an election in 1996—a perfectly feasible date to contemplate—being fought on electoral figures that would be 20 years out of date. By that time the disparities that I have just described will have grown even greater. The Bill therefore sets a statutory deadline of 31 December 1994 for the completion of each of the four commissions' next reviews.
  So as to ensure that these deadlines are achievable, the Bill also includes provision for the payments of commissioners. It sets out clearly the local government boundaries of which account must be taken in their reports. These two provisions are linked closely to the first provision, and between them they represent almost the entirety of what the House will be voting on this evening. I have no doubt that our debate will range a little more widely than that, but the Bill is a very narrow measure, mainly designed to make sure that the boundary review takes place within the reasonable time that we always expected.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Many of us will take the view that the contents of the Bill are not as surprising as the manner of its introduction. As Madam Speaker is the chairman of the four commissions, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform her, before introducing and publishing the Bill, of the Government's intentions—and what reply did he receive?
  Mr. Clarke: Madam Speaker, like her predecessors in office, is indeed chairman of the commissions and, like her predecessors, she will take no active part in their work. Below her is a High Court judge in each of the four countries. He is an active commissioner sitting with two other commissioners appointed by the Government after consultation, usually with—among others—the Opposition parties. I am sure that the role of the Speaker of the House is to ensure that if there ever were—there never has been—an allegation of impropriety in the conduct of the commission, the Speaker might become active. The Speakership has not been active hitherto, and it is not contemplated that it will be so as a result of the Bill. As a matter of courtesy, I informed Madam Speaker about the introduction of the Bill. She noted that and thanked me for my courtesy. Beyond that she has taken no part whatever in the drawing up of the legislation.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that there is anything surprising about the introduction of the Bill. It has appeared in the House so quickly after being mentioned in the Queen's Speech because of the timetable which sets a statutory deadline of 31 December 1994. The Bill must be enacted reasonably quickly to make sure that no practical reasons get in the way of that deadline.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction in England and Wales about the over-representation of Wales and Scotland? People feel that it is undemocratic. What action would he need to take to ensure that the same basis for representation applied to Scotland and Wales as applies to the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Clarke: Primary legislation would be required to change the legislation setting out the number of seats available to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We have decided not to do that because the disparity about which my hon. Friend complains has been in our system for a long time, although it may have widened a little in recent years. As we all know, from time to time, there is lively debate about the constitutional position of Scotland, in particular, and, to a certain extent, that of Wales. The Government's view is that a proposal that solely determined the number of seats in Scotland and Wales would not be helpful to the debate.
  That underlines my argument that the Bill, which in a sense is a modest constitutional measure to be debated on the Floor of the House, where it should achieve as wide a consensus as possible, is restricted to what is necessary to achieve the timetable. We have deliberately eschewed the suggestion to enter upon larger issues. The number of seats allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a wider issue and should not be taken as part of the legislation.
  I emphasise the extent to which the Bill leaves untouched the mechanisms of the boundary commissions. Some reports have suggested that we are gerrymandering or doing something like that. Such things are said in the heat of the moment, but that is a preposterous suggestion, because the Bill goes out of its way to leave the rules and the mechanism untouched, precisely because I am not aware of any serious complaint about the impartiality and fairness of what is done at the moment.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: The issue of gerrymandering could have been resolved at the outset if the Minister had followed historical precedent and called inter-party talks before producing the Bill. Why did that not happen either at a Speaker's Conference or in some other forum to enure that the Bill could be supported by all parties and that there would be no suggestion of gerrymandering?
  Mr. Clarke: If the Bill's time scale is to remain practical, we must enter quickly on the legislation. I clearly recollect politicians of all parties speaking and writing articles in the expectation that the timetable that I am describing would be realised. We are merely making sure that the statutory deadline matches the expectations of most hon. Members. If we had suggested changing the rules or the distribution of seats, or anything of that kind, we would probably have required the historical precedent of a Speaker's Conference. Unless something surprising arises in the debate, an argument, if there is one, about the statutory deadline of 31 December 1994 is hardly the red meat of constitutional debate that would justify a Speaker's Conference.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once more and then I should like to make more progress.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: First, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the boundary commissions are impartial? Secondly, will he resist any accusations that are made by Labour Members about gerrymandering? I remember that in 1969 the then Labour Government refused to implement the recommendations of the commissioners because they felt that they would lose up to 30 seats if they did so.
  Mr. Clarke: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have never heard it seriously suggested that the work of the boundary commissions is anything other than impartial. Our system must be the envy of many of the major democracies of the western world. It is implemented by a High Court judge and I do not think that there can be any claim of partiality.
  This is the fourth revision since the system started, as I shall briefly describe. The two reports that were made during periods of Labour Governments gave rise to considerable controversy. In 1969 the then Home Secretary, now Lord Callaghan, went to considerable lengths to avoid implementing the boundary changes before the 1970 general election. My position is slightly ambiguous, because, had it not been for Lord Callaghan's gerrymandering on that occasion, I probably would not have been elected to the House in 1970. I had been selected to fight a constituency that was next door to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) which was due to be redistributed out of sight following implementation of the report. Lord Callaghan was so anxious to see my right hon. Friend and myself in the House that he delayed the process and I was elected to this place to represent a constituency that was subsequently redistributed.
  When we last had a review nobody claimed that it was anything other than impartial. We behaved perfectly properly in our response to it and we propose to do so again. It helps no one to claim that reviews are not impartial.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall explain how we have reached the present position and then I shall give way.
  Over nearly 50 years we have had four reports from boundary commissions. They are required periodically to produce reports on all the constituencies in their respective parts of the United Kingdom. This will continue to be the case. In addition, the commissions are able to conduct interim reviews should they consider that the need to alter constituency boundaries is so pressing that they cannot wait until the next general review. This option, too, will continue to be open to the commissions.
  On reaching conclusions in any given area, each commission publishes its proposed changes with its reasons for arriving at those conclusions. It then waits for a statutory period of at least one month for representations to be made. If objections are raised by a body of 100 or more electors or by an interested authority, the commissioners are obliged to hold an inquiry in the area concerned. They may choose to hold an inquiry even if these conditions are not met. I have never heard it suggested that such inquiries are anything other than full and fair. Detailed reasons are given for whichever course of action the commission eventually decides to follow.
  The procedures via which the boundary commissioners arrive at their conclusions are an essential part of our
  672
  democratic system. There is no compelling need for any changes in the rules which I have outlined and no changes are proposed in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has underlined, the boundary commissions are an invaluable part of our constitution and one which the Government have every intention of maintaining.
  Mr. William O'Brien: How does the Home Secretary align his immediate remarks with the information that was sent to Members in the newsletter from the boundary commissioners? The commissioners wrote:
  "It is too early to estimate when the report will be completed but it is unlikely to be before mid-1995."
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the procedures of consultation, a public inquiry and everything else will be carried out and the date is to be brought forward 12 months, how can what he is saying and what the commissioners have said be reconciled?
  Mr. Clarke: The date will be brought forward six months before the estimate to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Before the Bill was introduced no one was quite sure when the process would be completed. The modest extra resources that the Bill will enable us to put into the exercise of providing remuneration for the commissioners will enable them to speed up their work. The Bill provides clarity about the impact of any local government changes on the revisions and provides a cut-off date after which local government changes will not be taken into account. That, too, will enable the commissioners to meet the statutory deadline of 31 December 1994. If, by any chance, they slip beyond the statutory deadline, that will not invalidate the conclusions. I believe that, following the Bill's enactment, the statutory deadline will be hit.
  Timing is the only issue. Looking back over the process, as I have briefly done, the only drawback that has caused controversy in modern times is the time that has elapsed between each review. The disparities between the sizes of electorates have become intolerable. A vote in Kensington is now worth twice as much as a vote in Peterborough. There is no logical reason for that, but it is not an isolated example. The constituency of Eastleigh has more than 91,000 electors on the 1991 register; it had only 70,000 on the 1976 register. Similarly, during that time my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's constituency electorate has risen from 65,000 to 91,000; Hampshire, East has risen from 67,000 to 91,000; The Wrekin from 65,000 to 91,000; and Swindon fromn 68,000 to 90,000. I could go on.
  Such dramatic increases have been matched by similar decreases in electorates compared with the time when constituencies were given their individual Members. Chelsea had an electorate of 63,000 in 1976; that is now down to 42,000. Indeed, the smallest constituency is, surprisingly, Surbiton. Such swings in population of almost a third of the electorate in some constituencies over a 15-year period show that the current time scale is too protracted for today's mobility of population.
  The House has made several efforts to get the interval between reporting times right. In the 1950s, a reporting time period of between three and seven years was found to be too short. There was considerable controversy about the haste of the report in the early 1950s. We subsequently found that a reporting period of between 10 and 15 years is too long for the 1990s. For those reasons, the Bill

  673
  proposes a time scale of between eight and 12 years between general reports of the boundary commissions. By that means, we should avoid some of the past difficulties.
  In 1939, constituencies ranged in size from 15,000 to 150,000 electors. That was recognised as unsatisfactory, so four permanent boundary commissions were set up in 1944, one for each component part of the United Kingdom. The brief of those commissions was to produce comprehensive proposals for the redistribution of parliamentary constituencies every three to seven years. There was an initial report in 1947 and the commissions reported again in 1954 on a periodic review that had lasted little over 18 months. That caused controversy, so the time scale in which they had to report was extended by legislation in 1958 to between 10 and 15 years. That framework for review, consolidated by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, is largely that which remains with us today. However, for the reasons that I have given, the procedure is thought to span too long a time.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the problems is that the quota year is not the year in which the report is presented? There is already a built-in obsolescence in the electorates. Should not the time scale run from the year of quota rather than the year of the report? That would ensure that that problem was minimised.
  Mr. Clarke: The quota year must be set before the process starts and it must be adhered to throughout the general review as it continues or it would be unfair to those countries dealt with in the early stages compared with those dealt with in the later stages. The quota year is 1991, which the English Boundary Commission is using. As it has already produced its proposals for a number of counties, it would not be practicable to change the quota year. The timetable for review should be based on the gap between general reviews, which is what we are proposing, rather than on a new timetable starting from a quota year.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The quota year is 1991, but there is a shortfall of 1.88 million electors in the estimated relevant population of people entitled to be on the voting register. Although some of those are overseas visitors, there is still a shortfall of 1.5 million electors in England, Scotland and Wales—but not in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would be sensible to get the electoral register correct and then to move quickly into the quota figure and the reviews.
  Mr. Clarke: We go to considerable lengths to make sure that people register. We have compulsory registration, which we back up with expenditure, advertisement and effort to get people on to the register. We achieve about 95 per cent. registration, which is a little lower than the historic level. The discrepancy has widened a little, but that pre-dates the community charge. We have achieved considerable success in getting people on to the register. The Government will continue their efforts to make sure that registration is maintained at a high level.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does it not appear that some local authorities have been over-successful, in that it appears that at the last election there were about 11,000 dual entries in some constituencies? I do not know what one can do about that.
  Mr. Clarke: The rules are clear. It is for the electoral registration officer in each area to make sure that the job is carried out satisfactorily. We hear complaints from time to time about dual registration—about people who have not been removed from the electoral register because it is assumed that they are still in the constituency, despite the fact that they have not sent in the form. One hears allegations that universities send in lists of everybody who is supposedly in residence, including people who are not British citizens. By and large, however, despite all the anecdotal complaints that one receives from individual constituencies, I think that our registration process is better than that achieved in most parliamentary democracies, if not all. We achieve a success rate of about 95 per cent.
  I intend to describe what the Bill aims to deal with. The number of interventions shows that the Government have been modest about what they have chosen to do. We have given the Bill a very narrow compass. It contains three main provisions, designed to put the position over the time scale to rights. Clause 1 provides that commissioners can be paid for their services. It has to amend schedule 1 to the 1986 Act to do so. At present, members of each commission give their services free of charge. However, assistant commissioners are paid for the work that they do in holding local inquiries where these are warranted and in preparing reports of the inquiries for the commission to consider.
  That is an anomaly nowadays. Each commission employs eminent people from the legal profession and public administration to undertake its work. It is only fair that the reward of such people should recognise, as far as possible, the skills that they bring to the task.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is not one of the reasons for the delays, particularly as the commission undertakes the reviews, the fact that the Lord Chancellor allows the judge the chance to work as a commissioner only every six weeks? That is probably because his work is unpaid. Is there any provision in the Bill that would allow the Lord Chancellor to be more reasonable about allowing a senior High Court judge time off to get on with the work of being a commissioner?
  Mr. Clarke: Lord Chancellors are always reluctant to release High Court judges from their duties for excessive periods. However, before the Bill was produced I consulted the Lord Chancellor. He knows what the statutory timetable is. He will therefore have to ensure that the commission's work is not delayed. The hon. Gentleman is right, however. One of the biggest reasons for delay is that the commission tends to meet only once every six weeks to continue its work. The High Court judge will not be paid over and above his High Court salary, but remuneration of the other commissioners will make it fair and reasonable to expect more frequent meetings to be held, if necessary.
  Clause 2 refers specifically to the timing of the general reviews of constituencies that the commissions are periodically required to undertake. It has no bearing—this is an important point—on the interim reviews that may be

  675
  undertaken at any stage, where the need arises. Clause 2 states that the next reviews of all four commissions are required to be submitted by 31 December 1994. On the present time scale, the report of the Northern Ireland commission would be due, under the statutory limit, in 1997. Those in England, Scotland and Wales would be due in early 1998. I have already made it clear why we cannot wait for those ultimate statutory deadlines and that they have to be changed.
  The new deadlines will set an achievable and practicable target. The English commission started its general review in February of last year. The Scottish commission started its review in February of this year. Both commissions should be able to complete their reviews in time, given adequate resources. The remaining two commissions have yet to start their reviews, but they are confronted with smaller tasks. Furthermore, there is a provision in the Bill, which I have already mentioned, that failure to submit a report on time will not serve to invalidate the report subsequently submitted. That takes any undue pressure off the commissions and ensures that their democratic procedures will not be circumvented to abide by these deadlines, if it is unavoidable that their reviews come in late. It also provides a safeguard in the event of delay because of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. As I have said, in addition to the deadline for the next review, the length of time between subsequent reviews will be reduced to between eight and 12 years.
  Clause 3 clearly sets out the local government boundaries that the commissions should take into account when completing their general reviews. The extent to which they are required to consider local government boundaries will remain as set out in the 1986 Act. Clause 3 simply specifies the latest date by which the commissioners can reasonably be expected to take account of changes in local government boundaries. It is necessary to include that provision because, as we know, local government boundary changes are in the offing in all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. John Maxton: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) who represents, the smallest English constituency.
  Mr. Tracey: My right hon. and learned Friend may be out of date, because I think that Kensington fell below my numbers in the general election.
  What will be the position on the London boundaries, especially the Greater London boundaries, as Greater London no longer exists since the abolition of the Greater London council? My right hon. and learned Friend is no doubt aware that the Local Government Boundary Commission has recently carried out a review, which will ultimately lead to a report by the commission, which says that, in many places, the Greater London boundaries are wholly unreal. There is a suggestion that a commission charged with more responsibilities than the Local Government Boundary Commission should correct that. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us something about the approach of the parliamentary review to that point?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's point concerns the extent to which the parliamentary boundary commissioners might cross local government boundaries if some of the local government boundaries are, in my hon. Friend's view, no longer appropriate. The rules will remain unchanged by the Bill. The rules enjoin the commissioners to have regard to county council boundaries and to borough boundaries in metropolitan areas, but that is not absolute. The rules permit the commissioners to cross either borough or county boundaries where it is reasonable for them to do so to avoid unacceptable discrepancies in the size of the constituency or to enable them to get constituencies closer to the electoral quota. I appreciate that that may be an issue in London this time, but it will be a matter for the boundary commission.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Home Secretary explain how the Scottish Boundary Commission will operate in relation to clause 3? As far as we are aware, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on the future structure of local government in Scotland in September. There is no intention to introduce legislation in this Session, so there will be no legislation to reform local government in Scotland before October 1993. The Bill to introduce the new structures would hardly have passed through both Houses before the boundary commission's final date for putting its boundaries into place. How on earth is the Scottish Boundary Commission going to operate when it does not know what plans the Government have for the future structure of local government in Scotland?
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right. We do not yet know the legislative timetable for any local government reorganisation in Scotland, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already announced his intention to have some reorganisation, and everyone expects some reorganisation in local government there.
  If we are to keep to a sensible timetable for parliamentary constituencies, there must be a deadline before which it is reasonable to expect the parliamentary commissioners to take account of changes to be made and after which it is not, unless one is to have interminable delay waiting for an evolving process of local government change.
  The timing of the Scottish legislation is not within my gift; it is all yet to be decided. My right hon. Friend will introduce his proposals in due course. The Bill makes clear what will happen in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland if local government changes take place.
  For example, for the forthcoming review which is to be completed by 31 December 1994, the latest date by which changes in local government boundaries would have to take effect to feature in the final report would be 1 June 1994. We have made a provision for the sake of the Boundary Commission for Wales which provides that, for the forthcoming review only, that commission should take account of any boundary changes that are included in an Act of Parliament passed by 1 June 1994 even if those boundaries are not operative by that date.
  The effect of clause 3 is to make it abundantly clear to each commission which boundaries are to be taken into account for each review. Interim reviews can still be conducted if it is felt that a local government boundary change becoming operative subsequent to a boundary

  677
  commission report has such significance that it warrants alteration of parliamentary constituencies before the next general election.
  The purpose of the special provision for the Welsh commission is to allow for the strong possibility of a Welsh local government reform Bill. Were such a Bill to be passed by Parliament before 1 June 1994, the need for interim reviews would be reduced by the fact that the new boundaries had been incorporated in the previous general review. Wales is more advanced than Scotland because it has already produced a Green Paper. People are already aware of the general shape of reform in Wales.
  Mr. Maxton: What about Scotland?
  Mr. Clarke: Scotland may proceed more slowly than any other part of the United Kingdom on the present timetable in respect of local government change.
  In addition, as I have already said, the possibility remains for all four commissions to conduct interim reviews on any section of their part of the United Kingdom, whenever the need arises.
  This simple and modest Bill is designed to keep the work of the four boundary commissions in the United Kingdom to the expected timetable. The current disparities in constituencies are intolerable and a similarly undesirable situation could arise in future. Therefore, the Government propose that the forthcoming reviews are kept to time and that the time scale for subsequent reviews is tightened. In order to make that feasible, the Government have proposed that funds should be made available for the payment of commissioners and have set out clearly the framework of local government boundaries on which the commissioners should base their work.
  That is the full extent of the Bill. It is a rather mechanical Bill for what I have described as a constitutional measure. No changes are proposed for the successful mechanism by which the commissions reach their conclusions. All recommendations and their reasons will continue to be made fully available to the public and time will continue to be set aside for local inquiries if so warranted.
  I believe that the United Kingdom is fortunate to have a system that works so well and to have commissioners who succeed in keeping themselves free from political controversy. It is only unfortunate that the current timetable for reviews has proved not to match the present-day movement of population. That is the only inadequacy that the Bill seeks to address.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: At the beginning of his speech, the Home Secretary described the measure as a constitutional Bill of sorts. I suppose that it is the only item of constitutional reform that the Government will initiate during the life of this Parliament. A Prime Minister who believes in a classless society has no proposals to make about an elected second Chamber. A Government who proclaim that they are concerned about democracy will continue to misuse the royal prerogative to avoid decisions in Parliament. There will be no consideration of electoral systems, not even the almost obligatory consideration of how we elect our Members to
  678
  the European Parliament. There will be no examination of what I believe to be the justified demands of Scotland and Wales for devolved government.
  The item of constitutional reform that I most regret that we shall not debate is the issue of parliamentary or Government patronage. I should have welcomed hearing the Secretary of State tell the House what special virtues led the Government to nominate Lord Waddington as Governor of Bermuda. Was it his intellect, his diplomacy or his well-established affection for the people of the Caribbean?
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): All of them.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is about as credible an analysis as it is possible for the Minister to provide.
  In the absence of a debate on genuine constitutional matters, we must make the best of what we have. It has been widely suggested that the Government have introduced the Bill in the squalid hope of party gain. I must tell the Home Secretary that, as a general rule, I find that proposition attractive. However, I believe that that proposition does not apply with its usual force to this particular and peculiar piece of individual legislation. I believe that in practice there is very little for the Government to gain from the Bill in terms of party advantage.
  Clause 2, which creates suspicion, provides that each of the boundary commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must report by 31 December 1994. Under present legislation, the English, Scottish and Welsh commissions are not required to report until 1998; the Northern Ireland commission is not obliged to make its submission until October 1997. Therefore, the argument runs, a Bill which requires a report almost four years earlier than is now obligatory is intended to change the boundaries to the Government's advantage before the next general election.
  I am sceptical about that analysis, for a number of reasons. First, under present legislation, although the boundary commission is not required to report until 1998, it is empowered to report as early as 1993. I am one of those people whom the Home Secretary quoted who have never doubted for a moment that, with the present Government in power, the boundary commission would report at an early date, and that even without the Bill its revised proposals would be in place in time for the next general election. That is the conclusion that we should come to on the evidence.
  The boundary commission announced that its general review had begun in January last year, and it has already made a number of provisional recommendations for 17 English counties. I repeat that the idea that without the Bill we shall fight the next general election on the present boundaries seems to me to be simply a mistake in judgment. One way or another, the boundaries will be revised before we next go to the polls.
  There is a second reason why commentators have predicted that the Bill is politically motivated. They, mostly commentators outside the House, have judged that the result of a boundary commission's work would in some way benefit the Government. In fact, I do not believe that it is possible to come to any sensible conclusion about what the pattern of constituencies will be. That is because the pattern will be determined area by area, not for the

  679
  country as a whole, and the eventual outcome will result from initial proposals, appeals and then revisions of initial proposals. Therefore, I say with the due humility and trepidation necessary in anyone who corrects and contradicts Mr. Jeremy Paxman that the conclusion that "Newsnight" came to on Friday does not bear very much real examination.
  The Government may obtain some advantage from the Bill, but no one can be certain of that. I make my position absolutely clear. For my part, since I believe that we are to have a general review before polling day, I much prefer the new boundaries to be established well before the general election rather than immediately before it. Having already allowed party politics to intrude into the debate, I hope that I may be forgiven for putting the matter in this way: as a member of a party which expects to win a large number of marginal seats at the next election, I believe that we have everything to gain from knowing the boundaries of those marginal seats as early and as quickly as possible.
  One of the reasons why the Government's motives have been suspect is because the Bill was presented, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested, not only without consultation with the chairman of the boundary commission but without the usual—indeed, until now, invariable—consultation with the other parties. The previous major change in the rules governing the boundary commission was introduced in 1958 with a speech in which the then Home Secretary, Mr. R. A. Butler, said:
  "The Government naturally thought it right in this matter of constitutional importance to discuss the proposals we had in mind with the other parties."
  The present Home Secretary, in one of the more' disingenuous passages of his speech, seemed to suggest that a change in the period over which the revisions were made did not justify consultation among the parties or, indeed, with the chairman of the Boundary Commission. However, the 1958 revision— about which, I repeat, Mr. R. A. Butler said:
  "The Government naturally thought it right in this matter of constitutional importance to discuss the proposals we had in mind with the other parties"—
  was exactly this sort of review. It was a review of the period over which the boundary commission should revise the boundaries. Because of the new arrogance of the Tory party, such consultations have not taken place in the past 13 years on any of the matters which are appropriate for consultation between the parties in ademocracy.
  I must say to the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I hope that I can catch his attention for a moment. I was hoping that the Home Secretary might play some continued part in the debate. It is interesting that, before I had to call for the Home Secretary's attention, I was dealing with the new arrogance of the more junior members of the Tory party. I was saying that by their refusal to consult the Opposition parties on matters of constitutional importance, the Government damage themselves, damage democracy in Britain and damage the status of politics, which is diminished by such attitudes.
  Mr. McCartney: Is not the Government's position even more dangerous when the Select Committee unanimously recommended that no change should be made in the time scale for the reporting of the boundary commission? The Government have rejected not merely consultation with the parties which make up the House, but the advice of the House in its last report on the matter.
  Mr. Hattersley: As my hon. Friend will understand, I support that view in this sense. While the changes should be acceptable and should not be opposed, the manner in which they have been introduced into the House is not intolerable—we have no choice but to tolerate it—but it is an improper way of conducting government. I hope that the Government will mend their ways in the years that lie ahead.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that I was distracted by a Hansard note. As he commented on our arrogance, I hope that at this late stage in his Front-Bench career he will not slip into the pomposity and self-importance of some of the senior members of the Labour Front-Bench team. I hope that he will confirm that it is clear from what he just said that if we had spent some time consulting on the timetable of which I have spoken, he would have agreed with it. As far as I can tell, it is a matter of no controversy, and any consultation would have been superfluous on a Bill in which we seek to sustain the momentum of the review and not to slow it down.
  Mr. Hattersley: The suggestion that I have only just slipped into the habits of pomposity and arrogance is one of the kindest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has ever made. That aside, his point is really my point. There would have been agreement between the two Front Bench teams. With some qualifications, which I shall advance in a moment, we should have said that the measure was a sensible revision of the constitution. I repeat, however—pompous or not, and arrogant certainly not—that when constitutional reform is contemplated in the House there is a good case for allowing the major parties to discuss it. Not only the Government and the official Opposition but the minority parties have an interest and should have been consulted.
  Mr. David Winnick: As my right hon. Friend has stated, there is general acceptance among Opposition Members, as there is bound to be, of the need for boundary changes. No one would seriously argue against that. However, should we not suspect the Government's motives, bearing in mind that the Bill was trailed almost immediately after the Government were elected to office on a greatly reduced overall majority? In the last Parliament, overseas voters who had had absolutely no connection with the United Kingdom for many years were given a vote. That was obviously sharply politically motivated. In view of all those factors, and bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend said about the lack of consultation with the Opposition, why should we not be worried about what the Government seek? They seek 10 to 20 extra seats in time for the next election.
  Mr. Hattersley: I can only answer my hon. Friend in this way. If the Government seek 10 to 20 extra seats, first, the Bill will not produce that result and, secondly, they could have obtained that result in a different way, even without passing the Bill, by ensuring that the boundary commission reported immediately before the general election. That was certainly within the power of the Home Secretary.
  I made it clear that if the Government had chosen to discuss with the Opposition parties the intervals at which the boundary commission should report, there might well have been agreement between us. Clause 2 of the Bill

  681
  proposes to reduce the interval from between 10 and 15 years to between eight and 12 years, but there are no precise rules by which we can determine the proper period for revision. By nature, such matters are judged by rule of thumb—by guess and estimation. It is necessary to avoid too frequent disruption, but it is also essential to ensure that, within each of the nations which make up the United Kingdom, the constituencies approximate to the same size and, in consequence, each vote has approximately the same weight and value.
  I do not believe that this is a matter of constituency burdens; I do not believe that it is a question of the work done by the individual Member of Parliament. Some Members of Parliament, owing to the nature of their constituencies, will have to do more work than others. The important criterion for constituency size is the weight of the vote. I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary endorse the view that that cannot be equal among all the nations of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland, for instance, inevitably contains constituencies that are appreciably larger than those in Scotland.
  Mr. Dunn: But not larger than those in England.
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman is simply extending the point that I have made, and I am pleased to have his support. We have always accepted that constituencies should be of different sizes in Ireland and Scotland, England and Scotland, and Wales and Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For reasons endorsed by the Home Secretary—because of the different problems of representation of the three nations of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members must pursue their prejudices with their own Home Secretary, who said explicitly that the rule should continue. That is certainly our view, but it is also our view that within each nation constituencies should be of approximately the same size.
  Mr. David Evennett: The right hon. Gentleman regards it as obvious that there should be differences. Will he explain the reasons for that?
  Mr. Hattersley: The geography of the constituencies is the obvious example. I represent a constituency two and a half miles long and one mile broad. That does not pose the problems for democracy that representing constituencies such as Western Isles poses for my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Dunn rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I do not intend to give way as often as the Home Secretary as I want to make progress on what both he and I regard as a comparatively modest Bill. Conservative Members who want to argue their prejudices against Scotland must do so with their own Home Secretary, whose views on these matters are identical to mine.
  Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to put our prejudice the other way around? The problems of rural deprivation are hardly ever raised in the House because the burden of representing a large constituency prevents Conservative Members from representing their constituents properly. Otherwise, they would not be so quiet about the matter.
  Mr. Hattersley: We plumb deep waters. I propose to continue my remarks about the Bill, which—dare I say— deals with a rather narrower point.
  The population is now more mobile, and shifts more quickly, than in 1958. I am therefore prepared to believe that the review period ought to be reduced. Ideally, I should like a fixed review period of 12 years but, as I have said, there are no absolute rules to govern and guide us. The eight to 12 years period recommended by the Government is near enough to being right to make outright opposition inappropriate, if not to justify support. It has the special advantage of having been specifically recommended by the deputy chairman of the English boundary commission, who suggested it when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
  When all the processes—provisional recommendations, public consultation and final proposals—are completed, the review period will always span two general elections, and will usually span three. If we are to maintain our present electoral system—as I believe that we should, for reasons which, despite temptation, I shall not go into this afternoon—it is essential that each elector realises that his or her vote is of approximately the same value and weight as any other vote in the nation in which the vote is cast.
  Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the remuneration of members of the commission. That, of course, is necessary, and we support it. I should make it clear to the Home Secretary, however—I have touched on this before—that we expect the commissioners and those who work for them to be appointed in the normal, non-party political way. We also expect the practice of consultation about such matters to be reintroduced. That should, and will, happen. The Government, no less than the Opposition, have everything to gain from a visible demonstration of the commission's impartiality, and we shall expect the Home Secretary to do everything in his power to ensure that that is the case.
  Finally, our principal and substantial reservation relates to clause 3, which deals with the boundary commission's work in relation to local government boundaries and contains at least one provision that we shall attempt to amend in Committee. The clause deals with the rules by which the commission's deliberations are guided. Rule 4 of the guidance note stipulates that counties and London boroughs are convenient units within which to conduct reviews. Rule 5 allows those boundaries to be ignored if, by respecting them, the commission would be forced to create constituencies with electorates which show what the rules describe as an excessive disparity from the normal numbers.
  If clause 3(1), lines 30 and 31, are passed into law, the commission will be allowed to take into account boundaries which the Local Government Commission is no more than contemplating. For the boundary commission to base its work on what might be, but is not yet, a county or borough boundary will lead to much confusion. It also places the Local Government Commission in a wholly invidious position. In effect, the Local Government Commission would do its work in the knowledge that what it decided would, at least in part, determine constituency boundaries at the next general election. That is not Sir John Banham's proper role. Nor do I believe that it is one that he wants to occupy. The role would be dangerous for the Local Government Commission and for the boundary commission itself.
  The size of the constituencies is at least to some degree determined by the size of the electorate. I hold the view

  683
  that there are too many constituencies. That is a wholly personal view. I accept that it is not a popular one among Members who have spent years fighting to get here, have just arrived and, naturally, assume that if there were a reduction, they would be among those Members to fall by the wayside. If we are to retain a total of 651 Members, it is important that the commission should pay proper regard to the serious democratic problem of under-representation.
  For a variety of reasons, despite the changes that have made late registration possible, electoral roles demonstrate an increasing failure of voters to register. The Home Secretary rather brushed aside a deficit of about 5 per cent., but 5 per cent. makes a substantial contribution to the result in most constituencies—although not in mine, I am happy to say, where it would have to be 10 times greater to affect the result which brought me here. In most constituencies 5 per cent. one way or the other on the electorate is the difference between success and failure for individual Members of Parliament. Indeed, 5 per cent. determines the Government of the country. In any event, all the evidence is that because of double registration the real shortfall is more like 7 or 8 per cent. than 5 per cent. The problem is particularly acute in the inner cities and on urban estates.
  The boundary commission has a duty to take account of that effect when drawing up its recommendations. That is particularly important in the light of the certainty that massive registration campaigns will be held between now and the next general election—in effect, changing the size of some constituencies by 5 per cent. or more.
  Those more or less technical observations having been made, I conclude as I began: I do not believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends should oppose the Bill. If it gives the Government any advantage—and that is by no means certain—they would obtain that advantage in another way which is less convenient to all the political parties fighting the next general election. Therefore, I am perfectly prepared to see the Bill receive its Second Reading. We shall look with great interest at the point to which I referred under clause 3. If clause 3 is not amended to avoid that strange complication of the Local Government Commission influencing the decision of the boundary commission, we shall have to reconsider the matter carefully on Third Reading.
  5.28 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to have this opportunity to make some brief remarks in support of the Bill. I shall touch upon some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I agree with him that we should control the growth in the number of hon. Members in the House, and I shall refer to that later.
  The question of parliamentary boundaries is extremely sensitive, first, because it directly impacts upon local traditions and allegiancies and, secondly, because it hangs the sword of Damocles over the heads of individual Members. As has been said, the Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the issue of the redistribution of seats in 1986–87. I shall base some of my remarks on that detailed inquiry.
  Under our first-past-the-post system, it is essential to maintain the principle of parliamentary democracy by a regular review of the shifts in constituency populations. If
  684
  the balance of seats in the House is to reflect the opinion of the country as a whole, the fact that constituency sizes vary from 101,784 electors to 23,073 must be a matter of concern. The principal point of the Bill is to require the boundary commissions to complete their work before the end of 1994 so that the general election in 1997 takes place on the basis of a more equitable distribution of seats. If there are any delays, it would be nearly 20 years since an impartial review of this issue.
  The Select Committee's report was designed to stabilise the growth in the number of seats in the House. I take up what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said about that. In this century, the number of seats has increased from 603 in the period from 1918 to 1935 to 651 in this Parliament. It is undesirable that the commissions should allow any further increase.
  There are also considerable disparities in average electorates between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are obvious political difficulties in altering those disparities. They owe as much to the origin of the United Kingdom as to boundary commission rules. Rule 1 requires that Scotland shall have no fewer than 71 seats, and Wales no fewer than 35. But that leads to Scotland and Wales being over-represented, with average electors for each Member of Parliament being 54,171 and 58,382 respectively, as against nearly 70,000 for England.
  I contend that it is inconsistent with the existence of the Union of the United Kingdom and our system of parliamentary democracy that the votes of electors in two of the constituent parts should, as a matter of course, carry greater weight than those of the electors in the remaining parts—England and Northern Ireland. That is the position under existing law and, as far as I can judge, that disparity is likely to continue. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to give careful consideration to that, because most people in the different parts of the United Kingdom are of mixed descent and I can see no validity for such disparities to continue.
  Those differences cannot be justified be geographical considerations. As a matter of common sense, relatively isolated areas, such as Orkney, the Shetlands and the Western Isles, can be over-represented, but the exception cannot apply, in this age of modern communications, to the whole of Wales and Scotland. There is no moral justification why a vote cast in a Welsh constituency should be worth more than one cast in England or Northern Ireland or why a vote cast in Glasgow should be worth more than one cast in Manchester.
  It is sometimes suggested that Scottish over-representation has as its basis the Act of Union 1707, when Scotland was allocated 45 Members in the enlarged Westminster Parliament. Incidentally, 45 is probably what the representation should be today, but it was agreed at a time when England and Wales had 513 Members of Parliament. That over-representation in Scotland cannot be justified on any basis and seriously distorts our system of parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Dunn: If my hon. Friend wants to take a purely political view, may I remind him that, in the 14 elections that have taken place since 1945, the Labour party has had a majority in England on only three occasions, including 1945?
  Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend makes a valid political point, but I have based my case on the value of votes in each constituency of the four parts of the United Kingdom. This issue should be considered on that basis.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): If the hon. Gentleman's argument is logical, does he agree that the distribution in London, with London boroughs, which leads to some 40,000 voters in Twickenham and more than 100,000 in Hornsey and Wood Green, is equally obnoxious?
  Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to come to that point.
  I also wish to mention clause 3 of the Government's narrowly defined Bill. If we are to achieve a better balance in the number of electors in each constituency, the commissioners will have to disregard local government boundaries. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's point. It has been the practice not to cross boundaries of London boroughs and that has resulted in a less complicated relationship for London Members of Parliament, particularly as London has a single-tier system of local government, which serves it particularly well.
  However, the time has come to adjust that policy. When doing so, the commission should have regard to making a London constituency as socially cohesive an entity as possible, with a similar consistency of population, social and economic status, as well as housing ownership. Nothing is worse than a constituency in an urban environment made up of populations of different social characteristics, one of which is in conflict with the other. Subject to that proviso, the question of the London borough boundaries as envisaged in clause 3 must be revisited.
  Mr. Rooker: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that, by and large, the building blocks for constituencies should be socially and economically homogenous and should not contain the variety of experience and life that exists in this country? Is he saying that we should not have constituencies with extreme wealth at one end and deprivation and poverty at the other, so that the Member of Parliament representing the area can speak with one voice for the whole of his constituency, as demanded by our single-Member constituency arrangement?
  Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to have given way to the hon. Gentleman as I know that he takes an informed interest in this matter. He seems to have misunderstood the message that I sought to convey. In any urban constituency there is bound to be a great variety of life, with many differences between the citizens. The point that I was making was that a boundary commission, in establishing its urban and inner-city boundaries, should seek to do as much as it can to ensure the cohesiveness of constituencies and to ensure that the Member of Parliament is best able to represent the people who live in it. That is subtly different from what the hon. Gentleman was saying.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am a little mystified about what my hon. Friend described as cohesiveness. Surely as much geographical compactness as possible is the best criteria to follow. I wondered why he did not follow up the point made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who suggested that Twickenham has an
  686
  electorate of 40,000 when it is substantially more than that, and that Hornsey and Wood Green has a constituency of 100,000 when it is substantially less. Is not accuracy vital in this matter?
  Sir John Wheeler: Of course accuracy is vital when one establishes constituencies. If there is to be a change in the methodology of establishing London constituencies, the House has to consider the injustices that arise in the method used for establishing the constituencies in Scotland and Wales, which is the point to which I referred earlier.
  I commend the introduction of the Bill and its narrow objective. I have touched on some of the issues that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency and which I believe to be essential for parliamentary democracy. I welcome the Government's initiative in introducing the Bill.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): I missed the London boroughs by one—I meant those of Hackney and of Kingston upon Thames. The figures published in the review in 1983 in The Times show the vast differences not only in the London area but in different parts of the county.
  I have to declare an interest in this matter, because I was involved in the legal case in 1983 and I still practise as a barrister. The 1983 case, which went almost to the House of Lords, was that the boundary commission, which had begun its deliberations in the mid-1970s, had got it wrong because it used counties as skins and divided the constituencies into them, rounding up or rounding down depending on how it felt.
  There was also a series of anomalies in the 1983 results that affect what happens in clause 3. Clause 3 makes matters far worse than they were in 1983 because, to put it bluntly, the situation is wide open to manipulation by anybody who knows what he is doing.
  The object of the exercise must be, as the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, parity of value. We both served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs in 1986, and he knows my views on this matter as well as I know his. My view is that Scotland and Wales have particular problems. I voiced it in Committee then, and I stand by it today.
  The hon. Gentleman may also recall the furore that broke out in 1986 when the threat was that the number of Scottish seats would be reduced from 72. It is obvious that, with areas such as the Orkneys, the Western Isles and the great empty spaces of central Scotland, it is necessary to have smaller electorates because there are physical limits to what a Member of Parliament can do.
  Looking at some of these proposals, I wonder what the commission is up to this time. In the redistribution in Leicestershire, it has created a seat which appears to have no boundary and which is 50 miles long. That is ridiculous. The seats in Leicestershire can be redistributed, and I am certain that the agents of the Conservative party will be looking at that and briefing counsel to appear at the appropriate inquiry.
  When one looks at clause 3, one has to ask: what is meant by "local government boundary"? Which boundaries are we talking about? Are we talking about the existing district and country boundaries or about the metropolitan boundaries? Are we on the rolling review

  687
  programme that is getting rid of the metropolitan county of Avon? Are we talking about the proposed new county boundaries? That would create an enormous problem.
  The city of Bristol might, for instance, be put in a new county rather than the Avon metropolitan district area on which the old boundaries were based. The constituencies might be redistributed so as to annex various rural areas which always alter the nature and quality of parliamentary seats—and which party has a better chance of winning them? That is not likely to happen in Birmingham, except on the borders—but what will become of Birmingham as a city? Will it go to Warwickshire or with part of Staffordshire? if the local government boundaries are taken to be the new county boundaries, that will dramatically affect the redistribution—but the Bill tells us nothing about that. No definition is offered.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, lines 30 and 31 take on a whole new meaning. In Lancashire, Merseyside metropolitan county council is gone, replaced by five metropolitan districts. One of them, across the water in the Wirral, may return to Cheshire. What will happen to the others? Will they go back to Lancashire? Will the boundary commission keep Lancashire as redrawn, taking in part of Cumbria; or will the local government authorities of Sefton, St. Helens and Liverpool remain the relevant entities?
  The Home Secretary will be well aware—he is a man who knows about these matters—that the split as between rural and urban areas can alter voting patterns in an area. Some examples thrown up in 1983 were disgraceful. On a whim, the boundary commission kept Cambridge as a single constituency but divided Oxford in two, annexing rural areas to it. We all know the result: three Conservative seats in 1983. Now the Oxford seats are divided one apiece between the parties.
  Colchester offers another classic example. The town is an entity but, by dividing it in half and attaching parts of it to rural areas, north and south, two Conservative seats are created. One thinks of the divisions of Swindon, Reading and Plymouth. These matters can be arranged in all sorts of ways that do not serve democracy.
  The hon. Member for Westminster, North made a telling point—that we should at least try to attain some cohesion. I have attended enough inquiries over the years to have heard the commission say more often than I care to remember that it has to bear in mind a community of interest. What on earth is meant by that? I can understand that a town or a part of a city has a community of interest; I can understand that a rural area may have one. But how is a community of interest to be maintained in Colchester if the town is divided in half? The same applies to Oxford. This a gerrymanderer's charter.
  Along with other right hon. and hon. Members, as a lawyer I fought the last commission's hearings before the inspectors. We all know how it is done: people get together with the vicar and the local historical society and various other interest groups and parade witnesses who sound rather appealing and convincing. The commissioner, who has probably come from chambers in London to a place whose whereabouts he did not even know before he was given a map, listens judicially. Many commissioners are honest and honourable men, but if the numbers can be made to seem right, the desired decision can be obtained.
  688
  I appeared at the Sheffield, St. Helens, West Yorkshire, Doncaster and Leicester inquiries, and I know that this can be done, but it does not really give us an honest result.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I represent a town which was split in 1974 and again in 1983. Chunks of the rural area—that is the phrase the hon. Gentleman used—were added to my constituency purely on the basis of the numbers game. The hon. Gentleman forgets that the number of people in inner-urban and inner-city areas tends to diminish. My town was shedding people from its centre and had to take in rural areas. If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that, under the new proposals, I shall lose 20,000 of my rural constituents, which will make my constituency a marginal seat again. However, I won it in 1979 with a majority of 246, and I have no fears about winning it again.
  Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman makes my case. A community of interest must be defined, and we must try to make a seat reflect its area. No doubt the Home Secretary will be advised on how the inquiry will be conducted. That is perfectly proper, but he and many other hon. Members know exactly how such inquiries are conducted. The boundary commission is not consistent. As the Americans have proved, the tolerance in an electoral district is about 1 per cent. All the seats in Northamptonshire are Conservative, although there is a considerable Labour vote there. All seats but one in Liverpool are Labour, but there is a considerable Conservative vote in that area. Neither case can be justified.
  If the Bill had been drawn a little wider, it would have provided an ideal opportunity for an electoral result that represented the votes cast. That cannot be obtained if the skin is drawn too tightly. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) knows that, shortly after the 1983 election, I asked the commissioner at a meeting in Oxford whether the county councils were the right skin. The Commission's proposals for Leicestershire and Devon stick to the county council areas. Will the use of the term "local government area" result in a dog's dinner at the end of the redistribution?
  I understand that, although some metropolitan districts will return to the shires but will remain local authorities, the Government will allow the commission to take the greater area. That will mean that Lancashire may contain parts of Cumbria and certainly its seats. That is at least four metropolitan districts. If the area is taken in its entirety, constituencies will cross metropolitan districts. There is a precedent for that, because Tynebridge crosses the river and is within two metropolitan districts. In the 1983 case, the Court of Appeal said that that was an exception. When we said that that could have been done in London to make the distribution of the seats more even, we were told that it could not be done.
  There is a risk that different sets of rules will apply. If London retains its borough boundaries for seats, the rounding-up and rounding-down effect will apply. That will mean that 2.6 seats will become three seats. But a rounding down occurred in London in 1983, from 2.49 seats to two seats. That led to two large seats and three small ones in adjacent boroughs, and that cannot be right

  689
  or fair. If an area has a larger skin than a shire county or a London borough, a seat that is more equal than others in numbers of constituents will be created.
  I am extremely worried about the size of electoral rolls in particular areas. I understand that the commissioners will use the 1991 return, and as we all know that is horrendously wrong. There are those who are not on the register—for various reasons, some people have failed to register. During the general election—I am sure that all hon. Members experienced this—we heard it said, "I am not on the register. What can I do about it?" If people are not on the register in April 1992, they will not be on it if we return to the October 1991 count.
  I ask the Government to say that the boundary commissions should be told that they should take into account the known registration errors. In its own way, that will affect the size of parliamentary seats, their number and how they are distributed. In an urban area, for example, there may be 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. non-registration. That means that, when the register is brought up to date, the extra 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. will take the seat well outside the tolerance levels, as it were, before the other parts of the process even begin.
  Mr. Barnes: There is a set of figures that could be used to correct the under-registration of 1991, which was supplied to me in written answers on 6 and 11 February. The figures show the electoral registration in England and Wales, and are accompanied by comparative estimates of populations. The figures show that there is a shortfall in each district. Such figures are also available for Scotland on the basis of parliamentary constituencies, and in each constituency there is a shortfall: in one constituency it is about 5,000. The figures are slightly excessive because they include some overseas visitors, but in general they point more to those who should be on the register than to those who were actually on it.
  Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has underlined the point that I was trying to stress. If the real number of electors is 5,000 more than the number which is shown on the electoral returns, the seat may still be within the guideline of 67,000 or 68,000. That means that it would not be necessary to alter the boundaries of the seat. On the other hand, the real figure may take the number of electors way above the constituency norm, and it may be necessary to move a ward from that seat into an adjacent seat.
  I understand the political implications of these matters, but if we are to start on the basis of fairness and equality of numbers, which should be the commissions' primary concern, we must do the proper ground work and get it right, which means having electoral registers that are up to date and reflect the true electorate in particular areas. If the commissions begin their deliberations with inaccurate registers, that will be a recipe for disaster. As I have said, until someone defines for me what is meant by "local government boundary", I shall not rest easy in my bed.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Rod Richards: I am grateful for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech. In keeping with the tradition of the House, I shall commence
  690
  by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Anthony Meyer, a tribute which I am sure will be fully endorsed by my constituents.
  Sir Anthony first entered the House after the 1964 general election as the Member for Eton and Slough. When he made his maiden speech on 10 November 1964 he spoke of his predecessor, Mr. Fenner Brockway, in a manner which uncannily is a fitting tribute to Sir Anthony himself following his retirement from the House about 28 years later. He said:
  "I know that Mr. Brockway was not always an uncontroversial figure, but I assure hon. Members that in Eton and Slough he was widely loved, loved not only for the way in which he spent himself for his constituents but also because, over and above being a great constituency Member, he was a citizen of the world, not always a very orderly citizen and sometimes perhaps rather unwise, but always conscious of his duty to humanity at large and to suffering humanity in particular." [Official Report, 10 November 1964; Vol. 701, c. 889.]
  Sir Anthony's sense of duty to suffering humanity was never more apparent than during the floods that devastated Towyn and Kinmel Bay two years ago, when thousands of people were driven from their homes by the raging sea. Sir Anthony and Lady Barbadee were in the sea physically helping to rescue the many elderly and disabled people who live in that area, as well as helping the very young. Sir Anthony's commitment to the well-being of those unfortunate people in the aftermath of the flood was no less equally total. As a constituency member, Sir Anthony Meyer was a model example.
  Having mentioned the disaster that befell many of my constituents, I wish to place on record my admiration for the local authorities, the police, the rescue services, the voluntary organisations, the Welsh Office and its agencies, British Rail and the many individuals who have contributed to restoring the devastated area and to returning life to normality for the residents of Towyn and Kinmel Bay.
  Clwyd, North-West is a small coastal constituency which stretches from Rhyl in the east through Abergele to Colwyn Bay and to Rhos-on-Sea and beyond. Although those popular tourist centres are the mainstay of the local economy, the small cathedral city of St. Asaph and Rhuddlan, with its Norman castle, are also key attractions for visitors.
  It is worth noting that a significantly higher proportion of the people of Clwyd, North-West are of pensionable age—some 28 per cent., compared with an average of about 18 per cent. in the remainder of Wales. It goes without saying that people get wiser as they get older, which helps to explain why Clwyd, North-West is the safest Conservative seat in Wales—and in the context of this speech, long may it stay that way.
  During the 1980s, the people of the county of Clwyd took full advantage of the opportunities presented by Conservative policies and they are now well placed to build on those opportunities during this decade. The decline of traditional industries and their trade unions in north-east Wales has been matched by the flowering of new industries with new technologies and new ideas. It has been a transformation, which has also been seen elsewhere in Wales. Economic benefits have no boundaries and, unlike the Labour party, we recognise the industrial revolution for what it is—a continuous process of change, innovation, new technology and the adaptiveness of working people.

  691
  In the national health service, the people of Clwyd are poised to benefit from the groundwork of the 1980s. Many general practitioner practices are already fund holders and Glan Clwyd district general hospital has already applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for NHS trust status. In education, the constituency's schools are already reaping the benefits of the local management of schools and there are strong signs that some will apply for grant-maintained status.
  I said earlier that my predecessor, Sir Anthony Meyer, first entered the House in 1964 as the Member for Eton and Slough. He lost the seat in 1966, but returned to the House in 1970 as the Member for Flint, West. In 1983, the boundary commission recommended that the coastal wards of the Colwyn borough, previously within the Denbigh county constituency, together with the boroughs of Rhuddlan and Rhyl—previously part of West Flintshire—should be included in the new constituency of Clwyd, North-West. Those proposals left the constituency with a 1981 electorate of slightly more than 61,500. The separation of Rhyl from nearby Prestatyn was regarded as less than satisfactory, but the commissioners argued that to have included Prestatyn within Clwyd, North-West would have led to an imbalance in the electorates of the remaining Clwyd seats. The position in 1992 is that Clwyd, North-West has an electorate of 67,350, about 9,000 more than the electoral quota.
  As the House is aware, on 3 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced proposals for fundamental changes to Welsh local government that will have a bearing on the report of the Boundary Commission for Wales. My right hon. Friend's proposal was to replace the present eight county councils and 37 district councils with 23 unitary authorities, which will be responsible for almost all local government services. I want to say how much I welcome my right hon. Friend's bold and imaginative initiative, following the constructive and positive approach of Welsh local authority associations. I want also to say how welcome is the extended period of consultation that my right hon. Friend has given to local authorities in this matter. The removal of one tier of local authority bureaucracy, unclear responsibility and anaemic accountability will be welcomed throughout the land.
  Equally welcome is my right hon. Friend's rejection of demands by the opposition parties for an Assembly in Wales. On the one hand, the Welsh nationalists would have an Assembly to be used as a stepping stone to full independence. On the other, the Labour party—cynically—would have an assembly to be a talking shop for their new army of redundant councillors. The Liberal democrat is the usual muddle in the middle.
  The people of Wales are no more persuaded by those demands, transparently motivated by political self-interest, than they were in 1979 when similar proposals by the then Labour Government were overwhelmingly rejected in a referendum.
  The full extent of the great reforms of the 1980s relating to trade unions, education and health will, I believe, become more and more apparent during the 1990s. They are already in place, so time will tell. The reform of local government will have equally profound and beneficial consequences towards the end of the century and beyond. Getting local bureaucracy off the backs of the people will be justly rewarded by a grateful electorate.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan (: It is both a privilege and a genuine pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). He paid felicitous tributes to his predecessor, Sir Anthony Meyer, who is well remembered in this House and whose independence was always admired. His will indeed be a hard act for the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West to follow. Controversy of a party nature was not introduced into his maiden speech, and he has left the House in no doubt that he is likely to be less rebellious and to give less anxiety to the Patronage Secretary than did his predecessor. That in no way vitiates what was an admirable speech. The hon. Gentleman described in graphic terms some of the problems and achievements of those who live in his very beautiful constituency. I hope that he will have many opportunities to grace these debates and to bring his own angle of vision to bear upon them.
  The Second Reading of the Bill follows hard on the heels of the general election. General elections throw up much evidence of what is wrong with our electoral system. That upon which the Bill focuses is perhaps less in the minds of many members of the public than other features of the recent election, which they might reasonably look to Parliament to legislate on while the memory is fresh. Many will regard the decline in the number of those on the electoral register as a matter not to be passed over as lightly as the Home Secretary passed over it in his speech. When he dealt with that question, he showed a complacency that bordered on the partisan. I hope that the Government will not sit back and just accept the under-registration of the electorate which so distorts the ultimate outcome.
  During the recent election, many other matters of administration gave rise to comment upon which we might have expected there to be legislation, or at least some clarification. For example, there is confusion about the polling card. I found that many of my electors believed that it was necessary to carry the card with them to the polling station in order to cast their vote. At least an active campaign—if not legislation—to make clear the purpose of the polling card is necessary, if that confusion is to be avoided.
  Matters that affect the postal vote might be regarded as having at least as high a priority as the matters contained in the Bill. The Home Secretary spoke of the greater mobility of the British public. That affects people and their place of residence not just when it comes to the work of the boundary commissions, but from day to day, from week to week, from month to month. It should be much easier to obtain a postal vote. Legislation may be required to ensure that application forms for postal votes are easily obtainable within just a few days of the announcement of a general election. Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I did not expect the Government to introduce a fundamental constitutional Bill. Most certainly the Bill is not that. I did not think that they would address the easiest way to deal with the disparity in the value of a vote.
  The example given by the Home Secretary was that the vote of a voter in Peterborough was half the value of a vote in Kensington. I do not expect the Home Secretary to address that question by introducing a system of proportional representation. That would be a fundamental

  693
  reform. However, I regret the fact that the Home Secretary has not even considered entering into discussions with other political parties about the issue. I believe that at a stroke it would eliminate most of the problems that the Bill is designed to correct. We should not have what is becoming an increasingly unsatisfactory system of boundary determination which, however this House tinkers with it from time to time, will continue to produce distortions.
  Mr. Barnes: Proportional representation advocates the principle of one person, one vote, one value. The problem is that not everybody has one vote. Before we consider the question of one person, one vote, one value, would it not be logical to get the electoral register right? Even under proportional representation, the electoral register can result in distortion. PR could lead to distorted results in a referendum. If, for example, the Danes had had a different electoral register, the result could have been different.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman knows that that was my first point: that there is a serious deficiency in the electoral register and that the Government ought to introduce proposals to deal with it.
  To return to the wider question of electoral reform, however much we tinker with the present system there will continue to be great disparities. For over a quarter of a century I have represented a constituency with a third as many electors as those in some of the larger constituencies. I am naturally extremely conscious of that discrepancy, although I have no doubt that under any system of election there will be difficulties over the problems caused by sparsity of population, such as those that prevail in the highlands and islands of Scotland.
  My constituency extends over some 2,800 square miles, with not the best of communications. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, spoke of the desirability of equalisation and of modern communications overcoming these problems. He ought to travel around some of the remoter parts of the British isles before he comes up with pronunciamentos such as that.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly about geographical disparity. Does he join me in welcoming the fact that when this matter was raised at the last Scottish Question Time the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who knows something about the geography and other considerations, took an entirely different view from that espoused by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)?
  Mr. Maclennan: Yes, that is fair. So, indeed, did the Home Secretary. I think that the Home Secretary found that there was a certain restiveness on the Back Benches while he gave the reasons for retaining the status quo vis-a-vis Scotland and Wales in their relationship to England. I do not go so far as the Home Secretary. If we moved towards a federal system of government, there could, in my view, be a more equal relationship between the value of the vote cast in Scotland for the federal Parliament and the value of the vote cast in England. I commend the Liberal Democrat party's proposals, which were described by the former Secretary of State for
  694
  Scotland, Mr. George Younger, as the most logical and coherent of the proposals that had been put forward for the improvement of the government of Scotland.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Liberal Democrats did so appallingly badly at the last election? Was the reason for the poor result the Liberal Democrat party's support for proportional representation, or its support of federalism, or both?
  Mr. Maclennan: I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's premise. The Liberal Democrats in Scotland returned to the House with nine Members, which was not far short of the Government's number. A degree of modesty about the Conservative party's achievements in Scotland is certainly in order.
  The reality is that the Bill has been introduced in an unceremonious and ill-considered fashion. I interrupted the Home Secretary, who was kind enough to give way in his usual manner, to ask him what consultation he had had with the chairman of the boundary commission who is, as a matter of fact, Madam Speaker. He replied that he had notified her of the Government's intentions.
  It is an unsatisfactory arrangement that the chairman of the boundary commission should be merely notified of the Government's intentions. However courteous such a notification may be, it smacks of pure formality. I believe that the chairman of the boundary commission should have a more than formal role, especially as the chairman of the boundary commission is also Madam Speaker. By her presence as chairman of the boundary commission she in some way symbolises the very independence of the commissions.
  Mr. Rooker: I disagree with that point. The fact that the Speaker of the House is the chair of the boundary commission prevents hon. Members from criticising the boundary commission in a serious and hard-headed way, simply because it may be misconstrued as an attack on the Speaker. The fact is that the Speaker plays no role in the commission and does not attend the meetings. I believe that the Speaker should have no role and should not be the chair of the boundary commission. The boundary commission should be up front with a positive role. If it did things with which the House disagreed, we should not then be prevented from complaining about it.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, nor he with me. I am speaking about what I believe the presence of Madam Speaker as chairman conveys emblematically. It conveys a sense of the independence and of the irreproachability of the commissions. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the appointment is desirable. Those bodies should be at arm's length from the House, although also open to scrutiny and cross-examination by the House before the House decides whether to accept or reject the boundary commissions' recommendations. The hon. Gentleman and I are not alone in that view.
  The Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government produced a report last year which was commended by Sir Barney Hayhoe, whose elevation to another place has been noticed, as worthy of considerable and careful study by all interested in parliamentary matters. The 1991 report on election campaigns was chaired by Sir Christopher

  695
  Chataway, who also recommended that the Speaker's connection with the boundary commissions should be severed for, I believe, good and sufficient reasons.
  The point about consultation with the Speaker may not have been calculated to embarrass the Speaker, but there is an inherent and unattractive consequence of the failure to consult. In introducing the Bill at this time, without any serious consultation, the Government have put themselves in the position of appearing to be partisan. In such a matter in which, to quote the words of the Hansard Society report,
  "Under the so-called 'First Past the Post' electoral system the drawing of constituency boundaries can have a very significant effect on party fortunes",
  it should not be left to individual parties to proceed in this way. Nor is it sensible to do as the Government have done, which is to introduce a Bill which deals only with the question of timing and not with the other anomalies and difficulties faced by the boundary commissions.
  The Boundary Commission for England produced a report last year in which it drew on its experience to draw attention to the problems that it saw. There was nothing in the Home Secretary's speech, nor is there any provision in the Bill, to tackle the problems that the Boundary Commission for England has identified. The two principal problems it highlighted are the problem of popular participation in the boundary commissions' work arid the problem of conformity of decisions between different parts of the country.
  On the latter point, we might have expected to hear how the Government viewed the 1983 Court of Appeal decision in the case referred to by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). In the case the Labour party sought judicial review of a number of decisions by the boundary commission and of the way in which it conducted its role. It did so because it believed that the boundary commission was giving undue weight to one of the rules in the existing legislation which required it to operate within county boundaries or, in the case of London, within borough boundaries which it would be extremely difficult to ignore.
  I do not think that the law, as expressed in the Court of Appeal case and as consolidated in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, is satisfactory. I remind the Minister what the Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, said in that case.
  "It is clear in our judgment … of these matters that although they may all be properly regarded as interlocking"—
  that is, the five criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act—
  "the requirement in rule 4 that 'so far as is practicable' constituencies shall not cross county or London borough boundaries must be regarded as taking precedence over the requirement in rule 5 concerning the size of the electorate in each constituency".
  In establishing the case for seeking a redrawing of boundaries, some attention should be paid to the priority to be given in law to the requirement to conform with what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South described as "the skin" of the county boundaries. I should have thought that the greater desideratum is to seek to give greater equality to the value of the vote, although I repeat that I do not believe that that will be achieved without an alteration in our electoral system which will introduce a system of fair voting.
  The Bill is exceedingly important and it may create acute difficulties for the Boundary Commission in
  696
  Scotland, and probably in England, because of the proposed reforms of local government and because of the provisions of clause 3, which draw attention to the fact that the boundary commission will have to pay attention to local authority boundaries at a time when they are not merely fluid, but wholly uncertain.
  Indeed, the approach of the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been spelt out beyond an adherence to a very broad view that there should be single-tier authorities. I do not know whether he means that in the highlands and islands of Scotland we should have a single Highland region with no tiers below it, or whether we are to have some new authorities based on districts.
  If we are to have a single-tier authority in the highlands covering approximately half the land mass of Scotland, the boundary commission will not be greatly assisted by reference to local government boundaries when deciding how to allocate populations to parliamentary constituencies in future. That is an example of the difficulties and uncertainties that face the boundary commissions which make it inappropriate to proceed as the Government suggest.
  I accept what seems to be common ground between the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the Home Secretary that the widening disparities in populations of constituencies should be tackled before the next election. However, it should not be tackled in the way suggested in the Bill. It should not have been tackled by the Government introducing a Bill on a matter of considerable constitutional importance without consultation, discussion or external advice and simply, apparently, to satisfy their own urgent desires to secure their position.
  I cannot accept what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said about the probability that the Bill will make no difference. That is part of the right hon. Gentleman's well-known optimism in respect of the fact that Labour will form the next Government whenever the election is held and whatever boundaries may be decided. That is a misconception. The Bill is partisan and the way in which it has been introduced is enough proof for citizens of objectivity who are concerned about such matters. I hope that the Government will take the Bill away, reconsider it, discuss it with other political parties and then bring back a better Bill.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Before considering the Bill specifically, I wish to refer to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and to echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about my hon. Friend's predecessor, Sir Anthony Meyer. I hope that I can do that with the full weight of my 83,000 constituents and not belittle the 31,000 constituents of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland who so eloquently placed on the record his views of Sir Anthony Meyer.
  My new colleague the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West will, in his parliamentary career, miss the charm and friendliness expressed by Sir Anthony, particularly in the way in which he treated new Members of Parliament. As a new Member five years ago, I well remember the charm and help that Sir Anthony showed me. I wish to place that on record and the fact that he did wonderful work for his constituents and for the

  697
  Franco-British group, of which he was chairman for many years, building up a relationship between this Parliament and the French Parliament.
  Sir Anthony and I shared problems with sea defences. The pictures of flooding which were so graphically shown on television enabled many of us who had concerns about our sea defences to alert the Government, who have changed their thinking a great deal in respect of sea defences in the past few years. Sir Anthony Meyer was the key in that he concentrated people's minds on the issue.
  Our new colleague, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was previously a broadcaster with the BBC. There will be great rejoicing in heaven that one of the sinners has repented. We can certainly do with a few poachers turned gamekeepers on the Conservative Benches. I welcome him and his excellent maiden speech, which I am sure is the first of many speeches that he will make in the House over the years.
  Before coming to this place, many people are unsure about the animosity across the Chamber. They are uncertain whether it is real or feigned. As the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy had spent so long slaving away to achieve a position in which they would be able to table their own legislation, it was rumoured that the Government might be kind enough, in this new Parliament, to introduce a Bill more of less in their honour, embodying the kind of socialist principles that we knew they would want to stand for: equality, fairness, job creation, minimum wages and more public spending. When one considers the Bill, one has to admit that the Home Office has come up with the right Bill to encompass such wonderful legislation and thus put that fairness into practice.
  We must therefore wonder why the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was so curmudgeonly in his greeting for the Bill. I wonder whether Labour will want to force a Division at the end of the debate. Conservative Members believed that the Labour party still stood for those socialist principles of years ago, but I am afraid that we got it completely wrong. The Labour party no longer stands for fairness, equality or job creation, although it perhaps still stands for minimum wages and more public spending.
  I wonder whether that may be a slight reflection on the fact that there are shortly to be elections to the shadow Cabinet and for the Labour party leadership and deputy leadership. One of the candidates, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), has said that he believes that previous elections to the shadow Cabinet involved some gerrymandering and fiddling. The House must be grateful that he made that public and brought it to our attention, although one wonders why he did not blow the whistle when he did so well in those elections rather than leaving it till now. Perhaps he believes that the system is not going to work this time.
  Conservative Members believe in fair elections. During the Whitsun recess I visited the Manchester industrial museum. I recommend that people should visit that museum. Yesterday I found in my pocket a piece of paper which I had obviously picked up in that excellent museum. That piece of paper recorded one of the most important things to happen in our political history. It carried the six points of the people's charter produced in 1838 by the
  698
  Chartists, who were instrumental in pushing the modern Conservative party and eventually the Labour party into parties of mass movement.
  The Chartists' fifth condition was well written and is as pertinent today as it was in 1838. It seeks:
  "5 EQUAL CONSTITUENCIES, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of larger ones."
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: In commending that principle, I hope that my hon. Friend will not go along with the other principles. I doubt whether many of us would be in favour of annual Parliaments, although we might be more sympathetic to the idea of having three acres and a cow.
  Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend assumes that I do not have political amnesia. As in all good political speeches, one refers only to those parts which help one's argument. One does not confuse the mind of the listener. I do not believe that we need annual Parliaments, about which the Chartists state:
  "thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot) no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal suffrage in each ensuing twelvemonth: and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituencies as now."
  I am not sure whether that holds for elections to the Labour shadow Cabinet.
  Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Gentleman looks at his leaflet, he will see that the three acres and a cow have nothing to do with the six points of the charter that were associated with the ideas propounded by Feargus O'Connor, who was a Chartist leader. The six points of the charter, including annual elections, are all about arrangements for this House and for electoral arrangements. Five of the six are in place in one form or another.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) continues, the relevance of his previous points is becoming increasingly obscure to me.
  Mr. Bruce: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you can see, I am being led down a path that I was not trying to follow. I was about to make a point about my constituency of South Dorset. Before the Reform Act 1832, my constituency was represented by no fewer than 10 Members of Parliament. Many people realise that I often do the work of 10 men, but I wish that I were paid to do the job of 10 men. We in South Dorset believe in the fairness of the system. In giving up nine of our previous seats, we believed that we should ensure that equality of size of constituency is maintained.
  We in South Dorset, along with people in other constituencies, hate the thought of change. I certainly hate the thought of having to lose 20,000 or so constituents who have been loyal and kind to me over the years. The boundary commission, which is to sit in Dorchester on Tuesday and Wednesday, will consider all the counterclaims and try to get the best balance so that there is symmetry between the areas which could be amalgamated to give rise to the eighth Dorset constituency recommended by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.
  The Bill is absolutely right. We must have the changes in place in plenty of time for an election in 1996 or 1997. At the beginning of 1995, people will be able to set up a

  699
  new association in Dorset, select a candidate and do all the necessary things, including much fundraising. That will have to happen in all the constituencies that are changed. I do not like to lose people, but we shall disfranchise people unless we make adjustments. If adjustments are to be made, it is best to make them quickly. That is what the Bill would do.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the strange idea that, within the United Kingdom Parliament, there should be the same general rules for selecting the size of constituencies but that those rules should be circumvented on a national basis for Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, with a different number of people per constituency in each case.
  Figures have already been provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), but the most striking figure is the difference between 54,000 per constituency in Scotland and more than 69,000 per constituency in England. In effect, four Scotsmen from an average-sized Scottish constituency moving to an average-sized English constituency would end up with only three votes. That is often turned the other way round, but why disfranchise Scotsmen or Welshmen who come to live in England? As I have a geographical affinity with both countries, perhaps I should have an extra third of a vote.
  We should settle the matter now. One way of doing that would be to amalgamate the four boundary commissions into one and then divide the total population by 651—or even 650, to go back to the figure before the additional seat was recently created—and consider perhaps 65,000 constituents per seat.
  The point has been made that we have to have special rules for very sparsely populated areas, and I fully agree, but those special rules could be applied on a United Kingdom basis. For places such as the Western Isles with 23,000 constituents, it would be easier to spread the additional number of constituents to be absorbed throughout the whole of the United Kingdom rather than just in Scotland. My namesake, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) already has to look after 80,000 constituents in Scotland. If we are to look after constituents in the Western Isles and in the Caithnesses and Sunderlands of this world, taking account of sparse populations, the burden should be spread over the whole of the United Kingdom. With a United Kingdom Parliament, there is no need for an artificial barrier which separates out the different countries.
  This is a good Bill as far as it goes, and the House should support it. I should be extremely surprised if the Labour party divided the House on the issue. The matter should be for the good sense, good judgment and honour of all Members of Parliament. We can rely on the boundary commission, as we have done previously, to do its job well, and this additional legislation will help it to do just that.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: All English Members have received a newsletter from the Boundary Commission for England stating that the general review of boundaries is intended to be produced by mid-1995. Clause 2 states that that should be done by the end of 1994, merely bringing the measure six months
  700
  forward. It then allows that, even if that is not done by that date, it is not statutory: no action can then be taken for failure to produce the review at that time.
  It is a peculiar measure which tries to gee up the work of the boundary commission when that could be done by other techniques—for instance, clause 1 allows extra resources, and also the Government could merely encourage that activity. Why do we have that date, just six months earlier? It looks as though everything would be okay under the previous arrangements, and there would still be time to act. Perhaps the commission would have come forward with reports prior to mid-1995. That allows a suspicion to arise in people's minds about what is taking place.
  One of the greatest defects in the measure is that the 1991 electoral register will determine the quotas and will decide what is to be done within a certain county in relation to the numbers to be divided up. Massive numbers of people are missing from the electoral register. Before 1987, the electoral register was not unproblematic—there were many errors in it. Many ineligible people were included and others who were eligible were not included. In a rough and ready way, it always balanced out the errors. A report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1981 showed that there were sets of compensating errors of about 7 per cent. in the register. By the end of its life a typical register was already about 16 per cent. out. So there were problems.
  But there were not great problems with boundary reviews. As there were sets of compensating errors and the total figures were more or less correct for individual areas, we did not have great problems in working out quotas and deciding how many parliamentary seats there should be in a shire seat.
  However, the electoral register was hit from 1987 onwards, coinciding with the introduction of the poll tax. The problem occurred first in Scotland and then moved to England and Wales. There was no problem of a lack of numbers in Northern Ireland, the difference being that Northern Ireland never had a poll tax: it never had two sets of registers which interfered with each other and affected the registration of certain groups of people.
  The shortfall between the numbers on the registers and the estimated population is not evenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. If they were evenly distributed, the quotas might work and things might be reasonably okay in some rough and ready sense, but there is a serious maldistribution of the missing people.
  We heard the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) this evening. The figures for Clwyd seem reasonable. They are probably as good as those for any other county area in England, Wales or Scotland, but in other areas the figures are serious. There are many shortages in the London area. Usually in large conurbations the numbers problem is considerable.
  I referred in an intervention to a parliamentary answer which spelled out the problems. First, on 6 February, between columns 293 and 296 of Hansard, I was given the figures for Scotland. There is a shortfall of 140,000 between the estimated population and the number of people on the register. The figures are divided into district areas and parliamentary constituencies. Each of the parliamentary constituencies shows a shortfall between its electorate and the relevant population figure. In eight constituencies, the shortfall is 3,000 or more. In two constituencies, it is 4,000. In Strathkelvin and Bearsden,

  701
  5,000 people are missing, and in Midlothian and Perth and Kinross, 4,000 people are missing. That is a serious factor which needs to be corrected.
  Mr. McCartney: I was born and brought up in Strathkelvin, and my family stay there. It is one of the growth areas of west central Scotland. One cannot move for new housing. The area is developing from a former mining area into a commuter area for Glasgow. It is astonishing that the figures show a serious drop in the electorate when, in population terms, Strathkelvin is a growth area. It is one area of Scotland where, even now, growth is continuing, to the detriment of the green belt. One cannot travel from Glasgow all the way through to Cumbernauld and Strathkelvin because of the build-up of population and development in the area.
  Mr. Barnes: I thank my hon. Friend. I must make the point clear. I am talking about the difference between the number of people on the electoral register and the number of people entitled to be on it. It is possible that the electorate in Strathkelvin has grown. Part of the hidden problem is that we often do not see the shortfall in electoral registration because we see the electorate growing in various areas. However, the population on the register might not grow by anything like as much as it should.
  The problem in Strathkelvin might be exactly that new people are moving in and the arrangements do not allow registration to take place quickly enough to include the new people. Yet the people who move in are entitled to be on the electoral register in future and should be taken into account in determining the boundaries.
  So we know where the problems are in Scotland, because the Scottish Office is kind enough to provide the statistics. For England and Wales, I received a written answer from the Department of Health. Even though the Home Office has responsibility for ensuring that electoral registration takes place, the Department of Health collects the figures. The answer in columns 473 to 480 of Hansard of 11 February shows that the shortfall for England is 1,750,000—a massive disparity. Areas such as Barnet, which is represented by four constituencies, show a shortfall of 34,000. Other shortfalls are: Brent 26,000; Camden 30,000; Ealing 43,000; Islington 29,000. Cities such as Manchester have a shortfall of 35,000. Birmingham has 31,000 missing, and Bradford has 33,000.
  In some areas, such as Clwyd, there is not a great problem, but in other areas there is a serious problem and there will be a considerable maldistribution if we plough ahead with the current arrangements and those proposed in the Bill. To prevent that maldistribution, we could decide to act on the estimated relevant population figures rather than the figures for those who are on corrupt registers; or we could take emergency action to get the electoral registers right. If we got the electoral registration figures right, we could complete the exercise.
  I accept the principle that we should have equal electoral districts. I grant that there are some extra problems in Scotland, but I support the general principle that electoral districts should be of equal size as far as possible. I want us to move towards that as soon as possible, but we must do it on the correct information. Otherwise, considerable injustices will be created within the electoral system.
  702
  The evidence that the electoral register is in such a bad way is produced by the OPCS. It published an article in issue 64 of "Population Trends" in summer 1991, which showed the disappearance of the electorate which, as I said, tied in with the introduction of the poll tax. Furthermore, the greatest percentage of people missing from the electoral register is among attainers—the people who are about to be placed on the register for the first time. Presumably it began to be understood that it was less easy to discover such people if they did not appear on the electoral register, and therefore the poll tax register. They could not be found on any previous register.
  There is no problem with the percentage of attainers on the register in Northern Ireland. Registration of attainers is probably healthier than ever in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the political parties in Northern Ireland do a great deal to encourage electoral registration. Unfortunately, such encouragement has fallen by the wayside in England, Scotland and Wales.
  At one time, when the Labour party was emerging, people were engaged to a considerable extent in encouraging registration. They believed that their way forward was to ensure that electoral registration took place. Seats would surely flow from ensuring that all the voters in an area were registered. We need to put the electoral register right.
  The Home Office is currently involved in discussions that could lead to a solution. According to a parliamentary answer that I was given, the circumstances surrounding the general election are being investigated, including the state of the electoral register. Representations have been made by political parties and other interests, and by about October a report may have emerged. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys is also conducting an investigation, and we shall gain some valuable information as a result.
  The Bill should be put on hold until we have secured the information that will allow us to establish equal electoral districts very rapidly. We cannot do that, however, on the basis of a large quantity of information that is invalid and incorrect, and electoral registers that were corrupt at the time of the election. Owing to the poll tax factor, about 1.5 million people were missing from the registers. If we assume that that figure represents an anti-Tory cohort, we can also assume that, if the names had not been missing, there would have been a hung Parliament.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I take my hon. Friend's point about the inaccuracy of the registers: we feel strongly about that in London. I challenge him on another point, however. I may have misunderstood him, but he seemed to say that the people who are missing from the registers had failed to register because of the poll tax. That applies to a certain percentage of the population, but in my borough, for instance, more names appeared on the poll tax register than on the electoral register.
  Mr. Barnes: Under the poll tax legislation, it was possible to transfer people from the poll tax register to the electoral register. During the legislation's Committee stage, the Opposition moved that that should be obligatory—that people should be transferred automatically, thus adding to the number on the electoral register. As it was not obligatory, transferral was happening in some areas and not in others. A number of lists and

  703
  provisions are used for poll tax registration purposes; it might be much more legitimate to use them for electoral registration purposes.
  Mr. McCartney: Is there not a case for a completely new electoral census? The Bill does not contain a clause that would provide local authorities with the resources to maintain and develop the register, or a clause to ensure that, wherever an electoral registration officer operates, he is equipped with a clear set of guidelines to enable him to carry out his duties appropriately. My area has a good electoral registration system, but in many areas electoral registration is not given the necessary priority. It is therefore impossible for the boundary commission to deal with information that is up to date and factually correct, and many seats may be lost because of the poor condition of the register. That has nothing to do with the poll tax; it is due to the system, and the lack of resources with which to maintain it.
  Mr. Barnes: I agree that the poll tax is not the only problem. There are many long-term problems. The current extent of mobility in society is causing increasing difficulties, and hosts of people feel that they are no longer part of that society. Action must be taken to encourage them to register and exercise their rights. Much needs to be done to ensure that we have proper, equal electoral districts.
  I hope that the Home Office will move in that direction. I have therefore introduced a private Member's Bill, which will be dealt with on 12 February. The Bill seeks the establishment of a rolling register, allowing additions and deductions to be made to keep the register up to date. It confers extra powers and duties on electoral registration officers, which I hope will lead to the provision of the money that they need. It also encourages the mounting of advertising campaigns to persuade people to register.
  Let us consider the amount that the Government spend on advertising privatisations, fancy employment schemes such as youth training and the like. There is a vast disparity between that amount and the amount that they spend on electoral registration. In one year, under the previous Conservative Government, expenditure on national publicity for electoral registration amounted to about 0.32 per cent. of total expenditure. It fell far short of the amount being spent overseas to encourage expatriate voters to register.
  A massive educational job needs to be done to encourage registration. When the necessary facilities have been provided, we shall be in a much better position to bring about equal electoral districts. We may be able to move forward on two fronts at once, especially if the Government give signs of willingness to think along the lines that I have suggested.
  There is a further problem, however. Clause 3 provides a link between the local government and parliamentary boundary reviews. It gives the data by which action will be taken if the local government reviews have been completed; it may be necessary for the parliamentary boundary commission to take the knock-on consequences into account. According to the guidance notes on local government boundaries, produced by the Department of the Environment, the parliamentary boundary commission is one of the bodies that must be consulted. Information must be carried between the two bodies.
  704
  What worries me is the fact that some of the first tranche of shire authorities that are to be considered for local government boundary review are not included in the tranches that have so far been considered for parliamentary boundary review. They will be considered at the end of the procedure, and in the case of those at the back of the queue for parliamentary review, account will have to be taken of the local government boundary reviews that may have been agreed earlier. That will lead to the danger of a political stitch-up. The two systems should be separated.
  We are moving forward in terms of local government reform. Dates have been named by which we must accept the boundaries. Some people will be stuck with the boundaries as they are now, while others will be involved in changing circumstances. The two elements do not fit together, and they are wide open to abuse—not abuse by manipulative local government or parliamentary boundary commissioners, but abuse by those who are laying down the parameters within which they should act. The game is being fixed by the Government.
  We must watch the Bill very closely. It is not the innocuous measure that the Secretary of State initially presented; it is a measure of great significance for the future of political democracy. Unless satisfactory answers can be given to the questions that I have raised—I do not believe that they can—we should vote against it.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I listened with some interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He had it right when he said that the consequences of a boundary commission review are not always easy to predict either for politicians or the boundary commission.
  I have good reason to be grateful to the parliamentary boundary commission, as my predecessor in West Hertfordshire, or Hemel Hempstead as it was then called, now my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), decided to go to another constituency, leaving West Hertfordshire vacant and therefore enabling me to enter the House. Certainly my experience has been that it is a nice constituency to represent, with a good solid Conservative majority.
  The work of the boundary commission is not easy. In tackling the problems of where to draw constituency boundaries, it has real difficulties of geographical spread. In addition, it must reach decisions on areas where the entitlement is not for eight or nine seats—some whole number—but for some number in between. I am fortunate to have rather more electors than there are supposed to be in a parliamentary constituency. Nevertheless, all of us approach a boundary review with some trepidation because we do not know what will happen in our area, whether our constituency will change its political nature or whether we shall end up with vast tracts of new constituents to get to know and lose those whom we already know. Our trepidation could be tempered a little if we could nominate those constituents whom we are to lose under a redistribution, but I doubt whether the boundary commission would ever go down that road.
  Remarks have been made on both sides of the Chamber about alleged under-representation. Certainly there is evidence that some people who should be on the register are not. That has a great deal to do with the procedures adopted by different local authorities. Far too many of

  705
  them send out their electoral registration documents at the end of August or the beginning of September for registration in mid-October. Obviously, many people move over that six-week period. I know of constituents who were disfranchised because the registration documents were either put in the bin by the previous residents who knew that they were moving or forwarded to the previous residents. That is a great pity, but there is a way round it. One can submit claims to the electoral registration officer virtually up to the last minute.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred to the historic role of political parties in that regard. The Conservative Association was founded to check the electoral register. Many of our voluntary workers as well as our professional agents forget that that is a key part of their role. I hope that political parties and the Government will encourage more registration campaigns.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but it must be remembered that at one time the political parties were responsible for constructing the electoral register, not just checking it. The sheer corrupt practices brought about independent electoral registration officers as an institution of local government. An independent, arm's-length, well-financed system of registration should be established and the parties should keep their mucky fingers out of it. Such a system would guarantee that everybody is on the register.
  Mr. Jones: I would not quarrel with the gist of that. Nevertheless, there is a role for political parties to do what is necessary in a democratic society and ensure that people get the vote. A lesson to be drawn from this evening's debate and the consensus across the Chamber is that we need reforms that go beyond the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to postal votes and I shall come to that because the present arrangements are lacking. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is suggesting that the electoral register should be entirely in the hands of the professionals under the electoral registration officer, I do not agree, because the parties should play a role in a democratic society.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Our point is that the Government have not introduced such proposals. They are not talking about additional resources for local authorities or the establishment of some form of independent assessment, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr suggested. We would not allow people to treat the Inland Revenue in this way. People cannot disappear out of the tax system. At least, if they try, they are pursued night and day. That does not happen with electoral registration, yet it underpins our democracy.
  Mr. Jones: You would not want me to be tempted to discuss Inland Revenue records, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not believe that resources are the only answer to the electoral registration problem. The procedures need to be tightened up. Far too often local authorities leave people on the register if the form is not returned. Sometimes—this has happened in my constituency—people are registered against houses that have been demolished. There is also
  706
  double registration. The does not necessarily affect numbers, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East suggested.
  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, if it had not been for under-registration, we would have had a hung Parliament. His argument is not sustainable, considering the swings in different constituencies, whether the electoral register had decreased or remained the same. Does he remember the comments about how the enormous drop in the north Hackney register would put the Labour party under pressure? I did not notice any evidence of that when the result was declared.
  Mr. Barnes: I did include a proviso in my comments. I said that if the 1.5 million missing were an anti-Tory cohort—I accepted that others would be involved in that number and there were good grounds for saying that many who were squeezed off the register were against the Government—it could well have produced a hung Parliament. Twenty-two Conservative Members were elected with majorities of 1,000 or below. I am not saying that all 22 would have lost; some might have survived, but some with majorities just over 1,000 might have lost. If the results in about 22 seats had been different, we would have had a hung Parliament.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I remind Members that interventions by their nature should be brief and relevant. The debate seeems to be going wide of the Bill. That is a gentle reminder.
  Mr. Jones: Perhaps, then, I shall move on to another topic and explain why estimates of population are no better than the electoral register. In the past, many such figures have not been reliable for any purpose. If we were to face a redistribution and reallocation of constituencies on the basis of the estimated population figures, we would have many more difficulties than we have with the electoral register under the present arrangement.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to the difficulties of building blocks for the redistribution of seats. He rightly pointed out that there were problems because London borough boundaries were not crossed last time. However, the precedent has been set at least in some parts of metropolitan districts. I would expect the parliamentary boundary commission to do that in London this time and I hope that that would lead to a reduction in the over-representation of London, which undoubtedly is unfair in terms of one man, one vote.
  One must start from some basis, and the present county boundaries are a good starting point. Otherwise, the boundary commission would have the unenviable task of starting at one end of the country and somehow creating constituencies of 69,000 running down. Then it would have to cross rivers and other major natural or community boundaries. Although there are anomalies within county boundaries, at least by staying within them the commission has some outline within which to work. That is practicable.
  I suspect that the commission will group London boroughs, as it did metropolitan districts, and consider two or three together. That will produce some sensible and coherent proposals.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about constituencies crossing the

  707
  boundaries of different authorities. My constituency does just that. It has four wards in Wakefield and one in Leeds. Under the Bill, there will be insufficient time to bring the communities, which have separate identities, together. If a constituency is to cross boundaries, it is important that sufficient time is given so that those in the communities understand exactly where they will have to vote. Anything less than that would be unfair to the people involved.
  Mr. Jones: I do not see any difficulty in people understanding where to vote. People will vote in the wards, where they have always voted. There is no question of constituencies crossing ward boundaries and, because those wards contain entire polling districts, the problem does not arise.
  Labour Members who have spoken in the debate primarily represent metropolitan constituencies, but many Conservative Members represent non-metropolitan ones. In those cases, it is not unusual for the parliamentary constituency to consist of areas from more than one local authority. I do not pretend that that is easy. I represent two thirds of one local authority but many Hertfordshire Members represent bits of different authorities. That means that we have to attend to different functions in different districts. That is, of course, a problem, but it is not insurmountable.
  The position in the United Kingdom is, at least, better than that in the United States. The exact mathematical rules used to make up congressional districts lead to the most ludicrous and unnatural boundaries as well as the temptation to gerrymander them because the boundary decisions are in the hands of elected representatives rather than an independent body, such as the boundary commission. However, there is one lesson we can learn from the United States. It managed to produce a census in December 1990, on which the distribution of congressional districts is based, and have those districts in place in time to pick candidates for the election in November this year.
  It is important that the boundary commission's work should be able to produce constituencies in good time so that candidates can be selected and organisations capable of fighting elections can be formed.. That would also mean that those Members of Parliament who are unfortunately dispossessed, because of the reductions in the number of seats in one area or another, would have time to decide whether their future lies outside the House or perhaps in a constituency in another part of the country.
  I praise the boundary commission because it has shared much of its thinking and information on the current review with the public. I remember reading its two previous reviews and the only information we received was a list of wards that would make up the proposed new constituencies. The current press releases contain a great deal of the boundary commission's reasoning and that is to be applauded because it will help people to put forward alternative views. The publication of the electorates in various wards will also help, because people will be able to ensure that their alternative views are consistent with the legal obligations of the 1991 registers. The boundary commission is doing more than it did before.
  I hope that the boundary commission will think more about the geography of the constituencies that it creates. The numbers game is not everything. I have difficulties because the two halves of my constituency are only just connected by a road while the two halves of the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the
  708
  Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) are not connected by road. That creates difficulties which would not have arisen had rational proposals been made in the first place so that we had geographically compact constituencies. It is true that the different parts of the constituencies connect with each other, but across fields only, so we have to ride or walk from one part to another as we cannot go by road. That should answer any question that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr may ask.
  Like almost everyone else, I understand the position of hon. Members representing the Scottish isles or constituencies such as Caithness and Sutherland—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but an undercurrent of conversation from Labour Members is interfering with my ability to hear him.
  Mr. Jones: My first elected position was as a burgh councillor in Scotland, so I am familiar with the geographical problems involved. However, because we pay special attention to the problems of the Western Isles or Anglesey, or other parts of north Wales, that does not mean that we should have the same attitude to the urban parts of Scotland.
  The case that the allocation of Glasgow constituencies should be based on exactly the same principle as those of Birmingham is more or less unanswerable. If we ignore the constituency of Sutton Coldfield, which is above the quota, Birmingham has 11 Members of Parliament and 656,000 electors. Glasgow has exactly the same number of Members of Parliament, but it has only 518,000 electors. On any calculation, Glasgow has two seats more than it should have compared with Birmingham. That might be exacerbated by the review, because Birmingham and Glasgow might have fewer representatives and it is easy to imagine that the differential will widen rather than narrow. That is not justifiable.
  We should apply the principle of equality throughout the United Kingdom except in remote rural areas, where that is not practicable. The boundary commission already has powers to consider such factors in England. That is why we have a smaller electorate in rural English constituencies, such as Hexham, than in urban ones. I do not see why that approach should not apply throughout the United Kingdom and not just within England.
  Reference was made to postal votes. I fully understand why there must be a closing date for postal votes well in advance of the election. Ballot papers must be printed and sent out and time allowed in which to return them. I do not see any reason why electors should not be able to go to the town hall or write in to appoint a proxy even up to the last minute before polling. It is simply a matter of issuing a new proxy poll card and notifying the presiding officers at a polling station that a proxy has been appointed. It should be possible to do that up to 48 hours, or even 24 hours, before polling. That would solve the problem for the many people who discover, at the last minute, that they are going away on business or on holiday.
  I know that anyone can apply for a permanent proxy if they have good reason to think that they will travel as part of their occupation and that they might be disfranchised.

  709
  As practical politicians, we know that that is not what happens. Only those who travel regularly and are politically aware apply for permanent proxies.
  Many advantages would be gained from changing the system. The claims procedures should also be simplified and extended to cover overseas electors. Why on earth can overseas electors not put in a claim if they are legitimately entitled to be on the register up to the same moment as any other elector? There is no logic in that practice, and it disfranchises people. The registration procedures are still too complicated. One needs a second-level degree to be able to understand the form.
  This debate has been interesting to those of us who, perhaps, take a closer interest in the nuts and bolts of electoral workings than is usual in the House. We are not always preoccupied with the grand world events or even the major domestic political issues. We must consider the nuts and bolts that make our democracy work.
  I believe profoundly in the constituency system. We have a duty to represent our electorate and we need to have an affinity with them. That is why it is important that the constituency boundaries are changed regularly. That means that the system should be more streamlined, which is why I support the Bill. However, that has not solved all our problems.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the points that have been raised on both sides of the House, because all electoral arrangements need to be dealt with from time to time. I hope that we shall look again at some of them in the not-too-distant future.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: In introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary emphasised its narrow effect and said that it was primarily concerned with the timing of boundary commission reports. However, the Government want the timing changed and the publications of the reports brought forward, because they believe press reports which have suggested that there is a significant party advantage in so doing. That was made clear in the press comments after the general election and is also seen in the timing of the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to other matters which could have been included in the Bill. He wanted it to include poll cards and postal votes, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) made the useful suggestion that statutory rules on registration could have been embodied in the Bill to avoid some of the anomalies which occur. Northern Ireland Members are particularly conscious of anomalies in the registration system.
  All those matters could have been included. Indeed, I believe that the Home Office is carrying out its normal post-election review of procedures and is even to convene a meeting of political representatives in the next few months to discuss those matters. If there is agreement between the parties on the details of registration, and so on, those could be embodied in the legislation. Although the Bill is the Home Office's one shot at electoral legislation in this Parliament, those other matters are all being left out. That makes the inter-party consultation which is about to take place a bit of a farce.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Some of the changes which might come about could be made through guidance to electoral registration officers or by order, but any large change which would affect the review of boundaries must be left until after the current review is complete.
  Mr. Trimble: I appreciate that some of the matters that I have mentioned could be handled by guidance and subordinate legislation, but I am surprised that the Government were not even prepared to wait another month to see what happens in their post-election review of electoral legislation before introducing the Bill. That reinforces my view that the legislation is dominated by considerations of party advantage.
  Mr. Lloyd: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman by explaining that changes to how the boundary commission will see its role and judge what boundaries it should propose in its recommendations cannot be made now without going back to scratch, because the English boundary commission has been operating since the beginning of last year and has already made provisional recommendations for about one third of the counties. It is simply not possible to return to the start. However, matters which several hon. Members have raised about postal votes can be dealt with—
  Mr. Trimble: I was not suggesting—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that no one must stand between the person in the Chair and the Member speaking.
  Mr. Trimble: I hope that the Minister did not misunderstand me. I was suggesting not that the boundary revision process should go back to scratch but that it was theoretically possible to include other matters in the Bill rather than focusing on such narrow issues.
  The advantage in considering other issues would be to deal with anomalies in the present legislation. An anomaly revealed in the 1983 litigation was the fact that local government boundaries have priority over quota issues. Most people would regard that as an anomaly. Looking at those rules, I notice that local government boundaries to which the commission must have regard in England, Wales and Scotland, are county and borough boundaries, whereas in Northern Ireland they are ward boundaries. That is an entirely different level, so there is some anomaly there.
  Several Conservative Members focused primarily on what they regard as the anomalous over-representation of Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland Members are particularly conscious of numbers of seats and agree that we are under-represented. The background to that is of some interest. The representation of the area which now constitutes Northern Ireland was increased in 1918 to some 30 seats. After the creation of a Northern Ireland Parliament in 1921, our representation was reduced to 13 and then, with the abolition of the university seat, it fell to 12 seats. That was quite a drop.
  The reduction was a response to what is now known as the West Lothian question. That is worth thinking about, because in recent devolution debates hon. Members have suggested that, in the event of a future assembly in Wales or Scotland, some restriction should be placed on the ability of Welsh or Scottish Members here to discuss and vote on English matters.

  711
  I refer to the Northern Ireland experience because the question of reducing the speaking and voting rights of Members with regard to subject matter was considered and rejected. Instead, the different path of reducing the number of representatives, without affecting the powers and status of those representatives, was adopted. That path was adopted for the Northern Ireland Parliament and a Parliament was established, which was regarded at the time as "sovereign" within the areas devolved to it. Those two terms may seem slightly contradictory, but that was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown given in 1922. Parallel to that was the convention that matters within Stormont's competence could not be raised by way of question or otherwise in this place.
  Lesser forms of devolution also exist—for example, the assembly proposed for Wales in the 1970s. In those issues, the West Lothian question does not really arise. As a belated response to the abolition of Stormont in 1973, Northern Ireland's representation in this House was increased to 17 in 1983. It was suggested that Northern Ireland was being treated as analogous to Wales in terms of representation, but the figure of 17 was close to the figure which would have obtained had a United Kingdom quota existed. In other words, if the electorate had been divided by 650 to provide a United Kingdom quota, it would have produced a figure close to 17.
  Curiously, if a similar operation were undertaken now, a similar result would come about. The United Kingdom electorate is 43.7 million. If divided by 651, it produces a United Kingdom quota—if one were to exist—of just over 67,000. The present Northern Ireland quota, according to 1992 figures, is 67,000, so that similarity exists.
  However, there is no such thing as a United Kingdom quota. We have separate Welsh, Scottish, English and Northern Ireland quotas and hon. Members have queried the differences. In commenting on those differences, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas Hamilton). The Under-Secretary of State's response was interesting because, when questioned about Scotland's representation, he said:
  "The present settlement takes account of Scotland's status as a small nation and of large, sparsely populated and inaccessible areas."—[Official Report, 20 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 250.]
  He referred to three matters, of which the last two would generally be recognised as reasonable factors to take into account.
  The rules in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 govern the boundary commission, and rule 6 expressly refers to "special geographical considerations". The rules do not refer to what might be called the national factor but, implicitly and in a roundabout way which prevents open discussion of the matter, they do so through the device of setting minimum numbers of seats for Wales and for Scotland and leaving the English representation as the residual figure. That, again, detracts from the overall Great Britain figure. Indirectly, and in a typically English way, this takes account of the small nation factor. I describe it in that way because what is being done is not made explicit. That typifies much of the way in which the Government's administration is carried out.
  I see nothing wrong in principle with taking account of the small nation factor. It is not an unusual factor. The
  712
  United Kingdom is a multinational state, not a single, homogeneous nation state. In other multinational federations, it is not unusual to see some weighting to take account of small national units. I take the European Parliament and the way that voting takes place there as an example. In drawing this parallel, I am not expressing approval of the European union, as my vote and that of my party colleagues on the treaty of European union and on the Bill to provide that union will show when the matter comes before the House again.
  In the European Parliament, countries have basic minimum figures—for example, Luxembourg is guaranteed six Members. Judging by equality of representation, that is good. I hope that it will not happen, but if any degree of European union proceeds, at some point people will begin to readdress the issue of equality of representation within the union and the degree of favour given to small national units. I think that the view will still be that there must be some increased representation for small national units which are in danger of being swamped by larger national units within a federation or multinational state.
  That is the position within the United Kingdom, which is a multinational state with one nation—the English nation—numerically dominant. If one uses a purely mathematical approach throughout the kingdom, one opens the door to increasing that dominance. In view of the tendency of English Members of Parliament to ignore and then override the interests of the smaller national states, there is a case for increased representation for small national units in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West.
  However, having agreed that there should be increased representation for smaller national units, one is then concerned, as a Northern Ireland Member, about the failure to apply that principle to Northern Ireland. In Wales and Scotland, minimum figures are given, but rule 1{4) relating to Northern Ireland is drafted differently. It does not give a minimum, and it could be construed as meaning that there shall always be 17 Members for Northern Ireland unless, having regard to factors such as boundaries, the commission cannot easily achieve that, in which case there can be one more or less.
  That applies a mythical United Kingdom quota rather than adopting the approach used for Wales and Scotland, and we are concerned about that. When the changes were introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, we were given to understand that the Northern Ireland representation was to be increased to 17 to begin with, and would be increased as the population expanded. In 1983, Northern Ireland had an electorate of 1,061,000, giving a constituency quota of 62,000. In the intervening years, the electorate increased by 80,000 to 1,141,000, which on a 17-seat basis would give a quota of 67,000 but on an 18-seat basis would give a quota of 63,500. That would be consistent with the expectation that the figure would increase from 17 to 18 as the population increased.
  Keeping the number of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to 17 may suit those English Members who today queried Scottish and Welsh representation in the name of equality, but that commitment to equality strikes me as slightly dubious in view of the Government's failure to treat the United Kingdom as a single unit in the past. Perhaps English Members have been converted to the concept of equality of citizenship and equal citizenship. If they have, I looked forward to seeing them all come along

  713
  on Thursday night to oppose the continuation of direct rule, which most clearly shows an inequality of citizenship. We shall see what happens.
  What I have said shows that I feel that we have missed an opportunity to look again at the basis on which representation is adopted. We cannot take a crude mathematical quota and apply it, because that ignores the national element.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the small nation principle would be satisfied in the case of Northern Ireland if the number of constituents there increased from 17 to 18, or is he looking for something different?
  Mr. McCartney: He is looking for 30.
  Mr. Trimble: I did say that there were 30 Northern Ireland Members in 1918, but I could not justify that many today because the population figures have not grown. Under the existing legislation, it would be possible only to increase the Northern Ireland representation from 17 to 18. That would be in line with our expectations.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I should make it clear that my argument is slightly different. I am suggesting that if we take account of this factor we should do so explicitly, because the indirect way of doing so—through the phrasing of rules 2, 1(2) and 1(3) and schedule 2—gives rise to false expectations. Hon. Members representing Wales and Scotland may feel particularly defensive about this, but if one takes account of this factor explicitly, everybody knows what has been done. It can be debated and the extent to which it is done can be considered and allowed for, and nobody need feel defensive. The Bill does not take advantage of the opportunity to consider these matters. There is a need for a rethink about the basis on which representation takes place and the extent to which one takes into account the element of nationality.
  There is a need for agreed principles, embodied in legislation, to cover representation to this place. Those principles should apply throughout the United Kingdom and would take account, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, not only of geography and sparsity of population, but of the position of the smaller units of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not, as some people think, a single homogeneous unit but has its different parts, and it is right that, to some extent, those differences should be reflected here.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: It is appropriate that I should make my maiden speech on this Bill, for my constituency is suffering from a local government boundary reorganisation, the issues relating to which are relevant to those affecting this Bill. I am therefore grateful to have been called.
  I pay tribute to Sir Hal Miller, my predecessor, who represented Bromsgrove and Redditch, and then Bromsgrove, from 1974. Although he was a vice-chairman of the Conservative party from 1984, he is principally remembered in this House for his involvement in, and support for, the car industry. He was joint chairman of the all-party motor industry group, but that office was only a token acknowledgement of the enormous work that he
  714
  undertook, with others, to secure the future of the British motor industry at a time when it was under such threat that it might have disappeared altogether. The House and the country owe him a debt of gratitude for that work.
  If Sir Hal was held in high esteem here, that is but little in comparison with the affection that he enjoyed in the constituency, where he assiduously looked after constituents' interests. Nothing was too trivial for his consideration, and there are many who remember with gratitude his work on their behalf—a difficult act to follow.
  In his maiden speech to this House in March 1974, Hal Miller referred to the proposed construction of the western orbital route on the edge of the west midlands conurbation. It would not surprise hon. Members to hear that blight and the fear of development remain potent forces, because the western orbital route has still to be built. I wonder what will have happened in another 18 years; I can only hope that we will have ceased talking about it and planning it, and that it will have disappeared as a proposal.
  Sir Hal's interest in the motor industry was germane to the interests of the constituency, containing as it does the corner of the Rover Longbridge car plant. Many of the constituents work in west midlands industry, so much of which is related to vehicle production.
  Bromsgrove is a microcosm of middle England. We have a market town with some industry and a large service sector. We have villages and small towns and even the edge of the west midlands conurbation, including an overspill estate. That richness and variety give the place a special quality.
  There is no single community, but a group of communities bound together by outside pressures, enjoying a good quality of life but always under threat from larger neighbours. Development pressure in this beautiful part of the countryside always has to be resisted. The green belt is seen more as a green lifeline.
  As far as one can generalise, the people are of sound judgment, as demonstrated by my appearance here. They are also honest in paying their taxes—they have one of the best records of paying the community charge in the country. Below this House is a tally stick, displayed in a glass case, which was used 400 years ago by a resident of the area for the payment of his taxes—so the tradition is a long one.
  The group of linked communities which makes up the constituency is under threat, for the old local government boundary is likely to be changed. The Local Government Boundary Commission proposes to move the urban fringe into the west midlands conurbation. It looks neat on the map; it would make good sense were it not for the fact that hardly anyone living in the area wants to be sucked into socialist Birmingham. That ability to overlook the wishes of the people must not be repeated by the parliamentary boundary commission.
  Edmund Burke, writing 200 years ago, said:
  "To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle of public affection."
  He saw loyalty being built from the bottom up: the family, the community, the state. How can there be loyalty to the nation unless there is also identity with its parts? Those who seek to deride the importance of family and

  715
  community also attack the nation. That way lies anarchy, since people are important individually, as part of the family and as part of a nation.
  We support each other through the units of which we are component parts. It follows that respect for community is as important as respect for nation or family, for each layer protects and enhances the other.
  I take issue with the definition of nation offered earlier by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He talked of the United Kingdom having several nations, but when. I speak of "nation" I speak of one United Kingdom.
  This House rightly guards its traditions. The last time anyone of my name sat here was 500 years ago. No doubt, by the time I have finished speaking, some hon. Members will hope that history will repeat itself. If he were here today, that representative would recognise many of our proceedings. We are all the products of our own history. What is true of individuals is true of our institutions; and communities have their traditions too. We should not ignore them; they are an important part of our history, as they have grown and developed.
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires the commission to take note of local ties. I hope that will be fully acknowledged in the forthcoming review. Of course boundaries must be changed to meet the required numbers, to ensure that each voter has as much democratic say as the next, but within that requirement we must allow the wishes of people to be ignored when creating new constituencies. I differ from some Opposition Members who seem to think that some principle of weighted voting can be achieved, particularly for Scotland and Wales. I find it surprising that they should advocate a different form of democracy for those parts of the country. I know that I should not be controversial in this speech, but I must acid that Opposition Members are perhaps more used to systems of weighted voting in the form of trade union block votes.
  The process of reorganising the constituencies is as important as reorganising local government. For too long we have allowed confusion to reign, councils to be too large and remote, communities to be forced together with little mutual interest. Unlike some Opposition Members, I welcome clause 3; by virtue of the clause, the commission will be able to take into account the initial views expressed by the new Local Government Commission, which is specifically charged with looking at the interests of the communities which are so important in the parliamentary scene.
  Whatever changes are imposed as a result of this Bill, or in local government, the importance of the small platoon in society must be acknowledged. Again, I must not be controversial, but the party that I represent has rightly taken pride in the importance of the individual, the family, the community and the nation. Opposition Members often see the nation as foremost—at least, the nation as they would define society. The great divide between the two principal parties rests on our differing emphasis on whether the individual is to support society or society is to support the individual.
  We must not lose sight of that great principle—the importance of the individual—when the commission scrutinises parliamentary boundaries. Great weight must be placed on individuals and their community within the requirement for equality of votes.
  716
  I support the Bill because it improves the efficiency of democracy. I wish that we were going further with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that is not possible today. When processing the change arising from this Bill we must not lose respect for our democratic traditions by cheapening the new constituencies, divorcing them from or splitting up their natural communities. Some change will be essential: change is always painful.
  Let us maintain our emphasis on individuals, their loyalties, their ties and their identities when making changes within a requirement for numerical equality.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I believe that this is the first time in eight years in the House that I have ever followed a maiden speaker. It was a privilege to listen to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and to hear his tribute to Hal Miller. Hal arrived in the House at the same time as I did, in February 1974. We all wish him well in his position as chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, helping there to redress the terrible imbalance in our motor industry.
  The hon. Gentleman has a good record of defending independent local government. It was a pleasure to hear him speak about community and society, because we are all imbued with the notion that there is no such thing as society; we remember being lectured on that by the former Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman will not again be allowed to speak pejoratively about socialist Birmingham without an intervention. From now on I shall describe him as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Bromsgrove.
  The Bill is welcome, and anyone who professes to be a democrat, whatever his argument, party affiliation or views on the current electoral system, will agree that there must be equality of voting. Under our present electoral system, the only way in which one can remotely approach equality is to have equal numbers of electors in each constituency. I shall not bore the House by repeating statistics showing the wide disparities: I shall say only that the averages are not as bad as they appear.
  In England, the average Labour Member represents 64,150 constituents and the average Conservative Member represents 71,600. Those are random figures. My constituency is the largest in Birmingham, with 72,817 constituents. The average Liberal Member in England represents 68,260 constituents. The figures we have heard in the debate show how misleading averages can be, because there are massive disparities, from 20,000 to more than 100,000. That cannot be tolerated, and it must be corrected as soon as possible. Movement of population will not affect the situation.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who made an extremely valuable speech. I shall not repeat what he said about how the electoral register is compiled. About two or three years ago, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) took part in a debate on electoral registration, the first in the House for donkey's years, at about 2 am one July. Electoral registration officers are extremely grateful that the House has in recent years started to take an interest in this backwater of local government, which is under-resourced because it is not particularly sexy.

  717
  The figures on the electoral register are for 1991, and we are debating not just movement of population but population growth. In 1991, the English shire counties had 2.7 million voters more than in 1976. Greater London had one third of a million less than in 1976, while in the metropolitan counties there was hardly any change. The figure is about 10,000 in 8 million. That means that the English electorate has grown by 2.4 million and the increase has all been in the English shire counties, which are under-represented by 19 or 20 Members. One could argue the converse, that the urban areas—Greater London and the districts within the metropolitan counties—are over-represented.
  In Birmingham, it is said that the inner-city wards should have fewer constituents because the work load is greater. Members representing those wards and the inner-city constituencies should have greater resources to do the job, but equality of voting should be paramount. That is no excuse for different sized electorates. Our allowances—perhaps even our salaries, but I make no special point about that—should equate to the number of constituents. That would be seen to be fair.
  The building blocks used for constituency changes—the local authority wards—are larger in the city I represent than in any other area. The smallest electorate in a Birmingham ward is 16,500, while the greatest is 21,500. The average Birmingham ward has 19,000 electors for three councils. I have four wards with almost 73,000 electors, and there are 12 councillors in my constituency. In terms of electorate and population, my constituency approximates to a city the size of Gloucester.
  Some time ago, I checked to see how many councillors were involved in administration in Gloucester and was told that there were 33. In addition I was told that there were 12 county councillors as well as the 33 district councillors. Some urban areas are greatly under-represented, because the wards are far too big. When the boundary commission uses those wards as building blocks, the difference in a city such as Birmingham between a three-ward and a four-ward constituency will be 19,000 electors. There will be massive disparities between them and adjoining constituencies.
  There are only three constituencies in Birmingham with four wards: mine, and those of Selly Oak and Northfield. All the others have three wards. The constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) which adjoins mine, and the constituencies of my surrounding hon. Friends, have 52,000 to 55,000 electors, while the largest constituencies have well over 70,000. That is an enormous disparity, and it cannot be corrected by the use of local authority building blocks. That will not change the review.
  When Birmingham loses an hon. Member, as it will when the constituencies are reduced from 12 to 11—or from 11 to 10, if Sutton Coldfield is removed—more four-ward seats will be created, because its wards will be added to the other three constituencies. That will cause a disparity of 19,000 voters in adjoining constituencies. That would not be tolerated in other areas, and it happens only because of a perverse local government arrangement for the city of Birmingham, which is restricted to 117 councillors for an electorate of almost 750,000.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about Birmingham. The solution in terms of local government reform is to be found in the city of Glasgow, which has single-member wards and an election every four years. Such a system would give the commission greater flexibility and result in a more satisfactory arrangement for local councillors.
  Mr. Rooker: I agree. As an alternative to doubling the number of councillors in Birmingham, which would horrify the political leadership there, I would opt for 117 single-member wards, with each councillor responsible to only 6,500 electors. That is much better than three councillors with 19,000 electors.
  That massive shift in the electorate and the massive increase of 2.7 million electors is the result of the successful policies of post-war Labour Governments. The beginning of the building of the new towns, slum clearance in urban areas and rebuilding at lower densities has shifted the population out of urban areas and improved the quality of life but the consequences for electoral geography have prejudiced my party.
  I do not share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that the review will lead to a net Labour gain. Surely something has gone wrong with our electoral and political systems when it is assumed automatically that rural dwellers vote Tory while those who live in urban areas vote Labour. There is a divide in our society, and when it is considered in black and white terms, it is clear that something has gone wrong with the poilitical process over the decades since the war at least, and probably since the 1930s.
  The divide is not to be found in continental Europe—I know that those words will be almost like red rag to a bull to many hon. Members—and that is something that both main parties must remember. It is the divide that brings the knee-jerk reaction. If boundary changes bring extra seats for the shirtes, there are those who immediately shout, "Gerrymandering!" There is no gerrymandering if we are seeking merely to make the size of constituencies more equal.
  Local inquiries take place before it is decided how a town or constituency shall be divided, and the area can be cut like a cake or a doughnut. The process can have massive party political consequences as expressed in the membership of the House. As I have said, it is not gerrymandering if we seek to have electorates of equal size.
  Intellectually, I have no answer to the Birmingham-Glasgow argument, which has been advanced today and other occasions. I merely say that I hope that the commissions will insist on the crossing of London borough boundaries. London is already over-provided with parliamentary seats, with 84 instead of 81. The metropolitan districts are no different from London boroughs; when we drive from one borough to another, we do not know that we have made the crossing. Manchester and Trafford, Oldham and Rochdale, Salford and Wigan, Stockport and Tameside, Gateshead and Newcastle, and Leeds and Wakefield all have crossed boundaries. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for London, and crossed boundaries will destroy the over-provision of seats in London. There is a strong case for ensuring that London borough boundaries are crossed.
  I say from a party point of view that it is desirable that there be a crossed boundary between Dudley and

  719
  Sandwell, to avoid the unnecessary loss of a constituency in Sandwell. It is not justified within the west midlands, and it would be protected if the boundary was crossed.
  Birmingham and Coventry will lose a seat, and there is nothing that anyone can do or should do about it when it comes to sizing up constituencies. It is important that there is precision when it comes to a date for reports, and the last day of 1994 is reasonable and practical. It is probably what would have happened even without the Bill. However, the Bill brings us precision, which is important.
  When the boundaries were last changed—I have not checked this, but I cannot be more than a month out—the House agreed to the necessary orders in March 1983. The general election took place in June of that year. There was little time for constituencies to be formed and for political organisations to be put together. We must understand that political parties are the bedrock of the protection of our democracy, and unless they can organise adequately to fight elections it is democracy that suffers. They did not have sufficient time to do so between March and June.
  I think that the next general election will be in the autumn of 1995 rather than in 1996, and on that basis it is important to have plenty of time to organise. Recently, I spent some time working out which 40 Tory Members with marginal constituencies we should target during this Parliament, in the House and their constituencies, to make their lives uncomfortable. After a while, I said to myself, "Hang on, they won't be the same 40 marginals come the election." We do not know where the marginals will be, and we shall not know until the House agrees to the orders that will give effect to the boundary changes. That is a party political consideration, but we are here to talk about it and others.
  I agree with those who have said that the Bill represents a lost opportunity. As I said during business questions the other week, the House does not discuss electoral arrangements sufficiently. It is not a practical proposition to do so shortly before an election. When there is to be an election in about 18 months' time, it is not practical to start discussing the minutiae of electoral arrangements, important though they are. The time to do it is shortly after an election, when incidents are fresh in our minds, when we know that we are at least three, three-and-a-half or four years away from the next electoral fight, and when minds are cool. There is certainly time to consider these details in the first and second Session of a Parliament. That is the time to talk about the registration of absent voters.
  Last year, I conducted a survey of electoral registration officers to ascertain what they did about absent voters and how they made people aware that they were entitled to vote. Over 50 per cent. responded to a simple questionnaire. Their responses revealed that they responded very differently, and in some instances I was horrified. Some of them told me, "It is not my job to trawl for absent voters." Others told me that they took active steps to ensure that absent voters were registered. The Home Office was not quick enough to take up the matter, but I was impressed that the EROs were prepared to open up and say that they wanted guidance. I know that guidance was issued, but much more could have been done through advance publicity.
  It is amazing what it is possible to pick up when travelling on the tube in London. It would be unfair to name him, but one of this country's leading experts on elections and electoral systems was travelling from one of his seminars to another group of students, who would sit
  720
  and worship at his feet. He told me that he had been at the local government boundary review inquiry that took place in Oxford last week, I believe. Apparently one of the assistant commissioners said that he was prepared to take account of future population.
  The Bill allows for future local government boundary changes but not for future population. Indeed, it has never been possible to argue on the basis of future population. It would be unwise for the House to allow assistant commissioners to go down that road, because it would open up legal challenge. Surely we do not want an ordinary boundary redistribution to be delayed by vexatious legal challenge. If account is being taken of future population, we should be chary of the practice.
  Mr. McCartney rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Be brief, please.
  Mr. McCartney: I shall be, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not have the words in my mouth yet.
  My hon. Friend referred to a matter that was raised at Oxford, and I beg to differ with him. It is for the commissioner to take into account of approved planning permissions over an agreed period. On that basis, it is legitimate for him to take into account population trends. A local authority and the Department of the Environment will take them into account when it comes to local authority grants, and certainly rate support grant.
  Mr. Rooker: I disagree, because the trends are not votes in ballot boxes. The matter has been dealt with, because it is proposed by means of the Bill to have reviews within shorter periods. Of course, we shall never have perfectly equal constituencies unless we have a rolling register and precise district drawing as they have in the United States. That brings precision, but it destroys communities and causes many difficulties. It would be an extremely dangerous road to follow.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that codification is not possible, and that review would be open to unnecessary or vexatiouss legal challenge, which would cause delay. The Labour party suffered from what happened in 1969 and from its attempt legally to delay the review in 1983. That hangs around the neck of the party and raises a large question mark about democracy.
  Mr. Winnick: No.
  Mr. Rooker: I am making my point. It hangs around the Labour party's neck that we are not quite all right about equality of voting and equality of constituencies. As I said earlier, one of the reasons for that is the electoral geography, which we have allowed to go amiss over the years.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I was not present at the Oxford inquiry, but it is possible that what the assistant commissioner said has been misconstrued. There is a real difference between guesstimating future population movements, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and taking into account increases in the electorate that have already occurred. The quota year is 1991, but already there is another year to consider. During the previous redistribution there was an enormous gap between the quota year and the year being reviewed. Therefore, it is proper to take into account what has happened in the intervening time.
  Mr. Rooker: I agree with that point, which was also made earlier. When decisions are made, they should be on the most accurate possible electoral register, notwithstanding missing people, and they should not be tied to the quota dates. If there are substantial changes since the 1991 register, they must be taken into account. The draft proposals for the metropolitan districts will be produced in the early to middle part of 1993, and if there have been massive changes in the electorates, we shall argue strongly for them to be taken into account by the assistant commissioners at the boundary reviews. I accept that that is more difficult in places such as Birmingham, because of the large size of the wards.
  If we love the first-past-the-post system with single Members, we must also love and accept boundary changes. I do not agree with the current electoral system, which is not as fair as it could be. A system that allows a party with 42 per cent. of the vote consistently to provide more than 50 per cent. of Members of Parliament does not have the necessary fairness required in a modern democracy. However, this is not the time to argue that point; I merely place it on the record.
  We must accept that the review of boundaries and its consequences are part and parcel of our electoral system, and we cannot run away from that. I say to hon. Members who were not here before 1983 that later this year, when the other tranche of shire county draft reports are published, and during next year when the London boroughs and the metropolitan draft reports are published, one thing will dominate the conversation in this place. If not in the Chamber, certainly in the Corridors, the Library, the Tea Rooms, the Bars and on the Terrace—or where any two Members are speaking together—the conversation will be, "How have the boundary changes been for you?" It is the ultimate vested interest—
  Mr. Winnick: The selection and the reselection.
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. It is the ultimate vested interest, and that is why there is a need for more independence and a greater arm's-length relationship. Those outside should not see us controlling the drawing of the boundaries and think that it is Members of Parliament who fix them. We should remember that, for every one of us in this place, there was at least one other person who sought to be here in our stead in April 1992.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) on his excellent, balanced and interesting maiden speech. It was reasonably non-controversial, but none the less effective and forceful in both content and delivery. He acknowledged the tremendous work and service of his predecessor, Sir Hal Miller, and he told us of the delights of his constituency. His knowledge and experience of local government mean that he will be a most welcome addition to the Conservative Benches and we look forward to many more speeches from him in the next few years.
  I am pleased to participate in this important debate. The issue of boundaries, whether parliamentary or local government, has concerned a considerable number of my constituents in the past few years. Naturally, it raises both local, general and specific issues.
  722
  The Bill is small in size but large in importance. I especially welcome it because it will speed up the review of and report on parliamentary boundaries. I have never believed that time alone makes for good or better decisions. Often a more rigorous timetable might better concentrate minds. The Bill will require the next reports from the boundary commission to be submitted by 31 December 1994. That will be welcomed by the vast majority of rational and interested people. In particular, my constituents will recognise the logic behind the Bill and will be grateful for more regular reviews of parliamentary boundaries.
  Apart from the gross unfairness to the people of Britain of the wide variations in the number of electors in parliamentary constituencies, too long a period without change merely exacerbates the problem. Populations change and areas develop or decline, sometimes rapidly. It is unacceptable that such vast differencies in size of electorates in parliamentary constituencies should be allowed to exist for up to 15 years. That is too long a period. The Bill will ensure that the necessary changes are made sooner that that.
  Constituencies range in electoral size from 100,000 to under 40,000, which is wrong, unfair and unjustifiable. We all accept and agree that constituencies cannot and should not all be exactly the same size, but the size variation is just too great. The average of 69,500 should surely allow the range of between 60,000 and 80,000. That would be reasonable and therefore more acceptable. The current range is too great.
  My constituency of Erith and Crayford was formed out of the old Dartford division and was altered in the last boundary commission review before the 1983 general election. It lost the two wards of Barnehurst and Barnehurst, North to the neighbouring Bexleyheath constituency. That was done to achieve a more equal size of electorate between my constituency and Bexleyheath. In the previous decade, the population and electorate of my constituency increased with the building of many new housing developments. In addition, there was the growth of the new town of Thamesmead in the north of my constituency, which was built on reclaimed marsh land.
  Mr. Tony Banks: By the Greater London council.
  Mr. Evennett: If the GLC had done its job properly, the town would have been developed much more effectively and conclusively a long time ago. Unfortunately, under the hon. Gentleman's regime in the Labour-controlled GLC, it was stop and start for poor Thamesmead. That is why problems remain today. However, I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to divert me: I want to spend a little time talking about Thamesmead because that town is relevant to the Bill's provisions.
  The town of Thamesmead is a self-governing trust under the excellent leadership of its chairman, Mr. Alan Cummings, and its chief executive, Mr. Philip Glascow. It straddles the borough boundary of Bexley and Greenwich and is split between the two parliamentary constituencies of Woolwich and Erith and Crayford. The local government boundary commission, which I regret has taken almost five years to review Thamesmead's position, has recently recommended that the Bexley part of the town—the ward of Thamesmead East—be transferred to Greenwich.

  723
  Although I accept that today's debate is on the parliamentary boundaries, and therefore is not the time to argue why the status quo on local government should remain and the wishes of the Bexley residents of Thamesmead be upheld, an important issue is involved. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to accept the local government report on Thamesmead. With the 10,000 electors of Thamesmead East ward, I hope that the Secretary of State will reject the recommendation and listen to the people.
  If, however, the Secretary of State decides against the wishes of the people, what will happen to the parliamentary boundary? I shall continue to press him to heed the wishes of the people and to allow Thamesmead East ward to remain in Bexley. I hope that he will see sense, since the local government boundary commission failed to do so.
  Will the parliamentary boundary, according to the Bill, automatically follow the local government boundary? I listened with interest to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), although I did not agree with all of them. He raised the important issue of London. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to Birmingham and to the fact that parliamentary boundaries straddle local government boundaries in other parts of the United Kingdom. On this occasion I agreed with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who disagreed with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. I hope that the Minister will take note of the concerns of Members with London constituencies. The boundary of Greater London is out of date and I look forward to Ministers telling us how they view the future of parliamentary boundaries in London as it is a very important issue.
  My constituents in Thamesmead East ward want to stay in Bexley and in the Erith and Crayford constituency. If the Secretary of State for the Environment agreed to the local government boundary commission decision to put them into Greenwich, would they be forced out of Bexley and also out of Erith and Crayford, since the parliamentary boundary would follow the local government boundary?
  Mr. Tony Banks: Bexley supported the 1981 proposal to put Thamesmead East into Greenwich. Why has it changed its position?
  Mr. Evenett: I was not around in 1981, but the people of Thamesmead East want to stay in Bexley. They also want to stay in Erith and Crayford. Bexley council showed good sense in taking note of the wishes of the people. It has backed the people in their stand to remain part of Bexley. In a referendum, 96 per cent. of the people in Thamesmead East ward wanted to stay in Bexley and in Erith and Crayford. Bexley council, a first-class council, should be commended on its support for the local people.
  In London, parliamentary boundaries traditionally do not cross local government boundaries. What is to happen in the future? In my opinion, coterminous boundaries of borough and parliamentary constituencies in London have much to commend them. The opportunity to deal with just one local authority allows one to give a better service as a Member of Parliament to constituents. It is also much better for the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and others said in their excellent speeches
  724
  how important this is for the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove mentioned Edmund Burke and his view of community.
  We have experienced difficulties in London, due to the artificial creation nearly 30 years ago of the London boroughs. A sense of identity is now beginning to emerge in those boroughs. The people who live and work there now identify themselves with my borough of Bexley. Surely we do not want to destroy that by creating parliamentary boundaries which cross borough boundaries. The result would be to diminish the affinity with the boroughs, which would be a retrograde step.
  Crayford people remember Crayford urban district council with great affection. Even though Bexley took the Crayford motto "Boldly and Rightly" as the Bexley motto for the borough, it has taken a long time for the people of Crayford to look towards Bexley rather than towards Crayford. If we are not careful, we shall run the terrible risk of losing that developing affinity with the borough of Bexley. The people of Thamesmead and other people in my constituency will be grateful if the Minister can say what will happen to them if a local government boundary change takes place.
  Boundary changes and reforms are emotive issues. Constituency names change and cause problems. Some people disapprove of them. Communities do not like alterations made simply to suit the logic of bureaucrats.
  An important additional issue commands great support. There should not be vast discrepancies in constituency size. The boundary commission has to balance the two sides—on the one side maintaining communities, and on the other removing unfairness and anomalies in the system.
  Mr. McCartney: So far, the hon. Gentleman has not addressed the issue before us in the Bill—the parliamentary constituencies. Can he confirm that under the proposals both Greenwich and Bexley will lose constituencies?
  Mr. Evennett: It depends on the flexibility that the boundary commission adopts. I intend to refer to figures which suggest that both Bexley and Greenwhich should keep three Members each. The boundary commission has a difficult task to perform. Conservative Members commend the chairman and members of the boundary commission for their work, even if sometimes we think that they get it wrong and therefore do not always support their conclusions.
  Today, with the greater movement of population and rapid changes in certain areas of the country, there is a definite need for more frequent boundary changes. The emphasis here is on the word "frequently". There has been an increase in population in the suburbs of London and a decline in population in the inner city areas. In that part of London which is near my constituency, there may be good reasons for small electorates in certain areas. I was disappointed, however, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he would not look at the size of electorates in Scotland as some of my hon. Friends and I believe that Scotland is terribly over-represented in this place. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has already referred to the fact that there are 46,000 electors in his constituency.
  Mr. Tony Banks: No—47,000.
  Mr. Evennett: There are 51,000 electors in Newham, South. Greenwich has only 48,000 electors. My constituency has just under 60,000, and the number is growing. Woolwich has an electorate of 56,000. Those constituencies are small in the eyes of some people in rural areas. The Isle of Wight is a vast constituency, with an electorate of 100,000. Changes are needed in London. Inner-city London will lose seats, while outer London will keep its representation.
  Mr. Tony Banks: How will that work?
  Mr. Evennett: That is a problem that we shall have to address. I believe that it will work in London. It is possible to be both fair and effective.
  Mr. Winnick: Do hurry up a bit.
  Mr. Evennett: No, I am trying to educate the hon. Gentleman, who often makes comments from a sedentary position on issues that we believe to be important.
  It is unacceptable to have vast discrepancies in the size of the electorate. I have sought to highlight today the specific problems that we have in London, which I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take on board.
  The Bill is short, it is easy to understand, it is easy to implement, and it is designed to improve our system of representative democracy. It is undoubtedly a small measure, but it is an important one which will speed up the boundary commission, make its reports more frequent, and ensure that the fairest possible boundaries are established to prevent the anomalies that we have seen in the recent past. The Bill has my strong support and I believe that it will be supported by all political parties because it will present a fairer system. We are looking for a more equal electorate, better representation, and a fairer distribution of seats. The Bill goes a long way towards that.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on presenting a wonderful piece of special pleading. He raised an interesting point. As I said in an intervention, I remember that, in 1981, Tory Bexley was happy that Thamesmead, East, which the hon. Gentleman has described, should go into Greenwich. At that time, Greenwich opposed the move. They have now switched positions; Greenwich is in favour and Bexley is opposed. I can assume only that both local authorities, which are under different political control, have done their political homework and have worked out who will gain and who will lose. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, that Greenwich and Bexley will lose a seat each.
  Mr. Evennett: No.
  Mr. Banks: The proposal is for one seat from each borough. What we witnessed was the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford doing a good representation of a maggot squirming on the end of a hook. I do not know whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will assist him or will see him gobbled up. No doubt we shall find out in due course.
  You may call me an old cynic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you wish, but I am one of the hon. Members who believe that the Bill should be called the Save the Tory Party at the
  726
  Next Election Bill. Obviously I have no objections in principle to a review of parliamentary boundaries. Who would have? However, as a number of my hon. Friends have said, the Bill misses the real problem of the electoral register. The terms of reference given to the boundary commission are also extremely limited.
  It is difficult for us not to take into account—perhaps I am being over-cynical—the fact that the smart money says that the Tory party will achieve a net gain of about 20 seats from the Bill. I was rather surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) say that there could be a Labour gain from the Bill. In theory there could be, but it seems that the way in which the Bill will work out will inevitably lead to a net gain of about 20 seats for the Tory party. Looking at the Home Secretary, I cannot believe that that fact entirely escaped his notice when the Bill was drawn up and when the Government considered what the boundary commission would mean for the Tories at the next election.
  The real issue is not the size of the constituencies; the number on the electoral register is the crucial point. We can point to clear discrepancies. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that 95 per cent. of people were on the register. That sounds like a high success rate. However, it naturally means that 5 per cent. of people are not on the register. Translated into the electorate, that means that about 2 million people are not registered and are therefore not eligible to vote. As some of my hon. Friends have said, that 5 per cent. is not equally distributed around the country.
  I should like to have heard the Home Secretary say—it might have made me more kindly disposed towards the Bill—that there would be extra resources for the electoral registration process, rather than extra resources for the constituency carve-up. The trouble is that registration in inner-city areas can mean that an electoral register can be anything up to 17 per cent. inaccurate by the time it is published. It is an extraordinarily difficult matter.
  Conservative Members who represent inner-city constituencies will know how difficult it is to locate people, to make a point of contact and to ensure that they are on the electoral register. In constituencies such as mine in the east end of London, many people live in flats and many in houses in multiple occupation. There are many hostels and there is a growing number of homeless people in the inner-city areas.
  Where are the votes of all the people who sleep in doorways down the Strand or in the cardboard cities? They are entitled to vote. Indeed, it could be argued that they have a greater vested interest than many other people in getting a Government who are attentive to their problems. They do not have a vote because they are kept on the move. When the Prime Minister was a Social Security Minister, he introduced changes in social security provision which meant that there was a growing band of people who were shuffled around as they went through the period of qualification for payment in various parts of the country. There are an awful lot of people who simply never appear on the registers.
  There is also a transient population of those who are looking for jobs and are moving from one area to another. The advice from Norman Tebbit was, "Get on your bike."

  727
  Unfortunately, what did not go with that was the ability to vote when one got on one's bike if one turned up in the right place too late.
  What we should like to have heard from the Home Secretary and what we should like to hear even now is that more resources will be put into a registration campaign and that more effort will be made to get people on to the register. The Government could find the money to advertise in South Africa, on the Costa del Sol and everywhere else they thought that they could pick up a few votes from people who have been out of the country for 25 years. I only wish that they would show as much concern for those who have no intention of living abroad, who still live here and who want to participate in the democratic process.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: We show far more concern for those resident in this country, which is why we advertise every year. The advertising for those abroad was a one-off when the new provisions came into effect.
  Mr. Banks: I take the point, although I suspect that such a concentrated appeal will be a one-off every time a general election comes up as long as the Conservatives are in government. Advertising for registration must be continuous. There must be a substantial flow of resources from central Government to local authorities, backed up by continual campaigning using all the media to ensure that people get themselves on to the register.
  My borough is one that seems likely to lose a seat. I should not mind if I felt that there was a genuine movement out of the borough of Newham which would justify a change to a lower level of parliamentary representation, but the figures in Newham simply do not express the real size of the population and of the people who are eligible to vote in terms of age qualification. I know that some people deliberately excluded themselves from the register in my area, as elsewhere, because they did not want to pay the poll tax, but, as I said earlier, we had the peculiar situation in Newham that at one stage more people were on the poll tax register than were on the electoral register.
  It seems that not enough effort is being put into getting people on to the electoral register. Many people in London especially have been and are being disfranchised. The ballot box is supposed to underpin our democratic system, but if people are denied access to the democratic system through the register or if many barriers are put in the way of their getting that access, our democracy is flawed. People have been disfranchised, which should worry all hon. Members who are concerned about the democratic process.
  Our system of registration and voting is wholly outmoded. If it is a question of a national insurance number or of the Inland Revenue, one tends to be hunted down—quite rightly, and we do not argue about that. It is right that people should pay taxes and that they should be on the national insurance register. That is very important. After all, decisions that affect tax are taken in this place. The only way to achieve representation in this place is to vote for the people here. I wish that we would show as much priority and concern about the electoral register as we quite rightly give to those who should pay tax and those who should be registered for national insurance purposes.
  The system is outmoded. People are excluded from registration because they move. I understand why one
  728
  should vote in the constituency in which one lives. That clearly makes a great deal of sense. However, I see no reason why the ability to vote should not move with us and be transferred easily with us.
  People enter polling stations at general elections and see the pencil on a bit of string and the plywood booth. I see no reason why one should not be given an electoral registration number at birth that can be activated at whatever age we decide people should be eligible to vote. At the moment that is 18 although, at some point, it may be reduced to 16. Instead of going to the clerk in the polling stations who has to thumb through a book, one's number and address would be fed into a computer terminal. It would then be easy to discover whether someone had been moving around. [Interruption.] My hon, Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) may laugh at that. Well, I may not have worked out all the nuts and bolts. No doubt, if he applies his considerable abilities, he will be able to make my inchoate scheme that much more efficient.
  However, it seems to be nonsense that people can lose the ability to vote because they have moved. There are postal votes and ways of referring back to constituencies, but those are obstacles in the way of exercising one's democratic right. We should remove as many of those obstacles as possible.
  My final point about my borough of Newham is that it looks as though we are going to lose a seat. We will live with that if that is the case. However, Newham at the moment has the fastest birth rate in the country. In view of what is going on, I am going to try to speed it up a little as soon as I leave the House tonight. I might also point out that Forest Gate also has the highest incidence of car theft in the country. It is now clear what they are all doing in the backs of those stolen cars on Wanstead flats. Jolly good luck to them. They must work a lot harder. The Minister should consider the fact that the population is growing in Newham and perhaps we should not lose one of our excellent Members of Parliament for that borough.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Four hon. Members hope to catch my eye and I understand that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.30 pm. With a little co-operation, I hope to be able to call all the hon. Members who wish to speak.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Robert Dunn: I will bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will confine myself to 10 minutes or less.
  I welcome the Bill, because it is wrong that the next election should be fought on boundaries that reflect population figures allocated and arrived at in 1976. To fight the next general election on boundaries which by then will be more than 20 years out of date is wrong and undemocratic.
  I rise at this late hour in an attempt to urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider his earlier remarks. In response to a question from one of my hon. Friends who asked whether the Government would consider setting up a boundary commission for the whole of the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary said that that would not be possible because it would require primary legislation. This Bill is primary legislation. The

  729
  position in the House, in the country and in the Conservative party has reached a point at which the over-representation of Scotland—and of Wales, to a lesser extent—cannot be sustained any longer.
  I understand the historical protocol and arguments that have applied in the past. On many occasions I have been reminded of the fact that the first prescription for seat numbers in Scotland arose from the Act of Union of 1707 which prescribed that the number of seats for Scotland should be 45. Over the centuries that followed, that figure has risen to more than 70.
  It is clear to everyone in the House that the English average of 69,000—plus is way above that in Scotland of more than 54,000. If we had a boundary commission for the United Kingdom as a whole, working perhaps to a figure of 65,000, we would still arrive at a figure of 650 Members of Parliament. That is the upper limit for representation to the House.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs which reported in 1987 got itself into a bit of a state with regard to the over-representation of Scotland and Wales. At paragraph 67 it stated:
  "The present rules allow for over-representation of Scotland and Wales, for reasons which have been considered sound in the past. But there has been no review of the statutory rules for some time."
  That is the precise point. The rules were "sound in the past". Earlier today, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he had some sympathy with what he believed were the legitimate demands of the Scottish and Welsh people for some form of government. He did not have time to develop the point about the kind of government, but he thought that it was right that they should have a form of devolution.
  If Wales and Scotland have a form of devolution and a greater say as nations over their affairs, it would clearly be wrong to sustain the level of over-representation as it is now. The Select Committee on Home Affairs went on to state in paragraph 67:
  "If … it is judged that Scotland and Wales should continue to receive special treatment to give them an effective voice in parliamentary affairs, there may still be a case for reducing the difference between the standards of representation of the different countries of the United Kingdom by making some modest changes in the number of seats."
  There is common agreement across the House that we do not want to continue to add to the number of hon. Members in the House, for good reasons which I will not go into now.
  On the one hand, there are special factors of sparsity, population, work-load and geographical distances which apply in some parts of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will confirm. However, such arguments cannot apply to Glasgow, where there are 11 seats ranging from 36,560 in 1992 for the seat of Glasgow, Provan to the dizzy heights of 57,223 for Glasgow, Hillhead. Clearly, there is no argument in Glasgow, Edinburgh or the central belt of Scotland for sustaining over-representation when a boundary commission could simply apply the United Kingdom average of 67,000 and thereby reduce the number of seats. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that point on board.
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dunn: I am confining myself to 10 minutes, I am afraid. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give way.
  There is a strong argument—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it—for a single boundary commission for the United Kingdom. Paragraph 20 of the Home Affairs Select Committee's 1987 report states:
  "Nevertheless we believe it ought to be explained that it would not be difficult technically to amend the Rules to achieve a uniform UK quota."
  Exactly so. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond and let us know why we cannot use this primary legislation to effect a boundary commission for the United Kingdom as a whole and put parliamentary representation on all fours across the whole of the United Kingdom.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: Lest there be any misunderstanding, of course I accept the need for regular reviews of constituency boundaries. It has never been disputed in the House that boundaries need to be reviewed. It is a totally illogical argument, and one which I certainly am not advancing, that the boundaries that were previously agreed should remain for years to come without review or revision at all.
  The concept of boundary changes and so on should be as politically impartial as possible and with full co-operation between the parties. I do not believe that the way in which the Government have acted brings about that objective. It is a desirable objective that the concept and operation of boundary reviews should be politically impartial. We learned from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that there has not been any approach from the Government to the Opposition, and I am not at all surprised that that is so.
  We may be considered on this side to be cynical about the exercise, but it is interesting to note that, almost as soon as the election was over, when the Government were re-elected with a much reduced overall majority, we read in the newspapers, perhaps two or three days after 9 April, that one of the first items that the Government were considering and would almost certainly put in the Queen's Speech was this Bill. The press concluded that the Government hoped to gain 10 to 20 seats. I may be cynical, as I have said, but I do not believe that the Bill would be before us if the Government were not of the view that some advantage was to be gained.
  If it is said that that is an unfortunate view to take of the Government and that they are motivated, as the Home Secretary said, by the best of intentions, I remind the House of what happened in the previous Parliament, when there was a Bill stating that people who were overseas for a long period should be given the vote. The Opposition Front Bench decided, in my view wrongly, to support the Government. Several of my hon. Friends and I voted against the Bill. If there is any regret, it is among those in my party who decided to support that measure. I saw no justification for it. Although there is undoubtedly a case that people who go abroad for short periods should continue to have the vote, that should not be done in the way that the Government decided at that time.
  We know the Government's record in local government—for example, the abolition of metropolitan county councils, and the Greater London council. Of course, they

  731
  were Labour-controlled. They were an irritant to the Government of the day and they were duly abolished. When one sees the matter in that context, it is perhaps more understandable why I have many misgivings about this Bill.
  I would much rather have had, before there was any Bill, a wide-ranging debate on various matters connected with the electoral process. Polling cards have been mentioned. During the election, I received several telephone calls from an area in my constituency. The Post Office had made an error. The polling cards did arrive on time, but the people were deeply concerned when they were late. They were obviously conscientious and wanted to vote. I contacted the Post Office, but I explained to the people concerned that they did not need to have a polling card. That is not generally understood and it is one factor that we should take into account.
  There is another, far more important factor, and that is the number of people—25 per cent. or more—who have never participated in the electoral process and do not vote in local or national elections. Of course the figure of non-voters is considerably higher in respect of local government elections. Is there a case for a form of compulsory voting, as in Australia? We have not had the opportunity to debate those matters and it is quite likely that we will not be able to do so in Committee.
  On population changes, of course it would be unfortunate if there was no review of boundaries over a long period. However, it is undesirable to change constituency boundaries too frequently, because people identify with their constituencies. Much more attention should be given—and would have been given if there had been a general debate on the subject before the Bill was produced.
  There should have been more time for consultation and for consideration of other matters. I am not satisfied that the Bill will provide sufficient time for consultation and public inquiries and for representations to be made, if the deadline of December 1994 is to be met.
  The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who has now left the Chamber, and several other hon. Members referred to what they considered to be the over-representation of Scotland and Wales. I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee which considered the matter. The Committee decided to make no recommendation for change. It is far more appropriate for Members of Parliament who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies to make the point, but this sensitive moment, especially for Scotland, where various matters are being debated, is not the time to suggest that those areas are over-represented.
  I can only conclude that the reason why Conservative Members raise what they believe to be the overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales is that those constituencies mainly vote Labour. Does anyone believe that if those constituencies voted Tory the comments that we have heard tonight would be made?
  I have given consideration to whether I should support the Bill by not seeking to divide the House. I feel uneasy in my mind, for the reasons that I have given and others—I could not deal with all of them for lack of time. I feel that the Bill has been introduced not in the interests of democracy, or to allow the review of boundaries which is obviously essential, but because the Government are determined to do whatever they can to obtain extra seats. They may turn out to be wrong and I hope that they will,
  732
  but they believe that they will gain extra seats. They are working on the assumption so widely reported in the press that there are seats to be gained and therefore they have introduced the Bill.
  As I feel so uneasy and believe that I was proved right with some of my hon. Friends on votes for people living overseas, I have come to the conclusion that it will be right to divide the House at 10 o'clock.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. John Butcher: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) implied that somehow something other than objectivity was involved either in the timing of the review or in the proposals which may or may not come forth from the boundary commission. The boundary commission is utterly objective. It works to its own timetable. It is independent. If my memory serves me correctly, the only Home Secretary since the second world war to have messed about subjectively with the process was a Labour Home Secretary in the 1970s, who deferred the proper period within which the boundary commission should report because he feared that the redistribution of electors between constituencies might work to the disadvantage of his party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said that, in the interests of objectivity, if there is greater devolution of power to Scotland—apparently that agenda is now open, but we have yet to learn whether it is—the quid pro quo is surely that there should be equality. That is all that we are saying. There should be equality, or as close as one can get to it, between the number of constituents per Member of Parliament in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  For the sake of argument, let us assume that there was not a Conservative victory at the last general election and that the right hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Walsall, North are therefore on the Government Bench. We should have been asked to contemplate the creation of regional councils—a sort of devolution for England. To justify the over-representation of Scotland, England would have had to be given its devolution as a fig leaf to protect that arrangement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) made an admirable maiden speech. He spoke with great conviction and style about the cohesion of local communities, the loyalty that one should have to the platoon as compared with the army, and the sense of loyalty to local communities. I endorse that strongly, because—here I declare a non-pecuniary interest—I am president of an organisation called the Association of British Counties, which is dedicated to the restoration wherever necessary of the traditional and historic counties of England and Wales. That is germane to the Bill and much has been said about the need for the boundary commission to be as faithful as possible to the loyalties of people who have a sense of belonging to their local communities.
  I am ashamed to say that in the 1970s, when a good deal happened which should not have happened, a Conservative Administration destroyed a number of ancient counties and went on to introduce aberrations which were much hated by people all over the country—the metropolitan county councils. Thank goodness the days of Humberside—whatever that is—appear to be

  733
  numbered, and the people of north Lincolnshire and the east riding of Yorkshire may have their counties back again. I hope that the rump of West Midlands metropolitan county council will also be destroyed soon.
  I also issue a plea for the redundancy of the lord lieutenant of West Midlands metropolitan county council. I believe that the lord lieutenant who goes into proud cities such as Birmingham should be the lord lieutenant of Warwickshire, while the one who goes into Wolverhampton and—dare I say it—Walsall should be the lord lieutenant of Staffordshire. Their heritage should be returned to them and, wherever possible, the boundary commissioner should ensure that his boundaries coincide with their ancient, historic counterparts.
  Choosing a county—entirely at random, of course—which should be restored to its former glory, I refer to Huntingdon. The same possibly applies to Rutland, and it certainly applies to Westmorland and Cumberland. Let us get rid of that awful thing called Avon and give the people of Somerset their identity back.
  All over the country there are old loyalties that should be respected. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State considers the guidance from the boundary commission, he will remind Sir John Banham that—working within the Department of the Environment, and reporting to it—another commission, the local government boundary commission, has already accepted guidelines to the effect that, if one-tier local government is introduced, the reform will be easier to accept if ancient loyalties are given full expression and ancient boundaries restored. The creation of Humberside may have made the acceptance of such a reform highly unlikely and very unpopular, but the restoration of the ancient county names will make a number of proposals for one-tier authorities very acceptable, provided that wherever possible the new boundaries are coterminous with the ancient county boundaries.
  My hon. Friend is faced with a comparatively easy task. He will merely apply fairness, helping to bring about a position that is as close as possible to equality of size in constituencies throughout the country. The boundary commission works to its own timetable, according to its own criteria and with its own sense of fairness. The best thing that the House can do is to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, in the knowledge that it may help us to solve other problems—not least in areas such as Scotland.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: I speak on behalf of the people of West Yorkshire, who could lose a parliamentary seat if the review is not carried out honestly and correctily. I am sure, however, that the arguments that the people will advance will justify the continued existence of the 23 constituencies in the area.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) referred to the historic counties. The West Riding county council was, indeed, such a historic county, but it was abolished by a Tory Minister. The people in the area will never forget that it was the Conservatives who abolished it. The quicker we reinstate the former West Riding county council the better.
  734
  The township of Ossett in my constituency will suffer again, if one West Yorkshire constituency is removed. In 1983, Ossett was moved from the Dewsbury constituency into the Normanton constituency. If the suggested revision takes place under this review, Ossett could be moved again, this time into the constituency of Morley and Leeds, South. It is unfair to shuffle communities about simply to make up numbers, without having regard to the impact on those communities. That is why I intervened in the Home Secretary's opening statement to ask whether the legislation allows sufficient time for consultation to obtain the views of local people.
  Clause 2 refers to the change of dates. It is against that background that I ask whether there is sufficient time for people to make the necessary observations on behalf of their communities. It is not just that Ossett was moved from Dewsbury into Normanton; part of it was moved into the Wakefield constituency to make up numbers. Communities are not only shuffled from one constituency to another; but they are divided to make up the numbers that the boundary commission requires of a constituency according to its formula.
  The boundary commission newsletter states:
  "The Commission announced the commencement of the general review of all parliamentary constituency boundaries throughout England on 21 January 1991. A report on the Commission's review must be submitted to the Home Secretary not earlier than 1 February 1993 and no later than 31 January 1998. It is too early to estimate when the report will be completed but it is unlikely to be before mid 1995."
  Yet the Bill provides that the report should be produced 12 months before the date which the commission says it will have difficulty meeting under existing legislation. Therefore, I put it to the Minister that the timetable is so tight that communities such as Ossett will not have an opportunity to consider the implications of further boundary changes to their constituencies.
  We are also told that local inquiries into such changes will last up to one week. Again, communities are denied the opportunity of time to present their case as to why their community should not be divided and shuffled from one constituency to another. It is appalling to limit the time for a first public inquiry to one week. There is also the question of the local government boundary commission and the problems that exist in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales is shuffling around the proposals for the boundaries of local authorities in Wales, which will have an effect on constituency boundaries.
  Are the Government being fair to people in constituencies by introducing the Bill in the apparent haste they are, given the details of its various clauses? At present, West Yorkshire has 23 constituencies. Under the proposals, theoretically, West Yorkshire would have 22.74 constituencies, given the number of people on the 1991 electoral register. If the theoretical number of constituencies is more than 22.5, West Yorkshire should retain its 23 seats.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Of course.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend accepts my argument. It is justifiable for West Yorkshire to plan to retain 23 seats. If the commission argues that the figure of 22.5 or 22.74, depending on how one looks at the statistics, is not sufficient to retain 23 seats, it should consider the projected electorate for 1996. As has already been said, we should also consider the proportion of the eligible adult population that is registered in constituencies so that the

  735
  number of eligible electors is equalised between constituencies. That would mean that the theoretical figures would take account of the projected electoral registers.
  The Secretary of State stated that he thought that 95 per cent. registration was a good figure. The Home Office may have told the boundary commission that 95 per cent. registration would be sufficient, but the addition of the unregistered 5 per cent. in West Yorkshire, which will have 22.74 theoretical constituencies, would justify the retention of 23 seats.
  The boundary commission must approach the revision of boundaries carefully. The Minister of State should consider its programme carefully. If local communities and interested bodies, including political parties, are not allowed to present their case to the commission, or if the right of appeal is so restricted that the ability of those groups to put their case is limited, the Government will not be acting in the best interests of the people in the constituencies affected. I am making a special plea for West Yorkshire because due allowance must be made in all circumstances for proven under-registration or anticipated growth in an area before a decision is taken to reduce the number of seats in a county.
  The Government and the boundary commission must allow time, because the haste with which the Bill has been introduced is not in the best interests of communities throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in West Yorkshire. I ask the Minister to give careful thought to what I have said on behalf of the people and communities in West Yorkshire.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I should mention the two maiden speeches today. The first was by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Sir Anthony Meyer. Opposition Members remember when Sir Anthony acted as stalking horse in 1989 and we certainly appreciated his efforts. Many Conservative Members also appreciated his efforts, but could not say so until the fall of their then leader. It is clear that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West will make many interesting speeches. His tone is more loyal than that of his predecessor. Having been a broadcaster at the BBC, he should have a word with some of his colleagues who believe that the BBC is populated with Trotskyites. Clearly, he at least has slipped through the net.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thompson) also made a powerful and effective speech although, unlike the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, his speech was controversial. Personally, I thoroughly approve of that and I am sure that we shall get to grips with some of the matters that he raised. Unfortunately, he is no longer in his place, but he will no doubt read these remarks in the morning.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said in opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition, it is unfortunate that the only measure on constitutional reform which the Government are likely to introduce is to bring forward the boundary commission review. From speeches made on both sides of the House, it is obvious that there is a significant and substantial interest in constitutional reform. Conservative
  736
  Members who have complained at length about the alleged over-representation of some parts of the United Kingdom and suggested possible constitutional change should be aware that there is no point in considering matters of constitutional change individually. If there is to be change, by all means let us discuss it. It is unfortunate that today's debate takes place only on a narrow principle—the undeniable question of population change and the necessity for a fresh boundary review to be set up.
  The principle of the Bill is that the population has changed and therefore the pattern of constituency representation must also change. No one would quarrel with that. Our quarrel will arise at a later stage when we discuss the detail of the Bill and the way in which the changes will be made. We are concerned not about the fact that the review is taking place but about the way it is likely to take place. Hon. Members will be aware that the Committee stage must be taken on the Floor of the House because of the nature of the Bill. I assure the Government that we shall seek to divide the House on a number of occasions unless they make the concessions and changes that we consider necessary. We are worried about the rules and guidelines under the 1986 Act and shall want to refer to those.
  Clause 2 deals with the period in which the boundary commission must review the matter. Initially, the period was three to seven years, which was rightly felt to be too short; it is now 10 to 15 years, and the Government propose that we should reconsider the matter every eight to 12 years.
  I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who pointed out that the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended against any change. It felt that a Member of Parliament should have a chance to establish a relationship with his constituency. Clearly, if constituency boundaries change regularly, the weight which many people put on the link between a constituency Member and the constituency will be undermined. All those who back our present electoral system and rely heavily on that link should think deeply and at length about the advantages of letting a constituency run for, say, three Parliaments rather than changing it every Parliament or every second Parliament. Sometimes changes are radical, and if a link is to exist the seat should remain in existence for up to three Parliaments. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, we favour a fixed term for the review, which would avoid some of the allegations of gerrymandering because the Government could do nothing much about implementing the changes. We think that a 12-year period would be appropriate.
  Much of the debate has turned on the alleged discrepancy between the size of constituencies. In England, they range from 42,000 in Surbiton to more than 100,000 in the Isle of Wight. In Scotland, the Western Isles constituency has 23,000 electors and the Gordon constituency 80,000. That shows that there are discrepancies in England and Scotland, just as there are in Wales and Northern Ireland, as has also been pointed out. Discrepancies are inevitable, but they are not confined to one country of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said that in London there are a number of small constituencies. If anomalies are to be ironed out, that should also be looked at.

  737
  While the weight of a vote is important, it is not everything. It would be possible to construct constituencies which were, as near as may be, exactly the same size, but I am sure that every one of us in the House, and every political party in the country, would say that some regard has to be paid to community ties and identifiable areas. I know that, whenever an inquiry takes place, that is what it turns on, not on the numbers. Hon. Members and parties argue fiercely about which ward should be in which constituency because of community ties. Often, community ties are related to the political complexion of the area. Sometimes it is not always clear what the community tie is, and political colour is a far greater tie than any more obvious link that someone who is not biased might think important.
  The constituencies of Members of the European Parliament are so large that any idea of community is meaningless. There should always be an identifiable link with a city or a town. It is unfortunate that, in the last review, the boundary commission was prepared to split towns and communities for reasons that were not altogether clear. Most of us believe that community ties are worth considerable weight and I hope that the boundary commission will have some regard to that. I am sorry that the Government did not take the opportunity to make that clear in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Westminster, North said that in London dealing with one council gave the advantage of social cohesion, and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) agreed. That is fine, but why not elsewhere in the United Kingdom? If it is good enough for London, it is good enough for other parts of the country.
  Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman is right, but there is an important difference in that London has a one-tier local authority system, which other parts of the country do not necessarily have.
  Mr. Darling: That is true. However, under clause 3, the Government invite the commission to take account of any future changes that are more likely to result in single tiers. Most urban parts of England also have single-tier local government, so the same argument would obtain in Birmingham or Manchester. I am not sure about the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make.
  Mr. Rooker: In urban areas, boundaries are crossed in five of the seven metropolitan districts. That means that boundaries in London could also be crossed, because it does not cause a problem of representation.
  Mr. Darling: That is so. For the benefit of some of my hon. Friends I should make the point that, when looking for ways in which the boundary commission can be influenced—sometimes it may wish to influence itself—they should have a look at rules 4, 5 and 6 in the 1986 Act. Those rules allow the boundary commission to exercise discretion or influence to be brought to bear making a large difference to the political complexion of the seat. Rule 6, which allows the boundary commission to take account of special geographical considerations—size, shape and accessibility of the constituency—seems to give the commission considerable leeway. We ought to look into that. The guidelines and the way in which the
  738
  boundary commission conducts itself are of far greater importance than whether the review takes place in 1994 or any other year.
  I can never be sure whether Back-Bench Conservative Members who talk about Scotland do so on their own account or whether they have been given a nod and a wink by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will let us know shortly. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to people of Scottish and Welsh descent living in English constituencies. That is not the point, which is that the United Kingdom is made up of four separate nations which have come together. Many people value the links between them and want them to continue, although many of us think that the government of this country is in desperate need of improvement.
  Scotland is a nation and the argument runs that it should have a large degee of self-government, albeit within the United Kingdom. This is not a narrow nationalist point to do with whether Scots men and women should be governed by Scots men and women. The Home Secretary said that it would be taken amiss if the Government reduced the number of Scottish seats. That was something of an understatement. It would certainly undermine the claims of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are running around Scotland saying that the Conservatives care deeply about Scotland.
  I hope that many people in Scotland will listen to what has been said in this debate. Whatever the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State may say, many Conservative Back Benchers take a different view of Scotland. It is interesting that no Scottish Tory Back Bencher has spoken in support of the proposition that his representation should be reduced. Unless there are to be major constitutional changes hitherto not envisaged, I see no argument for changing the balance as between parliamentary seats in the United Kingdom.
  The difficulties in some parts of Scotland have been mentioned. Ross, Cromarty and Skye is small numerically, but it has the largest geographical area of any constituency. To bring the numbers there up to the quota of 68,000, it would be necessary to create a constituency so large that the relevant Member would have difficulty getting around it once in 10 years, let alone once a Parliament.
  The opposite applies to the Isle of Wight. There is obviously a good reason to have one Member representing one island with an identifiable sense of community—yet an electorate of 101,000 is way above what would be acceptable in mainland England.
  The number of Scottish Members has remained fairly static—from 71, it has become 72—but the number of Members representing English seats has increased as the total has risen from 613 to 651. There are clearly imbalances within England as well as between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  If the Government intend to make further constitutional changes to the relationship between Scotland and Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, perhaps the Minister will tell us what they are. I understand the Prime Minister to have been saying in Scotland that no changes of substance are planned, so I hope that he will repudiate the views of Tory Back Benchers who want to reduce Scottish representation.
  Clause 3 causes us some concern. The press release that heralded the Bill did not refer to it. I refer in particular to the proposal that

  739
  "nothing in this subsection shall prevent a Boundary Commission publishing proposed recommendations which take account of boundaries which are not in operation at the time of publication."
  I should like to know what that means. Does it mean that such boundaries have to be in existence somewhere but not in operation? Will it be open to interest groups to argue that the Government have perhaps proposed local government boundary changes that the boundary commission ought to take into consideration?
  In the next few years, the pattern that the Government have in mind for England and possibly for Scotland will become clear. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is to be believed, just about every village, parish and collection of houses that wants a local government boundary will get one. Will it be open to those making submissions to the boundary commission to argue for substantially different boundaries?
  Part of clause 3 is far too widely drawn and I suspect that the Government will use that to try to urge the commission to get further than it otherwise would in drawing up boundary changes which will benefit the Conservative party. If the Government do not amend and tighten that definition, we shall certainly vote against the clause in Committee. What will happen to areas that the commission has already dealt with? Can they be revised in the light of clause 3 if a different pattern is urged?
  Some of my hon. Friends rightly expressed concern about under-registration. It is clear that many people over the age of 18 are not on the electoral register. In my constituency, some people on the poll tax register who have paid their poll tax are not on the electoral register and they have every right to feel aggrieved. Not only is the electoral register out of date, but the figures that we shall soon have are also likely to be inaccurate because of the poll tax.
  I warn the Government about the difficulties that will be caused for people who are pushed off the electoral register, sometimes through no fault of their own, and for people who have excluded themselves from the political process. The poll tax and those who supported it have much to answer for. It is extremely dangerous for the political process when more and more people—
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, because the Minister is becoming restive—I promised him 20 minutes and he is already down to 19.
  The Government should have regard to the fact that many people are not on the electoral register. If the boundary recommendations are to have any real meaning, the commission must have regard to proven under-registration. If it does not attend to that, the changes will be made on a false basis and people will be excluded from the process. No Government can ignore that.
  The remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about efforts to get people on the register should be taken on board. There has been a complete lack of television advertising on that matter. When the Government propose to privatise public assets, a great deal is spent telling people about the opportunities which may arise to acquire shares at knockdown prices. The same effort should be put into
  740
  urging people to put their names on the electoral register. Perhaps we could hear more about that because, so far, the Government's efforts have been lamentable.
  We shall not divide the House on the principles of the Bill, but many aspects of the workings of the Bill and of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to which we shall return when we deal with the matter in Committee, are causing concern. We shall divide the House on those matters because we strongly believe that the Government are simply letting matters drift and are not attending to real and substantial issues which should worry anyone interested in parliamentary democracy.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): As my time is even shorter than I expected, I shall start by picking out the highlights of the debate and saying how much the House enjoyed the two maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) paid a well-merited tribute to his predecessor, Sir Anthony Meyer, who is well remembered with great regard for his strong and sincere conviction which, when he felt it necessary, brought him into high-profile collision with his party. I dare say that the Whips are wondering how far my hon. Friend will follow his predecessor's example. Plainly, he can speak well and has an attractive constituency and a strong grasp of local issues. The House looks forward to hearing him again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) also made an excellent maiden speech. He, too, paid a well-earned tribute to his predecessor, Hal Miller, who was well liked and listened to in the House, and it became plain from my hon. Friend's speech that that was the position in Bromsgrove, too. Hal Miller was an authority on the motor industry, in which he now holds a key position. He spoke on it with great effect. His successor, my hon. Friend, also spoke with great authority as befits a former chairman of the Association of District Councils and leader of Bournemouth city council. The House will look forward to hearing from him again.
  I have listened to all but half an hour of the debate. Alas, I missed the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). I missed also the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who I know takes a thoughtful and constructive interest in these matters. I shall read the speeches of my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman, with profit no doubt, in Hansard.
  Some strongly held views have been expressed during the debate. That is not surprising, as every hon. Member has a direct and personal interest in any measure that might affect the size and shape, if not the very existence, of his or her constituency at the next general election. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones).
  Similarly, it is not surprising that the debate has ranged widely and at times has been more concerned with what is not in the Bill than with what is, but it has been sensible and constructive throughout.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, the scope of the Bill is modest and confined. It has only five clauses, two of which deal with the title and financial provisions.

  741
  The other three clauses do four main things. First, they require the current boundary commissions to report by the end of 1994, nearly 12 years after the commissions last reported in 1983.
  Secondly, the shortened time scale will be aplied to future reviews. There is the requirement to report not sooner than eight years and not later than 12 years, compared with the present minimum of 10 years and maximum of 15 years. It is plain, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, and as many of my hon. Friends reiterated and amplified during the debate, that 15 years is too long if constituencies are to be kept at a reasonably equal size.
  In England, constituency sizes range from 42,000 electors to more than 90,000. In Wales they range from 32,000 to more than 70,000 and in Scotland from 23,000 to 78,000. These ranges are not acceptable, although they are not surprising, as the boundaries on which the registers were based were, in England and Wales, those in force in 1976, 16 years ago, since when many millions have moved home. We have a geographically mobile society and registers that are so out of date are not a proper basis for the current distribution of constituencies.
  It has been a welcome feature of the debate that Opposition Members have not sought to argue that the 1976 registers are an adequate basis for constituency boundaries for the next election, even though some fear that the likely reduction in the number of seats in the old urban areas from which voters have moved and the likely increase in the number of seats in the shire counties which have seen growth in population may not be to their party's advantage. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was wise to say that no one should make any hard and fast assumptions of gain and loss as a result of the changes in any election to come.
  Several hon. Members on both sides of the House want to change the rules under which the boundary commissions operate. The commissions must have regard to the balance of population, social and geographical considerations and the significance of county and, particularly, London borough boundaries. There may or may not be a case for examining these matters and other aspects of the rules, although I must say that they have served well to date. Many people are disappointed by boundary commission proposals, but few argue with any persuasive conviction that they are partisan or unreasonable, or that it is not possible to make effective representations on provisional proposals and, often, to get them changed.
  I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that the timetable and the additional resources that are being made available are intended to allow representations to be made, to be heard and to be acted upon.
  Although there may be a case for reconsidering some of the rules, now is certainly not the time to do so. If we were to change them in this round, the English Boundary Commission, which began work last year under the current rules and which has already reported on more than one third of the English counties, would have to start again under the new rules. That would also be so for the Scottish Boundary Commission, which started work at the beginning of this year. That would effectively mean no
  742
  boundary changes before 1997–98—an eventuality which might be devoutly wished by some Labour Members. Nevertheless, we shall carefully consider the serious suggestions for rule changes made during the debate, or which might be made in the House or elsewhere at a later stage. I would not rule out putting any of those suggestions into effect for the next round of reviews, especially if they should commend themselves across the political spectrum.
  Rather more insistently, many Labour Members—notably the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—complained that the 1991 register, which is the reference point for the English, Scottish and Welsh boundary commissions, is insufficiently accurate to form an acceptable base for redistribution. I have some sympathy with that view. Just as I believe that constituency boundaries should not be allowed to become too out of date, so I believe that registers should be as up to date and as complete as possible.
  From the estimates available, it appears that the 1976 register, which formed the basis for the last reorganisation in England and Wales, contained 97 per cent. of the eligible population and that by 1991 that figure had fallen to 95.5 per cent. We shall know better whether there has been such a fall when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has completed its work later this year. We may find that there has been no such fall or that any fall has been larger than estimated, but we shall discuss with local authorities and interested organisations, including political parties, how to ensure the maximum practical accuracy of registers.
  In so far as that is the objective of Labour Members, there is no difference between us, but I do not accept the claim of some of them that the 1991 shortfall is wholly the result of the community charge and that it all works to the disadvantage of the Labour party. The timing of the estimated falls in proportions registered in England, Scotland and Wales does not bear out the proposition that the community charge was the only factor—and it does not necessarily demonstrate that it was the key factor. Although I accept that people sought to evade community charge payment by staying off the register, some electoral registration officers—notably in Leeds—used the community charge registers to improve the accuracy of their electoral registers.
  Whatever the net effect of the community charge on registrations—and if I may confront the issue of raw party political advantage that lies below the surface and which, in parts of the debate, occasionally appeared above it—I suspect that the use of the 1991 register, with its estimated 95.5 per cent. accuracy in England and Wales and its 96.5 per cent. accuracy in Scotland, will be more favourable to the Labour party than anything more accurate or up to date. I say that quite simply because there is movement out of old urban areas—the old Labour heartlands—and that very process means that by the February, when a register comes into effect, a proportion of those on it will by then have moved away. That will have been compounded in some places where the practice has been to leave names on the register for a year or two, even though those people have not returned the registration form.
  At any one time, therefore, areas that are losing population will have registers that tend to overstate the current number of electors. Contrarywise, those areas where the population is growing will always have registers that understate their adult eligible population. During the general election campaign, my hon. Friends with

  743
  expanding constituencies will have been faced with frustrated citizens, newly moved to their area and not on the electoral register, who were angry that they were unable to vote. After the last reorganisation, many of my hon. Friends will have had the experience that, by the time their new boundaries came into effect, their electorate was again well above the quota.
  As the English and Scottish commissioners have already started work on the basis of the 1991 register, it will not be practicable for the Government to accept an amendment on that point. That, I know, will be deeply disappointing to those of my hon. Friends who see great advantage in basing reorganisation on more fully accurate and up-to-date registers. For that same reason, if Opposition Members think carefully about it, they ought to be somewhat relieved that there is no question of changing the rules at this stage and opting for a later and more complete register. They have argued strenuously that they want a register that better reflects the number of eligible residents in each constituency. If I were to say that I could see a way of obliging them, I am certain that they would begin to have some doubts about a move in that direction being provided for in this Bill.
  I said that there were four elements in the Bill. I have dealt with two of them. I intend not to deal with the others so that I can refer to points that were made in the debate. As I have already implied, the constructive approach of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central is welcome. Both are concerned about clause 3, in particular about the way that the commissions would be able to take into account local government boundary changes not yet in force when making their provisional recommendations. That is a Committee point, but I ought to emphasise that, apart from Wales, the commission can have regard in its final proposals only to boundaries in force at the time that it makes its report. The flexibility in the Bill is designed to ensure that boundaries are as up to date as possible. I shall check the clarity and scope of the wording and see that it is helpful rather than confusing. I believe that it will be found to be extremely helpful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) is concerned about the steadily growing size of the House. There were 625 Members in 1950. There are 651 Members in 1992. I know that the Select Committee discussed this matter some years ago. Its proposed solution—a fixed divisor—would, I believe, result in some real problems, but the issue needs to be tackled. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his party may be prepared to discuss it seriously at some stage. The right hon. Gentleman has already offered to discuss seriously detailed reforms that might be made to the constitutional arrangements.
  As for bringing the average size of electorates in English constituencies and those in Wales and Scotland into line, the differences are of very long standing and have wide implications for the structure and constitution of the United Kingdom, which should not be confused with the contents of this limited and practical Bill. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) dealt very well with the complexities of any consideration of this issue from the perspective of Northern Ireland. I believe that some of my hon. Friends could usefully read what he said.
  This is a small but important Bill. It naturally evokes interest from every hon. Member. It will make our constituencies more equal—which, judging from the
  744
  debate, is in the interests of all hon. Members. Nobody argued against the Bill, so I hope that we shall have the united support of the House for giving it a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 44.

  Division No. 31]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Ancram, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Elletson, Harold

  Ashby, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Faber, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fry, Peter

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garnier, Edward

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butler, Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heald, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

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

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  745

  Hunter, Andrew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Jack, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Needham, Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Nelson, Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Norris, Steve

  Key, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ottaway, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Page, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Paice, James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Pawsey, James

  Knox, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Pickles, Eric

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  porter, David (Waveney)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Richards, Rod

  Leigh, Edward

  Riddick, Graham

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lightbown, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Lord, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Luff, Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sackville, Tom

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Maclean, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Sims, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marlow, Tony

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Merchant, Piers

  Sproat, Iain

  Milligan, Stephen

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mills, Iain

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Stern, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Allan

  746

  Streeter, Gary

  Waller, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sykes, John

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomason, Roy

  Whittingdale, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wilshire, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trimble, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Yeo, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walden, George

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Bayley, Hugh

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Caborn, Richard

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Callaghan, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Mahon, Alice

  Clapham, Michael

  Milburn, Alan

  Cryer, Bob

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Gordon, Mildred

  Olner, William

  Hall, Mike

  Parry, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Harvey, Nick

  Pickthall, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Hutton, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Mr. David Alton and

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. David Winnick.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Boundary Commissions Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Boundary Commission Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: It is, of course, an important means of holding the Government to account to use the 45 minutes allocated to money resolutions. Although it is not a widespread activity, it is important.
  Under the terms of the money resolution, £1.5 million is allocated to the legislation. That is a significant sum of money. The Home Secretary should explain how the money is to be allocated.
  Under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill", we read the total cost of the Bill spread over three years. Under the heading "Effect of the Bill on Public Service Manpower", we find that 15 additional extra staff will be required. So clearly, some of the money will be allocated to employing extra staff. Yet there are more important priorities to which extra civil service staff should be allocated. I have received complaints about the long delays in dealing with applications for mobility allowance and attendance allowance. I should have thought that, rather than speeding the passage and application of the Bill, the £1.5 million could be spent in better ways.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will outline whether any provision has been made for assistance to local authorities either to update registers or to provide information to the boundary commission. When the boundary commission sits and seeks information, local authorities have an obligation to provide papers. Of course, that is a cost on the local authority. Local authorities are extremely short of money at present. I wonder whether the Government have allocated any part of the £1.5 million for that purpose.
  It would have been far and away better to allocate the £1.5 million, or a proportion of it, to a Speaker's Conference. It would have been much cheaper to consult all the parties than to rush ahead with the £1.5 million to facilitate what is widely regarded outside as gerrymandering.
  I recall the amount of money that was spent in 1983. The Secretary of State must recognise that the money resolution makes provision for any expenditure that is consequential on the passage of the Bill. The Bill will be put into effect by a large number of orders. I wonder whether the £1.5 million covers consultation on the orders and their printing and distribution. There will be one order for each new constituency. That is 651 orders. Will that cost be covered by the £1.5 million or is that an ordinary cost borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in any event?
  Before the Minister starts uttering high-flown platitudes about objectivity and improving democracy and says that the cost is small in relation to the cost of improving democracy, let me remind him of what happened in 1983. That impinges on the cost. When the orders went before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Tory Whips told all the Tories on the Committee that they should not dare to vote against the
  748
  orders but merely to seek information from the relevant Department. The Committee is supposed to be one of the famed, impartial, objective Committees of the House. It is bound to seek information if it is to make a report to the House. The Tory Whips told the Tory members of that impartial Committee, "There will be no overseas trips for any of you lot." That is what happened.
  Mr. David Harris: Ridiculous.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman says that that is ridiculous. The Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box that the Bill has nothing to do with party advantage and that it is some sort of democratic improvement.
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: Prove it.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) is shouting from outside the Chamber in a crude and inaccurate way and also illegally, because he is not supposed to speak from there. I seek to cut through all the platitudes and rhetoric. We know that £1.5 million is being spent to give the Tories the maximum electoral advantage. The support given to the Bill by Tory Members suggests that that is absolutely true. We have now pushed aside the tissue of hypocrisy woven by Ministers; we are now down to the nitty-gritty. An amendment should be tabled in Committee, proposing the inclusion of the £1.5 million in Tory candidates' election expenses. That should disqualify the lot of them.
  10.20 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): That speech was delivered with great passion, but most of it had little to do with the money resolution. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) greatly cheered the majority who voted for the Bill by assuring us that it would add to the number of Conservative seats in the next Parliament, but that proposition was denied even by those on his party's Front Bench; that is why our majority was so large.
  Half a million pounds a year is required to finance the payment of the deputy commissioners, 15 additional staff and some computer equipment. It plainly would not have made sense for the House to give a Second Reading to such a straightforward, almost uncontroversial Bill passed by such a huge majority, and then deny it a money resolution. As ever, the hon. Member for Bradford, South is paddling his own canoe, but he is paddling it fairly purposelessly this evening.
  Question put,
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 26.

  Division No. 32]

  [10.20 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ancram, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Ashby, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  749

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Harris, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Bright, Graham

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Burns, Simon

  Hendry, Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Hicks, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Butler, Peter

  Horam, John

  Butterfill, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cash, William

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Coe, Sebastian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Congdon, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Key, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Cran, James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knox, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dover, Den

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Leigh, Edward

  Eggar, Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Elletson, Harold

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lord, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Luff, Peter

  Faber, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  Madel, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Forth, Eric

  Malone, Gerald

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marlow, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fry, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gallie, Phil

  Merchant, Piers

  Garnier, Edward

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Roger

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  750

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Allan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Streeter, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Paice, James

  Sykes, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Richards, Rod

  Tredinnick, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trend, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Robathan, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waller, Gary

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Watts, John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Tom

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Sims, Roger

  Wilshire, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wood, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sproat, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Stephen, Michael

  Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Stern, Michael

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Caborn, Richard

  McCartney, Ian

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mahon, Alice

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Parry, Robert

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Patchett, Terry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hall, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Tipping, Paddy

  Hutton, John

  Winnick, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Boundary Commissions Bill ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the first three motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

    LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.
    That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    NATIONAL CURRICULUM
    That the draft Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 28th February, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. David Davis.]
    Question agreed to.

  Student Unions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I am pleased to have the Adjournment debate but I am a little surprised, if not dismayed, that it is necessary at all, because I remember urging the Government to abolish the student union closed shop in a debate in March 1988. A number of my hon. Friends spoke in that debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who is also present tonight. At that time, an early-day motion calling for its abolition attracted more than 200 signatures.
  Since that debate, Education Ministers have expressed support for the abolition of that closed shop, but nothing has been done. I believe that the time for action has now arrived. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education to the Front Bench in the expectation that he will be the man who grasps the nettle.
  It should be noted how many of my hon. Friends are in the Chamber to hear this debate. They may have come to listen to the brilliant oratory of my hon. Friend the Minister, or even to hear my brilliant oratory, but that is unlikely. It is probably because of the strength of feeling within the Conservative party, which is also reflected outside the party.
  The student unions closed shop is the last great remaining closed shop in this country. Every individual who wishes to study at university, polytechnic or college must belong to the student union of the institution which he or she chooses. It is indefensible that there is no choice. In eastern Europe, the compulsory, communist state-run student organisations are being closed down and replaced by independent student unions organised on a voluntary basis. Ironically, Britain is being left behind in that matter.
  The Government must now give students the freedom to choose for themselves whether they wish to belong to student unions and the National Union of Students. It is simply a question of choice. The Government have extended choice to millions of our citizens in a whole host of ways, not least by effectively abolishing the trade union closed shop. The abolition of the student unions closed shop would therefore fit in perfectly with the Government's philosophy.
  I warmly welcome yesterday's report in The Sunday Times, which suggests that the Government intend to make membership of the NUS voluntary. However, that would tackle only half the problem because, in practice, there is a double closed shop. At present, all students belong to their individual institution's student union and 97 per cent. of all student unions are affiliated to the NUS, which means that most students are automatically members of the NUS.
  I read in this morning's Daily Mail that the current NUS president, Mr. Stephen Twigg, said that the vast majority of students are in the NUS by choice. That is laughable and suggests that the NUS is well out of touch with ordinary students. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take on board the fact that the double closed shop can be abolished only by making membership of each student union voluntary.

  753
  Examples of abuse by the NUS and individual student unions are innumerable and give impetus to the case for reform. Lancaster University Conservative Association was recently fined £400 for having the temerity to suggest that the student union should be radically reformed to benefit all students, not just groups peddling minority issues.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The vast majority of students at Lancaster university are thoroughly sound and sensible. They go on to get excellent jobs, and the university is one of the finest in the country. There is just a small core of left wingers who have taken over the union, often standing as independents, which they are not. The vast majority of students would welcome affiliation and voluntary membership.
  Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings considerable knowledge to the debate. That example proves that a small number of left-wing activists give students as a whole a bad name.
  Universities, including Nottingham and Bath, have banned Nestlé products due to Nestlé's alleged practices concerning baby milk in the third world. In 1990, the Polytechnic South-West sabbatical officers and other union executive members expressed support for the IRA, both in the students' magazine and at a meeting. It is fair to say that, over the years, the NUS's position on terrorism has given succour and comfort to the IRA because of its unwillingness to condemn the IRA outright.
  When Nicaragua had a left-wing Government—there are not many of them left—many student unions insisted that only Nicaraguan coffee should be offered in their cafeterias. Not only did this deny students choice, but the coffee tasted lousy.
  There are several hundred student sabbatical officers—in effect, a taxpayer-funded army of political activists, predominantly of the left. A vice-president of the Oxford university students union who attended a recent conference in Blackpool was quoted in his student newspaper as saying:
  "There is no future for the NUS, it has had its day. The delegates were like little kids, idiots."
  The Labour party's relationship with the NUS is worth examining. Let me give the House an example. Tom Franklin, a Labour party official, gave instructions to the Labour-controlled NUS on how to organise the emergency conference last March. He asked the NUS to get pro-Labour student unions to send delegates who would support the official NUS line. He said:
  "Ask them how they are going to elect the Delegation; remind them that it doesn't have to be by cross-Campus Ballot."
  So much for Labour's new-found interest in ballots based on one man, one vote.
  The secretary of the National Organisation of Labour Students defended the Labour party and said:
  "There is nothing wrong with this. Tom and I worked closely with the NEC of the NUS. We help them get elected. We expect them to do something in return for us."
  The NUS tried to deliver for the Labour party by targeting 70 marginal Labour seats during the general election campaign. It would appear that the Labour party has been manipulating the NUS for its own political ends.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the real corruption of student unions comes from the fact that the number required for a quorum is extremely small? In a students union society down the road, where there are 6,000 or 7,000 students, it is only 50. That is how they get through all sorts of unwanted, undesirable and wrong resolutions and other motions.
  Mr. Riddick: What my hon. Friend says is true, and it shows that this whole situation is rotten to the core and ready for reform. In the past, we have been told that reform of campus student unions has not been forthcoming because of the difficulties and complexities involved. I have no doubt that these could be overcome. We should not allow an unholy alliance of vice-chancellors and the institutions they represent, officials at the Department of Education and the NUS to thwart reform.
  Only today, I learned that Bradford university does not allow students to be registered to use the library unless they can produce NUS membership cards on registering. This is a disgrace. I hope that the university, which is in my region of West Yorkshire, will reverse that practice immediately.
  At that moment, money for student union membership is passed directly as a block grant from the local education authorities to the institutions and then on to the student unions. The student never sees his contribution, and often is not even aware that his money has been passed over to the student union. This is not the way to encourage accountability. Each union has a guaranteed income without the need to attract a customer for its services.
  The services that student unions offer could be organised in a number of ways. Part of the money that goes directly to the unions should be passed to students so that they could chose for themselves which societies to join, and whether they join the student union. That maximises choice. That is what it is all about.
  The rest of the money should be handed to the universities and colleges, which in turn should be responsible for the provision and funding of welfare and sports activities. Other facilities, such as bars, shops and cafeterias, should be run on a commercial basis. That might involve franchising or contracting out the provision of the services. Some universities might want to set up a campus enterprise board to administer them.
  Student magazines and newspapers could also be run commercially. I do not believe that there is any need to set out a tight prescriptive formula on how all these services should be provided. Each institution should have a great deal of flexibility, as long as the scope for abuse is minimised.
  I am convinced that it is not beyond the wit of man to find an alternative way of providing and financing the services that student unions operate, at the same time as introducing voluntary membership of those unions.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that this debate is not about banning student unions or the NUS? If they provide the services that students wanted, the students will voluntarily use their funds to join them—but at the moment they have no choice.
  Mr. Riddick: That is a powerful point. We are talking about choice. We simply want to allow students to make up their own minds on how money is spent and on what is done in their name. If the NUS is such a fine organistion

  755
  —that is questionable—it will have no difficulty in attracting thousands of students to join it. That goes for the student unions too.
  Politicised student unions misusing public money have had their day. On 12 November last year, a Times leader thundered:
  "A new statute is needed to enshrine the voluntary principal in British student representations, difficult as the Government has found that in the past, but a worthy task for the next Parliament."
  We are the next Parliament—
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend has so far not mentioned the UN declaration on human rights, which is highly relevant and all about the right to associate or not to associate. We must give students that human right, just as we have given it to other union members over the past few years.
  Mr. Riddick: I am pleased that I gave way; my hon. Friend has added a new dimension to the debate.
  It is significant that so many hon. Members are here in the House late at night to listen to an Adjournment debate. Such debates are not usually well attended—a Member is luckly if more than four others turn up. That shows the depth of feeling—
  Mr. James Pawsey: Among Conservative Members at least.
  Mr. Richard Caborn rose—
  Mr. Riddick: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I do not have enough time.
  Mr. Caborn: Give way!
  Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have only half an hour—
  Mr. Caborn: rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that if the hon. Member who has the Floor, especially in an Adjournment debate, does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Riddick: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I had more time, I would happily give way, but I am coming to the end of my speech, and I want to encourage one of my hon. Friends to speak as well.
  A poll carried out in February 1990 showed that more than 80 per cent. of students believed that students should have the right to join or not to join their student union. I agree. Here is a chance to strike a major blow for choice and freedom. The time is ripe, and I hope that the Minister will grasp this opportunity.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I had not intended to speak in this short debate, on which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). However, I was intrigued by a statement attributed to a Ms. Laura Matthews, a spokeswomen for the National Union of Students, who, according to a report in a newspaper today, said:
  "We are not a closed shop because students choose to belong to the union."
  That is not the case at all. People choose to become students, but they must not automatically be obliged to belong to a closed shop students union. The Conservative
  756
  Government have abolished vested interests and monopoly power at all levels in the trade unions and local government, and I abolished the Inner London education authority. This issue is a raw nerve for the Opposition parties, which have behaved so badly in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley should be congratulated by the House on his determination in putting his case. I hope for a good reply from the Minister.
  10.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for drawing this important subject to the attention of the House and for putting his case in such a characteristically forceful way. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his pulling power in such debates. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for their supportive speeches.
  I am glad to have this opportunity to debate the issues. I have listened carefully to the debate and assure my hon. Friends that I take the matter seriously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has also shared with me his deep concern about the issues of personal freedom that are involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley rightly said, this is simply a question of choice.
  As the House knows, we have already taken action to deal with the abuses of freedom of speech and the misuse of public funds. Under the Education Act 1986, institutions must take steps to ensure freedom of speech within the law, and must establish codes of practice for this purpose. Students who feel that there is a bias or discrimination against a student society or individual may appeal to their institutions for redress. However, the National Union of Students is not subject of the same obligations and is stil able to urge its members to adopt "no platform" policies. I deplore that and I intend to consider it very carefully.
  We have also acted on the use of public funds. The Attorney-General issued guidance in 1983 which provides detailed information on how campus unions with charitable status may use public funds. His office is able to intervene where there is a possibility that these guidelines will be breached. There have also been instances when irregular expenditure has been successfully challenged in the courts.
  Although those measures have proved beneficial in cutting the scale of abuse, there have been continuing expressions of concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley gave further examples. That is why my predecessor—my hon. Friend, the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—initiated consultations on student union matters with representatives of student interests and higher education institutions throughout the United Kingdom.
  The issues raised in the consultation covered three main points: first, whether membership of campus unions, and hence indirectly association with the NUS, should remain compulsory; secondly, how freedom of speech on campuses can be guaranteed; and thirdly, how the proper

  757
  use of public funds by campus unions and the NUS can be ensured. These are not simple issues, and that is why the Government are taking time to consider them thoroughly.
  In essence, there is here a conflict of principles. At present, students have no choice over whether to join their campus union. It is almost impossible for them to leave the union if they do not agree with its actions. That contravenes a basis democratic principle, that membership of such organisations should be voluntary. I have great sympathy with students who do not wish to belong to an organisation which they feel does not represent their views.
  In other words, there are ways in which campus unions are a form of closed shop, as my right hon. Friend said over the weekend. However, there are differences as well. Campus unions are not pre-entry closed shops in the usual sense of the term. Unlike a trade union closed shop, a campus union exercises no control over which students may join the educational institution concerned, although anyone joining the educational institution is automatically made a member of the campus union. Membership of the NUS, too, differs from a closed shop arrangement, in that campus unions vote on whether or not to affiliate.
  Herein lies the difficulty. I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley that full-time and sandwich students have no choice over whether to join the union.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Minister confirm that there is one other major difference between a closed shop in a trade union and membership of a student union, which is that membership of a student union imposes no obligation or loss of rights on individuals? It merely gives them rights that they are free to exercise or not in terms of the use of services.
  Mr. Forman: I cannot accept that argument. The voluntary principle is not preserved when students are automatically joined to the campus union. Even though they have the possibility of voting technically to affiliate subsequently through their campus unions to the NUS, the initial decision to be in the campus union is not for them. That was the central point to which my hon. Friend was speaking.
  On the other hand, in a free society it is of course reasonable for students to have a body which can represent their interests. The principle of freedom of association would suggest that students should have the right to join together to form an organisation to undertake the functions they feel necessary to meet their legitimate needs. The difficulties arise when a small minority of politically motivated students use campus unions as a platform for their opinions and exploit compulsory membership for their own ends.
  The use of public funds is another factor to be considered. The campus unions and the NUS are private associations, yet their funds originate largely from the public purse. I say "largely" because private funds are also involved. As my hon. Friend knows, and as he said, the
  758
  campus unions are funded by block grant from their parent institutions. The funds out of which the institutions pay grant comes from a variety of sources. They come from the public purse in the form of funding council grant and tuition fees paid on students' behalf by local education authorities. The institutions also receive public funds in the form of research council grants.
  But their income also derives in part from private sources: industrial research contracts, for example, fees paid by self-financing students and endowments. The campus unions add to the grant they receive from the institutions' funds that they raise on their own account—bar profits, for example. The inclusion of money from public sources in the funds which the campus unions use, and out of which they pay for NUS affiliation, should impose a due restraint upon them and their actions, but it does not seem to have done so. That is another factor which I shall weigh in my consideration of the issues.
  There are also practical considerations. Campus unions supply some useful student services at relatively low costs, such as catering, welfare and sporting facilities. We could not consider action in relation to student unions without considering how these services might otherwise be maintained for the benefit of all students. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's interesting suggestions on alternative ways in which services might be provided.
  The consultations initiated by my predecessor are continuing. I plan to bring them to a close in the near future by having a final round of discussions with higher education institutions and others with an interest in the matter.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend has said that the consultation period has been somewhat protracted. Is he able to advise the House when he expects to bring forward some firm proposals?
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there are no fewer than 31 Conservative Members in their places for this important debate. I ask him to contrast that presence with the number of Opposition Members who are in the Chamber.
  Mr. Forman: I am impressed by the support that is gathered on the Government Benches. Arguments have been advanced with characteristic forcefulness by my hon. Friends.
  I believe that proposals can be brought forward in good time. I cannot be more precise than that at the moment. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the complexity of some of the issues is considerable.
  In the light of these discussions, I should be able to reach conclusions, although I am not yet in a position to tell the House what those conclusions will be. My hon. Friends can rest assured that I shall take careful account of what has been said this evening. I shall be seeking to move in the direction of the voluntary principle, which is what has already been flagged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the statement by Gaafar Mohammed Nimeri, the former President of Sudan, urging an armed uprising, for the United Kingdom's aid programme in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We closed down our development aid programme to Sudan in 1991 and have no plans to reinstate it. We shall continue to provide humanitarian aid to the Sudanese people according to needs and without political conditions.

  United States (Visas)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received. since 1 January 1991, about(a) refusal of visas to United Kingdom citizens by the United States immigration authorities and (b) treatment of United Kingdom citizens travelling to or in the United States of America by the United States immigration authorities; what representations he has made to the United States Administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am aware of a small number of cases where such difficulties have been experienced by British citizens. These have been brought to the attention of the United States Administration. United States immigration regulations are, of course, a matter for the United States authorities.

  Ex-service Men's Compensation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making with the German Government concerning compensation for British ex-service men interned during the second world war.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There is no basis on which to make representations with the German Government concerning compensation for British ex-service men interned during the second world war. Internment is a recognised right of a belligerent in times of war.

  Nigeria
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Nigerian Government about: the arrests of the human rights and pro-democracy activists Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, Barrister Femi Falana and Baba Omajola in Lagos on 19 May; and if he will make a statement.
  350
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have told the Nigerian Government of our grave concern at the arrest and continued detention of these human rights activists. We have strongly urged them to abide by the due processes of law and either release or try the activists under normal and fair legal procedure. We expect to make further representations on this subject to the Nigerian authorities with our European Community partners.

  Lao Ambassador
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Lao ambassador to present his credentials; and what is the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have not yet agreed a date with the Lao ambassador, who is resident in Paris, to present credentials. It is not uncommon for a period to elapse between agrément, the receipt of working copies of credentials, and their presentation by a non-resident ambassador.

  COCOM
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the co-ordinating committee of western nations on technology transfer (COCOM).

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer 1 gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 5 June, at column 673.

  Burma
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Burmese State Law and Order Restoration Council, and at the United Nations, concerning the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the continued killing and displacement of the Rohingya and Karen minorities.

  Mr. Goodlad
  With our Community partners, we have repeatedly called on the Burmese authorities to release Aung San Suu Kyi unconditionally from house arrest and to end all repression of minorities; including the Rohingyas and Karen. At the United Nations general assembly last November we co-sponsored a resolution urging respect for the democratic and human rights of the Burmese people. We also co-sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva earlier this year calling for an end to the repression of minorities, a public scrutiny of Burma's human rights record and the appointment of a special rapporteur. We fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General in securing the repatriation of the Rohingya people to Burma.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Palestinians who were born in Kuwait and who are now in the United Kingdom who wish to return to Kuwait and are experiencing difficulties in so doing.
  351
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  EC Proposals
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to issues of external affairs.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  European Community proposals on external affairs cover a wide range of issues. My Department consults experts, including officials of other Governments and the European Commission, as appropriate.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of the Overseas Development Administration's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government are again appointing a Minister within each Department to take particular responsibility for environmental aspects of that Department's policies and programmes. A list of nominated Ministers will be announced shortly.

  "Action for the Environment"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of his Department's Overseas Development Administration's report, "Action for the Environment" have been printed; to whom copies have been made available; and what has been the cost to date of printing and circulation of this publication.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration has printed 20,000 copies of its information booklet "Action for the Environment". The publication was launched by the Minister for Overseas Development at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro where 2,000 copies were made available.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. "Action for the Environment" is being distributed to Government Departments and international and non-government organisations at home and overseas. Copies are also being sent to interested members of the public.

  The cost to date of printing and circulating this publication is approximately £25,000.

  EC Development Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evaluation Her Majesty's Government have made of the European 352
  Commission's communication on scientific and technological co-operation with developing countries and its synergistic relations with development funds—SEC (92) 677.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Commission's aim is to increase the complementarity between expenditure from the research and development part of the EC budget on science and technology programmes of interest to developing countries and EC development co-operation policies. We have welcomed this approach in principle, but are seeking more information on how new management structures within the Commission would ensure that the high quality of current activities under the science and technology for development programme would be maintained.

  Disarmament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made by Her Majesty's Government of the submission by China to the United Nations Disarmament Commission on the process of nuclear disarmament in the framework of international peace and security with the objective of the elimination of nuclear weapons—document A/CN.10./ 166, 24 April 1992; and what submissions were made by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Disarmament Commission session held from 20 April to 1 I May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have noted this statement of Chinese views.

  The United Kingdom joined other European Community partners in submitting a working paper —document A/CN. 10/172 of 5 May 1992—on this subject on behalf of the Twelve. We were also associated with a working paper—document A/CN.10/165—submitted on 23 April on behalf of the European Community and its member states on the role of science and technology in the context of international security, disarmament and other related fields.

  Refuseniks
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Vsevolod Shilon and his family of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We made representations to the Russian authorities in Moscow on behalf of Vsevolod and Vera Shilon on 18 May 1992.

  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made on behalf of refusenik Dimitri Pevzner and his family of St. Petersburg.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We made representations to the Russian authorities in Moscow on behalf of Dimitri and Luba Pevzner on 18 May 1992.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by year, for the last 10 years, and for this year to date the number of people who have been(a) granted and (b) refused legal aid in civil cases.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In each of the financial years between 1980–81 and 1990–91, the number of civil legal aid certificates granted and applications refused were as follows:

  Certificates issued (thousands)

  Applications refused (thousands)

  1980–81

  167.6

  18.3

  1981–82

  176.1

  21.5

  1982–83

  189.6

  22.9

  1983–84

  205.9

  24.8

  1984–85

  222.2

  26.2

  1985–86

  232.4

  28.4

  1986–87

  245.7

  39.7

  1987–88

  245.4

  48.6

  1988–89

  237.2

  61.5

  1989–90

  259.2

  81.2

  1990–91

  297.6

  84.4

  This information is contained in the legal aid annual reports which are available in the Library of the House. The report covering the period from April 1991 to March 1992 is due to be published on 22 June 1992.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration has been given to the withdrawing of his Department's circular to magistrates issued on 1 April in respect of requiring applicants for legal aid to produce recent wage slips, or proof of benefit paid, before their application can be considered.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 8 June,Official Report columns 17-18, in which I announced that paragraph 10 of the circular, which deals with the production of wage slips, would be withdrawn. If there are particular difficulties arising out of the application of other parts of the regulations, I am prepared to consider them.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to issue further guidance to clarify paragraph 11 of his recent legal aid circular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Following the withdrawal of paragraph 10 of the circular, consideration is being given to whether the criminal legal aid regulations need to be amended to ensure that they allow both for practicable procedures for administering legal aid and for proper accountability for public funds. This consideration will embrace the position of applicants on state benefits as well as those in employment. Further guidance will be issued in due course.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will withdraw the requirement in paragraph 11 of his recent legal aid circular to justices' clerks that proof of benefit level is necessary before legal aid can be granted.
  354
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Paragraph 11 of the circular reminds justices' clerks that applicants who are in receipt of certain benefits are required to provide details of the Benefit Agency office dealing with the benefit and the reference number and advises justices' clerks to seek corroborative evidence of receipt of the benefit claimed. It does not require proof of benefit level.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what consideration he has given to the effect of the Data Protection Act 1984 on the effective implementation of paragraph 11 of his recent legal aid circular to justices' clerks;

  (2) what are the arrangements for co-ordinating the effective implementation of paragraph 11 of the recent legal aid circular to justices' clerks by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My officials are exploring with the Benefits Agency arrangements for confirming the status of those criminal legal aid applicants who claim to be in receipt of benefits. The provisions of the Data Protection Act are being considered.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate has been made of the cost to the legal aid fund of the implementation of paragraph 11 of the recent legal aid circular to justices' clerks.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only purpose of the circular was to remind justices' clerks of the requirements of the existing regulations for the grant of criminal legal aid.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people granted legal aid were in receipt of benefit, in the last year for which information is available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, a recent sample of criminal legal aid applications indicated that, of the applications granted, just under 75 per cent. related to persons in receipt of income support or family credit.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will increase the limits of availability for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Most of the financial limits for legal aid were uprated in April by about 7 per cent. and the Lord Chancellor does not intend to increase them further.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the current level of legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold), on 22 May, at column 246.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment was made of the expected ability of persons detained in police custody to produce evidence of their wages for the preceding weeks, before the issue of his Department's circular concerning the conditions attaching to legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The only purpose of the circular was to remind justices' clerks of the requirements of the
  355
  existing regulations for the grant of criminal legal aid. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 8 June, Official Report, columns 17-18, in which I announced that paragraph 10 of the circular, which deals with the production of wage slips, would be withdrawn.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information he has on the number of Queen's counsel who are(a) black, (b) Asian or (c) women.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The ethnic origin of applicants for the office of Queen's counsel was not recorded prior to the autumn of 1991, and the formal records in respect of ethnic origin are therefore incomplete.

  It is, however, believed that there are at present four black Queen's counsel, of whom one is a woman, and three Asian Queen's counsel.

  There are in total 41 female Queen's counsel currently in practice.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by magistrates court, those courts that are currently below the required number of serving justices of the peace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question cannot be answered without disproportionate cost. The establishment figure for each Bench is a ceiling which is reviewed from time to time and not a day to day operational figure. There are at present 463 petty sessional divisions in England and Wales. If the hon. Member wishes me to give figures for particular Benches I shall be pleased to do so.

  Family Conciliation Services
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the funding of the family conciliation services; and what is his policy with respect to the retention of these services.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Funding of local family conciliation services in England and Wales is largely provided by the voluntary and private sectors, although in some areas assistance is provided by the probation service and local authorities. The Government have no current plans to fund local services.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department is considering their role in England and Wales as part of the wider review of family law announced earlier this year.

PRIME MINISTER

  The World at One'
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the radio interview given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the BBC's "The World at One" programme on 10 June represents Government policy.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  UNCED
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 656, if he will set out the modes of transport used by the United Kingdom delegation to support its involvement in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; and what is the total cost of each form of transport used.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom delegation used both car and minibus transport in Rio at an estimated cost of £25,000.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters with regard to the nuclear proliferation risks posed by instability in the Commonwealth of Independent States were discussed; and what decisions taken, during his recent meeting with President Bush at Camp David.

  The Prime Minister
  We discussed a range of issues, many of which were related directly to developments in Europe, including the implications of the break-up of the former Soviet Union.

  CSCE
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the membership of the United Kingdom delegation to the forthcoming meeting of the assembly of the CSCE in Budapest.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The CSCE parliamentary assembly will be meeting in Budapest on 3 to 5 July. I have appointed 13 delegates from the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The delegation will consist of seven Members of the Conservative party, five Members of the Labour party and one Member of the Liberal party. I have also appointed a number of substitute delegates.

  The appointment of Labour and Liberal representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned.

  Representatives from the Government Benches will be:

  The right hon. Member for Westermoreland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who will act as leader, the hon. Members for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), for Honiton (Sir Peter Emery), for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), the Earl of Dundee and Lord Montgomery of Alamein.

  Representatives from the Labour party will be the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

  The representative from the Liberal party will be the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates:

  From the Government Benches, the hon. Members for Ashford (Sir. K. Speed), for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin).
  357
  From the Labour party, the hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Travel Allowances
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the travelling and subsistence allowances payable on a daily basis to persons in public service and the standard motor mileage allowance for such persons for the year 1992–93; and how much of these allowances are chargeable to tax.

  Mr. Portillo
  The travelling and subsistence allowance payable on a daily basis to persons in the public service are as follows:

  Standard rate of motor mileage allowances

  From 1 April 1992

  Cars with engine capacity:

  Up to 1,500 cc P

  1501 cc-2000 cc P

  Over 2000 cc P

  Up to 5,000 miles

  35.7

  40

  43

  Over 7,000 miles

  17.0

  21

  27

  subsistence allowances

  Day subsistence allowance

  Subsistence classification

  (with effect from 1 August 1991)

  All classes £

  More than 5 hours

  3.90

  More than 10 hours

  8.60

  Night subsistence allowance

  Subsistence classification

  (with effect from 1 August 1991)

  1 £

  2 £

  3 £

  Inner London

  98.70

  68.50

  61.30

  Elsewhere

  85.85

  63.15

  48.85

  Lodging allowance

  Subsistence classifcation

  (paid after 30 nights) (with effect from 1 August 1991)

  1 and 2£

  3£

  Married officer:

  Inner London

  31.80

  25.60

  Elsewhere

  29.90

  23.80

  Single officer:

  Inner London

  22.80

  22.80

  Elsewhere

  21.00

  21.00

  These rates are reviewed annually. From 1 August 1992 our intention is that Departments and agencies will determine their own motor mileage and subsistence rates. The excess between the motor mileage rates and the Inland Revenue fixed profit car scheme is taxable. The fixed profit car scheme rates for 1992–93 are:

  From 1 April 1992

  Cars with engine capacity:

  1001 cc- 1500cc P

  1501 cc-2000cc P

  Over 2000 cc P

  Up to 4,000 miles

  30

  42

  51

  Over 4,000 miles

  17

  21

  27

  Sustainable Growth
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it is policy to incorporate the notion of sustainability into all economic development plans incorporated by his Department;

  (2) what plans he has to examine existing monetary and fiscal policies to assess their impact on sustainable resource management and environmental protection.

  Sir John Cope
  "This Common Inheritance—Cm 1200—sets out how the Government are integrating environmental considerations into all policy areas to promote sustainable growth.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's total income, to date, from privatisation since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Privatisation proceeds from 1979–80 to 31 March 1992 were about £41½ billion. Privatisation proceeds for 1992–93 are expected to be £8 billion.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present forecast for the rise in gross domestic product for the first and second half of 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's forecast for economic growth was published in the 1992 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  EC Proposals
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to economic matters.

  Sir John Cope
  My Department consults a wide range of expert bodies and individuals as appropriate.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show for 1992–93 those ranges of earnings within which the burden of income tax plus national insurance is less than in 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1992–93, for taxpayers of working age whose incomes have increased in line with earnings, average rates of income tax and national insurance contributions are lower than in 1978–79 for everyone except some married men with earnings up to and including half of the average. On the same basis, real take-home pay is higher than in 1978–79 at all levels of earnings.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.
  359
  Sir John Cope
  I have been responsible for considering the environmental implications of Treasury policies since 15 April.

  Beer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to introduce the new system for taxing beer on the alcoholic strength of the finished product.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government propose to introduce the new end product duty on beer with effect from 1 April 1993. From that date, duty will become payable when beer is dispatched for distribution and consumption from registered breweries or from bond.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Intestacy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many individuals(a) in the Duchy of Lancaster and (b) in the constituency of Pendle die intestate in each year since 1982; and what was the total value of the estate claimed by the Crown in each year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The solicitor for the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster is appointed to administer the estates of persons whose last permanent address was within the boundaries of the county palatine of Lancaster who die intestate and without surviving kin entitled to the estate under the rules of intestate succession. The boundaries of the county palatine are the same as the county boundaries which existed prior to local government reorganisation in 1973.

  Intestate estates 1982 to 1991

  Number of cases

  Total amount claimed (£)

  1981–82

  456

  540,185.52

  1982–83

  463

  747,058.28

  1983–84

  453

  734,664.12

  1984–85

  455

  748,154.93

  1985–86

  462

  821,697.50

  1986–87

  462

  921,513.00

  1987–88

  386

  672,679.68

  1988–89

  391

  754,241.67

  1989–90

  411

  960,671.80

  1990–91

  398

  799,872.54

  7,691,739.04

  Unfortunately records do not show the number of cases arising in each year within any particular part of the county palatine.

  There are a number of cases each year where kin who are entitled under the intestacy rules traced after administration is complete and in those cases the value of the estate plus interest is paid from Duchy funds to the relative concerned.

  Duchy Income
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the main sources of income to the Duchy of Lancaster for each year since 1982.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The main sources of income to the Duchy of Lancaster for the years ending 29 September 360
  1982 to 29 September 1991 have been set out in the accounts of the Duchy, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House each year.

  They may be summarised as follows:

  Year and Item

  Amount £

  1982

  Revenue from estates

  1,977,961

  Dividends and interest

  395,041

  Devolutions

  444,569

  1983

  Revenue from estates

  2,057,824

  Dividends and interest

  403,472

  Devolutions

  553,628

  1984

  Revenue from estates

  2,251,990

  Dividends and interest

  495,620

  Devolutions

  733,223

  1985

  Revenue from estates

  2,547,395

  Dividends and interest

  732,943

  Devolutions

  744,507

  1986

  Revenue from estates

  2,775,597

  Dividends and interest

  704,923

  Devolutions

  962,928

  1987

  Revenue from estates

  3,054,203

  Dividends and interest

  1,048,507

  Devolutions

  979,027

  1988

  Revenue from estates

  3,477,622

  Dividends and interest

  1,407,729

  Devolutions

  1,225,692

  1989

  Revenue from estates

  3,812,205

  Dividends and interest

  1,639,579

  Devolutions

  839,845

  1990

  Revenue from estates

  4,088,767

  Dividends and interest

  1,543,844

  Devolutions

  804,977

  1991

  Revenue from estates

  4,445,219

  Dividends and interest

  1,509,523

  Devolutions

  938,597

  Duchy Land Holdings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the locations of all the land holdings held by the Duchy; and if he will list separately those held in the county palatine.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information is as follows:

  ESTATES:

  Crewe survey

  Halton

  Crewe

  Marbury

  ASH

  Castleton-High Peak

  Miscellaneous

  Newcastle

  Needwood survey

  Needwood

  361
  Yorkshire survey

  Pickering

  Brompton

  Marishes

  Goathland

  Cloughton and Scalby

  Silpho

  Pontefract

  Tickhill

  Knaresborough

  South survey

  Higham Ferrers

  Olney

  Strixton

  Ogmore

  Wainfleet-Bolingbroke

  Desford

  Lewes

  York

  Leicester

  Cockfosters and Hadley Wood

  London

  Savoy

  Harrogate

  Clare

  Dedham

  County palatine Lancashire survey

  Myerscough

  Wyreside

  Salwick

  Winmarleigh

  Whitewell

  Miscellaneous

  Foreshores

  Lancaster

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I am still considering the proposals put forward by my Department and other Government Departments and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment his Department has made of the Commission report, "Research after Maastricht: an Assessment and Strategy", SEC (92) 682F.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The report was discussed at the 29 April Research Council in Luxembourg. I made clear our concern that the future development of EC research policy should be based on a rigorous evaluation of research to date, and that the emphasis should be on pre-competitive research, identifying generic technologies with a wide range of applications, rather than supporting specific industrial sectors. These points were broadly supported by other member states. We look forward to developing these themes with the Commission and our partners during our presidency.

EDUCATION

  Student Loans
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students from the county of Durham are in receipt of student loans at the present and for the last two years.

  Mr. Forman
  This information is not available. The Student Loans Company does not collect data relating to borrowers' place of domicile.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the financial implications of the following comprehensive schools in the Colne Valley constituency taking on grant-maintained status(a) Colne Valley high school, (b) Holmfirth high school, (c) Hanley high school and (d) Salendine Nook high school; and how the funding outlined compares with what the schools currently receive from the local education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  The main recurrent grant for GM schools is annual maintenance grant—AGM. This is set for GM schools in most LEAs at 15 per cent. above their local management of schools entitlement. This standard cash addition helps meet the cost of services previously provided free by the LEA. There is also a smaller addition related to school meal subsidy levels in that LEA.

  GM schools are also eligible to receive other grants as follows:

  (i) Transitional grants to help meet the transitional costs of schools newly approved for GM status—in 1992–93 secondary schools can receive £30,000 plus £30 per pupil, to maximum of £60,000.

  (ii) Special purpose grants to help with a variety of activities. For example the SPG for "development" helps fund in-service training and implementation of the national curriculum and assessment, for which LEAs are funded via the GEST programme. This SPG is paid at a flat rate of £42.50 per pupil. Other SPGs are available to help with VAT, staff restructuring and premises insurance.

  (iii) There are two types of capital grant available to GM schools: a formula allocation for the purchase of equipment or small scale capital works; and project allocations for specific capital work. GM schools bid for project allocations and bids are considered in competition.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what amount of capital grant per pupil he has provided to grant-maintained schools in each local education authority for 1992–93 based on the pupil numbers as at 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The table lists the capital allocations to GM schools for 1992–93, expressed as an average per pupil figure, based on January 1991 numbers, for GM schools in each LEA area. The relevant number of pupils will rise as schools join the GM sector during the year.

  The figures need to be treated with caution. Because of current coverage of GM schools, figures will vary widely depending on the number of GM schools in a LEA area and whether or not a school was successful in the bidding round for capital projects in 1992–93. Bids are looked at in competition with others received from schools across the whole of the country.
  363

  Average capital allocations per pupil by former LEA area for GM schools for projects starting in 1992–93

  £

  Avon

  185.68

  Barnet

  56.96

  Bedfordshire

  178.31

  Berkshire

  257.37

  Birmingham

  281.96

  Bolton

  34.56

  Bradford

  296.60

  Brent

  224.51

  Bromley

  148.05

  Buckinghamshire

  284.41

  Calderdale

  204.55

  Cambridgeshire

  52.63

  Cheshire

  63.10

  Croydon

  147.04

  Cumbria

  71.54

  Derbyshire

  493.34

  Devon

  41.65

  Dorset

  192.40

  Dudley

  38.38

  Ealing

  30.64

  Essex

  71.89

  Gloucestershire

  689.11

  Hammersmith

  28.49

  Hampshire

  57.56

  Hertfordshire

  229.89

  Hillingdon

  215.98

  Humberside

  122.04

  Kensington

  35.90

  Kent

  126.44

  Kirklees

  229.92

  Lambeth

  1,299.46

  Lancashire

  304.53

  Leicestershire

  337.00

  Lincolnshire

  149.26

  Liverpool

  29.86

  Newham

  45.45

  Norfolk

  71.03

  Northamptonshire

  320.20

  Rochdale

  62.37

  Sandwell

  131.82

  Shropshire

  1,070.33

  Somerset

  46.25

  Southwark

  429.21

  Surrey

  136.41

  Sutton

  210.31

  Thameside

  33.19

  Tower Hamlets

  31.48

  Waltham Forest

  58.88

  Wandsworth

  286.32

  Warwickshire

  86.56

  Wiltshire

  39.84

  Wolverhampton

  727.55

  Notes:

  1. The total includes formula capital allocations to schools for 1992–93 and provision for spending in 1992–93 and 1993–94 on named projects started in 1992–93.

  2. The total does not include spending in 1992–93 on named projects begun in previous years.

  Student Funding
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the future of student funding.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations on this matter. Public funding for higher education is at record levels. For the third year running, public expenditure plans provide for a year-on-year increase of about 10 per cent. Full-year student support from grant and loan is now over 30 per cent. higher than the grant alone two years ago. Our reforms have led to a dramatic expansion of higher education. Ten years ago,364
  only one in eight young people entered higher education. it is now nearly one in four. We expect it to be one in three by the year 2000.

  Ealing Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 88, if he will aim to give his decision on the reorganisation proposals for Ealing's county and voluntary schools before mid-July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Statutory proposals from the five grant-maintained schools in Ealing were published between 8 and 15 May. My right hon. Friend intends to determine these proposals as soon as possible after the two-month statutory objection period ends on 15 July. He will then be in a position to reach decisions on the outstanding proposals in respect of the county and voluntary schools.

  Interleukin-6
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions his Department has held with the university of Leeds in relation to the scientific work on Interleukin-6; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  My Department has held no such discussions. It is for individual universities and research funding bodies to pursue particular areas of scientific research in line with their own priorities.

  EC Proposals
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to educational matters.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department has taken account of a variety of expert views in its consideration of new EC proposals and the implementation in this country of EC programmes. At present, the Department is supporting a major consultation exercise on the EC Commission's memorandum on higher education in the EC.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment today. He will be publishing a list of nominated Ministers shortly.

  Schools (Organisation)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the proposed White Paper on organisation of schools before the summer recess; and if he will make a statement.
  365
  Mr. Forth
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we will publish a White Paper by the end of the summer. This will be followed by an education Bill in the autumn.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is(a) the total amount for the United Kingdom and (b) the average amount per student of local education authority payments on behalf of students to further and higher education institutions to pay the students' membership fees of student unions.

  Mr. Forman
  In general, campus unions are not funded by membership fees but by block grant from their parent institutions. In higher education institutions, block grant is paid out of general funds including funding council grant and fees. In further education. the block grant is usually derived from an element within the student registration fee.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will revise the criteria for school playing fields so as to provide larger areas of playing fields.

  Mr. Forth
  The current review of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 is considering school playing field provision as part of its programme of work.

  The results of the review are expected to be available later this year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Fraud
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to reduce the levels of crimes of fraud.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office and the fraud investigation group of the Crown prosecution service are designed to deter the incidence of serious fraud by providing for effective investigation and prosecution.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of(a) prosecutions and (b) inquiries launched by the Serious Fraud Office in 1992 to date.

  The Attorney-General
  In 1992, 16 prosecutions have been completed by the Serious Fraud Office. Of the 23 investigations currently in hand, 16 have been commenced in 1992. These are either new inquiries or are extensions of pre-existing investigations.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's arrangements for consulting the Data Protection Registrar during the planning stage of any initiative involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal data; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office are 366
  aware that systems involving the collection, use or disclosure of automatically processed personal data must comply with the Data Protection Act 1984. Each Department is registered in accordance with the Act and each Department consults the Data Protection Registrar as necessary at the planning stage of any such systems.

  Criminal Justice
  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General what suggestions for reform he has made to the Royal Commission on the Criminal Justice System.

  The Attorney-General
  My predecessor submitted written evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice dealing with the law and practice relating to the disclosure by the prosecution of material to the defence. Extensive written evidence has also been submitted by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by the director of the Serious Fraud Office. Copies of the evidence of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions are available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Departmental Environmental Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government are again appointing a Minister within each Department to take particular responsibility for environmental aspects of that Department's policies and programmes. A list of nominated Ministers will be announced shortly.

  The work of the legal secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office does not have direct environmental implications, but each of the Departments has taken steps in its purchasing, energy use, and waste management policies to promote good practice in relation to the environment. Each of the Departments uses recycled paper products wherever practicable. Low-energy light bulbs are in use at the Serious Fraud Office and are being fitted in the Treasury Solicitor's Department and legal secretariat to the Law Officers. In the Crown Prosecution Service a computerised estate management information system is being developed to include data on energy consumption and costs for all CPS buildings. In relation to energy use, each of the Departments is committed to taking part in the Government's campaign to achieve savings of 15 per cent. in the total energy bill for the Government estate over a five-year period.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Targeting
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the Overseas Development Agency budget is targeted towards the poorest countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We spend about 75 to 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid on the poorest countries.

  Southern Africa (Drought)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effects of the drought in southern Africa and on United Kingdom assistance to those countries suffering the most.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  With food production in the region at less than half the normal level this year and with up to 18 million people at serious risk, the drought remains a matter of grave concern. In response to the crisis, the Government have pledged from the bilateral programme food aid, balance of payments support and other assistance totalling £34 million so far this year, in addition to our share of the special food aid programme of the European Community worth £27.5 million.

  Kenya
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy for assisting Kenya with a view to enabling refugee children from the Sudan to be cared for locally whilst the current situation persists.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I told the House on 9 June, we have contributed £1 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appeal for assistance to refugees in Kenya, which includes the needs of the Sudanese children.

  Population Policies
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priority he intends to give to population policies during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC Development Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A high priority. We aim to have a resolution agreed by the Development Council encouraging the Community to provide more support to population programmes in developing countries.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives are planned to be introduced to expand the application of know-how funds in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund is going well and is much appreciated in central and eastern Europe. At present we have no plans to expand its scope: the country coverage is kept under careful review.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department estimates that the proposed national lottery, once in operation, could raise for good causes.

  Mr. Key
  It is too soon to say. However, we intend the lottery to be a full-blooded success, raising hundreds of millions of pounds for good causes. The distribution of the proceeds between beneficiaries, prizes, tax and operating costs has not yet been established.

  Football (Televising)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his policy for the televising of football.

  Mr. Mellor
  Viewers and listeners should have the best possible range of choice.

  Arts, Grimsby
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to encourage the arts in Grimsby.

  Mr. Key
  Detailed funding decisions are for the Yorkshire and Humberside regional arts board. It supports the south bank jazz festival and a variety of other arts projects in Grimsby.

  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he plans to meet the directors of the national museums and galleries to discuss admission charges.

  Mr. Key
  My regular meetings with directors confirm that our present policy of allowing directors and trustees to make their own decisions on admission charges is working well.

  Industrial Heritage
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new initiatives he proposes to introduce to secure the preservation of sites of industrial heritage.

  Mr. Key
  I visited Burnley in my former capacity as a Minister in the Department of the Environment and was impressed by the work being done there to preserve its unique industrial heritage.

  Preservation of the industrial heritage is best secured by bringing it fully within our established system for preserving heritage sites. We are supporting work on the extension of the National Archaeology Record up to 1945; we are funding the Association for Industrial Archaelogy's project to help build a better database; and we have agreed with English Heritage that industrial monuments should be given greater priority in its grant programmes.

  Arts and Media
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the national arts and media strategy document.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss the national arts and media strategy documents.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall).

  Tourism
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will assess for the most recent year available the contribution made to the United Kingdom economy by the tourism industry.

  Mr. Key
  Tourism is an important contributor to the United Kingdom economy, and it is estimated that domestic and overseas tourists together spent £25 billion in 1991, equivalent to 4 per cent. of the gross domestic product. There were also about 1.5 million employees in employment in tourism-related industries in June 1991 and 183,000 self-employed in these industries in spring 1991.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out his policies on tourism.

  Mr. Key
  Tourism is a successful industry whose enterprise creates wealth and jobs throughout the United Kingdom. It is our heritage, sport and culture which help to make this country so attractive to visitors, and we intend to make the most of the links between the different responsibilities of the Department to ensure that the industry continues to prosper. In common with our other responsibilities, policies on tourism will he reviewed to ensure that taxpayers money is being spent in the most appropriate arid cost-effective way.

  Woolwich Arsenal
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the importance for the national heritage of the buildings on the royal arsenal site at Woolwich.

  Mr. Key
  Eighteen buildings on the royal arsenal site at Woolwich have been assessed as being of special architectural or historical interest and placed on the statutory list.

  Arts (Funding)
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much funding the private sector has provided for the arts for each pound of Government funding.

  Mr. Key
  In 1991–92 almost £6.3 million was directly generated by a Government investment of over £3 million in the business sponsorship incentive scheme. Figures for annual private sector sponsorship for that period are not yet available; however annual business sponsorship of the arts, including corporate membership, for 1990–91 amounted to some £57.2 million compared with only £500,000 in 1976.

  Works of Art (Indemnity Scheme)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will introduce a national indemnity scheme for works of art on loan to and from galleries and museums.

  Mr. Key
  A national indemnity scheme has been in operation since 1980, established under the National Heritage Act 1980. The Government indemnity scheme, as it is called, relieves both national and non-national museums and galleries of the need to take out commercial insurance to cover items on loan for the public benefit.

  BBC Funding
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the Government's policy towards the funding of the BBC.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our policy is that the television licence fee should remain for the time being the principal means of financing the BBC. The longer-term future of the licence fee will be considered as part of the review of the BBC"s charter which is due to expire in 1996.

  BBC Licence Fee
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to discuss the licence fee with the chairman of the BBC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have regular discussions with the chairman of the BBC. Licence fee increases are based on the annual increase in the retail prices index as at the preceding September, in the same way as rises in pensions and other state benefits. I intend to reassess the position in advance of the fee increase due in 1994. The longer-term future of the fee will be considered as part of the review of the BBC's royal charter which expires in 1996.

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

  Mr. Mellor
  The European arts festival will run for the duration of the presidency across the four countries of the United Kingdom. It will celebrate the rich European culture heritage through a wide range of more than 600 events covering all the art forms, traditional and new.

  It is by design a festival with broad popular appeal. It contains something for everyone, whatever their age and tastes. It has a special emphasis on young people. All 35,000 maintained schools and the main national youth organisations have been invited to take part. It will also bring to the United Kingdom some of Europe's finest companies.

  The programme for the festival is currently being printed. I shall ensure that all Members of the House receive a personal copy.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will be meeting the new head of the urban regeneration agency to discuss the development of vacant derelict public land for recreation purposes.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I will be very ready to meet Mr. Walker, once the urban regeneration agency is established, to discuss issues of common concern.

  BBC Staff Cuts
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the proposed cuts in staff at the BBC.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for the BBC, as a public corporation independent of the Government, to decide how many staff
  371
  it needs to meet its obligations, but we support the initiatives the BBC has launched to increase efficiency and ensure better value for money.

  Foundation for Sports and the Arts
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to whom the Foundation for Sports and the Arts is accountable; how it decides on the allocation of its grants; what sums have been allocated; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the FSA.

  Mr. Key
  The Foundation for Sport and the Arts is an independent body and its grants are made at the absolute discretion of the trustees within the terms of the foundation's trust deed. Before taking decisions, the trustees may seek advice, in the case of sport from the Sports Council and the governing bodies of sports. My Department holds observer status at the meeting of the trust and its working parties.

  Up to 5 April 1992, the FSA had allocated grants totalling £37.5 million.

  Works of Art (Exports)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to list works of art to prevent their export.

  Mr. Key
  I refer to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 5 June 1992,Official Report, columns 646-47.

  Departmental Environment Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Government are again appointing a Minister within each Department to take particular responsibility for environmental aspects of that Department's policies and programmes. A list of nominated Ministers will be announced shortly.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the Press Complaints Commission's monitoring of articles referring to members of the royal family and their personal lives.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The means by which the Press Complaints Commission monitors press articles and secure compliance with the code of practice framed by the newspaper and periodical industry are matters for the commission, not the Government. The statement issued by the commission on 8 June has attracted much interest. We will be taking the commission's views into account in the forthcoming review of press self-regulation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for limitations on the maximum noise emitted by imported fireworks, with particular reference to bangers imported from the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  To comply with the general safety requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, all imported fireworks are required to conform to the British standard for fireworks. This limits the explosive content of bangers which in effect limits the noise of the explosion. The United Kingdom is currently taking part in discussions to develop a European standard on fireworks, which will include restrictions on the maximum noise emitted.

  Private Telephone Networks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have(a) applied for and (b) been granted a licence from his Department for residential and business customer access to their private telephone network in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Leigh
  Of the 37 applications received by 11 June 1992, my Department issued eight new telecommunications licences to companies who wish to take advantage of the liberalisations announced in the duopoly review last year.

  The Government liberalised the use of private networks in 1989 under a "class" licence. Several companies have taken advantage of this to provide a range of services to the public. Some companies have now applied for individual licences to provide services which are beyond the scope of the existing class licence, but which are permissible under individual licences since the duopoly review. These applications are under consideration.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy concerning the burning of orimulsion in power stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  The type and quantity of fuel used by the electricity generators is an operational matter for the companies concerned, subject to emission limits imposed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what in his estimate of the number of power stations in Wales that are fired by, or are planned to be fired by, gas; if he will give their locations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 has been granted to two gas-fired power stations in Wales, namely to the Deeside Power Development Company Ltd to construct and operate a 450 MW combined cycle gas turbine—CCGT—station at Deeside, Clwyd and to Texaco Ltd to construct and operate an 1100 or 1280 MW CCGT station at Angle bay, Dyfed. I understand that the Shotton Paper Company Ltd has
  373
  obtained the necessary permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to construct a 200 MW station at Shotton, Clwyd.

  My right hon. Friend is currently considering an application from PowerGen plc to construct a 1350 MW CCGT station at Connah's Quay, Clwyd. He is also considering an application from the Deeside Power Development Company Ltd to increase the output of the proposed Deeside station to 500 MW.

  Cars
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what progress is being made in reducing British pre-tax car prices to the levels that prevail in the European Community;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress being made in promoting a parallel trade in importing cars from the European Community.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  On 6 May my right hon. Friend announced that he had asked the Director General of Fair Trading: to begin discussions with car suppliers with a view to implementing the recommendations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's February report on the supply of new cars; and for advice on whether any further action should be taken. The MMC recommendations will contribute to increasing competition with potential benefits in the prices paid by consumers. My right hon. Friend also welcomed Sir Leon Brittan's statement on the EC study of car prices, in which Sir Leon drew attention to EC rules facilitating parallel imports within the single market. Sir Leon has called on manufacturers to ensure that cars are made available to fulfil demand for such imports.

  Music Industry
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the contribution made by the British popular music industry to United Kingdom export earnings last year.

  Mr. Needham
  The value of United Kingdom exports of recorded music in 1991 was £216.2 million, representing 0.2 per cent. of visible exports. Trade in recorded popular music cannot be separately identified from other forms of music.

  Nuclear Issues
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what civil nuclear matters for which he has responsibility it is his policy not to release information to Parliament on grounds(a) of national security (b) that it is not in the national interest (c) of commercial confidentiality or (d) other criteria; and if he will review the criteria currently adopted for non-disclosure of information on nuclear issues.

  Mr. Eggar
  Decisions on whether information on civil nuclear matters can be released to Parliament are taken on the merits of the case. It is, therefore, not possible to define in general terms matters on which it would be inappropriate to release information.

  Insurance Claims
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the Association of British Insurers to discuss strengthening the guidelines on meeting insurance claims to avoid undue delay in settlement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. I have no evidence that the guidelines need strengthening.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much he is spending on the rental of accommodation in London for his Department; and what is the highest rental charge he is paying per square foot for accommodation.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department occupies property in London which is allocated to it by the Department of Environmental Property Holdings which is responsible for paying rentals to landlords. Rental charges are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of the refurbishment of his Department's accommodation in London.

  Mr. Eggar
  I do not have firm plans to pay for refurbishing accommodation in London.

  Departmental Environment Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to a similar question given today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Culham (Industrial Relations)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on industrial relations at Culham in relation to the threat of strike action over pay.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The pay and conditions of UK Atomic Energy Authority staff working on the joint European Torus project are matters for resolution between the authority's management and its staff.

  Guardian Royal Exchange
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries his Department has been making into the share schemes at Guardian Royal Exchange.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: I am unable to comment on the affairs of any individual company. However, if any one has any concerns about this matter he or she may like to pass them on to one of my officials.

  Mirror Group Newspapers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies being covered by the investigation into the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The inspectors have been appointed to investigate the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc.

  The powers contained in section 433 of the Companies Act 1985 are available if necessary.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to meet representatives of the European Commission to discuss regional policy; and if he will ensure that this meeting is held at a venue in the north west of England.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 10 June 1992]: At present my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no immediate plans to meet Commissioner Millan but I expect to do so in the course of the meetings between the UK presidency and the Commission on 1 July in London.

  Generating Plants
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many planning applications are outstanding for gas fired power stations; and if he will give their locations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton on 8 June Official Report, column 31.

  My right hon. Friend is also considering an application from Kelt UK Ltd to construct and operate an open cycle gas turbine power station in Ryedale.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the payments made by off-course bookmakers to greyhound racing since 1 April following the reduction in general betting duty.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 11 June, at column 234.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the funds resulting from the quarter per cent. reduction in general betting duty has been set aside as part of the 31st betting levy scheme; whether the sum made available to greyhound racing will be proportionate to the amount of off-course betting duty attributable to greyhound racing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The determination of the 31st levy scheme took into account the reduction in general betting duty on horserace bets, estimated to represent about 72 per cent of total off-course betting turnover in 1990–91. The size of any voluntary payments by bookmakers to 376
  greyhound racing following the reduction in general betting duty is a matter for negotiation between the two parties. We understand that those negotiations are under way and have asked to be informed of the outcome.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the asylum decisions made between December 1991 and April 1992 related to applications made before 1 November 1991; and how many of these applications were given refugee status, exceptional leave to remain, third country refusals and paragraph 101 refusals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on decisions taken between December 1991 and April 1992 is given in the table. Information on the date of application is not yet available, but it is likely that, during this period, the great majority of substantive grants and refusals of asylum and exceptional leave related to applications made before 1 November 1991. The exception would be in those cases where priority was given because the applicant was detained or had arrived from a safe third country.

  Decisions made under paragraph 101 of the Immigration Rules will include both applications made before and after 1 November 1991.

  Decisions on asylum applications, excluding dependants, December 1991 to April 1992

  Number

  Granted asylum

  252

  Granted exceptional leave

  2,284

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  853

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  274

  Refused under paragraph 101 of the immigration rules1

  5,662

  1 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were removed from the United Kingdom in 1990 and 1991 under section 86 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and to which countries they were removed.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1990 four people were removed under this provision to Nigeria, two cases, Hong Kong and Saudia Arabia.

  In 1991 five people were removed under this provision to Germany, two cases, Ghana, Hungary and the United States of America.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a request was received from the British High Commission in Zambia for inquiries to be made following an application to enter the United Kingdom as a priest from Mr. Ismail Ebrahim Bhulla (Ref. GV100/13333); when the reply was sent to Zambia; what recommendation has been made on this application; when a decision is to be considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The high commission referred the application on 20 February and the request was received in the Home Office on 3 March. I am sorry that there was a
  377
  delay in dealing with the case. I shall resolve the application as quickly as possible and I will write to the hon. Member when we have done so.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the current list of outstanding cases in each of the divisions at the immigration and nationality department in Croydon and Liverpool.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the beginning of June the number of outstanding applications in the caseworking divisions was as follows:

  Number

  General immigration casework

  22,595

  Asylum and related casework

  61,891

  Nationality

  52,811

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of crimes committed in the Blyth Valley area in 1989 to 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally for the Blyth Valley area.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of strip searches made on women inmates in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prison establishments are not required to maintain records of all strip searches made on women prisoners. However, they do maintain records of strip searches of female inmates in category A. There were 103 such searches in 1989, 136 in 1990 and 189 in 1991.

  Arson
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Arson Prevention Bureau; and what success has been achieved in the improved protection of premises, especially school buildings, countering fraudulent arson and improvements in the methods of fire investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Arson Prevention Bureau, which is jointly funded by the Home Office and the Association of British Insurers, was officially launched in February 1991. The bureau provides the first concerted approach to combating the crime of arson. A research project has been completed on the protection of property against arson and further projects on arson for insurance fraud purposes, and arson in schools are under way. It is hoped as a result of the latter project to be able to recommend a package of measures which will lead to a reduction in the heavy incidence of school arson.

  The Arson Prevention Bureau has recently published its first annual review, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held in police cells at police stations in England and Wales on 8 June.
  378
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Monday 8 June there were 1,242 men and 18 women being held in police cells in England and Wales who should otherwise have been in prison.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police stations in Northumbria that are holding prisoners on remand; and how many are being held at each station.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows police stations in Northumbria where prisoners who should otherwise have been in prison were being held on Wednesday 10 June.

  Police station

  Number of prisoners

  Alnwick

  2

  Byker

  7

  Whitley Bay

  4

  Forest Hall

  1

  Cramlington

  5

  Gateshead

  8

  Jarrow

  3

  Sunderland

  12

  Total

  42

  Caravans (Theft)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many thefts(a) of caravans and (b) from caravans were reported to the police in each year from 1974 to date in (i) England and (ii) north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Murder
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to set up a royal commission on the issue of provocation as it applies to women using it as a defence against murder charges.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no such plans, but this branch of the criminal law is kept under careful review.

  EC Proposals
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to security and immigration matters.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Co-operation among the Twelve on these matters generally takes place outside the framework of the treaty of Rome. In considering proposals, the Home Office consults closely with other interested Departments and with the police service as well as relying on its own expertise.

  North Wales Police
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make his decision concerning the application by the North Wales police for 58 police posts for 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The North Wales application, together with applications from 40 other police
  379
  authorities, is being considered in the light of advice from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. The announcement of approved increases for individual forces is usually made in the autumn.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to visit the headquarters of the North Wales police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at present.

  Departmental Environment Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are appointing a Minister within each Department to take particular responsibility for environmental aspects of the Department's policies and programmes. A list of nominated Ministers will be announced shortly.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government are yet in a position to make a statement about the standard of service which will be expected of a private sector company contracted to run Blakenhurst prison.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Work has now been completed on the specification for the operation of Blakenhurst prison under private sector management and for the selection and training requirements for prisoner custody officers. This forms part of the invitation to tender issued to the potential contractors and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. A draft order to extend contracting-out to prisons holding sentenced prisoners has been laid and the House will shortly have an opportunity to debate the matter. Subject to parliamentary approval, and the receipt of satisfactory tenders which offer value for money, we would aim to award a contract in the autumn with a view to Blakenhurst becoming operational next spring.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the number of patients each health and social services board in Northern Ireland intends to send to(a) Great Britain and (b) elsewhere for cardiac surgery during the current year; what is the average cost per patient from each board area; and what is the average cost per patient in the present year for such surgery in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of patients for whom boards have already negotiated contracts for treatment in Great Britain for cardiac surgery in 1992–93 is as follows:380

  Board

  Number

  Northern

  30

  Southern

  26

  Eastern

  20

  Western

  30

  Further patients may be sent to Great Britain later in the year, but details are not yet available. They are not likely to send any patients outside the United Kingdom for cardiac surgery this year.

  It is not possible to provide a meaningful average cost for each patient since the cost is influenced by a number of factors which vary from patient to patient. These factors include the severity and type of cardiac disease, the amount of clinical re-assessment which may be necessary before the operation, and the volume of patients for whom a particular contract is being negotiated. On this basis, average costs vary from £3,500 to £5,000 per patient.

  Cardiac surgery performed in Northern Ireland, is only carried out at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast and the average costs per patient this year are likely to be around £ 6,800.

  Lignite Reserves
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the private sector will be given the opportunity to develop Ballymoney lignite reserves.

  Mr. Atkins
  A prospecting licence for the Ballymoney lignite field is held by Meekatharra (NI) Ltd. Any development of the field would require a mining licence and planning permission. No application for either has been received.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assurances have been given to the owners of power stations in Northern Ireland with regard to the future utilisation of lignite reserves at Ballymoney for generating electricity.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce into Northern Ireland the cash incentive scheme to provide grants for council tenants to buy homes.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to do so.

  Caravans
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will give urgent consideration to introducing legislation which will give(a) greater tenancy security for caravan owners or leaseholders on licensed caravan sites and (b) greater protection against financial exploitation arising from rental increases by site owners or managers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to do so.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show the major capital road schemes programmed in the year 1988
  381
  for the years (a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1990–91, (d) 1991–92 and (e) 1992–93; how many of those schemes were dropped in each subsequent year; and which ones have been (i) started and (ii) completed up to the latest available date.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year and proposed scheme

  Started

  Completed

  Start date

  1988–89

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena dualling: stage 1

  Completed

  —

  A57/B101 Oldstone road

  Completed

  —

  Eastlink Dundonald

  Completed

  —

  Longwood road, Newtonabbey

  Completed

  —

  Castlecourt, Belfast

  Completed

  —

  Buncrana road, Londonderry

  Dropped

  —

  Banbridge bypass dualling

  Completed

  —

  Newry 8A (Canal street/Downshire road link)

  Completed

  —

  Balloo road, Bangor: stage 2

  Completed

  —

  Omagh through-pass: stage 1

  Completed

  —

  1989–90

  Federick street, Belfast

  Completed

  —

  Greenmount link, roundabout, Coleraine

  Completed

  —

  Crossnadonnell, Limavady

  Completed

  —

  Strand road, Londonderry

  Completed

  —

  Culmore road, Londonderry

  Completed

  —

  Bridge street/Tavanagh avenue. Portadown

  Completed

  —

  Dunmurry bypass: stage 2C

  Completed

  —

  A48 Donaghdee road, Vewtownards

  Completed

  —

  T4 Hillsborough bypass junction

  Completed

  —

  Strabane bypass: stage 1

  —

  1989–90

  Church street/Scotch street, Downpatrick

  —

  1993–94

  1990–91

  Castledawson bypass

  Completed

  —

  Belfast schemes arising from Belfast urban area Plan

  —

  1994–95

  Greenmount link, Coleraine: stages 3 and 4

  —

  1995–96

  Bushmills road, Coleraine

  Completed

  —

  T4 Mullan's Corner dualling

  Completed

  —

  Dunmurry bypass: stage 2D

  Completed

  —

  Enniskillen through-pass: stage 3B

  Completed

  —

  High street/Hamilton road, Bangor

  —

  1991–92

  1991–92

  Killead Bypass

  —

  1995–96

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena dualling: stage 2

  —

  1995–96

  Belfast schemes arising from Belfast urban Plan

  —

  1994–95

  Strand road, Londonderry: stage 2

  —

  1995–96

  Newry bypass: stage 2

  —

  1993–94

  North road/Talbot street, Newtownards

  Dropped

  —

  Comber bypass: stage 2

  —

  1995–96

  1992–93

  Northern distributor Ballymena

  —

  1995–96

  Belfast schemes arising from Belfast urban area Plan

  —

  1994–95

  Queens Quay, Londonderry

  —

  1991–92

  Newry bypass: stage 3

  —

  1993–94

  Pond park, Lisburn

  —

  1—

  Omagh through-pass: stage 2

  —

  1994–95

  A29 Carland Bridge

  —

  1996–97

  1 Not in current 5-year programme.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to include financial incentives for investment in energy efficiency in the proposed electricity privatisation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The transmission and public electricity supply licence published on 31 March 1992, contains a number of financial incentives to encourage NIE plc to promote energy efficiency. The most significant of these is the imposition of a total revenue cap on NIE plc's transmission and distribution business. Copies of the licence are available in the Library.

  Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are at each of(a) the primary and (b) the secondary schools in the constituency of Strangford in (i) the maintained, (ii) the controlled and (iii) the integrated sectors of education.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  PRIMARY SCHOOLS

  Maintained

  St. Anne's Donaghadee

  36

  St. Finian's Newtownards

  218

  St. Mary's Ballygowan

  61

  St. Mary's Comber

  33

  St. Mary's Kircubbin

  217

  St. Mary's Portaferry

  334

  St. Patrick's Portaferry

  76

  Controlled

  Abbey, Newtownards

  395

  Alexander Dickson, Newtownards

  181

  Andrews Memorial, Comber

  500

  Ballykeigle, Comber

  62

  Ballyvester, Donaghadee

  82

  Ballywalter, Newtownards

  138

  Belvoir, Belfast

  319

  Braniel, Belfast

  353

  Cairnshall, Newtownbreda

  383

  Carrickmannon, Ballygowan

  78

  Carrowdore, Newtownards

  131

  Castle Gardens, Newtownards

  489

  Comber, Newtownards

  411

  Cottown, Bangor

  35

  Donaghadee, Donaghadee

  405

  Greyabbey, Newtownards

  67

  Killinchy, Comber

  232

  Kircubbin, Newtownards

  54

  Kirkistown, Cloughey

  41

  Leadhill, Belfast

  172

  Londonderry Model, Newtownards

  278

  Loughries, Newtownards

  81

  Millisle, Newtownards

  187

  Moneyrea, Newtownards

  136

  Newtownards Model, Newtownards

  361

  Newtownbreda, Belfast

  212

  O'Neill Memorial, Belfast

  44

  Portaferry, Newtownards

  48

  Portavogie, Newtownards

  172

  Victoria, Newtownards

  584

  Victoria, Ballyhalbert

  98

  West Winds, Newtownards

  215

  SECONDARY SCHOOLS

  Maintained

  St. Columba's Portaferry

  380

  383

  Numbers

  Controlled

  Comber, Newtownards

  523

  Donaghadee, Donaghadee

  515

  Movilla, Newtownards

  645

  Scrabo, Newtownards

  396

  GRAMMAR SCHOOL

  Controlled

  Regent House, Newtownards

  1,587

  GRANT-MAINTAINED INTEGRATED

  Lagan College, Belfast

  730

  Notes:

  1. Enrolment figures are taken from the annual school census, completed at January 1992.

  2. Pupils enrolled in nursery classes in the primary schools are included in the enrolment figures.

  Widgery Tribunal
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations the Government have received in 1992 concerning the 1972 Widgery tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The Prime Minister has received one letter from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) calling for the Widgery tribunal's findings to be re-examined. The previous and present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland received two similar letters. In
  addition, a number of letters on the general subject of "Bloody Sunday" have been received.

  Departmental Environment Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person Was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have recently been appointed as the Minister for these policies within Northern Ireland. I am now taking forward the policies outlined in the White Paper on "This Common Inheritance" and the first-year report on that White Paper, as they relate to Northern Ireland.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the current number of applications still outstanding for disabled living allowance on 1 April, 1 May and 1 June, together with the weekly average for that period of(a) applications submitted and (b) applications cleared.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.
  384
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what measures his Department are considering to simplify the application procedures for the disability working allowance, disability living allowance and attendance allowance;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on the take-up of benefits of the design of the application forms for disability living allowance and disability working allowances.

  Mr. Scott
  The introduction of the new claims process for disability living allowance, attendance allowance and disability working allowance has been widely welcomed by both disabled people and their organisations as better meeting the needs of disabled people and putting greater reliance on what they have to say about their own disabilities. Nevertheless, we are monitoring closely the effectiveness of the claim packs and process.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been heard by the disability appeal tribunals to date; what percentage of these have concerned(a) disability living allowance care component and (b) disability living allowance mobility component; and how many more are listed for hearing.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been informed by the office of the president of the Independent Tribunal Service that up to 10 June 1,436 appeals have been heard by disability appeal tribunals. These were all mobility allowance appeals.

  On 8 June there were 317 cases listed for hearing.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support were repaying social fund loans during March; and how many of these were(a) under 60 years, (b) over 60 years and (c) in receipt of a disability premium.

  Mr. Scott
  The information available is in the table. It is not possible to isolate the figures for income support recipients alone.

  Number

  Total loans being repaid

  589,758

  Loans being repaid by people under 60 (including)people in receipt of Disability Premium)

  571,911

  Loans being repaid by people over 60

  17,847

  Loans being repaid by people in receipt of Disability Premium

  33,857

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray of 8 June,Official Report, column 6, what was the 1992–93 social fund allocation; what was the total of social fund payments made in 1991–92, adjusted for inflation; and what is the difference between the estimated monthly social fund expenditures for 1992–93 and those of March 1992 expenditures.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about 1991–92 was contained in my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 2 June at column 481. Details of social fund discretionary budget allocations and discretionary monthly expenditure are in the Library. Monthly expenditure for 1992–93 will not be known until the end of the financial year.
  385
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing(a) the gross and (b) the net social fund budget on a per capita basis of the number of income support claimants in (i) cash and (ii) real terms for the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on social fund expenditure in relation to income support caseload is in the table, except for 1992–93 for which information will not be available until the end of the year. Any comparison between net expenditure in 1988–89 and subsequent years should take into account the substantial additional expenditure made possible by the recycling of money received from loan repayments since 1988–89, as reflected within the higher gross amounts.

  Social Fund Expenditure Per Capita of Income Support Caseload

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11991–92

  £

  £

  £

  Gross

  46.64

  57.76

  70.12

  Gross 1992–93 Prices1

  60.14

  69.87

  73.28

  Net

  35.27

  31.53

  39.97

  Net 1992–93 Prices1

  45.47

  38.14

  40.97

  1 Provisional

  Real terms figures have been calculated using the current GDP deflator and may alter.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the administrative cost is as a proportion of expenditure on the social fund for each year since its inception, including a forecast for 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on social fund expenditure and administration costs for 1988–89 to 1990–91 is in the Library. Details of administration costs for 1991–92 are not yet available. No forecast has been made for 1992–93.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the study into the social fund commissioned from the University of York's social policy research unit.

  Mr. Scott
  We expect the report to be published before the summer recess.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability living allowance claims have been refused as a result of the application not being made within the three-month qualifying period; and what information is sent to people whose claims are unsuccessful for this reason.

  Mr. Scott
  There have been no such cases. An application for disability living allowance may be made at any time. If the three-month qualifying period has not been completed at the date of application, provided the adjudication officer is satisfied that the customer meets the conditions of entitlement, an award may be made from the earliest date that it is completed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reviews for attendance allowance are outstanding as a result of the introduction of disability living allowance; and what is the target time for the processing of these reviews.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of 386
  the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the target of clearing 60 per cent. of disability living allowance claims within 30 days is now being met.

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

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the estimate in the 1990 White Paper "The Way Ahead" of the number of people that would benefit from the lower rate of disability living allowance for care or mobility costs has been met.

  Mr. Scott
  That estimate was for 1993–94. It is too soon to measure performance against such longer term targets.

  Independent Living Fund
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received help from the independent living fund during 1991–92; what was the average weekly amount awarded; and what was the total number of applications received during 1991–92, the percentage refused and reasons for refusal respectively.

  Mr. Scott
  At the end of March 1992 the independent living fund was paying 13,670 people. In addition, 1,132 people had ceased to receive payments during the year, giving a total of 14,802 people who received help from the fund during 1991–92.

  The average weekly payment was £76 in April 1991 and rose to £95 at the end of March 1992.

  The total number of applications received during 1991–92 was 16,677. Of these, 32.3 per cent.—5,385—were rejected, primarily because (a) the applicant had sufficient income to meet care costs; (b) the applicant had capital in excess of £8,000; (c) the applicant was not in receipt of higher rate attendance allowance; (d) the request was not one with which the fund could help.

  Benefits (Young People)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to a young person without a permanent home who is not on a youth training scheme.

  Mr. Burt
  Such a person may be entitled to the same benefits as those listed in my reply to the hon. Member on 9 June at column 135, though hosing benefit would depend upon the young person becoming liable to pay rent.

  EC Proposals
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to social security matters.

  Mr. Burt
  We consult a wide range of experts in various fields, depending on the nature of individual proposals.
  387
  Consultations take place with employers' organisations, pension experts, voluntary organisations, medical experts, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee and other specialists as appropriate.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on changes in pension age under consideration by the Government.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 8 June at column 53.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount was recouped by the Compensation Recovery Unit in its first 19 months of operation; what this was as an annual rate; what was the estimate of the annual rate made by Touche Ross in its report to the DSS in 1987, adjusted for inflation; and what was the estimate of this figure made by the Government when the 1989 Bill was introduced, adjusted for inflation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Between September 1990 and March 1992 the compensation recovery unit recouped over £29 million, rising to over £32 million by April 1992. Further rises are expected. In annual terms receipts were equivalent to about £15 million in the first 19 months, or over £25 million in 1991–92.

  In introducing the new legislation the Government used the 1987 figures compiled by Touche Ross as a broad indication of the likely level of receipts. The consultants estimated that once all cases subject to the old arrangements had been settled and if a small payment limit —SPL— of £1,500 was set, the value of recoverable benefits under a new scheme would probably range up from about £37 million—about £51 million at March 1992 prices. This forecast was subsequently revised downwards when a higher SPL of £2,500 was introduced for the commencement of the scheme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the running costs of the compensation recovery unit by the end of 1991; and what these costs were as a percentage of the receipts of that unit for the same period.

  Mr. Burt
  The administrative costs of the compensation recovery unit from its inception in early 1990 until the end of 1991 were £3.8 million including start-up costs, or about 19 per cent. of total receipts. During the financial year 1991–92 running costs were £2 million or about 8 per cent. of total receipts. This percentage is expected to fall further over the next few years as receipts rise much faster than running costs.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the weekly income of an unemployed person including child care benefit but excluding tax, in(a) 1979 and (b) 1992; and what this income would be if it had risen in line with (i) prices and (ii) earnings.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table. The assumptions used are the same as those in the published 388
  tax/benefit model tables. The family type illustrated is that of a married man with a non-working wife and two children aged four and six.

  The figures given are for total net income, after housing costs, on supplementary benefit income support. This gives a full picture of the income for this family type. including child benefit and any entitlement to out-of-work income-related benefits.

  £ per week

  Total net income 1979

  37.15

  Total net income 1992

  108.58

  1979 figure uprated to 1992 by prices

  94.97

  1979 figure uprated to 19921 by earnings

  124.93

  1 In order to uprate for earnings, a whole economy, seasonally adjusted figure has been used. The latest available is March 1992.

  Departmental Environment Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Lord Henley, was appointed the Department's environmental Minister in September 1990.

  The Department is committed to making the fullest possible contribution to achieving the aims of the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance". This includes having in place by the end of 1992 a departmental "environmental housekeeping" strategy.

  The strategy statement, currently in preparation, will set out the Department's policy for the use of its resources, designed to ensure that full account is taken of the needs of the environment.

  The Department is participating in the Government's campaign to reduce their energy consumption by 15 per cent. over the five years 1991 to 1996. In doing so we will reduce the Department's CO2 production from the 1990–91 calculated figure of 202,000 tonnes. A total of £600,000 has been made available for investing in energy efficiency measures during 1992–93. This will enable offices to introduce energy and water saving devices. We are currently preparing departmental publicity about the need to conserve water. An article covering environmental issues appeared in the February 1992 edition of the DSS quarterly journal.

  We are committed to ensuring that our purchasing activities take environmental considerations fully into account. To this end we will promote the use of "environmentally friendly" materials, processes and products in the goods and services we purchase.

  We will continue to encourage more economical and effective use of paper in the Department and the use of recycled paper products where practicable and cost effective.

  It is the Department's policy to purchase only diesel vehicles and to fit remaining petrol vehicles with catalytic convertors.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support received reduced benefits in 1991 as a consequence of their receipt, or receipt by members of their family, of criminal injuries compensation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. I understand that the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  There is, however, a special rule in all the income-related benefits—income support, family credit, housing benefit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance—which provides that compensation payments arising from a personal or criminal injury which are placed on trust are disregarded indefinitely. In addition, payments can be made out of the trust in a wide range of circumstances without affecting the injured person's entitlement to benefit.

  Keith Hamilton
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Benefits Agency will make a statement on the delays in Keith Hamilton's case, ref. PW 308877B.

  Mr. Scott
  Following the successful application for a review, full arrears of attendance allowance were sent on 3 June 1992. I understand that Mr. Michael Bichard. the chief executive of the Benefits Agency wrote to the lion. Member on 11 June 1992 confirming this, explaining the reasons for and expressing his regret at the delays.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate has been made of the cost to the Benefits Agency arising from the implementation of paragraph I I of the recent legal aid circular to justices' clerks.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that he is not yet in a position to provide an estimate. The matter is being discussed with the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Information Disclosure
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances the Benefits Agency will disclose information concerning an individual's benefit entitlement to a third party.

  Mr. Burt
  The information about individuals held in the Benefits Agency's records, including details of benefits paid, is treated as strictly confidential and is not normally released to a third party without the consent of the person concerned. Benefits Agency staff can disclose information to people representing the individual, for example solicitors or advice workers acting on a claimant's behalf.

  The agency is bound by the Data Protection Act 1984, and holds its records in accordance with the principles set out in the Act. In accordance with this Act there are occasions when information may be disclosed without the permission of the individual concerned, for example:
  390

  (a) because the court has made an order;

  (b) when it is in the public interest for the information to be disclosed, for example to the police to assist with the investigation of a serious crime;

  (c) to social services or a welfare body because someone is at risk;

  (d) to another Government Department or public body when this is necessary to safeguard public funds.

  WALES

    Mortgage Repossessions
    Mr. Rowlands
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has of the number of mortgage repossessions(a) in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and (b) in Wales since December 1991.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Information on the number of possessions in the United Kingdom for the half year to June 1992 will be published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders during the summer. The data for the same period from the Lord Chancellor's Department, giving the number of orders made as a result of mortgage possession actions by courts in Wales, will also be available then.

    For England and Wales as a whole, the council estimates that measures taken since December will save some 55,000 possessions 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.

    Departmental Environment Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. David Hunt
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    Hospital Beds
    Ms. Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wales which had consultant obstetric or general practitioner maternity beds in 1990–91, and give the numbers of beds of each type in each hospital.

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    The information is given in the table:

    NHS hospitals in Wales with consultant obstetric or general practitioner maternity beds.

    Hospital

    Average daily available beds

    Obstetrics

    GP Maternity

    HM Stanley

    52.00

    0.00

    Ysbyty Maelor

    53.08

    0.00

    Chirk

    0.00

    2.25

    Catherine Gladstone

    0.00

    8.00

    Bronglais

    16.00

    0.00

    West Wales General

    32.00

    0.00

    Nevill Hall

    46.02

    9.99

    Royal Gwent

    81.00

    6.96

    St. David's Bangor

    61.00

    0.00

    Stanley Sailors

    0.00

    4.50

    Bryn Beryl

    0.00

    4.77

    Dolgellau and Barmouth

    0.00

    7.00

    391

    Hospital

    Average daily available beds

    Obstetrics

    GP Maternity

    Towyn

    0.00

    3.00

    Princess of Wales

    41.80

    0.00

    East Glamorgan

    44.00

    0.00

    Llwynypia

    11.45

    0.00

    Merthyr General

    25.00

    0.00

    Aberdare

    25.00

    5.00

    Caerphilly and District

    40.00

    0.00

    Brecon War Memorial

    0.00

    6.00

    Llandrindod Wells

    0.00

    4.00

    Builth Cottage

    0.00

    3.00

    Knighton

    0.00

    2.00

    Machynlleth and District

    0.00

    2.00

    Llanidloes

    0.00

    5.00

    Victoria Memorial

    0.00

    8.00

    Montgomery County Infirmary

    0.00

    4.50

    University Hospital of Wales

    70.67

    0.00

    St. David's, Cardiff

    3.69

    0.12

    Llandough

    62.29

    0.00

    Gorseinon

    11.68

    0.00

    Morriston

    75.38

    0.00

    Neath General

    37.93

    0.00

    Employment2 by industry and ethnic origin: average spring 1989–91

    Persons in employment2 aged 16 and over

    Great Britain thousands

    Men

    Women

    SIC 19803

    West Indian-Guyanese

    Indian

    Pakistani-Bangladeshi

    All other ethnic minority groups6

    West Indian-Guyanese

    Indian

    Pakistani-Bangladeshi

    All other ethnic minority groups6

    All industries4

    108

    205

    100

    167

    109

    133

    27

    124

    0

    Agriculture, forestry, fishing

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Energy and water supply

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    2

    Extraction of minerals, metal manufacture, etc.

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    3

    Metal goods, engineering and vehicles

    17

    30

    12

    15

    1

    11

    1

    1

    4

    Other manufacturing

    1

    22

    20

    10

    1

    24

    1

    1

    44-45

    Footwear, clothing and leather goods

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    11

    1

    1

    5

    Construction

    11

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    6

    Distribution, hotels, catering and repairs

    18

    62

    35

    53

    17

    35

    1

    35

    61-63

    Wholesale distribution

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    64-65

    Retail distribution

    10

    43

    16

    18

    10

    25

    1

    14

    66

    Hotels and catering

    1

    1

    16

    27

    1

    1

    1

    18

    7

    Transport and communications

    19

    23

    11

    11

    1

    1

    1

    1

    79

    Postal services and telecommunications

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    8

    Banking and finance, etc.

    10

    20

    1

    21

    11

    17

    1

    14

    83

    Business services

    1

    13

    1

    13

    1

    1

    1

    1

    9

    Other services

    19

    29

    1

    43

    61

    34

    1

    53

    91

    Public administration, national defence, etc.

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    93

    Education

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    95

    Medical-health-veterinary services

    1

    12

    1

    12

    26

    12

    1

    20

    96

    Other services to the public5

    1

    1

    1

    10

    17

    1

    1

    14

    Source: Labour Force Surveys three-year average.

    1 Less than 10,000 in cell: estimate not shown.

    2Excluding those on Government employment and training programmes.

    3 Results are shown for all SIC divisions, and for classes accounting for at least 30,000 persons from ethnic minority groups.

    4 The totals include those who did not specify industry.

    5Comprises all other public services excluding sanitary, research and development, recreational and domestic services.

    6Excludes whites; includes those of mixed origin.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the allowances paid to people on youth training were last increased.
    392

    Hospital

    Average daily available beds

    Obstetrics

    GP Maternity

    Withybush

    31.05

    8.95

    TOTAL

    821.04

    95.04

  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of state for Employment if, further to her answer of 21 May,Official Report columns 249-50, she will provide a breakdown of employment by industry and ethnic origin for (a) men and (b) women broken down into (i) West Indian-Guyanese, (ii) Indian, (iii) Pakistani-Bangladeshi and (iv) all other origins.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    The available estimates are given in the table.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    The minimum youth training allowance for 16-year-olds was increased to £29.50 per week from 4 July 1988, and for those aged 17 and above has been £35.00 since 1 April 1986.
    393
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she has any plans to increase the level of allowance to those on YT.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    There are no plans to increase the minimum levels of the YT allowance. Employers benefit considerably from their participation in YT, and are therefore strongly encouraged to supplement the minimum allowances.

    Departmental Environment Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of her Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions her Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    Employment Action
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been placed on employment action in Scotland in each of the months since the scheme started.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    The table shows the number of people in Scotland receiving employment action allowances as at each count date, plus the number starting to receive an allowance in the month ending at each count date since the programme started.

    Date of Count

    Allowance Starts in Month

    Receiving Allowances on the Count Date

    10 October 1991

    0

    0

    14 November 1991

    69

    66

    12 December 1991

    213

    263

    9 January 1992

    132

    381

    13 February 1992

    563

    842

    12 March 1992

    510

    1,214

    9 April 1992

    559

    1,535

    14 May 1992

    550

    1,789

    Source: The Employment Service.

    Advertising
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the answer of 2 June,Official Report, columns 469-70, if she will make a statement on the reasons for her Department's spending on advertising and promotion being expected to fall between 1991–92 and 1992–93.

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [holding answer 12 June 1992]: Advertising and publicity expenditure, subject to the Department's overall public expenditure survey settlement, is determined for each financial year on the basis of prevailing requirements to publicise the services and advice provided by the Department.
    394
    Expenditure for 1991–92 included two major advertising campaigns, (a) the training and enterprise council training campaign to publicise the role and existence of the new network of training and enterprise councils and (b) the "Just the Job" campaign to inform unemployed people about the range of help and advice available through the Employment Service. No major advertising campaigns are planned by the Department during 1992–93.

  TRANSPORT

    M65
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to extend the M65 eastwards.

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
    The Department has no such plans.

    M3
    Mr. Milligan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that the M3 will be completed with the final section through Twyford Down.

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
    Subject to the main contract starting this autumn, the final section of the M3 between Bar End, Winchester and Compton is planned to be completed by autumn 1994.

    Public Transport (VAT)
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the effect on total passenger miles travelled on public transport of the imposition of(a) a 5 per cent. and (b) a 17.5 per cent. VAT rate on public transport fares; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Freeman
    I have made no detailed assessment of the effects of the imposition of value added tax on public transport passenger mileage. Agreement reached by Finance Ministers enables us to maintain our existing zero rates.

    Market Testing
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

    Mr. Norris
    My right hon. Friend expects shortly to complete his consideration of the proposals before him and the programme will then be announced.

    Motor Cycles
    Mr. Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to introduce stage 2 noise limits on motor cycles under the relevant EEC directive; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
    Yes. It is the policy of the Government that motor cycle manufacturers should keep up with the rest of the motor industry by designing vehicles that use the most modern technology to reduce noise at source.
    395
    Mr. Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to stop the sale of motor cycle exhaust systems which are labelled not for road use.

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
    Regulation 57(4) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 already provides that a motor cycle shall not be used on a road if it is fitted with an exhaust system marked with the words "not for road use" or words to the like effect. Section 76(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to sell or supply an exhaust system which contravenes this regulation, the maximum penalty for which is £1,000. The Government have no plans to extend the on-road prohibition to off-road use where it would adversely affect machines used in competition.

    EC Proposals
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to transport matters.

    Mr. Norris
    The Department does not have a fixed list of experts which it consults on European Community proposals. Experts are consulted as and when necessary: the total number is large, and a list could not be assembled except at disproportionate cost.

    Roads, London
    Ms. Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each scheme in his Department's current programme, together with the cost at current prices, for(a) junction improvements in the Greater London area, (b) other road improvements in the Greater London area and (c) new roads in the Greater London area.

    Mr. Norris
    The trunk road major improvement programme for London is as follows:

    1Cost £ million

    (a) Junctions

    A2 Kidbrooke Park road interchange

    7.0

    A3 Robin Hood Gate junction

    27.4

    A3 Hook interchange improvement

    11.5

    A4 Henlys corner/Waggoners corner junction improvement

    9.6

    A12 Eastern avenue/Whalebone lane junction improvement

    3.9

    Al2/Al27 Gallows corner intersection improvement

    1.3

    A13/A112 Prince Regents lane

    36.9

    A13/A117 junction

    28.5

    A13 Butcher row junction improvement

    1.3

    A13 West India Dock road junction improvement (interim)

    3.3

    A13 West India Dock road junction improvement (final)

    1.4

    A13 Blackwall tunnel/Cotton street junctions

    3.0

    Al3 Movers lane junction improvement

    24.3

    A40 Long lane junction improvement

    40.2

    A40 Gipsy corner junction

    35.9

    A40 Western circus junction improvement

    37.3

    A406 Golders Green road junction

    24.5

    A406 Regent's Park road junction improvement

    70.1

    M1 Junction I improvement

    5.1

    M4 Junction 4 and 4A improvement

    14.8

    (b) Other road improvement

    A406 Popes lane/Western avenue

    83.4

    A406 Hanger lane to Harrow road

    111.7

    396

    1Cost £ million

    A406 Ironbridge to Neasden improvement

    5.3

    A406 East of Falloden way—Finchley high road

    57.6

    A406 Bounds Green/Green lanes improvement

    133.4

    A406 Dysons road/Hall lane

    48.3

    A406 East of Silver street A1010

    29.8

    A406 Chingford road to Hale End road

    117.4

    Al3 Ironbridge to Canning Town improvement

    50.7

    A40 Long lane—West End road improvement

    4.6

    A205 Catford town centre improvement

    9.5

    (c) New roads

    Al/M1 Link—Scratchwood

    33.0

    Al2 Hackney Wick to M11 link

    180.6

    A13 Heathway—Wennington

    170.0

    A23 Coulsdon inner relief road

    19.0

    A102 Blackwall tunnel spur

    39.0

    A102 Blackwall tunnel third bore

    105.0

    A406 East London river crossing

    283.1

    1 Works and land but excluding VAT.

    Ms. Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was spent in each year since 1979 on(a) new road building and (b) road improvements in the Greater London area; and what is the planned expenditure for the next five years.

    Mr. Norris
    Spend on major trunk road schemes, excluding land, in London from 1982–83 onwards is given in the table.

    Year

    £ million

    1982–83

    30.4

    1983–84

    20.7

    1984–85

    19.7

    1985–86

    54.3

    1986–87

    85.1

    1987–88

    88.0

    1988–89

    61.7

    1989–90

    118.9

    1990–91

    138.9

    1991–92

    134.1

    1992–93

    123.3

    To provide earlier figures or the breakdown requested between new construction and improvements would involve disproportionate costs. The forecast expenditure for the current year is £123.3 million. Decisions about expenditure in the future have still to be taken.

    Departmental Environment Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of Sate for Transport who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications for all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor
    The Government are again appointing a Minister within each Department to take particular responsibility for environmental aspects of that Department's policies and programmes. A list of nominated Ministers will he announced shortly. I shall be the nominated Minister for my Department.

    Plutonium
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department has provided to British Nuclear Fuels in its development of transport flasks for the air carriage of plutonium.

    Mr. Norris
    None. The development of such flasks is the responsibility of British Nuclear Fuels. The Department's function is to assess the designs against the provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Government Commission
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce the membership of the commission to be established to deal with local government re-organisation; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Redwood
    I am inviting the following people to serve as members of the Local Government Commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Banham:

    David Ansbro

    Professor Michael Chisholm

    Ken Ennals

    Brian Hill

    Councillor Mary Leigh

    Ann Levick

    Robert Scruton

    Clive Wilkinson

    Baroness Wilcox

    This is a strong, independent commission with a balanced membership covering a wide range of interests and experience. We intend to announce further members of the commission very shortly.

    Endangered Species
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts have been made by his Department to encourage greater adherence to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species by other countries.

    Mr. Maclean
    The convention's secretariat bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the convention are met. Within the European Community, the European Commission is responsible for ensuring adherence to the EC regulation which implements the convention. We draw evidence of any apparent problems to the attention of the country concerned and either the secretariat or commission as appropriate. We introduce any trade restrictions which the secretariat recommends to encourage compliance.

    We are also very active in promoting improvements in the quality of implementation. We asked the European Commission last October to propose substantially stricter controls within the Community and this they have done. Further, with our EC partners, we have taken 1,400 decisions since 1984 to suspend trade in particular species from particular countries because we were not satisfied with their assessments of its impact. At the conference of the parties to the convention in March, we pressed successfully for similar action to be taken world wide. Further, we played a leading part at the conference in
    398
    introducing measures to ensure compliance with the convention's transport requirement by providing for suspensions of trade in birds suffering high mortality in transit.

    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the special protection of endangered species travelling on migration routes which are not included in officially designated protected areas.

    Mr. Maclean
    The Government already support the protection of endangered migratory species, both nationally and internationally. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 gives strict protection to endangered migratory birds and mammals in Great Britain. The United Kingdom has participated actively since 1985 as a party to the international convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, known as the Bonn convention. At present the United Kingdom holds the chairmanship of the standing committee of the convention.

    In addition, the United Kingdom sponsored negotiations under the Bonn convention of an agreement on the conservation of bats in Europe. The agreement was concluded during the third conference of the parties to the convention in Geneva in September 1991. The United Kingdom signed the bats agreement when it was opened for signature in London on 4 December 1991 and my Department is providing its secretariat.

    The United Kingdom delegation played a leading role in the conclusion at the same conference of an agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas. The agreement was signed by the United Kingdom on 16 April this year and my Department is financing its interim secretariat, based at the sea mammals research unit in Cambridge.

    The EC birds directive makes specific provision for the protection of migratory birds and their feeding grounds and the Government are implementing this by the designation of special protection areas (SPAs), now 52 in number, and through the indentification of potential SPAs, both of which receive protection under the planning system.

    Pollution
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department in implementing(a) the polluter pays principle and (b) the user pays principle.

    Mr. Maclean
    The polluter pays principle is at the centre of the Government's approach to environmental policy. If the polluter pays the cost of meeting environmental controls, the user will also pay through the resulting increase in prices and charges.

    Public Inquiries
    Mr. Robert Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public inquiries, both public and with written representations, were held during the past year to the nearest convenient date and for each of the previous 10 years respectively.

    Mr. Baldry
    This is a matter for the chief executive and I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

    EC Proposals
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to environmental matters.

    Mr. Maclean
    My Department consults as widely as necessary to ensure that European Community proposals are given full consideration.

    Departmental Environment Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Howard
    The Government are again appointing a Minister within each Government Department to take particular responsibility for environmental aspects of that Department's policies and programmes. The list will be announced shortly.

    Mineral Planning
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend mineral planning guidance note 3.

    Mr. Baldry
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 May 1992 to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms. Walley),Official Report, column 269.

    Orimulsion
    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to discourage the use of orimulsion for the purposes of steam-raising in Britain and the rest of the EC.

    Mr. Maclean
    Any proposed use of orimulsion is likely to arise within processes subject to integrated pollution control by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Such processes cannot be carried out without an authorisation. Authorisations must include conditions to ensure that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost will be used to prevent or minimise the release of prescribed substances and for rendering any such releases harmless. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for other action in relation orimulsion.

    Mr. Hardy
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels or proportion of(a) sulphur and (b) other toxic or harmful substances are estimated to be released as a result of the combustion of orimulsion for the purposes of electricity generation according to the current proposals for its use.

    Mr. Maclean
    Although the burning of orimulsion produces significantly more sulphur dioxide and particulate matter than does, for example, that of heavy fuel oil. the quantities of pollutants ultimately released to the environment depend not only on the type of fuel used, but on the abatement techniques used to control releases.
    400
    The operation of combustion processes in which orimulsion is burnt require authorisation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In granting an authorisation, HMIP requires the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) to be used by the operator to prevent or reduce emissions from the process.

    Guidance on what constitutes BATNEEC together with the levels of releases achievable are set out in the chief inspector's guidance note to inspectors "Combustion Processes, Large Boilers and Furnaces 59MW(th) and Over", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

    Details of applications for, and any subsequent authorisations granted for all processes controlled by HMIP, are placed on the public registers held at HMIP regional offices which may he inspected by anyone, free of charge.

    Waste Management
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to decide on certificates of technical competence for the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board; what representations he has received on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maclean
    The proposal for certificates of technical competence for waste managers forms part of the new waste management licensing system under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

    Powers exist in section 74 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the Secretary of State to prescribe the qualifications and experience required of a person for the purposes of deciding whether the management of a waste site is to be in the hands of a technically competent person. As the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Blatch, announced in another place on 10 October 1990—Official Report, columns 289-90—the Department of the Environment commissioned the Waste Management industry Training and Advisory Board (WAMITAB) to prepare a system of waste management qualifications that might be so prescribed. WAMITAB delivered its report on these proposals in April this year.

    The only representations made to my Department about the WAMITAB proposals since they were submitted have come from WAMITAB itself. The proposals are being examined and will be further discussed with WAMITAB. When Ministers have reached a view on the suitability of WAMITAB's proposals, this will he announced and will form part of a wider public consultation on waste management licensing later this summer. Final decisions on certificates of technical competence will then be made, in the light of that public consultation, so that regulations giving effect to the decisions may be laid before Parliament. Subject to the emerging timetable for the proposed environment agency, it is intended to bring these regulations into force in April 1993.

    Earth Summit
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham. East of 5 June,Official Report, column 665, if he will set out (a) the number of officials from each Government Department in attendance at the Earth

    401
    summit, (b) the representation from the British diplomatic posts in Brazil and the Forestry Commission respectively, (c) the names of individuals and organisations holding observer status with the United Kingdom delegation and (d) the cost of supporting the United Kingdom delegation to the Rio conference and related events in Brazil.

    Mr. Maclean
    The United Kingdom delegation consisted of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister for Overseas Development, myself and 24 officials from the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition, there were five representatives from our diplomatic posts in Brazil and one official from the Forestry Commission.

    Eight junior support staff also attended the conference. The staff involved were needed to service not only the plenary sessions of the conference but the specialised sectoral working groups that were set up and where much of the detailed negotiating was done. Other staff were required to provide office support facilities and to liaise with the local authorities over such matters as transport and security.

    The 13 observers attached to the United Kingdom delegation were:

    Ann Clwyd - Opposition overseas aid spokesperson

    Richard Sandbrook - International Institute on Environment and Development

    Barry Coates—World Wide Fund for Nature

    Vicky Johnson—Action Aid

    Patricia Feeney—Oxfam Joan Davidson—Oxfam / Shared one place.

    Sir John Chatfield—Association of County Councils

    John Harman—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

    Rod Aspinwall—Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

    Peter Bright—International Chamber of Commerce UK

    David Lea—Trade Union Congress

    Clare Ramsaran—United Nations Conference on Environment and Development for Youth

    Professor Iain Thornton—Imperial college

    Julie Hill—Green Alliance

    Graham Wynne—Royal Society for the Protection of Birds / Shared one place.

    The estimated cost of the delgation's travel and subsistence, including hotel costs will be about £190,000. Non-governmental organisations were responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses.

    The estimated total administrative cost of the conference, including office facilities, transport and communications will be about £500,000.

    Nitrogen Dioxide
    Mr. Raynsford
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 189, what steps are being taken by his Department to implement the recommendations of the report by Warren Spring Laboratory on nitrogen dioxide levels in the United Kingdom, and specifically the recommendations for more detailed monitoring using diffusion tubes and chemiluminescent monitors in London where the heaviest concentrations of nitrogen dioxide were found.

    Mr. Maclean
    My Department will be arranging, through Warren Spring Laboratory and with the help of the local authorities concerned, to continue national 402
    nitrogen dioxide monitoring with diffusion tubes on a permanent basis, and to enhance the level of detail in London and some other urban areas.

    Chemiluminescent monitoring is a much more expensive technique and is therefore less well suited to examining the patterns of nitrogen dioxide distribution within cities. Some expansion of nitrogen dioxide monitoring using this technique is none-the-less already planned and will be taken forward with the benefit of advice from the air quality of urban air review group, taking account of the report's recommendations.

    Coastal Zone
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is currently being undertaken by his Department in preparation for forthcoming EC legislation on coastal zone planning.

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The Environment Committee of the House of Commons for the Session 1991–92 has issued a report on coastal zone protection and planning. This includes recommendations for United Kingdom involvement in development of EC coastal policies. The Government will respond to that report in due course.

    Territorial Waters (Planning)
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment is he will make it his policy to extend planning controls to the 12-nautical mile limit of territorial waters around the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Baldry
    [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The Environment Select Committee made several recommendations in their second report of last Session on the issue of extending harmonisation landward planning control and seaward regulations as far as the 12-nautical mile limit of territorial waters. We are considering the report and will respond in due course.

    Coastal Zone
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to consolidate legislation relating to activities in the coastal zone.

    Mr. Baldry
    [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The Environment Committee of the House of Commons for the Session 1991–92 has issued a report on coastal zone protection and planning. This included recommendations for the consolidation of legislation relating to activities in the coastal zone. The Government will respond to that report in due course.

  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Economic Council
    Mr. Dewar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the present membership of the Scottish Economic Council, the dates on which it has met in the last two years and its terms of reference.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 11 June 1992]: Following is the information:
    Membership
    The membership of the Scottish Economic Council is as follows:
    403
    Chairman

    Rt. Hon. Ian Lang, MP

    Vice Chairman

    Mr. Allan Stewart, MP

    Members

    Dr. James G. Adamson

    Mr. David A. Berridge

    Baroness Carnegy of Lour

    Mr. Campbell Christie

    Sir Robert Cowan

    Mrs. Christine Davis

    Sir Robin Duthie

    Mr. Ron Garrick

    Sir Matthew Goodwin

    Mr. Ian Grant

    Mr. James Gulliver

    Professor Michael Hamlin

    Mr. Alan F. Hodgson

    Mr. William Y. Hughes

    Mr. J. Raymond Johnstone

    Mrs. Barbara Kelly

    Mr. J. Clive Lewis

    Mr. Douglas MacDiarmid

    Professor Donald MacKay

    Dr. Christopher Masters

    Mr. James Miller

    Councillor John Mullin

    Sir David Nickson

    Mr. David M. Paterson

    Mr. Peter Runciman

    Mr. Alan Tripp

    Professor William A. Turmeau

    Mr. Christopher Wilkins

    Mr. Ian C. Wood

    Meetings
    The council has met over the past 2 years on the following occasions:

    16 February 1990

    8 June 1990

    19 October 1990

    22 February 1991

    7 June 1991

    25 October 1991

    21 February 1992

    Terms of Reference
    The council provides a forum for discussion and advice to Ministers by people prominent in industrial and economic life in Scotland, on a variety of issues affecting the Scottish economy. Members arc appointed in an individual capacity and not as representatives of any particular organisation or interest.

    Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasms of the colon (ICD 153) by regional health authority (RHA), 1982 to 1986

    RHA

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    Northern

    984

    932

    962

    908

    956

    Yorkshire

    1,074

    1,132

    1,086

    1,073

    1,099

    Trent

    1,384

    1,458

    1,437

    1,328

    1,420

    East Anglia

    586

    642

    641

    619

    693

    North West Thames

    723

    859

    637

    738

    840

    North East Thames

    1,066

    998

    921

    598

    863

    South East Thames

    1,044

    898

    1,053

    1,039

    1,041

    South West Thames

    919

    873

    923

    790

    863

    Wessex

    1,014

    1,116

    1,078

    1,022

    1,045

    Oxford

    701

    633

    660

    669

    677

    South Western

    981

    940

    1,024

    1,123

    965

    West Midlands

    1,397

    1,431

    1,481

    1,646

    1,577

    Mersey

    629

    642

    732

    696

    736

    North Western

    1,274

    1,271

    1,328

    1,225

    1,234

    Wales

    832

    787

    877

    969

    767

    Ethnic Minorities
    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are members of ethnic minorities.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 15 May 1992]: At 1 April 1992 the total number of staff employed in the Scottish Office and associated Departments who have described themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority was 27, or 0.4 per cent. Of that number, one grade 7 is so described, or 0.2 per cent.

    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 15 May 1992]: My Department does not conduct recruitment for top grades.

    Mr. Janner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 15 May 1992]: My Department conducted a voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff in 1987, a reminder exercise in 1989, and thereafter all new entrants have been invited to complete questionnaires. I have no plan to conduct a further survey.

    We achieved an 87 per cent. response rate from the exercise, and 0.4 per cent. of staff have described themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority. The economically active ethnic minority population in the Lothian area is 0.6 per cent.

  HEALTH

    Bowel Complaints
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority for each year for the last five years, and for this year to date, the number of new cases diagnosed of patients suffering from cancer of the rectum and colon; and if she will show in her answer the number who have since died from the complaint.

    Mr. Sackville
    Information for 1982 to 1986, the latest date for which figures are available, is shown in the table.
    405

    Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasms of the rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus (ICD 154) by regional health authority (RHA), 1982 to 1986

    RHA

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    Northern

    610

    667

    597

    604

    617

    Yorkshire

    756

    842

    822

    757

    771

    Trent

    920

    1,034

    942

    1,003

    858

    East Anglia

    345

    431

    417

    414

    440

    North West Thames

    418

    473

    401

    442

    471

    North East Thames

    669

    572

    543

    437

    522

    South East Thames

    606

    578

    654

    569

    600

    South West Thames

    511

    515

    519

    455

    468

    Wessex

    523

    505

    535

    518

    547

    Oxford

    372

    359

    410

    365

    357

    South Western

    607

    597

    670

    700

    603

    West Midlands

    991

    909

    1,018

    1,088

    1,071

    Mersey

    482

    417

    489

    501

    523

    North Western

    817

    856

    797

    763

    804

    Wales

    726

    745

    763

    789

    675

    Deaths from malignant neoplasms of the colon (ICD 153) by regional health authority (RHA), 1982 to 1991.

    RHA

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    Northern

    645

    667

    720

    737

    656

    672

    620

    745

    659

    722

    Yorkshire

    784

    742

    753

    792

    755

    761

    777

    798

    792

    781

    Trent

    880

    910

    976

    1,000

    947

    946

    1,042

    1,087

    1,016

    1,032

    East Anglia

    392

    423

    440

    439

    467

    489

    500

    477

    497

    478

    North West Thames

    639

    629

    714

    660

    707

    665

    696

    687

    701

    669

    North East Thames

    775

    750

    744

    745

    717

    782

    758

    804

    801

    769

    South East Thames

    799

    813

    886

    890

    830

    862

    868

    882

    909

    832

    South West Thames

    669

    678

    727

    718

    703

    723

    989

    690

    653

    669

    Wessex

    676

    663

    683

    687

    698

    708

    732

    763

    761

    736

    Oxford

    397

    359

    447

    445

    482

    467

    442

    516

    490

    464

    South Western

    709

    711

    826

    784

    767

    838

    853

    805

    861

    829

    West Midlands

    1,038

    980

    1,120

    1,136

    1,137

    1,190

    1,171

    1,135

    1,221

    1,152

    Mersey

    540

    515

    572

    576

    530

    568

    545

    544

    548

    582

    North Western

    911

    843

    962

    924

    882

    947

    936

    934

    879

    935

    Wales

    614

    595

    639

    723

    718

    733

    735

    729

    714

    713

    Deaths from malignant neoplasms of the rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus (ICD 154) by regional health authority (RHA), 1982 to 1991.

    RHA

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    Northern

    378

    442

    401

    402

    424

    419

    414

    415

    408

    445

    Yorkshire

    429

    454

    467

    423

    432

    480

    449

    443

    443

    441

    Trent

    549

    637

    588

    626

    538

    542

    576

    589

    595

    579

    East Anglia

    203

    232

    234

    230

    248

    149

    239

    221

    213

    229

    North West Thames

    297

    338

    326

    315

    303

    291

    304

    279

    285

    312

    North East Thames

    408

    418

    379

    383

    353

    342

    349

    373

    350

    353

    South East Thames

    396

    434

    438

    397

    402

    376

    397

    390

    419

    361

    South West Thames

    306

    371

    331

    321

    340

    311

    312

    310

    315

    292

    Wessex

    284

    331

    303

    344

    349

    303

    345

    303

    297

    304

    Oxford

    223

    231

    237

    200

    216

    234

    210

    254

    233

    242

    South Western

    341

    445

    383

    400

    376

    386

    382

    386

    393

    393

    West Midlands

    598

    637

    655

    707

    674

    642

    652

    670

    631

    578

    Mersey

    279

    331

    327

    372

    315

    274

    272

    265

    291

    320

    North Western

    487

    581

    552

    521

    516

    520

    504

    514

    495

    509

    Wales

    334

    383

    396

    389

    357

    297

    346

    336

    316

    324

    Mergers
    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district health authority mergers(a) have taken place since 1 April 1990 and (b) are under consideration.

    Approved mergers

    New authority

    Old authorities

    Date

    Bloomsbury and Islington

    Bloomsbury/Islington

    17 September 1991

    Leeds

    Leeds East/Leeds West

    1 April 1991

    South Birmingham

    Central Birmingham/South Birmingham

    1 April 1991

    North-east Warwickshire

    Rugby/North Warwickshire

    1 April 1991

    Bristol and District

    Bristol and Weston/Frenchay/Southmead

    1 October 1991

    Gloucestershire

    Cheltenham and district/Gloucester

    24 February 1992

    North-west Anglia

    West Norfolk and Wisbech/Peterborough

    1 April 1992

    Dorset

    East Dorset/West Dorset

    1 April 1992

    North Nottinghamshire

    Central Nottingham/Bassetlaw

    1 April 1992

    406
    Mr. Sack vile
    The information requested is as follows:
    407

    New authority

    Old authorities

    Date

    East and North Hertfordshire

    East Hertfordshire/North Hertfordshire

    1 April 1992

    North Durham

    North-west Durham/Durham

    1 April 1992

    South-east London

    Lewisham and North Southwark/Camberwell/West Lambeth

    11 April 1993

    Buckinghamshire

    Aylesbury Vale/Wycombe/Milton Keynes

    11 April 1993

    Suffolk

    West Suffolk/East Suffolk

    11 April 1993

    North Worcestershire

    Bromsgrove and Redditch/Kidderminster

    11 October 19

    (Name to be decided)

    York/Harrogate/Scarborough/Northallerton/Airedale (part)

    To be decided

    (Name to be decided)

    Bradford/Airedale (part)

    To be decided

    1 Proposed start date.

    Counterfeit Medicines
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to stop the import of counterfeit medicines; and if she will make a statement.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Any reports of alleged import of counterfeit medicines into the United Kingdom are urgently investigated by the enforcement unit of the Medicines Control Agency. The United Kingdom licensing system covering the import, sale and production, of medicinal products is continually kept under review to ensure appropriate safeguards against counterfeit products are maintained.

    Medical Treatment
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific steps she proposes to take to ensure that the internal market for medical treatment within the national health service does not prejudice(a) the resources currently available for observation, research or innovation within some larger and longer-founded institutions and

    Operating theatre sessions: Average number per week

    Regional health authority

    1987–88

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    Northern

    935

    969

    963

    1,002

    Yorkshire

    942

    969

    969

    996

    Trent

    1,136

    1,189

    1,255

    1,225

    East Anglian

    567

    566

    588

    583

    North West Thames

    852

    1,067

    927

    858

    North East Thames

    1,125

    1,099

    1,158

    1,183

    South East Thames

    1,031

    1,058

    1,129

    1,143

    South West Thames

    650

    789

    827

    855

    Wessex

    772

    796

    810

    795

    Oxford

    599

    607

    623

    603

    South Western

    864

    980

    964

    961

    West Midlands

    1,437

    1,437

    1,444

    1,475

    Mersey

    762

    774

    825

    832

    North Western

    1,403

    1,434

    1,474

    1,459

    Special health authorities

    247

    284

    285

    287

    ENGLAND

    13,323

    14,018

    14,241

    14,258

    Source: KH08.

    Continuing Care Beds
    Mr. Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department issues to health authorities regarding the discharge of patients from continuing care beds to private residential or nursing homes.

    Mr. Yeo
    Guidance "Discharge of patients from hospital—HC(89)5", on discharge procedures was issued to health authorities in February 1989. A copy is available in the Library.

    Mr. Bowden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by health authority area, the numbers of
    408
    (b) the level of reserves of nursing and ancilliary services available for emergencies and relapses of patients during post-operative recuperation.

    Mr. Sackville
    The introduction of a new national health service research and development (R and D) strategy marks our commitment to increasing the resources devoted to R and D for the national health service. Although staffing levels are primarily decisions for local management, the national health service reforms provide an effective mechanism for targeting resources where they are most responsive to patients' needs, including post-operative recuperation.

    Surgery
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the average weekly number of theatre sessions for each regional health authority for each year since 1985 and for the current year to date.

    Mr. Sackville
    The available information is given in the table. Information about operating theatre usage has been collected centrally only since 1987. Figures for the year ending March 1992 are not yet available centrally.

    continuing care beds available in hospitals, for occupation by elderly people, and what is the average length of stay in such beds.

    Mr. Yeo
    The table shows, for each health authority, the number of beds in wards designated for elderly patients. Continuing care beds are not separately identified. The average length of stay in these beds is 36.2 days.
    409

    Number of beds available in wards designated general patient — elderly in 1990–91

    Number

    Northern Regional Health Authority

    3,683

    Hartlepool

    157

    North Tees

    160

    South Tees

    244

    East Cumbria

    279

    South Cumbria

    269

    West Cumbria

    194

    Darlington

    144

    Durham

    173

    North West Durham

    121

    South West Durham

    179

    Northumberland

    339

    Gateshead

    216

    Newcastle

    457

    North Tyneside

    185

    South Tyneside

    171

    Sunderland

    395

    Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

    3,909

    Hull

    239

    East Yorkshire

    178

    Grimsby

    152

    Scunthorpe

    223

    Northallerton

    95

    York

    236

    Scarborough

    177

    Harrogate

    176

    Bradford

    340

    Airedale

    218

    Calderdale

    240

    Huddersfield

    256

    Dewsbury

    175

    Leeds Western

    442

    Leeds Eastern

    386

    Wakefield

    168

    Pontefract

    209

    Trent Regional Health Authority

    4,411

    North Derbyshire

    333

    South Derbyshire

    434

    Leicestershire

    758

    North Lincolnshire

    257

    South Lincolnshire

    276

    Bassetlaw

    105

    Central Nottinghamshire

    282

    Nottingham

    572

    Barnsley

    273

    Doncaster

    283

    Rotherham

    250

    Sheffield

    588

    East Anglian Regional Health Authority

    2,373

    Cambridge

    344

    Peterborough

    238

    West Suffolk

    295

    East Suffolk

    426

    Norwich

    503

    Great Yarmouth and Waveney

    204

    West Norfolk and Wisbech

    251

    Huntingdon

    112

    North West Thames Regional Health Authority

    3,173

    North Bedfordshire

    238

    South Bedfordshire

    169

    North Hertfordshire

    203

    East Hertfordshire

    209

    North West Hertfordshire

    256

    South West Hertfordshire

    184

    Barnet

    473

    Harrow

    169

    Hillingdon

    238

    Hounslow and Spelthorne

    230

    Ealing

    131

    Riverside

    255

    Parkside

    418

    410

    Number

    North East Thames Regional Health Authority

    3,483

    Basildon and Thurrock

    285

    Mid Essex

    253

    North East Essex

    241

    West Essex

    214

    Southend

    214

    Barking, Havering and Brentwood

    335

    Hampstead

    130

    Bloomsbury

    76

    Islington

    102

    City and Hackney

    149

    Newham

    248

    Tower Hamlets

    225

    Enfield

    209

    Haringey

    221

    Redbridge

    236

    Waltham Forest

    346

    South East Thames Regional Health Authority

    3,212

    Brighton

    229

    Eastbourne

    290

    Hastings

    254

    South East Kent

    316

    Canterbury and Thanet

    298

    Dartford and Gravesham

    166

    Maidstone

    129

    Medway

    228

    Tunbridge Wells

    163

    Bexley

    138

    Greenwich

    189

    Bromley

    249

    West Lambeth

    142

    Camberwell

    164

    Lewisham and North Southwark

    259

    South West Thames Regional Health Authority

    2,566

    North West Surrey

    157

    West Surrey and North East Hants

    174

    South West Surrey

    224

    Mid Surrey

    133

    East Surrey

    180

    Chichester

    98

    Mid Downs

    218

    Worthing

    352

    Croydon

    200

    Kingston and Esher

    231

    Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

    166

    Wandsworth

    189

    Merton and Sutton

    244

    Wessex Regional Health Authority

    2,780

    East Dorset

    583

    West Dorset

    238

    Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    441

    Southampton and South West Hampshire

    322

    Winchester

    186

    Basingstoke and North Hampshire

    165

    Salisbury

    164

    Swindon

    174

    Bath

    378

    Isle of Wight

    127

    Oxford Regional Health Authority

    1,647

    East Berkshire

    165

    West Berkshire

    328

    Aylesbury Vale

    124

    Wycombe

    205

    Milton Keynes

    83

    Kettering

    295

    Northampton

    220

    Oxfordshire

    227

    South Western Regional Health Authority

    3,240

    Bristol and Weston

    206

    Frenchay

    396

    Southmead

    84

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    395

    Exeter

    367

    411

    Number

    North Devon

    183

    Plymouth

    414

    Torbay

    221

    Cheltenham

    262

    Gloucester

    296

    Somerset

    417

    West Midlands Regional Health Authority

    4,846

    Bromsgrove and Redditch

    87

    Herefordshire

    157

    Kidderminster and District

    136

    Worcester and District

    214

    Shropshire

    263

    Mid Staffordshire

    210

    North Staffordshire

    643

    South East Staffordshire

    372

    Rugby

    75

    North Warwickshire

    131

    South Warwickshire

    226

    Central Birmingham

    162

    East Birmingham

    206

    North Birmingham

    160

    South Birmingham

    334

    West Birmingham

    341

    Coventry

    4

    Dudley

    196

    Sandwell

    234

    Solihull

    84

    Walsall

    286

    Wolverhampton

    326

    Mersey Regional Health Authority

    2,047

    Chester

    206

    Crewe

    259

    Halton

    67

    Macclesfield

    108

    Warrington

    96

    Liverpool

    368

    St. Helens and Knowsley

    192

    Southport and Formby

    153

    South Sefton

    212

    Wirral

    387

    North Western Regional Health Authority

    4,406

    Lancaster

    189

    Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

    409

    Preston

    138

    Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

    258

    Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

    264

    West Lancashire

    78

    Chorley and South Ribble

    118

    Bolton

    283

    Bury

    210

    North Manchester

    230

    Central Manchester

    142

    South Manchester

    298

    Oldham

    194

    Rochdale

    166

    Salford

    290

    Stockport

    382

    Tameside and Glossop

    230

    Trafford

    210

    Wigan

    317

    Special Health Authorities

    127

    The Hospitals for Sick Children

    0

    The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

    0

    Moorfields Eye Hospital

    0

    Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

    0

    Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital

    0

    The Royal Marsden Hospital

    0

    Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

    127

    The Eastman Dental Hospital

    0

    England

    45,902

    Source: KHO3.

    Employment Statistics
    Mr. Etherington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the number of practice managers of health centres who are employed on Whitley council salary grade 4 or less in(a) the Northern regional health authority, (b) Sunderland district health authority and (c) England and Wales;

    (2) if she will list the number of single-handed general practitioner practices which employ (a) 0 to two staff (full-time equivalent), (b) three to five staff (full-time equivalent), (c) five to 10 staff (full-time equivalent) and (d) more than 10 staff (full-time equivalent) in (i) the Northern regional health authority, (ii) Sunderland district health authority and (iii) England and Wales.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    This information is not held centrally.

    Single Practices
    Mr. Etherington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the number of single-handed practices which have patient lists of(a) 1,000 or less, (b) 2,000 and (c) 3,000 or more in (i) the Northern regional health authority, (ii) Sunderland district health authority and (iii) England and Wales;

    (2) if she will list the number of single general practitioner practices in the (a) Northern regional health authority, (b) Sunderland district health authority and (c)England and Wales.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The latest available information for 1 October 1991 is shown in the table. Information on general medical practitioners is collected by family health services authority area. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    Single-handed general medical practitioner list sizes

    Northern RHA

    Sunderland (FHSA)

    England

    Total number of single handed general medical practitioners

    129

    13

    2,923

    List size: 1,000 or less

    7

    0

    390

    List size 1,000-1,999

    57

    6

    921

    List size 2,000-2,999

    53

    4

    1,220

    List size: 3,000 or more

    12

    3

    392

    Abortion
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the methods of disposal now being used at private abortion centres; if any recognised abortion centre is still using a macerator; whether she will establish an independent monitoring team to investigate private centres; and if she will make a statement:

    (2) if she will make a statement on the way in which the remains of aborted unborn children are disposed of.

    Mr. Sackville
    Guidelines have been issued to the NHS and the private abortion sector making it clear that, subject to personal wishes, fetuses and fetal tissue from termination of pregnancy must be incinerated. This is the method now being used by all places approved under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967. Compliance in the NHS is a matter for individual health authorities. The Department's medical, nursing and investigative officers make regular unannounced inspections of approved places and I see no need to change that arrangement.
    413
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unborn children were aborted, during the last 12 months for which figures are available, at(a) 10 to 12 weeks, (b) 12 to 14 weeks, (c) 14 to 16 weeks, (d) 16 to 18 weeks, (e) 18 to 20 weeks, (f) 20 to 22 weeks and (g) 22 to 24 weeks gestation.

    Mr. Sackville
    The figures requested are not readily available in the form requested. The table shows the information that is readily available for England, Wales and Scotland:

    Number of abortions by gestation weeks, England, Wales and Scotland. (1 October 1990–30 September 1991)

    Gestation weeks

    Number of abortions

    9-12

    97,098

    13-14

    10,577

    15-16

    6,292

    17-18

    4,207

    19-20

    2,803

    21-22

    1,625

    23-24

    709

    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unborn children with mental or physical handicaps were aborted after 24 weeks' gestation.

    Mr. Sackville
    Between 1 April and 30 September 1991, 31 abortions were performed in England, Wales and Scotland after 24 weeks' gestation under statutory ground E which states:"there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".

    These are the most recent figures available since the changes to the Abortion Act 1967, as amended by section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, came into effect on 1 April 1991.

    Hospital Doctors' Working Hours
    Mr. David Porter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out her plans for the reduction of junior hospital doctors' hours.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The "New Deal" for junior doctors, launched in June 1991, set a time scale for reducing the hours of duty of doctors and dentists in training. Under the "new deal", average weekly contracted hours of duty are to be reduced initially to 83 per week for those working on-call rotas, 72 per week for those working partial shifts and 60 per week for those working full shifts. This was to be done as soon as practicable but, in the light of progress to date, we announced in May that we had set a target date of 1 April 1993 for achieving this.

    Average weekly contracted hours of duty are to be reduced further to a maximum of 72 per week for those in hard-pressed on-call posts, 64 per week for those working partial shifts and 56 per week for those working full shifts by 31 December 1994. Regardless of contracted hours, our intention is that no junior doctor employed on a full-time basis should normally be expected to work for more than an average of 56 hours per week by that date.

    Subject to review by the ministerial group on junior doctors' hours, the aim is to reduce maximum average contracted hours of duty for on-call posts which are considered not to be hard pressed to 72 per week by the end of 1996. Doctors in higher professional training may
    414
    still contract for up to 83 hours per week after that date where it would be to the benefit of their training and they wish to do so, providing proper support staffing exists and the duties are not harmful either to the trainees or to patients.

    Leeds General Infirmary
    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what examination her Department has made of the compliance of the consultancy with the firm Madgenix formerly held by Dr. Ian Barnes at the Leeds general infirmary department of chemical pathology, with her Department's circular HM/62/21; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Sackville
    Allegations concerning this consultancy were the subject of an investigation by the internal auditors of Leeds Western health authority in 1989. An independent consultancy conducted the internal audit. The allegations were not substantiated.

    Recent restatements of the allegations by the Management Science and Finance Union have now been referred to the internal auditors by the board of the United Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust.

    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department has taken since the statutory auditor's report on the department on chemical pathology at Leeds general infirmary in 1987; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Sackville
    The Department sought an assurance from Yorkshire regional health authority that the matters contained in the 1987 statutory auditor's report were being addressed. The region reported to the Department in December 1989 that following an internal review, the then Leeds Western health authority had introduced revised procedures for the management of pathology services. The region was satisfied with the district's response to the audit criticisms.

    EC Proposals
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the experts her Department consults on European Community proposals relating to health matters.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The Department consults public sector bodies, professional associations, voluntary organisations and other bodies on EC proposals relating to health matters depending upon the contents of the proposal.

    Food Poisoning
    Mr. Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the number of egg-associated food poisoning outbreaks during 1991, listing all the local authorities who have reported such outbreaks to the communicable disease surveillance centre; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Sackville
    The bulk of egg-associated food poisoning outbreaks reported are caused by salmonellas. Outbreaks of human salmonellosis reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service's (PHLS) communicable disease surveillance centre, together with information on suspect foods, are routinely published in the PHLS-SVS
    415
    update on salmonella infection. The total number of outbreaks reported in 1991 was 57. Reports of outbreaks are voluntary and are made in confidence to the PHLS. Publication of reports broken down by local authority could damage the continued co-operation of local investigators in providing information relating to outbreaks, which is important for national infectious disease control.

    The table gives the information by regional health authority.

    Family and general outbreaks of salmonella in which eggs or foods containing eggs were reported as the suspect food

    England and Wales 1991

    Region

    Number of reports

    Northern

    4

    Yorkshire

    5

    Trent

    6

    East Anglia

    3

    North West Thames

    4

    North East Thames

    2

    South East Thames

    6

    South West Thames

    8

    Wessex

    8

    Oxford

    1

    South Western

    2

    West Midlands

    3

    Mersey

    0

    North Western

    2

    Wales

    2

    TOTAL

    157

    1 Includes one outbreak reported from the Wessex/Oxford/South Western regional health authority.

    Notes:

    1. Data provided by the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre.

    2. An outbreak represents two or more related laboratory confirmed salmonella infections in humans of whom at least one was ill.

    3. Suspect foods are those reported to communicable disease surveillance centre as such.

    4. The total of 57 reports in 1991 includes five not reported in time for inclusion in the January 1992 PHLS-SVS update.

    Departmental Environment Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of her Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions her Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if she will make a statement.

    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave him today.

    Blood Transfusion Service
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) why screening for human T-cell leukaemia in the blood transfusion service has not been introduced;

    (2) if she will publish the conclusions of the study into the risks of the human T-cell leukaemia virus undertaken at the north London blood transfusion centre on behalf of her Department.

    Mr. Sackville
    The survey by the north London blood transfusion centre into the prevalence of HTLV in its blood donors has recently been concluded and the findings 416
    have been presented at a scientific meeting. The results are being considered by an expert advisory committee and recommendations are expected to be presented to Ministers shortly.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has given regarding(a) the ownership of private medical companies by general practitioner fund holders and (b) the referral of patients for treatment by such companies by fund holders involved in the companies.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Regulation 3(2) of the National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) (General) Regulations 1991 requires GP fund holders to obtain the written consent of the regional health authority before they are able to use the practice fund to purchase any services from a body with which they have a particular connection. This would include a contract placed with any medical companies in which any member of the fund holding practice had a financial interest, for example, as director or employee. These regulations were issued to all GP fund holders.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department gives to health authorities concerning expenditure by health authorities on newspaper advertisements issued in connection with an authority's proposal to apply for trust status.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    None. Trust applications are subject to public consultation by regional health authorities, and it is for regions, in consultation with individual trust applicants to decide how best to conduct the consultation and bring it to public notice.

    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards applications for trust status where a hospital trust business plan has as its long-term objective the closure of the hospital concerned.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    To be successful, each trust must provide the range, volume and quality of services required by its purchasers.

    Each trust application is judged against four key criteria: the benefits to patients and improvements in the quality of services it will achieve; leadership and management; the involvement in management of key professional staff; and, financial viability.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. William O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will undertake an investigation into the level of respiratory problems of the people in the village of Kirkhamgate, west Yorkshire, brought about in the area by opencast operations;

    (2) how many children and adults in the village of Kirkhamgate, west Yorkshire are suffering respiratory problems following the opencast coal mining operations in the area; and if she will make a statement.

    Mr. Sackville
    Information concerning people with respiratory problems in Kirkhamgate are not collected centrally. The district health authority is not aware of any respiratory problems associated with the small opencast mine nearby.
    417
    It is not clear what role current levels of air pollutants may play in the occurrence of respiratory complaints. I am advised, however, that there is no evidence to suggest that surface mineral working causes any detrimental health effects on local communities. Further research needs in the general area of the effects of air pollutants upon health is being considered by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants which was set up by the Department this year.

    Maternity Services
    Ms. Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department ceased to collect centrally information on the place of birth of babies born to women resident in Dacorum and St. Albans districts broken down by hospital in the form indicated in her answer of 15 October 1990,Official Report, columns 656-57.

    Mr. Sackville
    I regret that the answer given to the hon. Member on 13 January, at column 522, was incorrect. The information requested in that question is as follows:

    Dacorum

    St. Albans

    St. Albans City Hospital

    1,159

    1,282

    Luton and Dunstable Hospital

    21

    49

    Queen Elizabeth II Hospital, Welwyn Garden City

    5

    156

    Watford General Hospital

    210

    58

    Royal Buckinghamshire Hospital

    180

    0

    RAF Halton Maternity Unit

    191

    0

    Other hospitals

    73

    60

    At home

    43

    17

    Elsewhere

    1

    1

    Total

    1,883

    1,623

    South Birmingham Health Authority
    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the KPMG Peat Marwick report into South Birmingham health authority will be available.

    Mr. Sackville
    We expect the report to be submitted to the regional health authority shortly.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Mink
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department gives to establishments, licensed under the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987, on the avoidance of spread of diseases of mink between establishments and to other wild species.

    Mr. Soames
    Licensed mink-keeping establishments are visited periodically by the state veterinary service. These visits are primarily concerned with welfare matters, but, when necessary advice is provided on disease.

    Sheep Dip
    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the scientific advisers to the Veterinary Products Committee who advised on organophosphorous sheep dips, and their employers; what evidence they gave; and if he will make a statement.
    418
    Mr. Soames
    In order to ensure an independent assessment of the dossiers supporting applications, the Veterinary Products Committee supplements its own expertise with advice from officials in the veterinary medicines directorate, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of the Environment. In respect of organophosphorous sheep dips, that advice has also included: an analysis of reports made under the suspected adverse reaction surveillance scheme; the results of an Health and Safety Executive survey of sheep dipping practice in the farming community; and the report of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides into diazinon's use as a pesticide. The committee has recently asked companies to supply further data by the end of the year on studies of farm operators, including blood tests and details of protective clothing worn, as well as studies to show which areas of the bodies of operators are most exposed.

    Sheep Scab
    Mr. Tyler
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been done into the efficacy of different methods for eliminating sheep scab; what are the numbers of infected animals reported in the last five years for which statistics are available; and what comparable eradication schemes operate in other EC countries.

    Mr. Gummer
    Research is being carried out at the Central Veterinary Laboratory into methods of sheep scab control other than dipping.

    Information on the number of infected animals is not available because—as long as the disease remains notifiable—infestation is recorded on a flock basis. In Great Britain, the number of outbreaks of sheep scab by flock in the past five years are as follows:

    Year

    Number

    1988

    36

    1989

    66

    1990

    95

    1991

    116

    1992

    193

    1 to 31 May

    The Department does not maintain comprehensive information on the control policies in other Community member states. There is no Community requirement for action to control scab.

    Nutrition Systems
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much funding is currently allocated by his Department to the encouragement of(a) an integrated plant nutrition system, (b) the raised efficiency of synthetic fertiliser use and (c) the promotion of effective low input systems.

    Mr. Curry
    In 1992–93, the Department will be spending about £7 million on(a) and (b) and £6 million on (c) Some £14.8 million will also be spent on the reduction of pesticide usage, which has a major underpinning role in the development of low input systems. The LINK programme "Technologies for Sustainable Farming Systems", introduced in July 1991, is designed to promote collaborative research in the areas

    419
    mentioned, and total financial support for that programme will exceed £4 million, of which half will be contributed by the Government.

    Animal Slaughtering
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to bring forward legislation which will prohibit the export of live animals for slaughter; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Soames
    There are no plans to introduce such legislation. New Community rules will come into force on 1 January 1993 to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport. These rules will apply equally to transport within and between member states.

    Tobacco
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present subsidy for tobacco farmers from the common agricultural policy; what proportion of the CAP is allocated to support to tobacco farmers; and what proportion of the subsidised tobacco is exported to third world countries.

    Mr. Curry
    In 1991, the EC spent 1,300 mecu—about £927 million—on the CAP tobacco regime, which is about 3.9 per cent. of total CAP expenditure. About 18 per cent. of EC raw tobacco production goes to developing countries.

    Chernobyl
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the number of farms and (b) their acreage that remain under restriction orders in the United Kingdom as a result of the radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

    Mr. Curry
    The information requested is as follows:

    Number of farms

    Acreage (approximate)

    England

    138

    95,500

    Northern Ireland

    110

    19,850

    Scotland

    60

    145,420

    Wales

    407

    205,500

    Conservation Projects
    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the agricultural industry with regard to future assistance for conservation projects undertaken by farmers.

    Mr. Soames
    My ministerial colleagues and I have frequent meetings with representatives of the industry about a wide range of issues, including future assistance for conservation projects underaken by farmers.

    EC Proposals
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to agricultural matters.

    Mr. Curry
    My Department consults a very wide range of organisations on European Community proposals.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tests he has carried out on milk for the presence of the organism causing BSE in the last three years; what was the outcome of the tests; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gummer
    Milk has never been shown to transmit any of the spongiform encephalopathies or to contain the infective agent.

    Nevertheless, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funded work starting in 1988 at the Royal Veterinary College, London to determine whether infectivity exists in milk, mammary gland—udder—or supramammary lymph node of four cows with confirmed BSE. No infectivity was found.

    A second experiment has been initiated in which susceptible mice will be fed milk from six confirmed cases of BSE—two each at early, mid and late lactation. The results will be published in the normal way when the experiment is complete.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Ministry's progress in developing a blood test for BSE; and when he expects that such a test might be available for use.

    Mr. Gummer
    Studies are still under way to develop a satisfactory diagnostic test to detect the BSE agent in the live animal. It is not possible to forecast when such a test might be available, or even to be sure that a blood test will necessarily be the best method of detection. The hon. Member can rest assured that I shall announce any change in the position without delay.

    Flood Risks
    Mr. David Porter
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study his Department has made of the flood risks posed by sea level rises in the future to(a) the nuclear power station sites in Suffolk and (b) the former toxic waste tip near Pakerfield, Suffolk; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Curry
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has produced estimates of possible sea level rise on a global basis, amounting to about 20 cm by the year 2030 and 65 cm by 2100, but it is not yet possible to assess with precision likely sea level rise in particular localities. Based on this and other information, the Department has issued guidance to the National Rivers Authority and maritime district councils about allowances to be made for sea level rise and crustal movement in designing coastal defences. For the Anglian region, the recommended allowance is 6 mm a year. Although no specific studies have been made of the sites referred to by the hon. Member, it is not thought that either site will be affected by sea level rise.

    Departmental Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.
    421
    Mr. Gummer
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    State Veterinary Service
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of state veterinary service staff in each year since 1985.

    Mr. Soames
    Since 1985, the structure of the state veterinary service has changed several times. For example, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, which formed part of the state veterinary service attained agency status in April 1990. In order to allow direct comparisons, the figures provided relate to veterinary, technical and scientific staff in headquarters, the field and investigation services only.

    As at 1 January 1985—Figures not readily available.

    As at 1 January 1986—Total 768

    As at 1 January 1987—Total 689

    As at 1 January 1988—Total 711.5

    As at 1 January 1989—Total 707.5

    As at 1 January 1990—Total 767

    As at 1 January 1991—Total 800.5

    As at 1 January 1992—Total 798

    Shellfish Farming
    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sum of money has been made available by his Department to meet costs of hygiene testing at or near shellfish farming sites in pursuance of EC directive 492.

    Mr. Sackville
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Department has made funds available in 1991–92 and 1992–93 to assist with the initial classification of shellfish harvesting areas in England and Wales required by this directive.

    Funds have been allocated to the Public Health Laboratory Service to enable additional microbiological examinations of shellfish to be made without charge to local authorities. The Department has also offered assistance, to local authorities that request it, with the costs of collection of shellfish samples, contributing to such costs as boat hire and transport of samples. Local authorities are expected to meet their own manpower costs.

    In the last two financial quarters—January to June 1992—total funding under these two schemes has amounted to £222,500. The Department will shortly be inviting bids from local authorities for the next quarter.

  DEFENCE

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position on the United Kingdom nuclear weapons at sea policy.

    Mr. Rifkind
    The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation confirmed last autumn that the sub-strategic nuclear capability remains essential to provide the link between conventional and strategic forces, but that significant reductions in sub-strategic nuclear forces were now possible. In addition to the reductions announced last autumn, the alliance has decided to terminate the deployment of US nuclear depth bombs on NATO maritime patrol aircraft.
    422
    The Government are committed to maintaining the United Kindom's nuclear arsenal at the minimum level necessary for our deterrent needs. My predecessor announced last Septemberr that tactical nuclear weapons would no longer be deployed on Royal Navy ships in normal circumstances. The Government have now decided that this residual capability is no longer needed. Royal Navy ships and aircraft and Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft will therefore no longer have the capability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom weapons previously earmarked for this role will be destroyed. The United Kingdom's sub-strategic nuclear capability will therefore consist of Royal Air Force dual-capable aircraft with the WE177 free-fall bomb.

    Research Establishment, Dundrennan
    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what complaints he has received about misuse of public property and personnel at the royal armament research development establishment, Dundrennan; what action he has taken; what has been the outcome; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Aitken
    A number of allegations were made in August last year by a Transport and General Workers Union representative concerning misuse of official property and labour at the Kirkcudbright range. The allegations were investigated by the Ministry of Defence police who concluded that there were no grounds for proceeding with criminal charges against the individuals concerned. It was evident, however, that there were a number of management deficiencies that should be rectified. Action has been taken to ensure that such deficiencies will not recur.

    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent staff changes there have been at the royal armament research development establishment, Dundrennan; what has been the reason for the change in each case; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Aitken
    Since 1 April 1992 two MoD industrial grade staff have retired on medical grounds. As part of the current MoD staff reduction exercise these staff were not replaced. Changes in the contractors' staff are a matter for the contractor.

    Mr. Foulkes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the ownership, management and staffing arrangements at the royal armament research development establishment at Dundrennan.

    Mr. Aitken
    The royal armament research development establishment at Dundrennan was transferred from the Defence Research Agency on 1 April 1992 to the directorate general of test and evaluation as part of the directorate of research facilities and ranges. It is therefore now an MOD establishment. The facility employs contractors for much of the work and the staff is therefore made up of both MoD and contractors' staff.

    RAF Review
    Mr. Robert Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of the personnel who have prepared options for the review of the structure of RAF MOD establishments.
    423
    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    It is not our practice to name officials in these circumstances. The options reflect wide consultation throughout the Air Force, the Office of Management and Budget, civilian personnel management and the Defence Works Services Organisation. The consultative document published on 4 June indicates the officials to whom comments and observations are to be directed.

    Political Literature
    Mr. Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how literature from the political parties promoting candidates at a general election is made available to serving members of the armed forces; whether canvassing on military installations is encouraged together with the distribution of unsolicited leaflets; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Queen's regulations prohibit the distribution of literature about the programmes or policies of political parties through service channels. Where there is normal access direct from the public highway canvassers may visit married quarters and families' hostels. Where access is by service roads and there is no separate entrance, access to accommodation will be at the discretion of the commanding officer.

    Defence Exhibition, Chile
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what help was given by the United Kingdom armed forces to British companies taking part in FIDAE 92 aerospace and defence exhibition in Chile in March.

    Mr. Aitken
    At the invitation of the Chilean air force, eight RAF aircraft were present at FIDAE 92. The RAF also co-hosted a reception.

    Military Equipment (Promotion)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and places to be visited by HMS Invincible and the other Royal Navy ships taking part in the promotional tour for British military equipment; what the cost of the tour is; and whether all costs are being paid by his Department.

    Mr. Aitken
    HMS Invincible, escorted by HMS Newcastle, HMS Norfolk, HMS Boxer and two Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, is currently undertaking a six-month operational deployment to the far east, known as Orient '92. Although appropriate opportunities will be taken to help promote British defence exports, this is not the primary purpose of the deployment. Orient '92 is intended to demonstrate the continuing ability of the Royal Navy to operate in strength outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation area. It will provide the Royal Navy with valuable opportunities to practice operating as a task group in relatively unfamiliar environments, and to take part in bilateral and multilateral exercises with friendly navies. Ships from the task group have already visited Greece and Egypt. Further planned visits are as follows:

    Month

    Kenya

    June

    Seychelles

    June

    Mauritius

    June

    424

    Month

    Diego Garcia

    June, October

    Singapore

    July, August, September

    Malaysia

    July, August, September

    Hong Kong

    July, August, September

    Republic of Korea

    July, August

    Japan

    July, August

    Indonesia

    July, September

    Brunei

    August

    Thailand

    September

    Philippines

    September

    Australia

    September, October

    Oman

    October

    Bahrain

    October

    United Arab Emirates

    October

    Qatar

    October

    Egypt

    November

    The ships would, of course, have undertaken other tasks had they not been participating in Orient '92. It is therefore difficult to disaggregate the additional costs of the deployment. However, we expect them to be in the order of £4 million. All of these costs are being met by my Department.

    Operation Gladio
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the public disclosure of information on the activities of and United Kingdom support for Operation Gladio since its inception.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    It has been the policy of successive Governments not to comment on matters of this nature. This remains the policy.

    Departmental Environment Policies
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Aitken
    In accordance with the Government's policy set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200), my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence is the nominated Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of the Department's policies and programmes. My noble Friend assumed this responsibility in April.

    Since the appointment of a nominated Minister responsible for environmental matters in September 1990, a network of environment committees has been established within my Department and the three services. The senior committee is the defence environment committee chaired by my noble Friend. The MOD environment manual, which gives practical advice on a wide range of environmental issues, was published in 1991 and has been distributed throughout my Department. At present, the MOD is carrying out a comprehensive environmental review of its activities in order to assess its performance on environmental matters. Further information and details of specific initiatives are contained in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 (Vol. 1, Ch. 5).

    Hospitals
    Ms. Harman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by county and region his Department's hospitals in the United Kingdom which had consultant

    Service hospital

    County

    Regional Health Authority

    Number of beds1

    Cambridge military hospital, Aldershot

    Hampshire

    South West

    58

    Princess of Wales2

    Cambridgeshire

    East Anglia

    322

    RAF hospital, Ely

    47

    Princess Alexandra RAF hospital, Wroughton

    Wiltshire

    Wessex

    16

    Princess Mary's RAF hospital, Halton

    Buckinghamshire

    Oxford

    10

    1 Only obstetric maternity beds are to be found in service hospitals.

    2 Obstetric unit closed in March 1991.

    3 January-October 1990.

    4 November 1990—February 1991.

    Acoustic Net Pinger
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for the development of an acoustic net pinger to assist submarines in locating the presence of fishing nets.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    A contract is shortly to be placed with Graseby Dynamics Ltd. of Bushey, Hertfordshire for the supply of 100 acoustic net pingers. These pingers will be used in an extended sea trial to assess their effectiveness in a working environment. It is planned that the trial, which will be carried out in the Clyde submarine exercise areas in conjunction with the Clyde Fishermens Association, will begin in early 1993 and last for about 18
    426
    obstetric or general practitioner maternity beds in 1990–91, and give the number of beds of each type in each hospital.

    Mr. Aitken
    The information requested is as follows:

    months. This contract follows the completion of a technical specification by the maritime division of the Defence Research Agency for which competitive tenders were sought.

    EC Proposals
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to defence matters.

    Mr. Archie Hamilton
    Defence does not come within the ambit of the European Community. It does not therefore make proposals relating to defence matters.

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

Care in the Community: Funding
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the funds to be made available to local authorities to implement care in the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we shall announce the funds for the third and final phase of the implementation of the Community Care Act in this year's local government expenditure survey.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for her reply, are the Government aware of the grave difficulties which will be faced by local councils trying to implement community care by 1st April 1993 if the announcement of the funding available to them is made only in the autumn, which is what I gather to be the situation from the Minister's reply? Therefore, will the Government please bring forward that announcement to give more time for local authorities to make the necessary plans? Further, are the Government aware of the serious concerns expressed by local government that there will he a shortfall in funding for the implementation of community care, which, as the Government will be aware, affects the most vulnerable members of our community?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's first point, it is important that local
2
authorities should not be blinded by the transfer. As a former chairman of a social services committee I know that at the beginning of the year one knows the bulk of the expenditure that one has for the coming year. It is the marginal parts of the budget which are negotiated with the Treasury. I do not believe that local authorities will have a problem.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend's original Answer mean that funds will be provided in order to implement fully care in the community? Can she say when that process will be completed? Will it be at the end of the coming financial year—and if not, when?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend by saying that I believe that the implementation of care in the community will take many years. So far we have dealt with the first two phases. The third phase will take a considerable time. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and her predecessors have given undertakings that the policy will be fairly resourced, that the transfer funds from social security will be transparent and the basis of the calculation made clear, and that the Government will use their powers to ensure that money transferred from social security will not be diverted or misused.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in my view it is appalling for local authorities to have to wait until November? As she well knows, they have to make great plans. Here we are dealing with the most vulnerable members of society, particularly the elderly and the elderly mentally infirm. The Government have had nearly four years to work out the funding: why have they not reached a decision by now? Can the noble Baroness tell me what consultations have taken place, both with the local authority associations and with the principal voluntary organisations involved, so that they at least may know what resources they will have to fulfil this major responsibility?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, considerable negotiations have been taking place with local

3
authorities, housing authorities and the voluntary sector. The money that is being transferred from social security is new money. The bulk of the work being carried out in the community will continue. Local authorities are aware of that. This is new money and local authorities will be very grateful for additional resources.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the anxiety felt by people with disabilities and their organisations at the Government's refusal to implement the sections of the Griffiths Report relating to special funds being made available for community care for 1993? Will she also say how the Government will ensure that community care funds, such as they are, are not diverted to some other cause?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have already given that undertaking. The Government are determined that the policy of community care will be fairly funded. The transfer will be transparent so that local authorities, voluntary organisations and other people in the community will be able to assess whether that money is going where it is intended. The Government are determined to make the policy a success.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, does that mean that the money for community care will be ring fenced?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I repeat that the policy will be fairly resourced. The Government are determined to ensure that none of the social security money that is transferred will be diverted or misused. There are monitoring mechanisms through the social services inspectorate to ensure that that happens.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the date when the money for community care will be made available? We waited for over two years after publication of the Griffiths Report. We expected to have the money a year ago. We have been told that it will be available in 1993. Does she agree that there are a great many people up and down the country, particularly those who are doing the caring in the country—6 million of them—who will be waiting for the money and who do not know what will happen? They require a date and they require it soon. Will the Minister tell us when the money will come?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it will come with the PES settlement.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider the assessment procedure that will have to be carried out on each client who receives community care? Who will undertake that assessment? Will it be undertaken by the district nurse or general practitioner who looks after the client? Will that procedure be financed with new money?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, considerable additional money has already gone into community care especially for training. The assessment will be done by social workers in close collaboration with district nurses, home helps and all the other people involved in looking after the dependent person at
4
home. It is essential that they work together, but the assessment will be done by special care officers who are trained for that role.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is deeply unreasonable that while the Government should take four years to plan community care and their Algebra Group has completed its financial sums, they allow individual local authorities only four months' notice of their budgets? Mr. Redwood, the Minister for Local Government in another place, has said that the delay is because of concern at the cost of community care proposals for the new council tax. Will the Minister confirm that the Department of Health's smooth introduction of community care, which we all want, is being delayed by and may be sacrificed to the Department of the Environment's deeply flawed council tax?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct to say that there will be a smooth introduction of community care. It is absolutely right that the Government have taken three years to introduce it. From 1st April 1991 social services departments were required to introduce inspection units and complaints procedures and they have done so. Additional money has been made available through specific grants. In 1992 local authorities and health authorities were required to produce and publish community care plans. They have done so. This year we shall transfer the social security money into local authority budgets. I have every confidence that that will take place smoothly. The Government are fully committed to this policy and will ensure that it is introduced smoothly and effectively.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge the importance of the reply given by the noble Baroness, but does she agree that one of the disturbing and distressing features of this subject is that in various parts of the country assistance for community care is desperately needed and in others it is not so urgent? Does she agree that it would be proper for the department to examine where its help and services are most urgently needed and to provide them there first?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is essential that this policy is introduced throughout the country. We have waited for it a long time. It will be introduced on 1st April next year.

Gibraltar: J. S. Copley's Painting
2.47 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the return to Gibraltar of J. S. Copley's painting "The Siege and Relief of Gibraltar: 13th September 1782", previously on loan to the Convent (the Governor's residence) from the Tate Gallery.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the decision on this matter is for the trustees of the Tate Gallery. I have

5
discussed this with the Tate and I believe that a suitable agreement for the return of the painting can be reached.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that hopeful Answer. I believe that the Tate Gallery may be willing to return the painting to Gibraltar if somebody else foots the bill. If that is the case, is the Minister prepared to discuss with, for example, the Wolfson Foundation and the Family Charitable Trust, which are involved in the Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund, the possibility of meeting the cost on a 50–50 basis with the Government?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is important that the trustees of the Tate Gallery are prepared to lend the picture back to the museum in Gibraltar. It is for the Gibraltar museum to raise the money to get it back there. I am sure that any suggestions for helping to raise that money will be very welcome. I shall pass on the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the picture adorned the dining room at the Convent for many years and that it was appropriately placed there? Does he agree that it is quite ridiculous for it to go hack to the Tate where there are already thousands of pictures in store?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. It was in Gibraltar for 20 years. However, it was necessary for the picture to be returned to this country for cleaning. That conservation work will be done by the end of August.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give any idea of how much the movement of the picture will cost? I should have thought that it would not be very considerable. If it is considerable, can he say why?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that the cost of returning the picture to Gibraltar could amount to between £5,000 and £6,000. That is because of freight charges and the need to send someone from the Tate Gallery to oversee the unpacking and hanging of the picture.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that Mr. J. S. Copley was my great-greatgrandfather? So long as I am not asked for any money, I fully support the proposal.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure we are all delighted to hear that information. Noble Lords will remember that the siege of Gibraltar was lifted by Lord Howe in 1782. No doubt his descendant, my noble friend, will be able to conduct his Bill this afternoon in the same exemplary fashion.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have to go back, alas, to the general rather than the personal aspect of the matter. Is it not true that the Tate Gallery wishes this picture and others which are on loan to be shown only in museums where they are treated with great care and are accessible to people? I understand that the cost is £5,365, which includes the fees of the courier whom
6
the Tate insists would have to accompany the painting. Is it true that the cost will be paid by the borrower and not by the Tate Gallery?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is normal policy for the borrower to pay the cost of receiving a picture from the Tate Gallery or indeed many other institutions. The noble Baroness is right. The picture will be on public display in Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to a figure of £5,000. Why should it be so expensive to return this painting to Gibraltar when it was Mr. Roy Perry, Deputy Keeper—Conservation, who brought the painting back in November 1990? I am sure that that could not have been the cost,
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a matter for the Tate Gallery trustees. It is for them to specify how the painting should be returned to Gibraltar.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I do not wish to become involved in one-upmanship but the relief of the previous siege was brought about by my ancestor. I was very disappointed when visiting Gibraltar recently to find only one rather dreary print of my ancestor in the museum. Can the Tate Gallery or someone lend it something a little better?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before I am swamped by noble Lords whose ancestors took part in the relief of Gibraltar, I shall bring my noble friend's remarks to the attention of the Tate Gallery to see whether it has any other pictures of noble Lords' ancestors suitable for Gibraltar.

Water Supplies: Transfer Studies
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering long-term plans to provide water from northern regions to areas likely to suffer from drought, making use of canals and other existing waterways where possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, water resource management is the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. Water transfer schemes under consideration include using canals such as those in the Midlands, the Grand Union and the Oxford, and river transfers such as the augmentation of the Trent-Witham-Ancholme scheme and a Severn-Thames scheme.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I accept that there may be practical difficulties. One is that a few of the rivers are now drying up. The National Rivers Authority has no jurisdiction in Scotland although it was given the name "national". However, since some regions have excesses of rain and of water in reservoirs on this comparatively small main island of Britain, is serious consideration being given to other schemes of distribution?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. Additional schemes are being considered by the NRA. The implementation of schemes to transfer water to areas of need is a long-term planning matter. Comparative costs and environmental effects have to be assessed for the various options. The NRA is making good progress in developing a strategy based on the most feasible options.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the Minister state which regions are suffering the worst water shortages? What restrictions on water use have already been imposed on those regions? What consultations have Her Majesty's Government had with the National Rivers Authority about cutting back abstraction from rivers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the main areas of the country affected by drought-type conditions are in the East and the South. Many of those areas have hose-pipe bans. Of the population, 17·5 per cent. are affected by a hose-pipe ban. On abstraction and the NRA, I have said that it is the responsibility of the NRA to make sure that there is enough water and that it is used in a way that is effective and conducive to long-term sustainability.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, is it true that only about 10 per cent. of the capacity of the Kielder dam in Northumberland is used for local purposes? What would be the approximate cost of building a water main from the Kielder dam to London?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the question of whether a national water grid would be feasible has been asked many times by people interested in inter-regional transfers of water. Until now it has been considered far too expensive and ineffective when there are other solutions at hand.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the subject was discussed in the House about seven or eight years ago it was stated that expensive machinery had been installed in pits to keep the water level down? At that time I suggested that the water could be allowed to rise. Surely that is a more practical answer than trying to achieve movements of rivers which have already dried up. The Minister may tell me that the water is acid. If rains can desalinate the Red Sea, surely we can deacidify the water?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, clearly that is a subject about which the noble Baroness knows a great deal more than I do. It is very expensive to use machines to desalinate or deacidify water. And it does not improve the taste or quality of the water, which might not necessarily be accepted by the consumer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some river transfer schemes have had baleful results? Is he also aware that transfers of water via the River Thames from the Kennet and the Thames Valley to Thames Water—it used to be called the Metropolitan Water Board—have created environmental havoc in the Thames Valley and the
8
Kennet valley? The result has been dried up streams and other water courses, lowered water tables and flora and fauna adversely affected.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am well aware of the problems sometimes caused by inter-regional transfers. The noble Lord referred to baleful results. I am glad to say that the NRA has today acted by talking to Thames Water to see what can be done about that very important river.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, never mind the difficulties. Where is the will to overcome them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is plenty of will to overcome them—in the Government, the National Rivers Authority and the water regulator, and among consumers who envisage that every pint saved today is a pint which can be used later in the summer.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that as well as a problem of supply there is a problem of demand? Quite apart from the vagaries of the weather, the ever-increasing tendency to abstract water for agricultural, industrial and consumer purposes is causing the shortage. Therefore, in addressing the problem, the Government, the NRA and the water companies need to think of a strategy for demand as well as for supply.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He will be pleased to know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a few weeks ago that he will issue a consultation document aimed specifically at demand management.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if I understand the Minister correctly, he states that some thought has been given to transfer of water from the northern regions to the South. If at any time the North is short of water, will he arrange for water to be brought from the South to the North?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point is that some schemes are already in operation. I am sure that the NRA would not countenance a scheme which meant that the North, while having plenty of rain, suffered from drought conditions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I hear the Minister state that the NRA is acting by "talking" to the water authority, I wonder whether the noble Lord has understood the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. Would it not be desirable for the Government to emulate the forethought of the London County Council and of the Greater London Council which built the Thames barrier long before global warming had ever been thought of?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure of the point which the noble Lord is trying to make. I agree that the Thames water barrage is a good safeguard. However, the private sector is investing record amounts of money in the water industry, which is to be welcomed.

Stamp Duty Threshold: Costs
3 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost to the Treasury of suspending stamp duty on house purchase up to 19th August and whether such an effort to restore confidence in the house market should not be continued.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the cost of the increase in the stamp duty threshold will be about £400 million. The Chancellor made clear at the outset that that was intended as a temporary measure and the moratorium is not to be extended.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Bearing in mind the relatively small cost that is involved and the vital importance of restoring confidence in the housing market, and indeed to our economy, will not my noble friend reconsider reducing the basis of the scheme and concentrating on first-time buyers rather than abandoning completely the scheme, which has been recognised and accepted by professional bodies and estate agents as being helpful?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend considers that the scheme has been a success, which is what we had hoped for. I am glad that in a press release on 21st May the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reported a tentative increase in confidence and activity. When we announced the scheme in December, we made clear the fact that the moratorium would be temporary. My noble friend suggested helping first-time buyers in particular. There already is a threshold of £30,000, which is considered every year by the Chancellor in his Budget. It is believed that special provision for first-time buyers would be over-bureaucratic and complex and would make an administratively simple tax more costly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many Members on all sides of the House agree with his noble friend that the imposition of stamp duty and the whole taxation of housing is absurd and should be reviewed? Is not the real answer to the Question and to getting the housing market going to reduce interest rates soon and substantially?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have increased the threshold on stamp duty and have halved the rate. During the past 18 months we have in addition reduced interest rates by more than 5 per cent. Those changes have been welcome to many householders throughout the country.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, given the low level of housing sales at the present time, will the Minister tell us his assumptions for arriving at a figure of £400 million?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Treasury economists must estimate the likely cost of such a scheme. We
10
shall be able to give a definitive figure after 19th August; but it is understood that the figure will be about £400 million.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it that those are the same Treasury economists who for the past two years have forecast an upturn in the economy. Did the Minister say that the scheme has cost £400 million? Can he say what we have obtained for that £400 million? The housing market has continued to decline. Have we obtained anything for that money or is it a good example of why political panic should not dominate economic policy and should never have happened in the first place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. I call confirm that our estimated cost of the increase in the threshold from £30,000 to £250,000 will be about £400 million. We did not expect an immediate or dramatic effect in the fortunes of the housing market. We believe that we have shown confidence in the housing market and that view has been supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the scheme is being withdrawn because it is too expensive or because it is not working?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in December we decided to introduce a short, sharp boost to the housing sector and said that that would end on 19th August. We are sticking to that line.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in reply to my question, the Minister said that interest rates had been cut during the past two years. Does he agree that the real rate of interest has risen from 4·5 per cent. in 1981 to 5·7 per cent. today?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course I accept what the noble Lord says about the real interest rate. I also know that many lending institutions such as building societies are offering special deals to new buyers of mortgages on the basis that interest rates may drop in future.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after the Second Reading of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development.

Business of the House: Debates, 17th June
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord MacLehose of Beoch set down for Wednesday the 17th of June shall be limited to three

11
hours and that in the name of the Lord Hylton set down for the same day to two hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Slynn of Hadley be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short and technical Bill with a single aim: to allow the central departments which are responsible for regulating the management of the Civil Service in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to delegate their powers to others. I shall say more about the detailed provisions of the Bill in a moment. I must begin by acknowledging freely the complexity of some of the clauses here before the House. Unfortunately, the legal background to the Bill is itself rather complex. However, I trust that the early provision of Notes on Clauses will be helpful.
The aim of the Bill is to permit a greater degree of decentralisation and delegation than is possible at present in the management of the Civil Service. That puts it squarely in the context of this Government's public sector policies. It is no exaggeration to say that this Government have transformed the management of the public sector. We have allied a concentration on value for the taxpayer's money to renewed emphasis on service to the customer in the Citizen's Charter. And as part of that we must ensure that public sector managers have the power and the responsibility to deliver the service that the public expects at a price that the public can afford.
Your Lordships will be aware of the creation of executive agencies within the Civil Service under the Next Steps initiative. Already 290,000 civil servants, half the total, are working in agencies or organisations run on Next Steps lines. They are delivering services within challenging targets set by Ministers, and they are producing results. I do not want to overburden the House with statistics but Next Steps agencies have introduced improvements which directly affect the quality of life for us all. The Driving Standards Agency has reduced the waiting time for a test from an average of 13 weeks in 1988 to just over seven weeks. Managers of Social Security and Employment Offices are being encouraged to adopt flexible opening hours
12
to meet their customers' needs. In my own area of interest, the Intervention Board has been awarded the coveted British Standard 5750 for quality of management and control of software development. Those are just examples; there are many more.
The key to those improvements is the continuing process of delegation; giving the many businesses of government a clear statement of the results that they must achieve together with the management freedom to achieve them. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place last year:
"The Government believe that agencies' delegations and flexibilities can be enlarged as their track record of performance is established, provided that essential controls on public expenditure are not jeopardised".
Government agencies and departments are now playing an important part in the Citizen's Charter initiative. The charter aims to move the focus from the values of those who produce services—what one might term the "like it or lump it approach"—to the values of those who need them. To date 19 follow-up charters have been produced which set out standards which citizens know and can expect to receive. Among them are charters for taxpayers, for jobseekers, and for travellers, produced by the departments and agencies responsible.
Both Next Steps and the Citizen's Charter depend for their success on delegation—on moving decision-making closer to the business and on allowing managers, within a proper framework of accountability, to get on with the job. The exact level at which decisions will most properly be taken will vary from case to case and some things will have to remain to be decided at the heart of government. But the time is past when it was right, if it ever was, for the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service to regulate in detail the personnel arrangements (pay, grading, recruitment ages and qualifications, holidays, hours of work, appraisal systems and so on) for half a million civil servants. This Bill will enable the central departments to delegate that responsibility to others who are, in relation to their individual businesses, better placed to take such decisions.
As I mentioned at the beginning, the Bill is somewhat complex, and it may be of assistance if I said a little more about it. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the vast majority of civil servants working in departments and agencies. At the moment the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service are required to regulate their terms and conditions, as defined in the Civil Service Order in Council. They cannot delegate their power of regulation in any way. They can only offer discretions to act within central rules, however unnecessary those central rules may be. The primary purpose of this Bill is to resolve that dilemma and to enable the central departments to delegate where it would be right to do so.
The various subsections of the first clause are designed to enable the central departments to set whatever conditions on a delegation they see fit to impose. They will be able to delegate to Ministers and to other Crown servants; they will be able to require the recipient of delegations to exercise them personally or allow him to delegate them further; and they will be able to set conditions, vary them, and increase or

13
withdraw the delegation. They will of course remain the lawful holders of the powers that they delegate, and will remain answerable for the delegations they make. The legal mechanism by which all this can be achieved is described more fully in the notes.
As some of your Lordships will know—and I am delighted to see a number of distinguished former public servants here today—not all civil servants have their terms and conditions determined under the Order in Council. A smaller number work in organisations which, although within the civil service, were created by statute; for example, Customs and Excise, the Office of Fair Trading, the various regulators of the newly-privatised utilities, and other smaller organisations. Typically the statutes creating those bodies require the Treasury to give its consent to the determination of the terms and conditions of the civil servants who work in those organisations.
I think your Lordships will agree that it would be illogical to enable the Treasury, if it so wishes, to grant a delegation to the Department of Trade and Industry that it could never grant to the Office of Fair Trading.
Clause 2 of the Bill tackles that. It permits any Minister possessing this power of consent to waive it. Once again, I should say that this power is purely an enabling one. In the same way, the subsections of Clause 2 of the Bill echo those in the first clause. They allow the waiver of consent to be qualified by conditions, or extended, or withdrawn as the holder sees fit.
I should perhaps draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (4) of this clause, which is not present in Clause 1. It covers those statutes under which an organisation requires the approval of its Secretary of State to set terms and conditions with the concurrence of the Treasury. Subsection (4) therefore ensures any delegations made are subject to the concurrence of both relevant Ministers.
Clause 3 of the Bill deals with Northern Ireland. Here, too, the Citizen's Charter and Next Steps initiatives are progressing well. I would like to pay tribute to the way in which that is being done in difficult circumstances by the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
In Northern Ireland, the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order places responsibility for regulating the management of that service on the Department of Finance and Personnel. Clause 3 of the Bill therefore provides for the introduction of separate Northern Ireland legislation for purposes which parallel the effect of Clauses 1 and 2 on the mainland. This would be done by way of Order in Council subject to negative resolution by either House.
I think it important to reiterate that this Bill does not compel the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service to do anything. It enables them to take a hard and careful look at the management of the Civil Service; to identify areas where departments and agencies are best placed to run their own affairs; and to give them the responsibility to do so. Sometimes the delegation may be best exercised only in selected organisations where, for example, financial systems and controls are sufficiently robust to assure the proper exercise of those responsibilities. The Bill
14
provides for selective delegation. Sometimes parameters will need to be set within which the delegation may be exercised. The Bill provides for that too.
Your Lordships may wonder how the central departments here and in Northern Ireland intend to employ the powers in the Bill. One aim is to withdraw central sanction for a number of smaller matters which are best dealt with by departments and agencies themselves. That might involve them setting their own probation arrangements for new staff; or creating their own disciplinary structures; or establishing new grading arrangements which better suit their businesses. Within the general system of public expenditure control, departments and agencies may be given delegations to devise performance pay arrangements for their staff or to agree local pay arrangements. Much, indeed, has already been done within the limits of the present legal position. But the Government are committed to extending this process where to do so will achieve better value for money and better service to the public without compromising essential public expenditure controls.
There are other areas where the maintenance of common standards across the Civil Service is important. Since the 19th century, our civil servants have enjoyed a deservedly high reputation for being politically impartial, fair in their dealings with the public and incorruptible. There is no political jobbery, and the Civil Service Commissioners ensure that appointments are won on merit. If any reassurance were needed, I can say to your Lordships now that those core standards will remain at the heart of the employment of all civil servants through the maintenance of essential central rules. The Bill will lead to an orderly and appropriate progress of delegation, not a free-for-all.
Outside those core principles local differences will emerge. There is no sense in uniformity for its own sake. Of course, changes to local terms and conditions will be discussed with staff and local trade unions and negotiated and agreed as appropriate. But it is not sensible to run a huge organisation such as the Civil Service as if it were a single entity. The variety of tasks, locations and operational units in which civil servants work is simply too great. There are policy-makers, weathermen, lawyers, scientists, safety inspectors, publishers and so on. One size cannot possibly fit all.
This Government have always sought a continual process of improvement in the public sector. Much of its success has been due to the enthusiasm and commitment of civil servants themselves. They are ready to provide an even better service to the public if they are given the opportunities to do so. This Bill is a modest step in enabling the process of reform to continue. It is on that basis that I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Howe.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his speech introducing the Bill. He has quite properly gone into some detail and that is very helpful.

15
On the face of it, it appears to be a fairly innocuous Bill. It is brief, with three clauses and no schedules. Anyone flipping through it might even think that it ought to go through on the nod. However, it is an enabling Bill and behind the three short but complex clauses there lie profound implications which go to the roots of our government in this country and specifically to the future of our Civil Service.
The Bill and its consequences, if it becomes law, must be scrutinised with the utmost care in the interests of the British public. We, on this side, are not averse to the periodic reform of the Civil Service where it is needed or called for; or, for that matter, to the reform of this House and, if it came to that, of the other place as well. But if reforms of this importance are to be carried out let it be done openly and after full inquiry and consultation. The main purpose of the Bill is to confer upon the central departments the right to delegate their powers under the Order in Council to any Crown servant, subject to whatever conditions they wish to impose. Let us be clear about one matter. It is a privatisation measure and, in constitutional terms, the most significant so far introduced by this or any previous government since 1979. Large sections of the British Civil Service can be privatised under the Bill and our duty in this and later debates is to study the full implications of the measure.
Under its provisions it will be possible to privatise all Civil Service functions, and the relevant Minister will be enabled to authorise any person who requires Ministerial approval to exercise a statutory power relating to what are now Civil Service functions. We must also realise that when gas, water and electricity were privatised we had full debates on the detail of those industries. In this case, we shall have only the three clause Bill to debate. It is, in my view, totally unsatisfactory.
Let me put it this way. As matters stand, Members of both Houses are able to control executive functions as and when Ministers report in Parliament. Under the Bill the Minister will not have to refer to Parliament for any extension of any function so delegated, nor will he have to justify the transfer or contracting out of any individual part of the Civil Service. By this device, Parliament is being deprived of an important right which it has enjoyed since the modern Civil Service came into existence.
I do not propose to analyse the three clauses at this stage, although they contain some serious flaws. My noble friend Lady Turner, who is winding up for us, will wish to do that later and in Committee with other noble Lords, notably my noble friend Lord Houghton, whose interest and experience in this field is well known. There are however, some general matters which I wish to discuss briefly.
First, given the crucial importance of the Bill, I regret that there has been inadequate consultation with the Civil Service through its trade unions. I understand that the Civil Service general secretaries met Mr. William Waldegrave on 3rd June but that he gave no indication that the Bill was to be given a Second Reading here today. From my own Ministerial experience I should have thought he would have taken
16
the opportunity to discuss the Bill with the officials on 3rd June. Changes of this magnitude should be discussed beforehand with the representatives of those who are concerned.
However, Mr. Waldegrave chose to reveal his plans to a meeting of business leaders on 1st June, when he told them that senior civil servants would face competition for their jobs from leading industrialists and that thousands of Whitehall posts could be contracted out to private companies. Is that how the Citizen's Charter is to be developed—with one sided consultation? Let me say to the Minister that that is not the road to a fairer society. It smacks more of a Ministerial Charter than a Citizen's Charter. Furthermore, Civil Service posts are highly skilled areas of expertise on the functioning of government. They are not posts which can be easily taken over by outside recruits no matter how clever they may be. Nor must we overlook the fact that the Civil Service and the private sector operate under different rules.
What is the great strength of the Civil Service? Surely, as the noble Earl conceded, it is its impartiality and its neutral approach to the administration of public services. That impartiality and neutrality are embodied in the Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code. Those principles are not, with respect, enshrined in the rule books of private companies. It can be said, and it is well known, that the private sector has a duty to be partial to its shareholders. There really is no evidence that the private sector will be able to exercise the same impartiality as the Civil Service. Again, there are other key issues such as confidentiality and conflicts of interest which have not been satisfactorily discussed or explained. My noble friend will wish to return to those topics in Committee.
One argument advanced by supporters of privatisation is that value for money is always gained by going to the private sector. My personal experience is that the general public take a jaundiced view of that argument when applied to water and gas and so forth. What about the Civil Service? At some levels, such as cleaning contractors, security companies or typing agencies, the same conditions of service as regards leave, holidays and pensions, or indeed wages, will not be offered as are given to junior civil servants. I ask the Minister whether or not that is in fact the case.
But what about the senior civil servants? The fact is that the Top Salary Review Body shows that they are comparatively modestly paid. I give one example. A senior Civil Service lawyer is currently paid £60,000 a year whereas a senior barrister, a Silk, receives between £140,000 to £160,000 a year. The conclusion must be that the Government will have to pay significantly more for their professional and administrative service at senior levels. The House may as well face up to that fact now as later, when the public purse has started paying out.
To conclude, I have some questions to put to the Minister and I hope that he will be kind enough to answer them. Can he say whether the Civil Service trade unions have been adequately consulted on this legislation? I referred to that earlier, but I would appreciate a full reply from the noble Earl. Further, can he tell the House how many individuals or

17
organisations from the private sector since 18th November 1991 have advised government departments that there are areas of any department that should be market tested or contracted out to management consultants, and what areas of work have been so identified? We cannot properly discuss the Bill without that information, and I relate it to the Government White Paper, Competing for Quality.
I mentioned the value for money argument. Can the Minister ask his right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave to refer that to the Comptroller and Auditor General to test it on any proposed contracting out? Public money and public service is involved in a big way in the Bill and some authoritative study is urgently required.
Is the Minister able to say in broad terms how much Civil Service work it is estimated will be contracted out? A figure of 25 per cent. was mentioned—does he agree with it? Finally, we heard a great deal from the Government about the need for openness, and I agree that maximum openness is desirable. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the extent and nature of any proposed "openness" in the Civil Service on the contracting out procedure? It is no use Mr. Waldegrave talking about more "openness" unless he gives us a great deal more information about the contracting-out proposals which were delivered on 31st March. If we are to debate the Bill effectively, then the Government must be frank and open with Parliament at every stage of its consideration.
In this very important debate we are dealing with an area of our constitution of which we are rightly proud. The British Civil Service has a reputation throughout the world for efficiency and incorruptibility. The private sector in this country has much to commend it, but I regret to say that I cannot put it on the same level as the British Civil Service. This Bill goes too far. I warn the Government that they proceed with these changes at their peril. I therefore ask them to think again before they drag this admirable organisation into the uncertain web of the private sector.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the idea of decentralisation coming from this Government. They have not been famous for decentralisation, particularly as regards the public sector of the local authorities. We have seen them as a centralising rather than a decentralising Government. Therefore, conversion to the idea of decentralisation is welcome. We do not take the line that all change in the Civil Service is necessarily bad. On the whole we approve the development of Next Steps and the setting up in many areas of the agencies. That was quite obviously a more efficient and acceptable way of doing certain jobs.
Although the noble Earl did not say this, we also agree that there are areas of inefficiency in the Civil Service which could well be cured. Many of us have suffered from long-unanswered letters. We have suffered because of the Civil Service losing important papers. In my particular case a concern with which I was closely connected suffered from the overpayment
18
of £250,000 which, despite being queried, was not discovered by the department for nine months. That did not exactly suggest the highest possible levels of efficiency.
I make these points because we are not in principle opposed to changes in the Civil Service. There is no doubt that there is room for reforms. I recall that, when I was a member of the Megaw Committee on pay for non-industrial civil servants, it became extremely clear, as we received evidence and entered into discussions, that the whole idea of management was ill-understood and undervalued in the Civil Service. I say all this in what I believe is justifiable criticism. I do not go along with the unqualified paean of praise which we have just heard.
That said, that does not in the least mean that we find this Bill acceptable: on the contrary. The changes which are being proposed here are, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, of a very far reaching and important kind. They raise issues which are of very great importance both for Civil Service employees and for the country as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, some kinds of delegation would involve issues of very considerable confidentiality. The reality of conflict of interest must be there in many cases if delegation takes place.
These are all enormously important questions. Whether we get value for money or not is an open question. I have no doubt that in some areas we would get it and in others we would not. These are matters which need to be gone into in the very greatest detail and with real evidence as to what the safeguards are and what the outcome is likely to be. Decentralisation can properly be considered, but only with full consideration of what the potential privatisation proposed is likely to mean. That is important to the Civil Service staff and perhaps even more so to the public as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about what consultation there had been with the Civil Service. Surely the Government must realise by now that if they are going to bring about a very substantial change it will not be acceptable unless the people directly involved can be convinced that it is a change which is good in itself and is one in which their own legitimate interests are properly safeguarded. That can only be done if there is adequate consultation: it cannot be done by calling people in after the Government's view about what they intend to do has been set in concrete. That is not consultation, although it is often said to be so. Consultation is calling people in when the Government's mind is still fluid and open to ideas and suggestions as to how the process of change should take place.
As I have said, decentralisation can be a very good thing. The Government should seek ideas from the Civil Service unions as to how it can be most effectively done. Surely people of the quality of the First Division Association of the Civil Service could bring forward a whole range of suggestions and proposals which might totally alter the way in which decentralisation was to be carried out, and knowing how it was to be done would most certainly alter the view of the people affected.

19
Obviously, even the most straightforward issues such as pay, conditions of service and redundancy considerations will immediately spring to the mind of any employee in an organisation which is subject to drastic change such as is suggested here. If these measures are to be acceptable to the people who have to carry them out, they must have an input into the scheme before it is launched on to the country as a whole.
However, important though they and their contributions to such a scheme are, the views of the civil servants are not the only ones to be considered. I sometimes wonder whether the Government listen to what is said in this House. Again and again from all sides of the House we have implored the Government not to legislate by regulation on matters of very great importance to the country as a whole. This is not a matter which has been raised solely from these Benches or by the Official Opposition. Noble Lords have pointed out ad nauseam that we find the Government's policy—because it is a policy—of government by regulation totally unacceptable. Yet here in this Bill, on a matter of very great importance—the Civil Service, which serves not only the Government but the people of this country—we are told that the measures are all to be implemented by regulation. Surely these are matters which should be fully threshed out in Parliament and be subject to primary legislation.
Some of us are not basically unsympathetic towards some of the Government's objectives, although we are opposed to crude privatisation just for the sake of the short-term saving of a little money. We are not unsympathetic to changes which will make for genuinely greater efficiency in the running of the public services of this country. However, that has to be done with the full understanding and consent of both Houses of Parliament. These matters should not be shuffled through in a three-clause Bill which looks innocuous on the face of it but which is in fact dynamite.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, after those two powerful speeches which were critical of this Bill, I am sure that the House will understand that there is more to it than ever one could glean from even a careful study of the Bill before us. This Bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Even when one looks at the sheep one can probably find that it is an imposter. Mr. Waldegrave, who is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has inherited in the Duchy the whole history of public accountability, public finance and administration. It was the founder of English public administration. Throughout the ages Ministers who have become Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have had the care of this precious inheritance.
Moreover, when I look back over my lifetime with, in and for the Civil Service, I realise that the whole trend from the Administration has been towards uniformity. From the very beginning, the miscellaneous assortment of public servants in different departments, doing different jobs and whose pay in
20
many cases was not fixed centrally, called for some better and more orderly arrangements to govern their service, pay and the conditions under which they were to do their work. Every big reorganisation of the Civil Service has tended towards a greater concentration on grading, recruitment, scales of pay and opportunities, all of which have been related to the standard of qualification on entry of our public servants.
The British Civil Service has been organised to correspond with the educational system. That has been fundamental from the beginning. If one looks at the clerical class, the executive class, the professional class and the administrative class, one finds that all those classes correspond to certain educational standards, with a right of entry direct from the universities, from the grammar schools as were, or from higher education. The entry examinations and the standards that were set for entry have all related to the educational system. That is why the structure of the British Civil Service has gone the way that it has.
The biggest reorganisation of the Civil Service that I remember was the establishment of the Civil Service National Whitley Council in 1920. That stabilised and concentrated the huge assortment of grades and classes in the Civil Service into three or four main classes. It was only with the greatest difficulty that one could achieve any departure from the uniformity of pay and grading. Although we probably need a great deal more flexibility than there has been, we must have some regard to the way in which the system has been built up mostly—indeed, almost exclusively—under Conservative Governments. Although that has been their policy in the past, they now want to reverse it, but the reversal raises matters of very great importance.
If I may say so with great respect to all concerned, I think that it is a scandal that a Bill of this import should be discussed in your Lordships' House under these conditions. We received the Bill only a few days ago and we have not been able to have any of the sensible discussions that are necessary if one is making a change of this kind. We need a succession of examinations of what is involved because this is an open-ended enabling Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out a few moments ago and as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos also said, no oversight of the exercise of these Orders in Council rests with Parliament.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that everything connected with this Bill has been squeezed into the first days of June and it is only 15th June today. Earlier this month there was an intimation from the Cabinet Office to the Civil Service unions that this Bill was about to be introduced. It was foreshadowed in the Citizen's Charter, and all the rest of it, last year. However, at that time it was not given the significance which I think that the Civil Service is entitled to place upon it.
What happened as soon as Mr. Waldegrave sat down? There were headlines such as, "Private firms may bid for Whitehall jobs"; "To prune the state"; "Civil servants lose their jobs for life"; "Yes, Minister —A good idea"; "Civil Service tasks will go out to tender"; "High-flyers sought for top Civil Service

21
jobs"; "Minister challenges private sector". We could go on, because this is dramatic news. The Civil Service is about to come under the chop and private enterprise move in.
One can imagine the unsettlement that such headlines have created in the vast area of public service. Civil servants do not know what is in the Bill and they do not understand how the changes are to be implemented. They do not know what unsettlement they are entitled to feel about their future employment. It really is a shame that it is being dealt with in this way. If the Government had any sense and any feeling about what they are doing they would not pursue the Bill now. They would leave it until an opportunity for wider consultation occurred.
We have a Royal Institute of Public Administration and the Civil Service National Whitley Council, but I warrant that neither has been convened to deal with these proposed changes. The Royal Institute of Public Administration was created to study the philosophy and the practices of the best public administration in the world.
I emphasise what my noble friend said about the integrity of the public service. We do not know what it is like to live in a country where corruption, bribery and fraud are part and parcel of the administration of bureaucracy. I do not want to be unfair to anybody, but where is the fraud now? Show me any time in the past 30 years when there has been any fraud in the Inland Revenue, in the Customs and Excise or anywhere else which handles the total income of the nation.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships also of the fact that year after year Parliament has imposed additional workloads on departments such as the Inland Revenue, the Customs and Excise or the Department of Social Security because of changes in the law that the Government have wanted for political or social purposes. Pressure is imposed on the staff so that the work can be completed to a timetable. That is done. One can get anything out of the Inland Revenue, and we always have. The loyalty of the people in the Inland Revenue in their small, scattered offices throughout the country and their determination to get their job done and to do it well is absolutely amazing. I doubt whether anywhere in the private sector could be found the same loyalty, enthusiasm and endurance that has been required from the Inland Revenue year by year.
A good deal could probably be done in the Civil Service to rationalise the relationship between one department and another. There is a great deal of overlapping which could be looked at. Let us look at it from the public's point of view. At present an auditor from the Inland Revenue can enter a company to look at its pay-as-you-earn records; another control officer can be sent from the VAT department of the Customs and Excise to see whether the company is calculating its VAT properly, and visits are also made by the local authorities. The bureaucracy of visitation needs to be looked at.
In addition, rights of entry need to be reviewed carefully from time to time. It appalls me to think that under this Bill a Minister may delegate the statutory
22
right to enter. Although the Minister would be held responsible for what the delegated officer did, the delegated officer would be given the right to knock on the door and to say, "I am entitled to come in and if you do not let me in I must seek the necessary authority to make an enforced entry".
I read the list that was published recently in the Guardian giving the likely duties and functions of the different departments that might be delegated. Under the heading of "Inland Revenue", I saw something as brief as "computer services". As the whole department is computerised up to the eyebrows, I was wondering which "computer services" would be privatised.
Under the heading of "Customs and Excise", I saw enforcement and debt collection, which is very sensitive ground. In the Customs and Excise there is a harsh regime of non-discretionary penalties. They are automatically imposed under the Finance Act of a few years ago. The only appeal against them is that the taxpayer who is the trader had reasonable excuse for failure. "Reasonable excuse" is a matter that can be referred if need be, and in certain circumstances, to an independent tribunal. Is that kind of work to be delegated?
The Customs and Excise already uses bailiffs to enforce an order for payment but it does so under existing statutory provisions regarding the employment of bailiffs. Other officials in the Civil Service do not necessarily require a bailiff in order to enter. Will the Customs and Excise be able to delegate to people who are not so qualified its powers to enter premises without an order from the court? One can go on for a long time asking the questions but no answers are forthcoming. I am afraid that we shall have a long Committee stage ahead if we are to get the information from the Government about the possibilities of the Bill which I think it is necessary for us to have before we can pass it with a clear conscience.
I say with great respect to the Minister that as far as I am concerned he has no ministerial responsibility for the Bill. It is not the most helpful situation for us to be in when the Minister in charge of a Bill is not in any position of responsibility in connection with it. One therefore wonders why the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House in the first place. It probably ought to have gone to the House of Commons, and had it done so I would have said most emphatically that it should go to a Select Committee. This Bill should go to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and be examined in detail.
What is the hurry about the Bill? There is no immediate work of privatisation to be undertaken. Have the Government made any survey of the possibilities? The whole of the noble Earl's speech concerned theoretical possibilities. There was not a practical example in it. One wonders whether the Government have carried out any survey of Civil Service work to identify clearly the areas that might be put out to contract. It is so bewildering and the terms of the Bill are so obscure that I believe the Bill is not in a fit state for us properly to consider it. Yet here we are with only five noble Lords speaking on a Bill of this importance.

23
This is an epoch-making Bill. It is part of a political approach to public administration which can reverse the policies of the past 70 years—the policies of the same governments for the past 70 years. This Bill carries us much further than we can really be asked to go; but I suppose that we have to carry on with the business this afternoon. How can we expect the noble Earl to say that he will take the Bill back and ask the Government to reconsider their position? We are in the grip of the system. If it comes to the point the Government can impose almost any nonsense on us. The system will win because we have no means, without a considerable amount of organisation and discussion among the different elements in the House, of stopping this routine acceptance of a Bill which will have such important repercussions.
I warmly endorse the brilliant analysis of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Turner will expose also some of the worrying features of the Bill. The staff have been ill-considered throughout. All we hear are weasel terms in the prevailing jargon about value for money in Whitehall, a customer's charter and what the public are entitled to get.
I put this final point to the House. The whole of the Civil Service is engaged in the administration of the law. The Civil Service applies the law. It is not free to mess it about. Every citizen is entitled to equality of treatment. Everyone, from John O'Groats to Land's End, is entitled to the same fair adjudication of his case. There are no corners to be cut and there are no discretions to be exercised which may lead to abuse. The Civil Service itself operates within the strict conditions of the law. People are entitled to their rights under the law, even in the case of a hole-in-the-heart child in the National Health Service. It is the law. It is tested as a matter of law. That is an entirely different situation from services rendered by private enterprise, mostly with the profit motive in mind and subject to the test of the market. This wicked idea of putting everything into the market is madness. It has to be used with the greatest understanding of the intricate subtleties of our social structure and the history of our public administration. I hope that the Government will take notice of the strong protests, even from so few of us, about the Bill.
If we are asked to go through the Bill at Committee stage, we shall go through it, and I hope will do so meticulously and carefully in order to get to the bottom of it. At the Committee stage let us have practical examples of what the Government think could properly be delegated and put elsewhere. At the moment a Minister of the Crown can delegate his powers. He can go to another Minister and he can delegate them to someone else. One feels that, in the end, Ministers can delegate their powers out of the door. That is not the way to treat our public service. It is not the way to get value for money. It is not the way to get the fulfilment of the expectations of the people on services that they require from the State.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it had not been my intention to intervene in the debate and I must apologise to the House for not giving advance notice. I had read carefully through the text of the Bill and I had hoped that the Government were going to go into its purposes and its functions in far greater detail. I had at least hoped and indeed anticipated that we should be given a satisfactory reason why this should be done, and that we should be given specific examples of the kind of functions that the Government had in mind in order that we could arrive at some conclusions.
Not for the first time, this House, even though it is not an elected Chamber, is regarded by the public at large as one of the principal custodians of the nation's liberties. We should be failing in our duty if we failed to offer the Government a challenge on the Bill, particularly in view of the detailed criticisms made of it by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
The Bill will not do in its present form. In view of the fact that there are no particular constraints on the Government's legislative time, I should have thought that matters of this kind could properly have been considered in a Select Committee; that is, either in this or another place or, possibly, in a joint committee of both Houses. I say that because the matters raised here are of supreme constitutional importance.
If there had been proceedings in a Select Committee, Ministers of the Crown could have been invited to give evidence as to exactly what motives lay behind the legislation and the exact purposes that they had in mind. They could also have given examples of where they were inconvenienced by having to pay over much personal attention to such matters. They could have been cross-examined by Members, and civil servants themselves could have been brought to the Select Committee to give evidence. That would have been a far better and far more sensible way to deal with the matter. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, it is not as though private enterprise as such is basking in a surfeit of public confidence at present. As my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby said, there have been very few cases of corruption in the Civil Service. However, there has been an abundance of them in the private enterprise sector.
There is no particular reason why the public at large should consider passing some detailed functions previously exercised by Ministers of the Crown, if necessary under their existing functions of delegation, to a sector which, at any rate over the past 20 years, has not proved itself to be conspicuously honest or free of many of the deficiencies to which public complaint is now directed.
I put it to the Government that although it is the tradition of this House that we always give government Bills a Second Reading—the practice is not universally applied; but it is the convention—if they expect this House to be willing to lie down like a

25
spaniel, to be stroked on the stomach and pass everything that is put before it on the mere say-so, they are mistaken and in for a very considerable surprise.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister sounded very reasonable when introducing this small Bill. Today, however, is one of those occasions when I personally regret the traditions of the House which prevent our voting against Bills on Second Reading. Of course, I understand why that is so. We are a revising Chamber and therefore will have to do the best that we can with the Bill in Committee. It is a throughly bad and unnecessary Bill, based on populist misconceptions of what the Civil Service is all about. Once again, it seems that the Government have been listening to their friends who run the tabloid press.
The Bill is very short and may therefore not attract much notice. But the implications are very far reaching indeed. The legislation gives Ministers the power to hive off parts of the Civil Office to private contractors—not simply cleaning or typing services, though in my opinion they are better performed in-house, but parts of the specialist and professional services.
The Government seem to have the idea that privatisation means that the taxpayer pays less and gets a better service. I dispute both those assumptions. Local authorities and hospitals have had to contract out services, but the results are by no means all that satisfactory. In many cases—for example, where cleaning services have been contracted out—the service has been cheaper because of the very low rates of pay paid to the employees and the poor conditions generally. Not an argument, I should have thought, for privatisation.
I do not know why the Government feel that they have to dig up everything by the roots and change it, even when it is working well. As many noble Lords have said and as anyone who has had dealings with civil services abroad will tell you, the British Civil Service is among the best in the world. It is comparatively uncorrupt. That is more than can be said for some parts of industry and commerce in this country. We have only recently had the Maxwell, BCCI and Guinness scandals, to mention but a few. Moreover, particularly at senior level, in my experience it is very competent. One of the recent problems, and one even referred to by the Secretary of State, is that salaries paid by the private sector have been much higher than those that qualified civil servants are paid. Some have been attracted by offers made by the private sector. If that means anything at all, it would appear that hiving professional services off to the private sector will cost more rather than less.
I said that I regarded the Civil Service as generally very competent. Whenever I have had to deal with senior civil servants—for example, in my experience as a member of the Occupational Pensions Board, or in discussion with those who advise Ministers—I have been very impressed by the level of expertise. The surprising thing is that there have been so few complaints since the service was reduced in numbers
26
during the period of Conservative Government by some 25 per cent. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby pointed out, during that time the service has had to deal with a very high level of new and often extremely complex legislation.
However, apart from that, the Bill is enabling legislation of very wide scope indeed. The first three clauses enable any Minister of the Crown to privatise the function of a Crown servant. In that, the Bill is unlike any other privatisation legislation; for example, that dealing with water or electricity. In those cases, privatisation required separate legislation which had to be debated in both Houses. As I understand it, once the Bill is on the statute book, a Minister can simply go ahead and "delegate" any function, service or group of services without any reference back to Parliament via a Bill. They are extremely sweeping powers. Although the Minister will still be answerable to Parliament for the functioning of the service so privatised, the actual decision to hive off a service would be the Minister's own and one for which he would not be immediately accountable.
However, there are other important considerations. The Civil Service in this country is neutral and impartial. For that reason, Civil Service unions—while some may affiliate to the TUC—do not affiliate to the Labour Party or indeed to any political party. But let us suppose that a function formerly undertaken by the Civil Service is contracted out to a private company. Will there be any prohibitions on that company making donations (as many large and some smaller companies now do) to a political party? Will there be any prohibition on MPs being directors or shareholders of any company doing contracted-out work?
Further, what steps will be, taken to protect confidentiality of records held on individuals which are currently safeguarded by Civil Service rules of confidentiality? What steps will be taken to ensure that the public is getting value for money? Will there be a regulatory body? After all, the Government accept that there has to be some supervision or monitoring of the market—hence Oftel and other regulatory bodies and the self-regulation provided for by the Financial Services Act. How will standards be maintained?
We are talking here about professional expertise. Many of those Civil Service jobs are in specialist areas. It is not just a matter of attracting people with similar qualifications, as the Government seem to think. Public law and European law are areas where greater expertise is likely to be found within the Civil Service. The same is true of expertise in taxation where civil servants have sometimes been attracted by higher salaries and the "perks" paid by private enterprise, particularly in the City. It is civil servants who are exported to the private sector by the free market rather than the other way around. What about possible conflicts of interest? A company which advises on, say, tax affairs in the commercial sector, may be in some difficulty if it also has a government contract dealing with tax from the other side, so to speak. Will there be any restrictions imposed on firms seeking contracts in that area?

27
There also seems to be some idea—and this was mentioned by the Minister—that the Bill will break up present arrangements for pay bargaining. In fact, as I understand it, and so far as concerns senior civil servants, the pay review body makes recommendations; and they are just recommendations. They have rarely been fully implemented. The unions have been in negotiation anyway with the Treasury on local pay bargaining which is apparently what the Government want. But what is to happen to Civil Service provisions on equal opportunity, sex discrimination, ethnic monitoring and so on, which have rightly been regarded as models of good practice? Are these all to be abandoned in pursuit of the Government's ideological objectives?
I also understand, and this was referred to by my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Houghton, that the Council of Civil Service Unions was promised consultation in advance of the introduction of a Bill. That, I believe, has not taken place. The council was not told until the Bill had been prepared and was due to be presented in this House on 4th June. It is my understanding that the council has registered a protest at this failure to honour a promise made to it. I join with other noble Lords who have expressed concern about the failure to consult on this very wide-ranging and important matter.
I return to my original comment. This is a bad Bill. For what purpose has it been introduced? Do the Government expect to save money, and if so, how? I see that one of the tabloids known for its unquestioning support of the Government in all things has been saying that there will be savings of £5 billion. Is this what the Government themselves expect? If so, where will the money come from? There have already been very significant reductions in personnel, despite what must have been an increasing workload arising from the complexities of current legislation—legislation for which the Government themselves are responsible.
The Secretary of State has himself acknowledged the high level of expertise of senior civil servants and has said that for this reason they have sometimes been "poached" by the private sector. Privatisation is likely therefore to mean a lesser, rather than an improved, service and a more expensive one. As I said, we must do the best we can in this House when the Bill reaches Committee, although I join with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington in pressing upon the Minister the suggestion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee upstairs so that it can be properly and thoroughly examined.
4.12 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I am grateful to noble Lords for their views. I am sorry that the Bill has not been greeted with an unqualified welcome.
Baroness White: My Lords, the Minister surely did not expect that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the points made by noble Lords will be studied carefully but I have to say that the reservations expressed this afternoon have fallen wide of the mark.
In addressing the various concerns and points raised by noble Lords, as I shall certainly try to do, I am aware that one of the themes of the debate has been decentralisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, welcomed this aspect of the Bill and I am grateful to her. Decentralisation has also been one of the key aims that the Government have pursued in the Civil Service and it lies behind the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Houghton, expressed anxieties about the effects of decentralisation. They are rightly concerned about putting power in the hands of people who might abuse that power; so do I. That is why the Bill is drafted in the way that it is; to allow the central departments to decide when, what and to whom to delegate powers and to attach strict conditions to such delegations. But the counterpart to the worry about decentralisation is trust, where trust is justified. That is central to management reform. If we are prepared to give senior managers the responsibility to achieve results—and we are—we must be prepared also to give them the responsibility to decide how best those results can be achieved. Accountability is a two-edged sword: one cannot make people truly accountable for the ends if one is then going to constrain their ability to back their own judgment as to the means. So trust, responsibly exercised, is an important aspect of what we are seeking to achieve. The Government believe this is essential if we are to tap fully the commitment of the Civil Service, at every level, to deliver better, cost-effective services to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, questioned whether this was not a prelude to privatisation. It is important to recognise that under this Bill we cannot change the functions and the constitutional nature of any organisation. We can only change the way in which staff are managed. Unless and until decisions are taken to privatise departments and agencies they will remain public organisations carrying out business on behalf of Ministers. The Bill will enable them to manage their businesses more effectively, not change their nature. Although the terms and conditions of staff in departments and agencies may increasingly differ from some abstract Civil Service norm, they will still remain civil servants unless and until decisions are made otherwise, with the sanction of Parliament, as appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised a constitutional point. They asked whether the Bill somehow was an arrogation of power by the executive. No new powers will be taken from Parliament by the enactment of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to enable powers— which are already held by the Minister for the Civil Service and the Treasury, mostly by virtue of the Royal Prerogative—to be exercised by others. In respect of the Northern Ireland Civil Service the aim is to allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to take similar flexibility, subject to a negative

29
resolution in that instance, in accordance with the procedure that has become standard for Northern Ireland matters.
The second point I should like to stress, and I say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is that the Bill constitutes no threat to the essential principles which govern the rightly valued standards of our Civil Service. I said in my opening speech that the essential standards of conduct in the Civil Service would continue to be maintained by central rules. For example, one of those principles is that of selection on merit rather than by influence or political affiliation or wealth. I am sure that your Lordships recognise the great importance of this and of the work of the Civil Service Commissioners who safeguard it.
For many years the Commissioners have not directly recruited the junior staff of the Civil Service. Since April of last year they have retained only the responsibility for recruiting staff at management level; that is, at Grade 7 and above. Departments and agencies now recruit over 95 per cent. of all civil servants. Instead, the Commissioners carry forward their work by monitoring the recruitment practices of departments and agencies. They ensure that recruitment is carried out according to rules laid down by the Minister for the Civil Service, on their advice.
The message of this example is that central standards can be maintained without centralised systems. This Bill will permit similar arrangements to be put in place, as appropriate, in other areas of the management of the Civil Service. As that happens the Government will continue to consult civil servants when changes to their terms and conditions of service are proposed. This consultation will take place as delegations increase, but more and more it will be done by departmental and agency managements meeting their local trade unions.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in particular, asked about the extent of current consultation. We have for some time been concluding more flexible agreements with the national unions on terms and conditions of service which enable and encourage local variation where local variation makes sense. That process will continue. For example we have proposed to the unions changes to the current pay agreements which will establish procedures for departments and agencies to develop their own arrangements. Those procedures involve consultation and negotiation between the agencies and departments and the unions concerned.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord's question, and certainly mine, was about consultation about this Bill—not about the consequences of the Bill, but about producing this Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was just about to come to that. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also made the point that the Civil Service trade unions had not been properly consulted. The Council of Civil Service Unions was informed of the existence of the Bill as soon as it was finalised. A copy of the printed version was sent to the council as soon as it was available, and the Bill has been public knowledge since publication of the Citizen's Charter White Paper in July of last year.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House the date that the council was informed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, when the text of the Bill was finalised. I am not aware of the precise date. Officials have also written to the unions offering discussions on the Bill and its implications.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a perfect example of what I said? Consultation is not consultation if it takes place after the decisions have been made.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the Bill has not yet gone through either House. There is all the time in the world to talk to the unions. Officials have written to the unions offering discussions on the Bill. Those offers are genuine and are on the table.
Lord Bonham-Carter: When the Minister talks about the Bill having been finalised he gives away his whole case, my Lords.
Baroness White: My Lords, what consultation was there with the first division, with the mandarins?
Earl Howe: My words may have been ill-chosen when I said "finalised", my Lords. I meant printed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It is the same thing.
Lord Shepherd: After the first reading?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, we have yet to reach the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading.
Lord Shepherd: That has nothing to do with it, my Lords.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked why my right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave did not tell the unions about the Bill at their meeting of 3rd June. That meeting was not about subjects pertaining to the Bill. It was about market testing. Not surprisingly, the subject of the Bill did not arise in the conversation.
Lord Cledwyn: Oh, really, my Lords.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Bruce, called for examples of the type of activity that might be delegated under the Bill. There are some areas in which discretion has already been approved. I cite as an example HMSO's responsibility for the pay of its staff. There are many others which we should like to delegate; for example, the power to determine pay and grading structures; the power to devise customised performance pay arrangements for specific groups of staff; probation arrangements, as I said earlier; the power to determine age limits on recruitment, if appropriate; the power to determine starting pay of specific groups of new staff; local pay arrangements; disciplinary arrangements; an early retirement and redundancy scheme; and the power to set their own criteria for the dismissal of inefficient staff. I hope that that gives a useful flavour of what we are—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Do those powers include the power to sub-contract?
Earl Howe: My Lords, no, that is not within the scope of the Bill. The Bill is about the management of the Civil Service.
Your Lordships will know that the Government are already committed to promoting local pay bargaining in suitable areas of the Civil Service. The reason for that is simple. The Civil Service comprises an enormous variety of operations in an enormous variety of locations. Each department and agency has its own particular needs. Tailoring pay systems to suit those needs can lead to improvements in quality of service and value for money to the taxpayer. That is not all. They can lead also to pay systems which recognise more explicitly the results achieved by individuals and teams, which I believe individual civil servants will welcome. That was demonstrated recently by members of the CPSA in their acceptance of the Government proposals for performance-related pay.
As I said, the Bill permits a wide range of delegations to take place. It may reassure those noble Lords who have raised the matter if I give some examples of the way in which accountability will operate. Nothing in the Bill, or in the delegations which may flow from it, will weaken the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. When the Treasury or the Minister for the Civil Service delegate a function to another Minister in charge of a department they may require him to exercise it personally, or not, as they wish. In both cases, the Minister will be accountable to Parliament for the use he or his officials make of the delegation. Ministers in the central departments will remain accountable for the delegations that they make. Your Lordships will of course remember that the regulation of the greater part of the Civil Service is carried out, as I have said, under the Royal Prerogative rather than under powers granted by Parliament. That is an important constitutional point. But, of course, the right of Parliament to question the Government over their management of the Civil Service is safeguarded by the Bill.
The central departments may also delegate a function to a civil servant such as the chief executive of a Next Steps agency. In those cases, the civil servant concerned will be answerable to the central department. It is the Government's firm view that the Bill represents a redistribution, not a dilution, of accountability, and one which will result in clearer accountability for results in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Houghton, questioned the merits of competitive tendering. Exposing civil service operations to competition will allow the Government to test just how cost-effective those operations are. It is important that operating units have the flexibility in terms of the volume and cost of manpower, as in any other area, to make themselves as competitive on value-for-money grounds as they can. If they are competitive and remain so, those
32
services will remain in-house. If not—all other things being equal—the services will be brought in from the private sector.
The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Houghton and Lord Bruce, drew attention to the impartiality or otherwise of the private sector in contracted-out services. It is a legitimate anxiety. It is also a matter for market testing. If impartiality in a service is important—by that I mean commonly a service delivered to the public—the private sector would have to satisfy the Government that it could be impartial, otherwise it would not secure the contract. It is as simple as that. It must be examined case by case.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, questioned whether this was an attack on the Civil Service. I can assure him that it is not. As I said earlier, the Government have a high regard for civil servants, who do excellent work sometimes in difficult circumstances. The White Paper Competing for Quality is about encouraging and empowering managers responsible for public money and for delivering public services, to shop around so as to give the taxpayer and the customer the best deal.
The noble Lord also asked whether there were targets for cutting jobs. No targets have been set for the number of jobs which might be contracted out. The figures which have appeared in the press are purely speculative. He also asked what safeguards there would be on the confidentiality and impartiality of the Civil Service and the conflict of interest which might arise. On confidentiality or any similar consideration, any decision to contract out would be on the basis that the standards of service and confidentiality would be laid down as part of the contract. To do things in a businesslike manner and to seek value for money for the consumer and the taxpayer is not inconsistent with doing things to proper and high standards of public service ethics and probity.
The noble Lord also asked about openness and contracting out. The White Paper Competing for Quality has already identified areas for study. Departmental targets and progress will be published annually. Obviously questions of commercial confidentiality will arise with individual proposals.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, at the foot of the front page the Bill says:
"The Bill has no significant implications for public service manpower".
Will the Minister explain why there will be no significant change in Civil Service manpower when, at the very heart of the Bill, is the more economical use of or dispersal of work from the Civil Service? What about the headline in the newspapers, "130,000 jobs to go"? I found that extremely difficult to understand.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have just tried to explain that it is precisely to make the Civil Service more competitive that the Bill is being introduced, and also to improve the cost effectiveness of the terms and conditions of civil servants in such a way that they will be better motivated to carry out their work.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Will he

33
comment on the statement made in the press, to which I referred in my remarks, that the savings could be as much as £5 billion? What do the Government have in mind in terms of savings and where will they come from?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to be helpful to the noble Baroness but I have not seen that figure and I have no information about it. If figures are floating about I shall make it my business to find out what they are.
The noble Lord asks me for my own figures. I have none. It is precisely to test the water that the contracting-out initiative is being introduced. However, I stress that the Bill is concerned with the management of the Civil Service. It has no direct connection with contracting out. The issue of contracting out was raised by noble Lords this afternoon and I have tried to be as helpful as possible in answering questions. However, the management of the Civil Service is a separate issue.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I should like to ask a simple question. The noble Earl referred to contracting out: I understood my noble friend to raise the question of subcontracting and I understood the Minister to say that under no circumstances would there be any subcontracting by the person to whom delegated-powers are given. Is that correct?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I sought to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the Bill in itself has no direct relevance to the question of subcontracting or contracting out. That is obviously an issue which arises out of our discussions this afternoon. We are talking about the management of the Civil Service, which is a distinct and discrete matter.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I asked that question specifically. This is the Second Reading and we are supposed to be discussing principles. Is the Minister telling us that the persons to whom the Bill would give delegated powers Will have no powers to contract out or subcontract work? We should be given the answer before the end of the Second Reading. Is it true or not? Is the Minister telling us that the person to whom delegated powers are being given will not have the power to subcontract?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in some cases they will be given the power of sub-delegation and in some cases they will not. It depends on each case as it arises.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, questioned whether accountability would really remain. The lines of accountability will be as strong as in any other organisation. Where delegations are made to Ministers—and typically that will be the case—those Ministers will be accountable to Parliament. Where delegations are made to accounting officers they will remain accountable to the Public Accounts Committee for value for money. Where delegations are made to managers generally they will be accountable for their performance through the line
34
management chain. I hope that that is a reassurance because it is meant to be. It is a considerable safeguard, as we consider the Bill.
I think that it is time that I finished.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but it must be obvious to the noble Earl that there is deep dissatisfaction in the House about the Bill. It is the convention of the House not to vote against a Second Reading. If my assumption is correct, I believe that if that convention were not observed the Bill would be rejected. Is it too much to ask the noble Earl to take it back and look at it again?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said at the beginning, the comments made by all noble Lords will be studied carefully. I give that undertaking.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Bill may well be carefully studied but we have only a short period between Second Reading and Committee. Those of us who have been in this House for quite a few years know that Bills of this character, especially those which are highly technical, are not necessarily best conducted in an ordinary Committee stage on the Floor of this House, particularly at short notice.
The noble Earl will be aware that next week the Procedure Committee will be considering the proposals of the Jellicoe Committee. The Jellicoe Report contained the strong recommendation, which was supported from every quarter of the House—and even the noble Lord the Leader of the House took an understanding view of the proposals—that there should be a special Select Committee similar to that in the House of Commons under Standing Order 91 to consider certain Bills. It is true that those would be non-party political Bills and I suspect that this Bill does not fall precisely within that area; it is concerned with the constitution of the Civil Service and its relationship with Government and Parliament.
Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House undertake to have discussions with other noble Lords within this House as to the best way in which this important Bill, which raises important matters and which may be totally irrevocable once its provisions have been put into place, should be handled? That could be by a Select Committee or by some arrangement whereby Members of the House may have greater knowledge of the purpose, limits and ramifications of the Bill.
I have listened to the noble Earl's speech and I have become more and more concerned. I believe that this is an issue on which we should look to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for such an undertaking, particularly at this time when there is no great pressure on us from a legislative point of view. If the noble Lord were to do so that would give some reassurance to the House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises perhaps I may follow my noble friend who, with his great experience, in my view has made a very powerful point. In support of what my noble friend said I should like to refer to one sentence used by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He said that the Bill is being introduced to test the water. If that is indeed the

35
case it means that the Government are not totally committed to the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I believe that there is an extremely strong case in favour of a reference to a Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will consider that possibility carefully.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have listened to the exchanges over the past few minutes. I thought that my noble friend had done a very good job in answering the questions. However, I understand that some noble Lords were not entirely satisfied with the answers.
It is, of course, right and proper that we should find the best way of proceeding from this moment. I believe that the convention by which the House gives an unopposed Second Reading to a Bill is a good one and it is one which I should very much like to see maintained. However, I certainly give the undertaking requested by the noble Lord to have discussions, through the usual channels, in order to find the best way in which the points raised can be properly cleared up before the Bill leaves this House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it remains for me to conclude my remarks by thanking all noble Lords for their comments. I believe that we have had a useful and constructive debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I hope that when they read Hansard they will find that I have been able to provide some measure of reassurance about their anxieties.
In the light of what I have said I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UN Conference on the Environment and Development
4.40 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, held in Brazil. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the UN Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil. I represented the United Kingdom at the conference, together with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister for Overseas Development and the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside.
"I should also like to report to the House on my visits to the United States and to Colombia. During the past week I have also had meetings with a number of other heads of Government.
36
"As the House will know, the Rio Conference agreed to legally binding conventions on climate change and biodiversity. It agreed a declaration setting out clear principles for sustainable development, a declaration on the management of forests and, in Agenda 21, a framework for action carrying us into the next century. We also agreed to establish a Sustainable Development Commission under the United Nations to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21.
"My right honourable friends played a leading part in the negotiation of these agreements. In particular, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment played a key role in negotiating a text on climate change which the United States was able to sign. The United Kingdom has been able to go further than the convention requires by making a firm commitment, provided others do so as well, to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
"I was the first head of government of the G7 to commit myself to attend the Rio Conference and to encourage others to do so. The results have not gone as far as some would wish. As in any initiative, there have had to be compromises. The United Kingdom could have gone further on climate change than the convention provides. We wanted to see binding commitments on forests, but have, for the time being, to content ourselves with a declaration. But the undertakings we have made are substantial. There is a firm commitment by all participants to further action.
"There will also be a substantial commitment of new funds. The existing global environment facility will remain the sole multilateral mechanism for meeting obligations under the two new conventions. The Government support a 2 billion to 3 billion dollar replenishment of that facility. We also plan to make available substantial financial resources for conservation, biodiversity, energy efficiency, population planning and sustainable agriculture.
"In addition to these agreements I launched three specific British initiatives. The first, the Darwin initiative, reflects our position as a world leader in conservation and the use of the world's resources of biodiversity and natural habitat. The initiative will place at the disposal of other countries the experience of, among others, the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew and Edinburgh, the Natural History Museum at London and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre at Cambridge. The aim will be to carry out studies of available natural resources; establish goals for research and monitoring; develop inventories of the most important species; promote international co-operation and techniques for conservation.
"The second initiative is for a partnership in global technology to give developing countries better access to environmentally sound technologies, by sharing information and by direct

37
contacts with British companies. To launch this initiative we shall organise a technology partnership conference next year.
"We were in constant touch with nongovernmental organisations in preparing for the Rio Conference, and 12 representatives of NGOs and other organisations attended the conference as advisers to the British delegation. Their role has been a vital one in arousing public awareness and in offering expert advice. If we are to make real progress under Agenda 21 it is desirable for the NGOs to be fully involved. The third initiative, therefore, is for the United Kingdom to convene a global forum of the NGO community next year to build up their role in the next phase.
"Before the conference I paid brief visits to the United States and Colombia. President Bush and I discussed a wide range of issues including some which will be raised at the President's summit with President Yeltsin starting tomorrow. We had a detailed discussion of the GATT Round. We are both working for an early agreement. An agreement would be of enormous benefit to the world trading system, including the developing countries.
"My visit to Colombia was the first visit to South America by a British Prime Minister. Britain has a considerable stake in the country. We are the third largest investor; 22 subsidiaries of British companies work there. The recent BP oil find at Cusiana was the company's largest oil discovery for a quarter of a century. The purpose of my visit was to reaffirm our support for Colombian democracy, her market economy and her brave and successful fight against drug trafficking.
"The Government are already contributing aid worth nearly £20 million to the fight against drug trafficking. It has had considerable success. Drug crops destroyed in Colombia represent lives saved in this country. I therefore reaffirmed our commitment to helping Colombia. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will visit the country later this year to assess the programme and how best to carry forward our help.
"I agreed with President Gaviria a number of initiatives to develop our trade relationship. I look forward to the president's visit to this country next year.
"At the Rio Conference the countries of the world took on a substantial commitment to safeguard the environment on a global basis. In that respect Rio was a milestone. Britain played a leading part in securing those agreements. A lot of work remains. I am today writing to other G7 and EC Heads of government proposing that at the Lisbon European Council and the Munich Summit we should adopt an action plan to carry forward immediately the agreements made at Rio. We have already gone a long way towards achieving a cleaner, safer world in which all of us share responsibility for our environmental inheritance. In that respect Rio was a landmark".
That concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We cannot but be impressed when 100 world leaders attend a conference and end by signing a document whose purpose is to implement a programme to save the planet. There is to be a new United Nations body to oversee the implementation of the plans, and we wish it every success. We also welcome the two world treaties on wildlife and global warming which were signed by 152 countries and the European Community. We regret, of course, that President Bush felt unable to sign the biodiversity convention.
All the countries concerned in these agreements have pledged themselves to wide-ranging economic, social and industrial commitments. Some people have criticised the paucity of the new aid. No doubt we all wish that more could have been pledged. But I assume that this is only the start. I personally feel that it was a historic beginning and that it certainly was not a failure.
Our representatives in Rio de Janeiro said that Britain would like to see all the nations making regular published reports to the new commission of their progress to sustainable development. We warmly support this, but does the noble Lord agree that, if we are to take a lead, then our annual aid contribution, which falls far short of the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, must improve progressively? Can the noble Lord give an assurance that this will now be the Government's aim?
The Statement says that the Government will provide "substantial financial resources". Will he confirm that this will be in addition to the current aid contribution so that we may get the position clear and clarify the financial facts which emerged from Rio? Furthermore, will the Government also consider publishing an annual White Paper giving details of our own progress on the key issues listed in the Rio action plan?
The first steps have now been taken towards constructing a global strategy to protect the environment. I appreciate the spirit in which the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister made his Statement, but the co-operation evident at the conference must be built upon. The developed nations must ensure that sufficient funding and overseas aid is made available to guarantee progress towards achieving the conference's stated goals. Failure to make such progress could precipitate a global environmental catastrophe, with grave consequences for the people of this planet.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches we too wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There were achievements in Rio which we very much welcome. We understand that it is extremely difficult to make speedy progress in a conference on that scale and with such diverse participation. We welcome the fact that we signed both the major conventions and the British initiatives for further action.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will agree that the success of Rio must be judged not so much by

39
what did or did not happen there but by what happens afterwards and whether there is a purposeful follow-up to what was broached. It seems from the Statement that the Prime Minister intends such a follow-up.
The amount of money at present pledged is disappointing. We are fully aware of the difficulties for nations in pledging large amounts of money. However, there can be no doubt that the whole environmental issue, including the forests, for example, is tied up with questions of poverty and population. I regret that there is nothing in the Statement and very little in the reports that came out of Rio about the question of population and what governments propose to do. There is little recognition that the population problem cannot be tackled unless the poverty problem is also dealt with. In my view the link between those two issues is not sufficiently emphasised—indeed is not emphasised at all—in the Statement.
With that in mind I welcome particularly the Prime Minister's emphasis on the importance of getting agreement to GATT. That is an essential first step if the poverty problem is to be tackled. I also greatly welcome the initiative to call a meeting of NGOs. It is generally recognised that in many ways the NGOs, given adequate support, are in a better position than any other sector to deal with many of the problems. The proposal for an international conference of NGOs is much to be welcomed. We hope that it will be fully supported and given the finance that is necessary to make it work. Can we be assured that the NGOs dealing with population issues will be well represented and that they will ultimately be given the financial support that they need? It is all too often limited for a whole variety of reasons which at the present time I cannot go into.
That is an essential step forward. Without it, a great deal of what has been talked about at Rio will lead to very little by way of results.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their general welcome of the results of the conference in Rio. It is very important to say, in view of what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, that the Rio declaration is only a beginning. One important matter is the open access to information. If there is open access to information, public opinion and the NGOs will be able to play a much greater part promoting those issues in the world and moving public opinion than in the past. I am sure that we all welcome that.
It is only a start. There will he more resources developed. The Government are committed to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. The conference agreed that that target should be achieved as soon as possible but did not lay down a timetable. I recognise that that was the position taken by the noble Lord's party in the recent election. In a number of the initiatives there is a commitment which involves additional resources. The global environment facility, for which an additional two billion to three billion dollars of finance was indicated, involves a
40
commitment from the United Kingdom of an additional £100 million, which is about 6.5 per cent. of the total and about the sort of percentage figure normally expected of the United Kingdom for such matters.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of establishing reports. I agree that they are very important. That is why the British Government have already committed themselves to producing an annual report to follow on their White Paper of a year or so ago. There will be an annual report and the suggestion that it should cover wider progress will be taken very seriously indeed.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks and for acknowledging that there were real achievements. In particular I am pleased about her welcome for the three British initiatives. First, there is the Darwin initiative where we will seek to build on UK strengths in conservation. That will involve additional costs to the Government although we have not yet been able to determine what they will be. The other two initiatives will also involve additional cost. The global technology partnership is aimed at promoting UK capacity in environmentally friendly technology and making it more widely understood in other parts of the world. There will be a conference in the United Kingdom. Also, there is the NGO conference, which we are calling for next year. It will consult on the progress of Agenda 21, which is an enormous document of 400 pages. It is full of ideas. Those ideas are not just for governments but also for local government, individuals, local authorities, international bodies, NGOs and others. It is a comprehensive agenda of all the things that can be done.
I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness. In the final analysis it is trade not aid which will assist the developing world to make substantial progress. I spoke to the Prime Minster this morning. He indicated to me that he thought that that point was understood much better now by the developing countries than it was before. That is why the noble Baroness was right to stress the importance of the GATT agreement, which we must achieve. Perhaps I may also say that I believe that the reform of the common agriculture policy is another part of the process.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I congratulate the Government and especially the Prime Minister on most important initiatives. Is my noble friend satisfied that the countries in which the rain forests lie accept their responsibility for preventing their further destruction? My second question arises from that put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about poverty and population. Is it not an unfortunate fact that where there is extreme poverty, people cannot even afford the contraceptives needed to control population? Were any provisions made in that regard?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for asking those two questions. I agree and I am sorry that I did not answer the noble Baroness's point about population. I shall answer both questions together. There is a chapter on population. It is a difficult

41
subject, as the House will realise. In the view of the United Kingdom Government it is a most important issue. A great deal of our aid programme at the moment is targeted on the education of women, as we believe that that is the biggest contribution we can make to the issue. We part company with some in our belief that education is a better way to make progress than having targets. The subject is very important.
With regard to forest principles, as the Prime Minister indicated in his Statement we would have preferred to go further. However, it is the first statement on which there has been international consensus on the value and conservation of the world's forests. A code of practice for sustainable management of forests was agreed. It is not a legally binding agreement but we believe that it will have the effect of increasing peer group pressure. It is a slight disappointment but it is a start in the right direction. Agenda 21 very much keeps open the door to a later convention.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept my personal appreciation at having been included as an advisory member of the delegation? I do not say that the delegation took all my advice—but that is another question. I wish too to express my gratitude to Ministers and civil servants who attended. They made themselves available for consultation throughout the conference.
Does the noble Lord agree that however much we argue about the agreements reached, the actual fact of the conference was a triumph for the United Nations and for Maurice Strong, who was the executive secretary of UNCED. To have brought together such a conference with so many leaders and nongovernmental organisations was a remarkable achievement. I appreciate the Prime Minister's reference to the non-governmental organisations. I look forward to further consultations about the NGO initiative to which he made reference.
Does the noble Lord accept that there is a real sense of disappointment that the Government were involved in watering down some binding commitments on issues which vitally affect millions of people? Perhaps I may give three examples. First, there was no binding, legal agreement on the reduction of CFC emissions. Secondly, there was no clear timetable for reaching the agreed target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, to which the noble Lord referred, as did my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. The noble Lord also referred to the party on this side of the House. We made a commitment in the general election that we would achieve it in five years. Is it not a pity that the Government were not able to make clear when their target will be reached? Thirdly, there was no clear commitment to further debt relief for countries now paying us more in debt repayment than we pay them in aid.
Unlike Mr. Bush, Herr Kohl and M. Mitterrand, who have elections pending, the Prime Minister has had his election. It is difficult to understand why, with presumably some years ahead, he was not able to be more precise about the funding commitment. It was
42
an extremely important conference. However, I agree that the follow-up will be even more important than the conference itself.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House refer to the role of local authorities which were included as advisers within the delegation, as I was. Will he give an assurance that the funding will be made available for local authorities to fulfil their part of Agenda 21?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for most of what he said. If I had known that he was at Rio I might have called him in to give me some advice while mugging up on the subject in the last hour or so.
We did not achieve everything that we wanted from the conference; I do not believe that anyone did. However, we made a substantial move in the right direction. Today we should recognise that and continue to press in other areas where we believe that further progress should be made.
I make two comments on what the noble Lord said. First, the Government require some credit for the initiatives they have taken with regard to third world debt. There were a number of initiatives both by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor.
As it seemed likely that someone might refer to the Labour Party's commitment of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, I have before me a recent statement by its Treasury spokesperson. Asked whether it was a specific commitment, she said:
"No, that is a goal, and it's explicitly set out as a goal. That's what we're aiming for".
Nobody is able to put his hand on his heart and say, "We know we can get there." I do not disagree.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the theme that has emerged is co-operation between advanced industrial countries and the remainder of the world, in particular in relation to making technology and expertise available? In the light of that, does the Minister find it extraordinary that the conference was boycotted by the member of the European Commission responsible for the environment? Does that not give us good ground for objecting to any further interventions by him in our own domestic environment?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me into areas into which I shall not stray. I was disappointed that the commissioner decided not to attend. Perhaps he is now a little disappointed at his decision because it was an extremely good conference.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord states that we did not achieve everything we wished in Rio. So far as my information goes, the third world countries obtained virtually none of their aims. Although the Government have been at pains to suggest that the Rio conference is the beginning, there have been at least two years' preparation for Rio. Therefore we are entitled to examine the results of the Rio conference as a part of the negotiating process between third and first world countries. I commend the Government for calling the technology conference

43
next year. That is a crucial issue arising from the Rio conference, which puts the results from Rio into practice.
If the noble Lord cannot give an answer now, perhaps he will do so later. First, what specific financial commitments in new money were made by the British Government at the Rio conference to assist third world countries to develop without interfering with the environment? Secondly, when the noble Lord states that we are committed to reducing our carbon dioxide emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2000 if other countries do so—I stress that point—now that the United States has stated specifically that it will not agree to that target, do Her Majesty's Government consider that they are still bound by the commitment; or does that refusal by the United States release the United Kingdom Government from the commitment?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord is slightly wrong on the United States position. The United States is much further on board than it was. Indeed, President Bush called for urgent implementation of the climate change agreements. I agree that we would have preferred to go further.
The noble Lord asked about additional finance. As I indicated, some of the commitments to which we have agreed have not yet been costed; for example, the Darwin initiative, the global technology partnership and the NGO conference. We are committed to £100 million of new money for the replenishment of the global environment facility. There is one further aspect which has not been mentioned; the noble Lord might find some comfort there. I refer to Agenda 21, an extremely long document covering every kind of environmental improvement which could be considered helpful. We agreed to the establishment of a sustainable development commission under the United Nations to review progress and to keep up to the mark our progress on Agenda 21.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, will my noble friend accept the fact that the first visit for many years of a British Prime Minister to South America was warmly welcomed by the vast number of people concerned with promoting our trade with Latin America? It is extremely gratifying to know that Her Majesty's Government have finally recognised the importance of this vast area in respect of trading opportunities for investment on a two-way basis. I hope that the Prime Minister's visit was the first of many and that it will be repeated frequently in the future. That is extremely important.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks about the visit. I know that the Prime Minister was pleased to be able to visit Colombia and that he found it most worthwhile. I too hope that he makes further visits to South America.

Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1992
5.12 p.m.
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 19th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should explain at the outset a matter which may have puzzled your Lordships. There has been laid before your Lordships' House today a further order; the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (Continuance) Order 1992. I should like to explain the reason for that. If your Lordships were to look at Article 3 of the order which we are debating you would see that Section 34 and Schedule 3, which provide for executive detention, are excluded from its application. This was because the opinion was taken that these provisions did not need to be continued in force, like the other provisions with which we are concerned, because they have been suspended by provision of the Act. Indeed, they have never been active since 1980, although they can be revived by order at any time if the need arises.
Owing to the way in which Section 69 of the Act has been drafted it is now clear that that opinion was wrong. Any provision of the Act which while on the statute book is nevertheless not actually in force at midnight tonight (15th June), would in fact expire completely by operation of the Act and be no longer available to the Government. In order to avoid automatic expiry, the provisions on detention must be brought into force by order. Accordingly, the second order is being laid before Parliament to bring the provisions into force just before midnight tonight. After midnight they will at once be taken out of force and revert to their suspended status.
I apologise for the necessity for this ungainly procedure, which your Lordships will perceive corrects a technical mistake which should not have been made.
I return now to the order before your Lordships today. It will renew the emergency powers and provisions operating in Northern Ireland which otherwise would lapse at midnight. I, like many of your Lordships, very much regret the continued requirement for these powers. I shall come to the necessity for them in a moment. But this debate also gives us the opportunity to review the first 10 months of operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, which both Houses considered with great care last year and which contains a number of new measures whose benefits are already being felt.
We are again fortunate to have the report of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to assist us in our deliberations. As always, he has produced a penetrating and thought-provoking review of the scope of the emergency powers and their implementation. The Government will be giving due

45
consideration to all the points that he makes. But we very much welcome my noble friend's central conclusion that:
"The new Act, and new arrangements in it, seem to have been introduced and have since been operated without any appreciable adverse reaction. I do not recommend the suspension of any of its provisions".
Before looking more closely at the detail of the Act, I should first remind your Lordships of the background against which renewal of these emergency powers is sought. The vicious campaign of violence by terrorists on both sides of the community continues. Nearly 3,000 men, women and children have died violently since the troubles broke in 1969. Since July last year 101 people have died and many more have been injured; lives brutally ended or ruined; homes and businesses destroyed; people in many places living in fear of their lives. A handful of examples from the past six months serves to illustrate the nature of the terrorist campaign: a young mother gunned down in a chemist's; a student murdered while protecting his father; a policewomen killed and a colleague severely injured by a horizontal mortar; two people playing snooker shot at random; eight workmen blown up by a mine; five customers in a betting shop machine-gunned. The terrorists like to present themselves as soldiers fighting for a cause: some soldiers; some cause, if it can be advanced by atrocities such as these. Those who perpetrate the crimes have no mandate for what they do, no justification and ultimately no hope of success because neither the Government nor the law-abiding majority of Northern Ireland's citizens will allow them to win.
But the toll would be far worse were it not for the tireless efforts of the security forces who, through patience, skill and dedication to duty, have continued to make inroads into the terrorist organisations through arrests and arms finds and have forced the terrorists to abort a high proportion of their operations. In 1991 391 people were charged with terrorist-type offences, including 120 with murder or attempted murder. The figures for the first four months of this year were 140 and 44 respectively. Also last year 214 weapons, 18,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 4,000 kilograms of explosives were recovered. It is thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces—and the determined and professional leadership under which they operate—that the vast majority of people in the Province conduct their daily lives in safety and normality. Measures to improve still further the effectiveness of security force operations continue to be taken. Your Lordships will be aware of the recent appointment by the police authority of a second Deputy Chief Constable following a review of the RUC senior command structure. The new Deputy Chief Constable will be responsible for all operational policing. This will give greater co-operation and direction to the counter-terrorist campaign and will also further enhance RUC/Army liaison.
The emergency powers contained in the EPA and PTA provide the essential framework within which the security forces are pursuing their efforts to defeat the terrorists. In addition to strengthening the law in a number of respects, the 1991 Act also introduced new
46
safeguards in the exercise of the emergency powers. I shall be reporting progress on some of these measures in a moment.
I turn now to the main findings of the review of my noble friend Lord Colville. I have already referred to his acceptance of the need for the powers in the Act; that is a view we endorse. He goes on to note that among the most significant of the new provisions in the Act are those relating to terrorist finances. The Government continue to attach great importance to action to disrupt the flow of funds to terrorists and terrorist organisations. In recent years more than 300 people have been convicted of involvement in illegal funding operations worth probably in the order of £45 million. It was to enhance our ability to do this that the special powers of investigation, now set out in Section 57 and Schedule 5 of the Act, were enacted. All those provisions are now in force and the indications are that they will prove to be a useful weapon in our armoury. The code of practice covering the conduct of investigations into terrorist finances is now in an advanced state of preparation: before being laid before Parliament it will be circulated for comment to interested parties, such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
The review also discusses in some detail the circumstances in which allegations of ill-treatment of persons in police custody arise. Let me once again make absolutely clear the position of the Government and of the police. Abuse of persons in custody is forbidden. Physical assault is a criminal offence. Whenever complaints are made against the police, these are thoroughly investigated. The evidence is sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who decides in accordance with his normal criteria whether any prosecution should be instigated.
A wide range of additional statutory and administrative safeguards for those in custody already exist. Those include ministerial authorisation of extensions of detention; the suspect's right to have a member of their family or a friend informed of their arrest and whereabouts, and to consult a solicitor privately; the right to regular medical examinations; the continuous monitoring of all interviews by closed-circuit TV and the maintenance of detailed custody records; and a continuous period of at least eight hours' rest (in any period of 24 hours) free from questioning, travel or any interruption.
Those are stringent safeguards. A further reinforcement of those safeguards will be provided by the statutory code of practice governing the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the PTA. A draft of the code has been prepared following discussion with a number of interested bodies, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. A number of detailed points still need to be finalised with the police, but I hope that the draft code will be issued for public consultation within the next few weeks.
In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced in another place his decision in principle that an independent commissioner for the holding centres should be appointed. His role will be to visit the centres on a random basis

47
to give Ministers and the general public assurance that the safeguards and procedures to protect the interests of persons detained are being fully adhered to. The lay visiting scheme introduced by the police authority has undoubtedly been a success and the commissioner scheme will draw on that experience. Details of the terms of reference of the commissioner have yet to be worked out, and my right honourable friend is considering possible candidates for the post. A further announcement will be made shortly.
My noble friend Lord Colville has, however, highlighted the way in which allegations of ill-treatment, whether proved or not, can be used to undermine confidence in the police. He also shows how statistics relating to the very measures introduced to protect the rights of those in custody, and to provide compensation if those rights are breached, can, unless used with care, give a totally false and misleading picture of the effectiveness of those safeguards. Your Lordships may be interested to know in this regard that the police authority for Northern Ireland is currently undertaking an exercise, covering the three-year period April 1989 to March 1992, to compile more precise statistics on the proportion of compensation payments arising from detentions in holding centres. The findings will be made public.
We will be looking closely at the suggestions the review contains as to ways in which records and procedures might be improved to enhance the existing safeguards still further, though I should add that this is a continuous process, and that the police have already taken a number of important steps in this regard in recent years. The importance of comprehensive and accurate records, not just in increasing public confidence that the police are behaving properly, but also in reducing the number of unfounded and malicious claims made against the police, whether as complaints or in the form of civil actions, is something that we recognise very clearly.
But we must not lose sight of another important point to which my noble friend draws our attention. Terrorists are becoming more adept at resisting interrogation: and one of the features of a proper criminal justice system is its ability to bring to justice the guilty as well as protect the innocent. As the chief constable has said, the terrorist organisations and their propagandists know how important the holding centres, particularly Castlereagh, are in undermining their criminality. This needs to be borne in mind when allegations of ill-treatment are made. Saying that implies no complacency: far from it. We seek to find a balance between protecting the rights of the individual and giving the police and the courts the powers they need to bring criminals to justice.
The review also refers to the handling of complaints arising from contact between the security forces, particularly the Army, and the civilian population. The conduct of individual policemen and soldiers is central to the creation and maintenance of community confidence in their integrity and professionalism, as well as their effectiveness operationally. Any security force actions or activities which break the law or
48
otherwise fall short of the professional standards required will not be tolerated. We should, nevertheless, always be mindful of the often extremely difficult circumstances in which the police and Army have to work. Often they face hostility and intense provocation, and frequently are in danger of death or serious injury. In such circumstances, the highest standards of restraint and professionalism are required, and in the vast majority of cases they are maintained. We should not forget that there is constant interaction between the security forces and the community, the vast majority of it friendly. Even in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances, members of the security forces and the public achieve reasonable relationships. There has been much comment resulting about certain events in Coalisland and elsewhere. Those events are now being investigated by the police and I cannot comment further on them here (other than to say that proper action will be taken on the basis of the findings and the investigations).
We regard the timely processing of complaints as an important part of the maintenance of good relations with the community. My noble friend refers to the fact that the Army are now setting themselves targets for the speedy resolution of formal complaints, which is part of this process. In addition, we hope shortly to be able to announce the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures.
My noble friend also refers to the recommendation, in his report on Belfast Prison, about the need to reduce the time prisoners spend on remand in custody in Northern Ireland. The Government accept that the case for cutting such remand times is unanswerable. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State therefore announced in another place last week that a special scheme will be introduced in Northern Ireland aimed at reducing and monitoring the time defendants spend in custody before they are tried on indictment for scheduled offences. The scheme will start in two weeks' time, on 1st July. It will impose administrative targets for these scheduled custody cases.
They are the ones which present the most serious delays. The targets will be to take such cases from first remand to committal stage in 38 weeks; and from committal to arraignment (when the defendant enters his or her plea) in 14 weeks—a period of 12 months overall from first remand to arraignment.
These targets are challenging. They will require a significant improvement in the processing of these cases in Northern Ireland. They can only be achieved because the agencies concerned have agreed to introduce new arrangements to monitor closely the progress of the cases involved, and to introduce new reporting arrangements for cases which are in danger of overrunning.
We considered carefully whether even tighter time limits could be introduced straight away, but had to conclude that that is not a realistic expectation for the time being. But we wish to see still further reductions in remand periods over and above those which are being introduced in the next few weeks. Consideration has been given to introducing a statutory scheme at

49
this stage. We had to reject that option because we could not at present be satisfied that it could operate without a real risk of dangerous people being released.
We believe that these measures will lead to a significant and welcome improvement in the time scheduled remand prisoners spend in custody. They will lay also the necessary foundations for sustained and continued improvements for the future. They are designed to ensure that the wish of my noble friend Lord Colville to reduce remand times are given substance and start to be realised.
Given the subject matter of today's debate, it is inevitable that our focus should be narrowly on security-related issues. But that is only one element of our policy towards Northern Ireland; social and economic programmes, and the pursuit of political progress, are fundamental to our search for a happier and more peaceful future for the people of Northern Ireland. These are policies which affect directly far more people than those who ever encounter the emergency legislation we are discussing today. I am sure the entire House will join me in paying warm and whole-hearted tribute to the security forces, and also to the judiciary and the prison service, in their ceaseless struggle to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. The Government fully support them in their efforts and are determined that the necessary resources, in terms both of manpower and equipment and an appropriate legislative framework, are in place to enable them to carry out their duties successfully.
We must pay tribute also to the efforts of the Garda and the Irish Army in the fight against terrorism. Their diligence and professionalism have led to a series of major arms finds and arrests already this year in Donegal and Cork. Those come on top of the recovery last year of 159 weapons, over 20,000 rounds of ammunition and over 1,600 kilograms of explosive. The Irish Government share our determination that terrorism will not prevail: and we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that co-operation on the ground is as close as we can make it.
Most important of all I pay particular tribute to the endurance and courage of the people of Northern Ireland, whose determination to get on with their lives in spite of the terrorists is a source of encouragement to all of us who deal with Northern Ireland's affairs, and contrasts so starkly with the sheer wickedness of the paramilitaries. They deserve to be relieved of the scourge of terrorism and we are determined that that should be so. Central to the Government's security policy is a determination that terrorism and terrorists should be dealt with within the law. The law that applies for this purpose is the ordinary, substantive criminal law, which has been temporarily supplemented by a number of additional provisions, largely those contained within the EPA, the purpose of which is the better protection of the lives and liberties of those under threat from terrorism. I therefore commend this continuance order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Arran.)
5.32 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the second order before I address the first. I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation of the need for the second order and am grateful to the Secretary of State for sending us a letter explaining the background and flaw contained in the present legislation. However, a copy of the second order was not in the Printed Paper Office 25 minutes ago.
I believe that I understand the nature of the technical error. It was a huge error. A clause in the 1991 Act, to which the department always attached the highest importance, was excluded. That is the clause which authorises the Secretary of State to detain citizens without trial. As I say, I believe that I understand the error but I shall be interested to know at what level within the department the error occurred. At what level was the law misinterpreted?
The Secretary of State called in aid the urgency procedure to make laws for Northern Ireland. According to page 554 of Erskine May,
"In cases of urgency, an alternative procedure is laid down by which an Order in Council may be made and come into force, though its continuing validity will depend on the agreement of both Houses given within forty days of the date of the making of the Order in Council".
I believe that the Order in Council was signed today. Therefore can the Minister say whether he is asking the House this afternoon for its agreement to the order or whether he intends to come back to the House at a later stage to seek its consent.
I move to the first order. The House is indebted to the Minister for explaining the background to the order, which is of major importance. Again it is an order which cannot be amended. The Opposition are in agreement with the Government's determination to wage the most effective campaign possible against the men of Ireland—my Lords, I meant to say the men of violence in Northern Ireland. There is unity in the House that the terrorists from both sides of the community must be prevented from continuing their ruthless campaign of violence, murder and intimidation. Terrorism must not succeed.
The Minister reminded your Lordships of the background in Northern Ireland, of the scale of the violence and of the suffering. The violence has been waged now for 23 years. He referred also to successes by the security forces whose members have an immensely difficult and dangerous task to discharge against a ruthless enemy. Like the Minister, I should like to express the Opposition's respect for the way in which those tasks, almost without exception, have been undertaken year after year in and around the Province. We join with the Minister in expressing our admiration for the stamina, courage and good sense of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered so much over the past 23 years.
It is the duty of any worthwhile Opposition, in relation to this order, to voice in your Lordships' House points of difference which arise out of our concern for the liberty of the citizen; for human rights in Northern Ireland and the effectiveness of the Government's legislation. On the occasion when the 1991 Act was being debated in your Lordships' House a year ago we emphasised that the exceptional powers

51
it contained should always be balanced with the necessary safeguards to minimise the possibility of abuse of the powers and to protect the liberties of innocent citizens who live their daily lives in Northern Ireland. That remains an important and integral part of our task today.
Once again we are greatly assisted by the annual report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on the operation of the Act during 1991. Inevitably there is less contained in the report this year than in earlier reports. We are indebted to the noble Viscount for the excellent reports he has produced over the years. While it would be premature at this stage to form a reliable assessment of the operation of the new provisions of the Act, the report tends to be reassuring on a number of matters. It is early days in the operation of the new provisions but it appears that the new power to examine documents to be found in Section 22, and the new offence of possessing items intended for terrorist purposes to be found in Section 30 (which were the subject of a great deal of anxiety and discussion in Committee) to date have not generated adverse criticism. As the Minister pointed out, it is satisfying also that the most complex new provisions aimed at preventing the flow of funds to terrorist organisations may be biting. However, the Government should bear in mind that the conclusion in paragraph 2.1.5 of the report was challenged by a Member in another place who happens to be a jurist.
In the light of that challenge, can we be assured that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Inland Revenue in Northern Ireland are not pursuing conflicting ends? Can we also be assured that the Government are addressing the need to ensure, so far as possible, uniformity of legislation within the different jurisdictions of the British Isles relating to the disclosure of information about terrorist funds, which is the important matter raised in paragraph 2.1.6 of the report?
I found paragraph 4 of the report and its many sub-paragraphs to be worrying. In these subparagraphs the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, draws attention once again to the allegations of harsh ill treatment at the three holding centres. He sets out the "damning perception"—those are his words—which has built up of the typical course of events at these centres which is both damaging to the confidence and good name of the police in Northern Ireland and to the reputation of the United Kingdom Government within the international community.
In paragraph 4.3.2 the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, tells us:
"I would suggest that something needs urgently to be done about allegations of ill-treatment, at Castlereagh and generally in police custody".
At this stage I should say that we are also greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has consistently reminded your Lordships over the past few years of the urgent need to improve the procedures for interviewing and interrogating arrested suspects at the holding centres.
The Secretary of State repeated last week in another place that an independent commissioner for the holding centres is to be appointed. This House was
52
given that information by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as long ago as 12th March last (Official Report, cols. 1435–6). On that occasion, he went on to say that the appointment would be made "as soon as possible".
Harsh criticism has been levelled at the holding centres, and there have been disturbingly large numbers of actions in tort, such as an action for compensation for assault and for false imprisonment, brought against the chief constable arising out of conduct at the holding centres. Those were settled out of court and suggest a linkage with complaints. Is the delay which has already occurred in announcing the appointment of the independent commissioner justifiable upon any grounds? Perhaps the Minister can help us on that.
In any event can the Minister tell the House when this important appointment will be made? The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, mentions in his report that he had seen a draft of the job specification. Can the Minister confirm that the commissioner will be able at all times to observe the interview and interrogation through the observation window in the cell door? Will that be possible? Will he have a right of access to the doctor at the centre and to the medical evidence? If he is dissatisfied with what he observes, can he immediately intervene and take remedial or corrective action? If not, to whom and when will he be reporting on the incident which has caused him anxiety? That is not clear to me.
At any stage will the commissioner have a right of access to the Secretary of State? What will be the relationship between the commissioner and the commission for police complaints in Northern Ireland? Those are some of the questions which need to be answered. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, will confirm that the opposition parties have always maintained that the best safeguard against the ill-treatment of suspects, or against false accusations of ill-treatment made against the police, would be a video recording of the interview. If I have any criticism of the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, it is that I regret that his support for video recording appears to be a little less firm than it used to be in the past.
Before I leave the question of terrorist suspects in custody, I want to confirm our full support for the Government's recently announced decision to aim at reducing to 12 months the defendant's time spent in custody from the original remand to the date of trial. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, and as the Minister also said this afternoon, there was an unanswerable case for cutting down that period. I hope that the department will give a very high priority to reaching that target as rapidly as possible. Once it has been reached, we believe that it should then become a permanent and statutory obligation, as suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville.
In his 1990 review, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, confirmed that stories abound of clumsy or rude behaviour by both military and police personnel. This humiliating experience for those at the receiving end had given rise to considerable worry which had also been strongly voiced by the Primate of

53
all-Ireland, Dr. Daly. The Government then responded by promising to set up a new post of an independent assessor of military complaints to review the working of the procedures for the investigation of complaints against the Army. That is provided for in Section 60 of last year's Act.
Although it was and continues to be our view that Section 60 falls substantially short of what was required to meet the criticism—because it failed to provide for an independent element within the complaints procedure—nevertheless we deeply regret that this post has yet to be filled. We appreciate that the Army itself has set up a central complaints office at headquarters. That is not a substitute for the independent assessor of military complaints. That post has yet to be filled. Therefore, this is another appointment which, after 12 months of labour, should now be accelerated.
That leads me to ask a question about the central principle of police primacy in Northern Ireland. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is in his place. It is a question which has been asked by him on a number of occasions. I am delighted that he is to speak in this debate and no doubt will come back to this question. The principle of police primacy, as I understand it, requires the Armed Forces to operate only in support of the police save in the most exceptional circumstances.
Our anxiety today arises particularly, but not solely, out of the case of Mr. Brian Nelson and his activities in Northern Ireland. Mr. Nelson is now serving a 10 years sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to murder. Without accepting all his evidence as gospel, the "Panorama" programme shown a week ago tonight on the Nelson affair raised many worrying issues including especially that of the relationship between the Army and the RUC. One is left wondering whether the Army is waging one fight against terrorism and the RUC another. One is left wondering whether the Army in Northern Ireland and the RUC are two autonomous departments. Does the one department know what the other is doing? Does one arm know what the other is doing?
Of course, we welcome the appointment last week of a second deputy chief constable, but that appointment by itself does not necessarily address the anxieties. It does not necessarily resolve the difficulties. Can the Minister help the House by assuring us that if the Army is to be permitted to continue to operate an intelligence service in Northern Ireland, the RUC will be in overall command and that the information that is obtained and gathered by the Army will be passed forthwith to the RUC in a useful form so that the fight against terrorism will be a single, co-ordinated and unified fight?
I believe that the failure to co-ordinate the activities of the relevant departments is reflected in paragraph 1.4 of the report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which states:
"It is regrettable that there are this year no statistics for the impact of the EPA more recent than up to July 1991. These are of little use for the review, especially as they predate the coming into force of the new Act. Although the police have supplied statistics of their own, it is probably better not to publish these, as the comparison with NIO figures for earlier
54
years may not be entirely on all fours. In general there are current difficulties about statistics, including arguments over definitions. This appears to be the reason for the unsatisfactory situation whereby the statistics for the work of the Diplock courts can be markedly different according to whether the source is the Court Service of the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Northern Ireland Office. I would suggest that there would be much utility in a resolution of all this."
The last sentence of that paragraph is kindly phrased, but I believe that its meaning is not obscured. How can the relative neglect of statistics possibly be explained? Why, year after year, have we been led to believe that we are receiving a quality of data which we are not?
Clearly, improvements are urgently needed if there is to be a flow of up-to-date and reliable information—whether it emanates from the RUC, the Army, the Northern Ireland Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department. That is a simple improvement which could be made with the aid of modern technology and statistical skills if the need is really appreciated and understood—hence one of my last questions to the Minister. Can this improvement be built into the system before the end of this year?
I now come to my final question. Is there a need for this emergency legislation and its quite exceptional provisions to continue in force? It is obvious for all to see that these are still very difficult times for the people of Northern Ireland. Daily, or almost daily, fresh acts of terrorism scar the face of Ulster. Regrettably, we conclude that there is a continuing need for emergency legislation authorising as it does many departures from the rule of law subject, however, to the proper safeguards which are built into the Act and which are to be used to fight the evil of terrorism—and only for such purposes.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the clarity of his introduction. I should also like to thank him and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for their courtesy in letting us know—albeit only a very short time before the debate— that we should be discussing two continuance orders rather than one. This is one of those occasions when the Government's competence has been outshone by their courtesy.
As to the substance of the renewal, it will be a happy day for Parliament and for the people of Northern Ireland when the Province no longer has to be governed by emergency laws which, let us make no mistake about it, infringe basic human rights and civil liberties. Unhappily, that day has not yet arrived.
However, there are signs of progress and I, for one, from these Benches wish to congratulate Sir Patrick Mayhew and his predecessor on at last having got on to the bridge between strands 1 and 2 of the all-party talks. Even if strand 1 is still far from secure behind them, at least the Secretary of State and the party leaders have reached a point that it would have been difficult to believe possible a week or two ago when it looked as if the talks had broken down. They now seem to be moving forward again. However, against those signs of political progress, the security situation

55
has visibly deteriorated over the past 12 months. The deadly impertinence of the terrorists seems to swell day by day.
Therefore, let us make no mistake: there is an emergency, as so many innocent victims on both sides of the water can testify. In my view, that is why Parliament must support the order. I do not think that it is helpful to haver and to hesitate in an emergency. It is not fair to the RUC and to the armed forces who risk so much to keep people safe. And it is not fair to the people themselves who deserve the best protection of their life and liberty that can be afforded.
At the same time the Government must be sparing and restrained in the use of the extraordinary powers that they ask us to approve. They must be ever vigilant against the abuse of power. I welcome the promise of the publication of a code and the promised appointment of a commissioner to monitor procedures at holding centres such as Castlereagh where there have been so many reports—most recently that by Amnesty International—of the ill-treatment of detainees. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, by now we should have the code and the commissioner. Can the noble Earl reassure us that disagreements about the merits of the proposal of a commissioner versus an extension of the existing lay visitor scheme, as reported on pages 38 and 39 of the excellent report by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, are not holding up the appointment of a commissioner? Furthermore, will there be a deputy commissioner—a possibility mentioned by the noble Viscount—to ensure that the proper coverage of all three holding centres can take place?
In our equivalent debate last year I was very pleased to support the innovations dealing with terrorist finance. Therefore, on a close reading of page 4 of the report, I was slightly disappointed that there has been what the noble Viscount refers to as "only a modest amount" of progress on that score. Can the Minister categorically assure the House that any commercial firm which has been intimidated into making protection payments—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to this—and which subsequently co-operates with the authorities will not then find itself the object of unwelcome attention from the Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue? That would defeat the whole object of the exercise of getting the business community and everyone in Northern Ireland working together to cut off finance from the terrorists.
Perhaps I may raise one or two other areas of concern. It is extremely welcome that the time spent in custody on remand is to be reduced. But can we be assured that the hardest cases—by that I mean some of those who, incredibly, have already been waiting two years or more—will be dealt with first? The conditions in many of the gaols in Northern Ireland where people are held are not good. The conditions in Crumlin Road are so bad that first come first served seems only just in terms of getting out to trial those who have been held for so long.
Then there is the question of the video taping of the interviews of terrorist suspects so that a permanent
56
record is kept. Surely this would reduce the number of false accusations, to which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred in his introduction, and increase confidence in the administration of justice. In a debate in another place several Conservative voices were raised in favour of that proposal. I know that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has been consistent in putting forward this proposal and of course it was the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who made the proposal to us two years ago. It is difficult to understand why the Government are quite so obdurate in the matter of the video taping of interviews. Cannot they at least initiate a controlled experiment to see whether it reduces the number of false accusations made and increases confidence in what happens at interrogations?
I move now to the question of intelligence gathering. Can the Minister assure us of the absolute primacy of the police in intelligence matters. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, took this for granted. Perhaps he was right to do so. The case of Brian Nelson paints an unhappy picture of sharp elbows between the elements of what should be an integrated security and intelligence operation. Can the Minister confirm whether his right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Tom King, did indeed write to the Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of Mr. Nelson as an army agent as "Panorama" reported? The Government did not feel able to answer the question in another place, but since a week has now elapsed perhaps we can hear something from the Minister.
If MI5 is in charge of anti-terrorist intelligence on the mainland, as we have been told recently, with the police working to it, but the reverse is the case in Northern Ireland, with MI5 and the army working to the police, is the Minister satisfied that there will not be confusion and competition of the kind that seems to have caused some difficulty over the past year or so in Northern Ireland?
Finally, I wish to voice serious misgivings that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should have been used in the case of the Channel Four "Dispatches" programme. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of the case, surely it would have been better if paragraph 9 of Schedule I to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act had been used. Does the Minister not agree that draconian law such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be used only if absolutely necessary and that it should not be devalued in this way? We have now had two cases—ABC and Lockerbie in March and now Channel Four in April—and it begins to look as though Acts which require less and less proof for prosecution are to be used more frequently. Perhaps I may say in conclusion—this is the principle which I hope the Government will feel able to observe—that the special powers which we are discussing today should be used with great care and great caution. It is on that basis alone that the Government will continue to find general support for their renewal.
6.4 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Arran for presenting the order, and I welcome him to his new post in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I thank my noble friend Lord Colville for an excellent report which gets to the bottom of many of the problems. However, the report is on the legal side and we have just heard from two noble Lords the legal opinion of it. I am not so well up in legal affairs. I should like to talk about the operational side and the day-to-day running of what goes on in Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 1.4 of my noble friend's report is totally devoid of any statistics meaningful to the past year. The chief constable's report, which is often out before this debate is held, is not anywhere to be seen. What business enterprise would possibly formulate policy on statistics from a previous year? What business enterprise does not keep statistics running throughout the year? It seems incredible that we do not have statistics for what has gone on during the past year.
I am delighted to see from the report that the new provisions which were brought in last year are largely working well, and that there have not been so many complaints about them. That shows that the work that was done here and in another place was definitely worthwhile.
I should like to refer for a moment to the relationship of the RUC and the Army. This involves police primacy. I should like to mention three occurrences which have been highlighted lately. The first is the Nelson affair. This showed that operations, which are always said to be based on intelligence information or requirements, are not being fully co-ordinated throughout the security forces. We are told that steps will be taken to rectify this, a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
The second is Coalisland. A spearhead battalion of the parachute regiment which was training in conventional warfare was sent to Northern Ireland at four days' notice with training only for that period. Things went badly wrong. I shall not go into the details. This showed that Options for Change is governing force levels in Northern Ireland instead of the situation which is occurring there at the moment. Yet this is the only operational theatre and is the Army's second heaviest commitment in the world. It was a sad occasion and a young officer was suspended. The paras have not exactly done a lot for their name. A brigadier was sacked at around this time, although the sacking was totally unconnected to the incident I have just mentioned. He had been in the job for about five months. He did not measure up to it and he was sent home. The reason for mentioning these incidents, which are all bad and detrimental to the British forces in Northern Ireland, is to show that the GOC and Headquarters Northern Ireland took executive action to correct them. They should be commended for doing so immediately, for getting to the bottom of the incidents and for authorising a police inquiry. In Coalisland, in a follow-up exercise, a second machine gun was found in addition to the one that was previously lost.
58
I also pay credit to the security forces because many successful operations have been carried out by the RUC and the Army in the past year. They are up against a sophisticated form of terrorism and terrorist plans are thwarted daily by the professionalism of the RUC and the Army. We do not hear about what goes on but there are many such examples. Down on the border, the Army has recently spent £40 million on improving the checkpoints. I spent a couple of hours at one two weeks ago. It is extremely good. It is user-friendly; it does not hold up traffic; and there is two-way free flowing traffic. The response from the public has been very good.
The security forces are not as one somehow, or so it seems. MI5, the RUC and the Army are all individual. The Nelson case has shown it. It is naïve to think that it is a completely isolated case. A new deputy chief constable for operations has been appointed and the RUC can now see all Army files. MI5 discusses things more widely with everyone else. I welcome these new measures and the new post for the deputy chief constable. But in addition to counter terrorism, his post covers traffic, criminal investigations and uniformed policing. Counter-terrorism needs a branch of its own with its own boss and staff. It is difficult to know how someone who has all operational concerns under his office can possibly get to grips with counter-terrorism. They are good measures; but are they not just papering over the cracks? Should we not go back to the centre of the fight against terrorism in the Province?
There is police primacy, and so there should always be. There can be nothing else in the case of countering terrorism within a civilian community. The police answer to the law, one could say the DPP. The Army is in support and therefore comes operationally under that umbrella. Its chain of command from the GOC upwards to the MoD is only administrative. In normal circumstances—for example, in the Gulf or in the Falkland Islands—the Army is responsible, through the General Staff to the democratically elected government and Parliament which can direct what it should do. In Northern Ireland that is not so. The police force leads. I feel that, although things in Northern Ireland are going well, they could go a great deal better if the Government found an improved system for directing, monitoring and reporting on the fight against terrorism.
Police primacy there must be—and it must continue. In such a vast field as counter-terrorism, the people of this country must know, and be confident, that the right direction is being given and the right control is being exerted by the democratically elected Parliament. People are not at present happy with what they have been seeing and hearing lately.
Why did the Chief Constable and GOC go public last year in asking for more troops? Presumably they must have been refused when they asked quietly for the increase. The two professional heads of the fight against terrorism were turned down by MoD and politicians who do not hold the responsibility for the escalation in violence which followed as a result. It may have been because of Options for Change or for some other reason. But, whatever it was based on, it

59
was not as a result of a widely-read report on the operations of the security forces in Northern Ireland. There is no report. The Chief Constable's report has not yet been printed. Moreover, when it is, only a small proportion of it relates to counter-terrorism, and by now it is a year out of date. When the troops were sent—too late and at short notice—what happened? Coalisland.
There is a new word in the field of security operations in Northern Ireland. It is "jointery". I am not quite sure who thought of it. It is meant to mean the police and military doing everything together. I often see constables with patrols when I am stopped at checkpoints—never, I should say, at border checkpoints—and, therefore, to some extent it is happening. But I believe that, in many instances, only lip service is being paid to it.
As a member of the general public, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get the same answer to a question from the RUC and the Army. There is often a lack of collective responsibility, even though they are working to the same end. It is commonly known in our area that the Army does not like border checkpoints —or that is what people have come to think. The RUC made the Army keep them. Could they not have come out of whatever meeting it was and said, "We have jointly decided that we should have them and we are all for it"—instead of being split?
As regards access to files, if the intelligence services—namely, MI5, the RUC and the Army—are not co-located, what hope have they got of collectively knowing everything that they are doing? They must work together and not merely "audit" each other's files once a year or when there is an emergency. That is wholly inadequate. Any multinational business with those symptoms in its world would immediately instigate a thorough review with a report to the head office. In the Northern Ireland security force case, I am not sure where the head office is. The RUC information officer said that the Chief Constable is only answerable to the law.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government should get a grip of the situation, review it and report on possible ways of improving co-ordination. Perhaps a group of Privy Counsellors should be formed. They could hold secrets and could be told them. Such a group could be set up to monitor constantly what is going on. It could then report back to a Parliament which must ultimately be responsible for the fight against terrorism.
I ask my noble friend to convey those anxieties and suggestions to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I should also be grateful for an answer in that respect. Having said that, of course, I support the continuance of the order.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this afternoon we are being asked to accede to a departure from the normal rules of law that apply in this country. Unless I misunderstood what the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, we are also, apparently, being asked to accede to a departure from the normal rules of
60
government and parliamentary practice regarding affirmation of the orders themselves. I could become very angry in that respect, but I do not think that it is worth it. I hope that the Government will respond to the questions that have been raised by both noble Lords on the Front Benches and tell us that, yes, there is a second order which will be debated at some time in the future within the next 40 days and that notice will be given to Members of the House when it will be debated so that the due process of parliamentary procedures may be gone through. I hope that that will be the Government's response. However, if it is not, and if the Government hope effectively to get the approval of the House to both orders under discussion this afternoon, then I shall be very angry. I hope that other noble Lords also will be angry about it. It is not really the way that we should proceed.
Perhaps I may turn now to the main substance of the debate; namely, the continuation of the emergency and the prevention of terrorism provisions. In his opening remarks, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, explained that terrorism is continuing. We have had terrorism on the scale that we all now understand, effectively for the past 20 years or so. We have also had the basic provisions of the Acts. Here I particularly call attention to the powers of arrest without charge; the powers of detention without charge or trial; and the powers to deport without trial. Those draconian powers are a major departure from our normal rules of law. We have had such powers for 18 years, since 1974, but still terrorism continues.
One of the reasons for my speaking in the debate today is to highlight the opportunity that I think has been missed. We have just had a general election by which the Conservatives were returned to office. We were advised that John Major was his own man, that he would do his own thing and that there would be changes and departures from previous government practice. It seems to me that here was an opportunity to actually look at the situation in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, in the rest of the United Kingdom—and take a different direction. From discussions between the various parties, and between the British and Irish Governments, there are signs that there are some changes that could be made. That was an opportunity whereby the way that we deal with what is called "terrorism" could be changed. Unfortunately, that opportunity appears not to have been taken.
We were all struck by the reference made by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to the Government's campaign against the "men of Ireland". I stress those words for the Hansard reporters. In fact, what he meant to say was the Government's campaign against the "men of violence". I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am most grateful. However, I should point out to my noble friend that I believe I corrected myself.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's point. He did correct himself.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the people of Ireland do not actually see the situation like that; given the emergency powers that exist—and, quite honestly, the

61
way that they are used—the whole mechanism and apparatus involved, and the way that we talk about the difficulties in Northern Ireland. For example, after the ending of the Cold War, when the whole raison d'être of a large chunk of MI5 disappeared, one would think that a large number of people should have been made redundant because their jobs were no longer there. But instead of saving taxpayers' money and making those people redundant, those resources have been transferred into the so-called fight against terrorism.
One of the aspects that concerns me is the way that we look at the whole problem and effectively give it a political connotation. I feel that we should think in terms of what are described as terrorist acts as criminal acts. When someone is murdered, a bomb goes off, a fire is started, or people are subjected to threats of violence against themselves, their property or their family, those are all criminal acts. We should shout at every opportunity that these are criminal acts. We have laws on our statute books—the normal laws of the United Kingdom—which should be applied to people who perpetrate these criminal acts. But we do not actually do that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that we have no statistics for the latest year of the operation of the Act. That is a rather sad reflection on the Government's bureaucracy and their organisation. I take exception to what the noble Viscount said when he called for the police to have a special operational division to deal with counter-terrorism. Again, the reason for my objection—
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I did not ask for a special operational division. I merely asked for a special operational office.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I stand corrected. But my fear is that a special operational office would effectively segregate police work to deal with counter-terrorism from the other normal day-to-day policing. As I stressed earlier, it is very important that we do not give people who are engaging in some criminal acts in Northern Ireland the opportunity to think that they are carrying out anything other than criminal acts which are against the normal behaviour of people living in civilised society.
In previous years—in fact, since I entered this House in 1985—I stood alone in opposing and seeking to divide the House on these orders. Some years ago, after continuing that policy for a number of years, I discontinued it. It was obvious that there were no other Members of your Lordships' House who wished to even second me in those endeavours. But as I said, we did have the opportunity for a change in direction, one that I hoped would have made positive progress in dealing with the violence and the lawlessness that exists. Therefore, I offer this last remark to Members of your Lordships' House. If any noble Lord will join me in dividing the House, I will stand by his side.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, all my life I have lived under emergency legislation. I was born in 1926 and in 1922 the Northern Ireland Government brought to the
62
statute book one of the most notorious and draconian Acts of Parliament of a so-called British legislature —the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922. That was an Act which was referred to and complimented by the apartheid leaders in South Africa. One of them, the Minister for Home Affairs, said during the course of a debate that he would give up all the draconian powers that he had in South African legislation for one section of the special powers Act in Northern Ireland.
Throughout my political life my attention has always been drawn to that Act. That Act was on the statute book from 1922. It was allegedly brought in as an emergency measure. It was there until 1972 when Stormont was abolished. That Act was succeeded by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. Although we refer to it as the emergency provisions Act of 1986, 1991 and 1992, in fact it went on to the statute book in 1973. I was a Member in another place when it went through. I remember very well, having the experience of the special powers Act behind me, saying that the new Act was going to be on the statute book for a very long time. When emergency legislation gets onto the statute book nothing is more permanent.
I quite understand the invitation which has been extended by my noble friend to oppose this order. Indeed, throughout my political life in the Commons I went into the "No" Lobby on numerous occasions. Living in Northern Ireland as I did and knowing many people who had been killed by terrorist acts of violence—both by Republican terrorists and Loyalist terrorists—I realised that the ordinary civil law in Northern Ireland was not able to cope with those terrorist outrages. In fact, the ordinary civil law in the Republic of Ireland is unable to cope with terrorism. The Republic of Ireland has an offences against the state Act. They have special courts exactly as we have in Northern Ireland.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If, as he said, the emergency powers have been in existence since 1922, has there been any opportunity for the normal powers relating to criminal acts to be tried?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there has been no opportunity. However, to try to evolve or to discover an opportunity would be a tremendous leap in the dark. During the course of the debate in another place one of the Members voiced his opposition to the check points on the Border. He said that they did not achieve anything. I do not know whether or not they have achieved anything, but I would be very fearful that if all those checkpoints were taken away the IRA would run hundreds of tonnes of arms from the Republic, which they had obtained from Colonel Gadaffi, into Northern Ireland and create further mayhem. It is a chance that we are asked to take. It is a chance that I would not be prepared to take with the present level of murder and carnage that is taking place in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to reiterate all the statistics that have been given by the noble Earl, Lord Arran. But even though I no longer live in Northern Ireland I am very

63
much in touch with it. It would be hard for me to divorce myself from everything that has happened throughout all the years of my political representation in Northern Ireland.
I find the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, very disquieting in many ways. In 1979 a series of allegations were made against the interrogation procedures in Castlereagh. It was stated all over Northern Ireland that the police were using very heavy-handed tactics and beating up all kinds of people who went to Castlereagh—and not only IRA or Loyalist terrorists. The then Labour Government appointed a senior High Court judge from Britain called Bennett to inquire into the interrogation procedures used in Northern Ireland. The Bennett Report did not come out openly and say, "We have proved that cruelty has been used and people have been beaten up." The judge gave a list of recommendations in his report. He said that certain procedures should not take place. That was tantamount to saying that they had been taking place. So we all knew that there had been brutality in the holding centres. One of the prison doctors employed by the Northern Ireland Office issued a statement in which he said that he had examined detainees who had been subjected to ill treatment.
On the day that the report was being debated in Parliament, the Daily Telegraph claimed that that doctor was not to be believed, was not reliable and was something of an eccentric. That was a nasty story. It was obviously generated by the Northern Ireland Office in an attempt to discredit the doctor who had examined the detainees and who was prepared to stake his political reputation and say that they had been ill treated.
The then Secretary of State, who is now a Member of your Lordships' House (my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley) took a hard attitude, and said that that had not happened. He did not agree with the claims. He thought they had been grossly exaggerated. The attitude he took on the Floor of the other place led to the defeat of the Labour Government within a few months, because I abstained from that crucial vote and the Government fell.
Are we now in 1992 to have a repeat of that attitude with a claim that all the allegations are untrue and are being manufactured by IRA and Loyalist terrorists? I have no doubt that the IRA and the Loyalists are manufacturing some of the complaints, but not all of them. In page after page of the report the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, expresses his disquiet. On Page 18 he states:
"It is not difficult for a person some little time after being arrested or detained to bring a civil action in the county or sheriff court claiming damages for assault, false imprisonment or some other tort or delict. For the authorities to defend such an action much expensive preparation has to be carried out, and various busy people diverted from their normal activities. It is so much easier to settle".
That is a condemnation of the whole system. He is saying that people are manufacturing spurious claims—I have no doubt that the IRA is manufacturing
64
those claims—but it is the Government's duty to fight and resist them. In paragraph 6.1.7 the noble Viscount states:
"In the House of Lords Lord Hylton asked whether £134,000 had been paid to settle claims for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to detainees at Castlereagh, from June 1989 to the date of his Question in December 1991. The Minister replied that the information was not held in this form".
The information should be held in that form. When serious allegations are being made against the forces of law and order, especially the RUC, Ministers should have all that information at their fingertips so that they can refute spurious, lying allegations. They say that they do not know: "Perhaps it is right; perhaps it is wrong". The noble Viscount later says the claims amount to £2,000 or £3,000 only. What is more important is that when anyone succeeds in obtaining £2,000 or £3,000 in an out-of-court settlement, that information goes immediately to Noraid in Boston, America, and to all the Irish-American supporters of the IRA. It is in the Government's interests to fight those claims.
The report states that the Government settle out of court. When people settle out of court, that is an indication that they do not want to go to court. It is an indication that they think they may lose. Are the Government afraid of losing when they settle those fictitious claims out of court? I ask the Minister the question asked by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, although I do not expect an answer this evening: has £134,000 been paid to people who have made claims against the RUC? I hope that that is not right. Claims are being made against the RUC, and the RUC should resist them, whatever that costs, if the allegations are untrue. The RUC is not just paying out money. The settlements are of tremendous propaganda value to the IRA and the Loyalists.
The Minister said that there would be continuous monitoring of the interrogation of terrorist suspects. Again, on page 21 the noble Viscount states:
"My attention has been drawn to a press report of a trial in late 1990 in which the judge rejected a confession statement by a detainee at Castlereagh and commented, in acquitting the defendant, that he was not sure that the CCTV monitors were continually watched".
What is the use of having monitors if they are not watched? The monitors were installed at Castlereagh as a result of the recommendations of the Bennett Report. The Government were well aware of the tremendous propaganda value that they were to the IRA. The position should have been monitored up to the present, because if it is not the whole advantage is left with the men of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I was disquieted by what the noble Viscount said in his report.
I wholeheartedly support what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said about video recording. Video recording of interrogation procedures would take a great deal of the heat out of the allegations being made against the RUC at the moment. I understand the argument against them. The video recordings would exist and, in the future, some smart-Alec lawyer might take a case—we are not short of smart-Alec lawyers in this country—to the European Court to have the video recordings shown. That may be to the

65
disadvantage of someone giving information against the IRA and may lead to that person's death. The Government should study both sides of the argument.
I welcome the appointment of a commissioner, but there should be a deputy commissioner as well. One commissioner would probably find it impossible to pay all the attention necessary to the three holding centres.
No concessions should be made to murderers, whether they call themselves patriotic Republicans or patriotic Loyalists. Throughout the years there have been a number of people, especially on the Protestant side, who have committed the most atrocious murders. They are brought before the courts and sentenced to life imprisonment. Within two or three years they suddenly find God and are converted. They say that the crimes they committed were awful; but that does not bring back the victims. It does not bring back the fathers who have left so many orphaned children. That has happened time and time again. There is one case upon which I am keeping a close eye.
In 1973, one of my closest friends—Senator Patrick Wilson of the Northern Ireland Parliament—left me one afternoon. He was giving a girl a lift home. He was waylaid by a Loyalist mob. Within a few hours, I had to identify his body and that of the girl. They had been brutally stabbed to death in one of the most horrifying murders that ever took place in Northern Ireland. That happened in 1973.
I have always taken the view that one murderer could not have killed the two in those circumstances and that more must have been involved. But the police accepted the name of one man. His name was John White. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and is still in prison. But earlier this year the Government quite rightly wished to close down the old Maze Prison, with the compounds where the IRA and the Loyalists were able to use their paramilitary supremacy. The Government wished to transfer the remaining prisoners to the new prison in Maghaberry. John White, who had brutally murdered Senator Paddy Wilson and the girl to whom he was giving a lift, said, "I'm not going to Maghaberry unless you take some years off my sentence, unless I get a release date". Here was a brutal murderer dictating to the Government in Northern Ireland that he would not go to another prison unless he received concessions on the time he had to serve. From what I have heard, in an attempt to make certain that there was no great disruption in the transfer of the prisoner, the Government may have made some concessions.
People in Northern Ireland are watching what will happen in this case. I repeat that I do not believe that any concessions should be made to murderers, be they Republican or Loyalist. I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Monkswell that, given the present state of Northern Ireland and the brutality taking place on our streets, I believe that this legislation is necessary and I do not oppose it.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, tonight's debate has provided an opportunity to examine once again the requirement for, and the scope of, the emergency
66
powers now in effect in Northern Ireland. This is as it should be. In a parliamentary democracy there must be full and open debate on the need for exceptional powers of any kind.
The Government's aim is a full return to normality and the eradication of terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is our first priority. Terrorist organisations are criminal conspiracies representing perhaps the most dangerous threat to the fabric of any democratic society. We are determined that they will not prevail. Violence in pursuit of political ends is neither acceptable nor inevitable. So long as it continues, terrorism will be met with a firm, resolute and pro-active response.
That response is based firmly, as it must he, on the unequivocal acceptance of the rule of law. That is the only acceptable route for a democracy if it is not to descend to the levels of the terrorists themselves. It involves the even-handed and determined enforcement of the criminal law. If individuals are suspected of involvement in terrorist activity, then evidence is produced against them and tested in open court, and they are given fair treatment before the law.
However, within that basic approach it is open to the Government—indeed it is incumbent upon them—to introduce specific measures and powers, where the ordinary law is insufficient, to enable the police and Army to deal with the difficulties they encounter in protecting society from terrorism and apprehending the perpetrators of it. The EPA, and the relevant sections of the PTA also being renewed by this order, do precisely that.
I believe that we have had an interesting debate and I shall deal with some of the points raised. Before doing so, however, it may be worth illustrating the practical application of EPA measures by looking at one particular case: the refurbishment of a number of permanent vehicle checkpoints—PVCPs—in border areas. These were referred to by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
Checkpoints provide protection for communities particularly vulnerable to terrorist attack, deter terrorists by controlling cross-border traffic, block key escape routes used by terrorists and provide bases for security force patrols working in dangerous areas. Following a thorough review, 10 PVCPs in Fermanagh and Londonderry are being refurbished and improved. The upgrading programme, which began in South-East Fermanagh, is designed to reduce inconvenience to local communities by improving traffic-handling arrangements as well as providing better protection and improved accommodation for security force personnel at the bases. The entire exercise provides an example of how powers provided for in one part of the Act can be used to ameliorate the impact of the operation of others of its powers. We recognise the disruption caused to local people by the necessary use at these checkpoints of the powers to stop and question people for so long as is necessary to ascertain their identities, movements and any knowledge they may have of recent terrorist incidents, and to search vehicles under Sections 23 and 26 of the Act.

67
Part of the refurbishment programme is intended to remove or reduce the lengthy traffic queues which can build up by re-designing or re-siting the PVCPs and providing space for lay-bys where inquiries and searches can, when necessary, be conducted without delaying other traffic. The necessary land is, in a number of cases, being acquired using powers contained in Section 24 of the Act and compensation is being paid under Section 63. Work is still in progress, but I understand that the new arrangements at the five finished checkpoints have proved very acceptable to local communities. The Irish security forces have been providing security for the operation on their side of the border, and their assistance has been greatly appreciated.
I now turn to some of the matters that have been raised in the debate. First, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I apologise if he was unable to find a copy of the order in the Printed Paper Office. My understanding is that copies were there at some point but perhaps they ran out. If so, I apologise.
As regards the late order which several noble Lords raised, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I should say something about the procedure under which the late order is being made—the urgency procedure, as it is sometimes called. Under that procedure, the order is made without any prior affirmative resolution in Parliament, but it will cease to have effect unless approved within 40 days in each House of Parliament. The present order, however, will have served its purpose immediately after the first moments of 16th June. It brings the detention provisions momentarily into force just before midnight, carries them across into 16th June and immediately suspends their effect. Its work is then done; it is spent. No further parliamentary approval is therefore required. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked at what level the law was misinterpreted or the error made. I have to say that the order was dealt with at a senior level.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about protection payments. I can say that investigations have revealed no evidence to support the allegation that firms admitting making protection payments are immediately investigated by the Inland Revenue. Your Lordships will note my noble friend's further comment that it is not hard to see who might benefit from the propagation of the rule.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned an important point on police primacy. I think your Lordships will fully understand that the Government remain wholly committed to the principle of police primacy in Northern Ireland. That applies in the collection of information as well as elsewhere. The Army operates in support of the RUC in Northern Ireland and soldiers, like police officers, are subject to the rule of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned ill-treatment at Castlereagh, as did the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Holme of Cheltenham. The decision in principle to appoint an independent
68
commissioner has been made after necessarily wide consultation. This process of consultation continues. My right honourable friend hopes to make an early appointment and to report to the House, if possible, before the Recess. Details of the terms of reference for the commissioner and the precise operation of the scheme are still being finalised. He would, however, be expected to have access to prisoners and be able to interview them about their treatment. The commissioner will be appointed by, and report directly to, the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the subject of video tape recordings of interviews with terrorist suspects. We acknowledge that genuine concern exists about interview procedures but share the police view that suspects will be less willing to offer vital information which may save lives by preventing acts of terrorism if they know that a permanent, albeit silent, recording is being made of their co-operation with the police. I have already set out the extensive safeguards which are already in force at the holding centres. As I outlined, in addition there will be the appointment of the independent commissioner and the new codes of practice.
As regards the provision of statistics, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, we regret that the publication of statistics on the operation of the EPA seems to take a long time. Officials are currently liaising with the police and the Army on the development of a new system to provide reliable, consistent and comprehensive statistics on a wide range of security-related issues. However, that system is unlikely to be available by the end of the year. As regards the question raised by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, we note the concern of my noble friend Lord Colville in connection with the difficulties surrounding the availability of statistics. However, I am pleased to report that statistics relating to the emergency provisions Act for the whole of 1991 have now been published.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised the Nelson case. Prosecution decisions are a matter for the prosecuting authorities, not for Northern Ireland or Ministry of Defence Ministers. In relation to remands, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked whether the cases which had been delayed longest would be dealt with first. The delays to which the noble Lord referred are a matter of grave concern to the Government and other agencies involved in the prosecution process. A variety of different reasons may underlie delays in individual cases and that may affect the order in which they are dealt with. Sometimes delay may be caused because a defendant is waiting for the counsel of his choice. We are determined to reduce all causes of delay.
As my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, who has great expertise in force levels in Northern Ireland, will know, Options for Change is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As my noble friend also knows, considerable resources are already given to the security forces. However, additional resources are made available when that is

69
judged to be an appropriate and effective response. Co-operation between the police and the Army is extremely close and procedures are kept under continual review.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, questioned the need for emergency powers. The Government are concerned that, regrettable though it is, the emergency powers remain a fundamental part of our efforts to defeat terrorism. As I said, the operation of those powers is intended to defend the lives and liberties of those at risk from terrorism. What right is more fundamental than the right to life?
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of safeguards. I have outlined the extensive safeguards which already exist in the terrorist holding centres. The noble Lord referred to the report of the committee chaired by Judge Bennett. All procedures now fully comply with the recommendations of that report. Indeed, it was the Bennett Committee which originally recommended that closed-circuit television be installed in holding centres under the supervision of a uniformed inspector or chief inspector but that video recording should not be introduced.
The report of my noble friend Lord Colville highlighted the successful implementation of several of the new powers introduced in the 1991 Act. Those aimed at terrorist finances have already been mentioned: others include those relating to the examination of documents and the possession of items intended for terrorist purposes. Even where convictions have not yet been forthcoming, we believe, as does my noble friend Lord Colville, that such measures have an important deterrent effect.
However, legislation, no matter how well-focused and appropriate, is effective only when properly enforced. I am pleased to report to your Lordships that the vigorous and impartial actions of the police and Army are bringing real results. The level of security force activity is very high. In addition to the numerous patrols mounted by the RUC, the Army currently undertakes 250 to 300 patrols every day in the Province. As we have heard, suspected terrorists are being arrested and brought before the courts. Last year, more than twice as many people were charged with murder as in 1990. Adjustments to force structures and deployments to meet the evolving threat continue to be made where appropriate. For example, recruitment of the additional 441 police officers announced last November continues. An additional 104 regular officers and 40 reservists were recruited during the month of May.
The commitment of both the Government and the security forces to the defeat of terrorism is undiminished. We hope that that message is getting through to the terrorist godfathers on both sides: whether it is or not, the security forces must and will continue their relentless pursuit of the criminals. The emergency powers continued by the order are vital to enabling them to carry out that task, and I therefore commend the order to your Lordships' House.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat, will he clarify the application of the urgency procedure? It is not a procedure which is often used. According to my hasty researches it has
70
been used only once in the last half dozen years or so. Therefore, we are not familiar with the procedure. However, I have consulted the greatest authority, Erskine May. Erskine May is clear in saying that the continuing validity of the order which has been signed today by the Secretary of State will depend upon the agreement of both Houses, given within 40 days of the date of the making of the Order in Council.
Did I understand the Minister to say that he does not propose to come back to the House for its consent to the making of the second order? Or did I understand him to say that the articles in the 1991 Act continuance order need to be revived for only 24 hours and that at the expiration of the 24-hour period we do not have to rely on the urgency procedure?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the position. Broadly speaking, all the provisions of the 1991 Act are in force except the detention provisions. The Government's intention is that the detention provisions should remain on the statute book but not be in force. Because of the way in which the 1991 Act is drafted the only way of keeping the detention provisions on the statute book is to bring them into force momentarily at midnight. Otherwise they would expire—in other words, they would no longer be on the statute book. If that were to happen the Government would have lost their power to re-introduce the detention provisions by order.
The effect of the order that is being laid before Parliament today is simply to preserve the current position, namely, that the detention provisions have not been repealed, remain on the statute book and can be brought into force in the future by order.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it is still not clear what the Government intend to do over the next few weeks. I thank the noble Earl for his clarification but it seems to me that the emergency order has to be affirmed by both Houses of Parliament and if it is not affirmed by both Houses of Parliament effectively it is null and void and it is as if it had not been made. In that case the provisions that the Government wish to have available will not carry on being available to them. I hope that the Government can clarify whether they are planning within the next 40 days to bring this order before both Houses of Parliament so that we can make our affirmation or not as the case may be.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have sat through the whole of this debate. Perhaps I may help to throw a little light on the issue. As I understand it there are two orders before your Lordships at the moment. The first one is perfectly normal. It excludes the operation of the detention procedures because it was thought not necessary to include them and that they would continue under normal circumstances. That is what we all thought. The emergency confirms that we were all wrong. They do not. Therefore the Secretary of State has invoked Section 67(3) which is the emergency process to which my noble friend referred. That permits the laying of an order on the day it is debated. That is what we have done.
Nobody in this debate has suggested that the detention provisions should be swept aside on this

71
occasion. Those most qualified to pronounce on the issue have most strongly resisted that suggestion. The emergency consists in the management of affairs by those who understand or do not understand matters in officialdom and not in any development in the Northern Ireland Office, in Northern Ireland or in a change of government policy. I hope your Lordships will be friendly to my noble friend, allow him to put both these orders to your Lordships and agree to them.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the points he made. I can inform your Lordships that there is no need to do anything over the next few weeks. The order will have done its job. The order could be debated but for the reason given it is felt that it would be pointless.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification. The order needs to be affirmed if it is to continue in force after 40 days. Is that the position? If it is not to be in force after 40 days, then the order need not be affirmed.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may explain again. The point is that the second order makes no difference whatever to what it was intended and assumed would be the status of the detention provisions. The order will not be void if not approved. It will simply cease to have effect after 40 days. There will be no need for the order after it has done its job.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (National Curriculum) (Foundation Subjects at Key Stage 4) Order 1992
7.3 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee session 1991–92].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft order before the House would amend Section 3(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988. It would remove art and music from the list of subjects which 14 to 16 year-olds are compelled to study as part of the national curriculum in England and Wales.
The House had the opportunity to discuss arts education last week when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, led the House in a fascinating debate. On that occasion many points of view were expressed, but there was one area on which all speakers agreed; that is, the importance of arts education and the high standards presently achieved in art, music, dance and drama in our schools. I should like again to stress the Government's recognition of and support for the work of schools in developing pupils' various artistic interests and talents.
We believe that there is a case for additional flexibility at Key Stage 4. This order and the other
72
measures that the Government have taken will permit the right degree of choice for young people post-14. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [15th Report from the Joint Commit tee session 1991–92]— (Viscount Goschen).
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House see no objection to the draft order. It is almost procedural. As the noble Viscount pointed out, the House has already had not only a useful but a helpful debate. All the arguments, queries and questions that could have been raised on this order were dealt with very effectively by my noble friends Lady Birk and Lady David, and the noble Baroness Lady Blatch, as well as other noble Lords. I am sure the Minister will agree that they know a great deal more about this matter than we two who are dealing with it at this time.
Can the Minister say whether any thought has been given to the consequences of what he termed flexibility in respect of the curriculum and 14 year-olds? We understand the need for the easement commitment to remedy the overloading of one age range. However, as my noble friend Lady Birk pointed out in her excellent speech, there is already serious concern about the fact that many authorities, faced with pressure on their budgets, have to examine very carefully whether they are able to sustain teaching and encourage development in a number of fields.
Last Monday my noble friend spoke of the deprivation resulting from the loss of:
"the collective arrangements formerly made by local authorities for their advisory services; for the provision of instrumental music teaching; for school visits to concerts, theatres, museums and galleries; for the funding of artists and outreach teams".—[Official Report, 8/6/92; col. 1109.]
The Minister would render a service if he would assure the House that the Government are aware of those sensitive areas of deprivation, which I am sure he would regret. Perhaps he could also say what thought has been given to how encouragement could be given to schools and parents to continue to undertake what appears from this order to be no longer a statutory obligation but an activity left to the realm of volunteers, charities and the like. Otherwise, on this side of the House we do not object to the order.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have shown again this evening the concern of this House for the arts in education. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that arts education contributes a great deal to various aspects of a pupil's development. I also accept the value of extracurricular activities in the arts. But it must be noted that decisions over the funding provided for such activities rest at local level. I have no doubt that school governors and parents will want to support such activities and will spend the resources at their disposal to enrich the curriculum.
I do not share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the quality of arts education provided in schools will diminish following this order. Schools want to provide worthwhile and challenging activities for their pupils. I have every confidence that they will do so.

73
At the end of the day it is a question of balance. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has considered carefully all the options. We believe that there is a case for additional flexibility at Key Stage 4. This order will permit the right degree of choice for young people post-14.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill [H.L.]
7.7 p.m.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
As your Lordships know, the Bill was introduced in this House during the previous Session. It received support from the Government and from the Opposition Benches. There was no opposition to the Bill in principle. No amendments were tabled. It passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House in a very short space of time. But, most unfortunately, it fell in another place, not through any opposition to it—indeed, I know of none— but simply for want of time.
There is general agreement in the shipping and insurance industries in this country and among all lawyers with experience in this field that this measure is badly needed as a matter of urgency. I have therefore taken the liberty of introducing the Bill for a second time in your Lordships' House in precisely the same form as before. However, since your Lordships' House has already considered the Bill on a previous occasion, I trust that noble Lords will think it sensible if I do not go into the Bill in as much depth on this occasion as I did on the last.
I conceive it to be my duty to your Lordships to expound the purpose of the Bill as briefly as I reasonably can. I trust I shall be forgiven if I draw to some extent upon what I said on the previous occasion.
The Bill provides a long awaited opportunity to reform and update the law of this country in respect of the rights of suit relating to contracts for the carriage of goods by sea. A very large number of contracts for the carriage of goods by sea throughout the world are expressly governed by English law even though the ships, cargoes and ports involved have no connection with this country. London's role in the making of those contracts and the settlement of disputes which may arise under them results in a significant contribution to our invisible earnings and helps to secure the status of London as the world's leading maritime centre and centre for the resolution of maritime disputes.
The basic problem has been that, since the contract of carriage is made between the shipper and the carrier, at common law only those parties could sue and be sued under that contract, for example, for damage suffered by the cargo on the voyage or for short delivery of the cargo at destination. Thus, although the goods subject to the contract may have been sold or resold while afloat—and there can be
74
long chains of contracts—at common law the buyer of the goods afloat was unable to sue on the contract of carriage.
The Bills of Lading Act 1855 was passed to remedy that defect. However, for some considerable time lawyers and commercial interests have considered that the statutory provisions of the 1855 Act relating to the right to sue the carrier have themselves become out of date because the statute no longer reflects commercial practice, and is unduly restrictive in the rights that it grants.
Although there has long been agreement on the need for reform, until the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission took the matter in hand lawyers and commercial interests found it difficult to agree upon the scope and form of change which is needed. The Law Commissions' reports were published in March of last year and the widespread support which their proposals received reflects the quality of the work undertaken by the commissions and the appropriateness of the balance which they struck.
The text of the Bill is the culmination of the commissions' work, and support for its early enactment has come not only from United Kingdom interests but also from other European interests which adopt and wish to continue to adopt English law as the basis for their contracts for the carriage of goods by sea. Based on their consultation and examination of the law in other jurisdictions, the Law Commission concluded that, for the following reasons, the Bills of Lading Act 1855 no longer meets commercial requirements or accommodates commercial practice.
The 1855 Act enables the receiver of goods shipped under a bill of lading to sue the carrier for non-delivery or defective delivery if the property in the goods had passed to him upon or by reason of the consignment or endorsement of the bill of lading. That requirement causes difficulty whenever property either has not passed at the relevant time or has passed independently of the transfer of the bill of lading with the result that the transfer of the bill of lading is in no way causative of the passing of property. That problem has arisen in particular with bulk cargoes. Again, the 1855 Act does not reflect current commercial practice whereby goods are often carried under a document other than a bill of lading, notably a sea waybill. Finally, the 1855 Act does not allow for future development in commercial practice in this field and in particular the increasing use of electronic data interchange.
The Bill now before your Lordships' House solves those problems, first, by simply providing that any lawful holder of a bill of lading has the right to sue the carrier; and, further, by conferring the same right on a person who is identified in a ship's delivery order covering part of a cargo originally shipped in bulk. In addition, the Bill provides that a person entitled to take delivery of goods under a sea waybill which contains or evidences a contract for the carriage of goods by sea is likewise enabled to sue the carrier. In turn, any person thus entitled to make a claim is

75
placed under the same liabilities towards the carrier as if he had been party to the original contract of carriage.
The Secretary of State for Transport will be given authority under the Bill to make regulations governing electronic data interchange, though it is recognised that the timing of any such regulations will depend on the development and acceptance of electronic data interchange by the industry. Finally, the Bill does not seek to restrict other rights to sue, for example, under a charterparty or in tort. Nor does it affect in any way the application or operation of the international Hague Visby Rules on liability and limitation in respect of cargoes carried under a bill of lading.
As I have said, the Bill has gained the support of all the commercial interests affected. Although cargo interests might have been expected to support it, I am glad to say that the Bill also has the support of shipowners and their insurers. It is some considerable time since the enactment of the Bills of Lading Act 1855. There is now strong evidence that commercial practice has moved on and that our law in this area needs to be amended and updated. Indeed, the updating proposed is badly needed and long overdue. Further delay could erode London's international position. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Goff of Chieveley.)
7.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, on making his third speech in support of the Bill—the first being on the Second Reading in February—not only for his explanation of its provisions but also for expanding on the arguments in support of change which is certainly needed.
A point was made in the previous debate about the Short Title of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Byron. In responding to that point, the noble and learned Lord asserted that the Long Title provided sufficient explanation of the purpose of the Bill. With respect, I did not find that wholly convincing. The issue of nomenclature might have been better resolved; it constitutes a slight problem when there is other legislation under the same name. Perhaps I may suggest the name the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Elimination of Anomalies) Bill, or some such name. However, in time perhaps the issue of nomenclature will be resolved by a simple reference to the Goff Act.
As the noble and learned Lord has explained, there is clear need for reform. He recognised, as was recognised in the debate in February, the extremely able and scholarly work undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission. As he also pointed out, the Bill's significance is not confined to, although it certainly embraces, our own national interests. Shipping in all its interests remains a major national industry, contributing extensively to this country's balance of payments. However, it is an international, indeed global, business and much of the
76
law governing shipping—in the resolution of disputes in particular—is transacted in the City, adopting English law in respect of contracts for carriage of goods by sea.
It had clearly become evident that the Bills of Lading Act 1855 had become unduly restrictive and anomalous. It had been overtaken by time and developing practical requirements. It is most satisfactory that the Bill has emerged after the most extensive consultation with all relevant interests. It is based on a very wide consensus, by no means confined to British interests. It will help to correct the possibility that without those amendments to the law, British interests could have withered to some degree in the need to resolve international disputes perhaps by using other laws and other fora. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said in the previous debate. It was:
"With the enactment of the Bill … Parliament will move our law in this area from the middle of the 19th century to well into the 21st".—[Official Report, 4/2/92; col. 234.]
Perhaps I may turn to a matter which is allied to the Bill but not wholly related to it. I shall not tax the noble and learned Lord about the matter, but I have given the Minister notice of the point that I wish to raise, albeit in parenthesis. It is hoped that in the not-too-distant future this Government and other member states will give consideration to another element of the carriage of goods by sea; that is a draft council directive concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods. It is a modified proposal which is likely to emanate soon from the Commission. I wish to ask the Minister a question, and I hope that he is able to reply tonight. Can we expect that an impetus will be given to the draft directive during the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency of the Commission?
There is a clear need for legislation to set minimum information and notification requirements for ships bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods in bulk or in packaged form and also for shippers of such goods to be bound by these arrangements. It is quite clear that such a proposal is overdue. It is also right that when a vessel leaves a Community port or leaves a non-Community port before entering Community waters, all bulk cargo and goods in packages which are dangerous or polluting should be listed in the way prescrioed, and that there should be a duty on the master to report his position and to disclose the authority which holds the relevant information.
That is, in résumé, the burden of the proposal which the Commission is making. I repeat the question that I have asked the Minister: can we expect that the Government in their presidency will give impetus to that important but not well-known issue?
In conclusion, I wish to repeat what I said at the beginning. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, for introducing the Bill and for explaining it so well. In doing so, he has rendered an indispensable service not only to the shipping industry and to legal interests but also to this Parliament and to the country

77
as a whole. The Bill is overdue and I wish its passage well. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is not likely to be controversial.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Byron: My Lords, I am pleased that the measure has now been reintroduced into your Lordships' House. I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, for bringing the matter back at the earliest opportunity and to thank the Government for providing the time necessary for the Bill.
When the Bill first came before this House in February I raised a number of points on which I thought some clarification might be helpful. The noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to write to me about those matters and, therefore, I do not propose to say anything in detail about the substance of the Bill. It is indeed an important and useful piece of law reform which will help to maintain the reputation of English mercantile law and the position of the Commercial Court in London as the preferred means of resolving disputes for many of those involved in international trade and the carriage of goods.
I cannot, however, let this debate pass without expressing a slight sense of disappointment that following the dissolution of Parliament the opportunity was not taken to reintroduce the Bill with a different Short Title. That point has already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The confusion which is likely to be engendered by choosing the name Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill has been raised by a large number of commentators. It was also touched upon by others far more erudite in this field than I am when the matter came before your Lordships' House in February; namely the noble and learned Lords, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Roskill.
Practitioners in the field of maritime law, of which I am one, will always associate the name Carriage of Goods by Sea, first, with The Hague and, subsequently, with The Hague Visby Rules. In introducing the measure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, stressed its importance to the international mercantile community. In those circumstances it is a pity that a name has been chosen which will probably confuse foreign users of the English courts even more than practitioners in this country. Indeed, at a recent Posidonia shipping exhibition in Athens I was approached by a Dutch lawyer who had noted with interest that the United Kingdom was adopting legislation to enact the Hamburg Rules. I said that I thought he was wrong and I am glad to say that he was, at least for the present. His confusion naturally arose as a result of the name chosen for what is, in effect, a new Bills of Lading Act to replace the 1855 Act.
That point has been made many times and obviously has not found favour with the Law Commission or with the Department of Transport. Clearly we must become used to a Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 as a replacement of the old Bills of
78
Lading Act 1855. However, I venture to predict that practitioners may in common parlance dub it the "new Bills of Lading Act".
I shall say nothing further about the Bill except again to thank the noble and learned Lord for his work and support. I wish it a speedy passage through this House and onto the statute book.
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, for his able introduction of the Bill. Again, the Government wholeheartedly welcome and support the measure and they hope for an early enactment on this occasion.
The Bill represents the fruits of several years' work by the English and Scottish Law Commissions. One of the most impressive features of that work was a consultation exercise undertaken by the two Law Commissions. They canvassed and obtained the views of all interested parties, including commodity and other traders, shipowners, underwriters, arbitrators and bankers. They also received invaluable advice from many distinguished commercial lawyers with expertise in marine cargo disputes, including practitioners, academics and members of the judiciary. The result of the two Law Commissions' extensive consultations has been the production of a commendable piece of law reform which seeks to preserve the position of London as major financial and commercial centre, with all that that implies for our invisible earnings.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me about a modified proposal for the directive for the minimum requirement for vessels entering or leaving Community ports. That question was wide of the Bill; indeed, it has nothing to do with the Bill. I shall be delighted to answer the question if he tables it for another occasion.
I commend the work of the two Law Commissions which has resulted in the Bill now before us. Again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward this important measure. I trust that with your Lordships' agreement we shall speed the Bill on its way to the statute book.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for again supporting the Bill and I hope that they will assist us in speeding its path towards the statute book. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
I must refer once again to the vexed question of the Bill's Title. It was considered by the Law Commissions in considerable depth. Of course the matter was raised with them during their consultation process. Their problem was that they could not find another name which was neither cumbrous nor inaccurate. Therefore, they fell back on this name, which has been criticised, as I know.
When the time came to reintroduce the Bill in your Lordships' House, I felt that the matter had become so urgent that I did not wish to do anything which might delay or impede the passage of the Bill. I was much concerned that, if the name was changed, some people

79
might think that the substance of the Bill was in some way affected. Therefore, for that reason I did not propose to your Lordships that the name should be changed at this stage. I hope your Lordships will understand that. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th June), Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the second occasion that this Bill has been before your Lordships' House. On 21st February of this year it was given an unopposed Second Reading and received support from all parts of the House, although the Government's approach was ambivalently neutral. Because of the interruption of the general election, the Bill could not proceed. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments made on that occasion but I wish to remind your Lordships of some of the salient features.
When the Bill was introduced in another place on the initiative of my right honourable friend Mr. Alfred Morris, it had all-party sponsorship. It is no longer a controversial matter. Voluntary and charitable organisations throughout the country which cater for the needs of disabled people have concluded that they need a civil rights Bill to establish the right of disabled people, within the constraints of their disability, to live a normal life with all the opportunities that their own individual abilities offer and without the added burden of discrimination against them.
As the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, said on the debate on the Royal Address:
"Of course, the more palatable and effortless solution is to concentrate on education and persuasion to change attitudes and the problems that are faced by many disabled people. In 1976, when I had the honour of chairing a working party on integration, I believed that that would work, hut, sadly. I have now come to the conclusion that, although certain aspects have improved since then, and above all since the International Year of Disabled People in 1981, not nearly enough progress has been made for the benefit of disabled people and for giving them their due. I now believe that legislation is the only answer".—[Official Report, 12/5/92; col. 270.]
Not only is that view shared by the voluntary organisations but they are now putting rights—that is, legislation—as their first priority.
It has been estimated that there are some 6.5 million disabled people in this country, although that figure could be added to significantly depending on how one determines what is disabled. For example, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf claims that there are some 7.5 million adults who have some hearing loss of some description. In any event, this problem affects a
80
much larger number of people. We are talking about families of disabled people as well as the disabled themselves.
During the International Year of Disabled People in 1981, the BBC commissioned a Gallup survey from which it emerged that 29 per cent.—almost one third—of the total population of the country was seriously affected to some extent, either personally or through family ties. That is a large chunk of our population.
Among children alone, the OPCS reports that an estimated 360,000 children are disabled, the vast majority of whom, as with adults, live in private establishments and not in institutions. For families to cope with disability is difficult enough, even in a loving and devoted family environment. To compound that problem with discrimination against a person simply because of disability of some kind is not acceptable in a civilised society. Therefore, this Bill, as I said on 21st February last, is not about charity, paternalism or even the provision of services—it is about rights. It is about the relationship of individuals with a disability and the environment in which they live. It is about the way in which society structures its institutions and procedures to take account of those disabilities.
Much of the institutional discrimination against disabled people that takes place occurs in the public sector. My attention has been drawn to a recent and topical example. Research conducted by the Spastics Society into the 1992 general election—to be published some time this month—claims that only 12 per cent. of polling stations were accessible to disabled people. Another example is given to me by Deaf Accord, which says that there are 4,000 hearing aid wearers in this country but most public buildings do not have induction loops. Those are the kind of institutional discriminations of which we wish to be rid.
The Bill is the same as that introduced in February. It has five parts and a schedule. Part I is concerned with definitions. Part II makes provisions in the field of employment, including the requirement for an employer to make reasonable adaptations. Part III covers rights in the provision of goods, facilities and services, including access, and the requirement again to make reasonable adaptations. Part IV is concerned with enforcement provisions and Part V is short, dealing with miscellaneous provisions. The schedule provides for the establishment of a disablement commission, which has both an enforcement and an educative role.
During the previous debate on the Bill some noble Lords had minor criticisms of its drafting. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked why industrial tribunals were not being made available in areas of employment. I am glad to say that I shall be bringing forward an amendment to that effect in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is again responding to the debate this evening, had reservations regarding interpretations and asked how "reasonableness" would be defined. I hope to table an amendment to change "reasonableness" to "justifiable". That is similar wording to that included in the sex and race discrimination legislation and is a term

81
which the courts are accustomed to interpreting. Incidentally, it is also an amendment which was suggested by his honourable friend in another place on 31st January 1992 at col. 1253 of Hansard. There are one or two other amendments that I hope to table.
I should perhaps explain to the House that in the interests of expediting the Bill it was thought better to introduce it as already printed and to return with amendments at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in February that if the Bill proceeded to Committee it would need substantial amendment. However, he did not say in what respect. If he still feels that that is so, I hope he will indicate which areas, in his opinion, are in need of amendment so that we can proceed to accommodate them at Committee stage.
In February the Minister said:
"Legislation cannot abolish prejudice and ignorance".— [official Report, 21/2/92: col. 1494].
Of course it cannot, and nobody claims that it can. What it can do is establish acceptable standards from which deviation can be judged. Those standards are part of the educative process which the Bill will encourage. The Bill concerns rights for disabled people and remedies and redress where those rights are denied. It concerns the amendment of our institutions to accommodate those rights and the establishment of the proper attitudes and environment whereby disabled people can live their lives to the full as individual human beings with all the dignity that that implies. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Lockwood.)
7.43 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, upon the way in which she presented the Bill and upon her perseverence. The noble Baroness gave us a clear exposition and confirmed that it is exactly the same Bill as she introduced into the House shortly before dissolution.
I am glad to follow the noble Baroness because this is another bid to legislate on discrimination. The noble Baroness described the Bill but I may be able to help the House with some background and mention earlier excursions that have been made into this field. It is perhaps suitable for me to do that because I presented the first Bill in Parliament which would have established a disablement commission. That was in 1968 in another place. I presented also the last similar Bill to pass through all the stages in this House. That was in 1984.
Others too have made valiant attempts to produce schemes which are both workable and acceptable to governments. My Bills were simple and inexpensive. They would have set up a disablement commission to consider situations and cases and to pronounce and recommend. It may be helpful for me briefly to remind your Lordships of the sequence of events.
In 1968 I was able to introduce my first Bill because I was successful in the ballot in another place. The Second Reading took place in March 1969. I had plenty of time because I had been a leader in the ballot.
82
I was a Private Member though in the Shadow Cabinet at the time. A Division was forced by the Government Whips and the Bill was lost by only four votes. A year later the right honourable gentleman Mr. Alf Morris came first in the ballot and, with the help of the Government, presented what became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I was a sponsor of that Bill at his invitation. After the June 1970 general election I became a Secretary of State responsible for putting that Act into effect.
The 1970 Act was a milestone. It enabled local authorities to carry out various functions to assist disabled people. It dealt with access to buildings and transport as well as other matters. It did not attempt to deal with the subject of discrimination.
In 1983 in another place the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill was presented by the honourable gentleman Mr. Wareing. That did not make progress in another place and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, introduced it as the No. 2 Bill in your Lordships' House. It did not find favour here. Also in 1983 I presented my Disabled Persons Bill. That was an updated version of my 1968 Bill. It would again have established a commission. During its stages I accepted amendments and it completed its passage through the House of Lords in 1984. No time was made available in another place. That does not happen unless the Government are prepared to arrange it. They were not disposed to do so for that Bill in 1984.
We see the same situation today. Unless the Government smile with favour upon this Bill and provide time for it in another place after its passage here, it cannot become law. Governments and many parliamentarians are wary of passing laws which will create new offences, especially ones which are difficult to prove. That has been a difficulty with some of the attempts to deal with discrimination. My Bills relied only on a commission and its findings. That may be criticised as being weak and providing no teeth. I accept that. But I believed it was better than nothing.
I come now to a move of a different kind in 1985. That was an approach by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. With his knowledge and great parliamentary experience he proposed that a disability council be established by Royal Charter. That proposal avoided creating new offences and would not need any legislation at all. We debated his Motion on 20th February 1985 and it received general support. However, again the government of the day was not convinced by the arguments.
I have been reminding your Lordships about the attempts which have been made since 1967 to strengthen the law against discrimination and to set up a commission. But it would be a mistake to think that little progress was made in those 25 years. In the mid-1960s some of us who were Members of another place started campaigning for recognition of those categories of disabled people who were at that time completely ignored. War disability and industrial injury were at that time covered by schemes, but little else. People severely disabled from birth or early youth who were never able to work or register for employment did not qualify for benefits other than

83
national assistance where families were badly off. They were not in the national insurance system, never having been available for work.
A Statement was made in October 1967 by the Government in reply to a Question of mine in another place announcing the first OPCS survey, which reported around two years later. It provided numbers of adults, disabled and in their homes in Britain, by a method of sampling. It was the first assessment of its kind and its findings made a considerable impression in the country.
In the meantime I had won another ballot, this time for Motions. I must point out to your Lordships that I was incredibly lucky in those days in another place in winning ballots. On that occasion I chose what was then a new and an unusual subject—"the disabled and chronic sick." I have with me a letter from Megan du Boisson, the founder of DIG, the Disabled Income Group, dated December 1968, encouraging my presentation of the Disablement Commission Bill which I have described.
DIG was formed to represent the forgotten people. Mrs du Boisson was herself a housewife in a wheelchair, one of the categories then not recognised for allowances or benefits. The 1970 Act, which I have already mentioned, led to much increased public awareness and to the introduction of allowances and benefits during subsequent years.
Many of us have remained concerned about discrimination. How can it best be reduced and eliminated? There have been some limited successes which I should mention; for example, with deafness, driving licences and jobs as drivers. Because it would be entirely wrong—indeed, criminal—to allow a blind person to drive, some firms would not accept that someone who was deaf was safe to drive. Several cases were taken up and, with government help, deafness has now become accepted for jobs involving driving.
Some of us in Parliament have been trying to find actual cases of discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and I tried to find cases. That was not easy. About seven years ago I received, as did others, some documented cases from a well-known national voluntary organisation. Delighted, I telephoned to the director with some questions on one or two of the cases, saying how useful they would be. At last we had some real evidence!
He telephoned a day or two later and asked to see me privately. When he did see me he confessed that he had just discovered that they were not real cases but had been invented by a research officer although presented as factual. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I were able to discover which other Parliamentarians had been sent details of these cases. We warned them and told them what the true situation was. We could have been raising, as real, cases which were invented and bogus. That was a misguided way to try to help the cause, but fortunately we discovered the situation in time.
I should now like to say a word about mental disability and discrimination, which is included in the Bill. I believe that mental handicap need not be too
84
difficult if properly handled. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will have something to say about it, as he is probably the greatest living expert on the subject. Mental illness is another matter which needs careful handling. Mentally ill people are sometimes discriminated against for personal services such as insurance and banking. That need not happen and a disablement commission is a good way—probably the best—to advise the industries concerned and improve the situation.
As regards jobs, employment can be difficult in some cases. A sufferer who seems outwardly completely normal may in practice be unemployable. From many years of close contact with mentally ill people, I have to say that and give an example. From time to time such a person may hear voices telling him or her to do crazy things which he or she then does. I t is very difficult to employ somebody in that situation. Expert advice from psychiatrists may be needed before employment can be given.
References are sometimes made to American legislation. To avoid confusion one must recognise that the main anti-discrimination provisions in the United States are directed to access. That is a very important subject. In the United Kingdom we have been making progress. But we do not call that anti-discrimination. That United States legislation, if it had gone through this Parliament, would probably have borne the title "Access to Premises Act" and not have referred to anti-discrimination.
This is an ambitious Bill. It ventures into areas in which past governments have seen objections. I hope that the Government will find ways round them where this Bill is concerned. I hope too that the Bill will find favour. I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will be ready to amend the Bill if that appears to be necessary to obtain its passage. From what I have said, the House will understand that I would like to see an independent disablement commission brought into being and certainly that part of the Bill has my full support.
7.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in expressing thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for introducing this Bill once again into this House and for doing so with such clarity. I join with the noble Lord, in urging the Government to indicate support for it and give proper time for its consideration.
It seemed right that a Member of your Lordships' House from the episcopal Benches should speak in this debate, not least because the Christian Churches worldwide have in recent decades made much of their concern for those who are relatively powerless in society. When I ask local congregations who they believe are relatively powerless, the most common answer is the disabled. Our attitudes towards those with disability need to undergo a profound change; above all there has to be the recognition that they are people, individuals, like ourselves. They are people with disability but people with talents and potential. They are people who need our response and interaction with them.

85
Some Members of your Lordships' House may have seen last night's programme called "The Heart of the Matter" which made the point in a striking and vivid way. It depicted the work of one person attempting to help those with profound learning disability. The heart of the matter in this programme was the aim to be in touch with the real person behind the disability and perhaps even to help in the formation of that real person. We all need to interact with other people; to belong and to have a share in the life which is available in society now. It is that provision of a proper share in life which is the purpose of this Bill.
I suppose that there will be general agreement about the change in attitudes which is necessary. The famous programme "Does he take sugar?" highlights the absurdity of attitudes which overlook people who have disability and the failure to treat them as individuals. The issue here is not over whether a change of attitudes is right; it is whether such attitudes should be changed by education, by legislation or possibly by both. There are those who argue that legislation is inappropriate and that what is needed is a change of heart brought about by a heightening awareness and by enabling people to see the absurdity of their views and actions and often unconscious attitudes—in a word, by education.
Such evidence as I have in this field, as in many others, suggests that education on its own is ineffective especially in the short term. It does not bring about real change. Good words are easy; actions to match words are costly, sometimes in financial terms. I therefore support the need for legislation. It is required to redress wrongs. That point was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
It would be a very good exercise for those of us who regard ourselves as relatively able to spend a day constrained, as many disabled are, and to experience the frustrations of not being able to travel freely and of not being able to have easy access. I am also aware that as I grow older I am more likely to become one of those with disability. To think ourselves into the situation of those with disability enables us to begin to feel the wrongs that are being done to others. A consequence of those wrongs is the failure to harness talent and ability and to accept that which those with disability have to offer to the rest of us. There is so much that they have to give and so much that we have to learn from them.
This legislation provides much that can be done to redress a wrong and to enable those with a disability to give to the rest of us what they have to give. It is intended to provide an equal opportunity. That is all that is being asked for; not a special preference but an equal opportunity for people with a disability. I believe that the Bill merits the support of your Lordships' House and of the Government.
8 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we have heard three powerful speeches in favour of the Bill. I should first congratulate my noble friend Lady Lockwood for speaking again on this subject. She made what I thought was an immaculate case in our debate on 21st
86
February. I followed her then and I agreed with her. Although she put it in different terms, her case today was equally convincing.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, gave a history of how things have developed since 1965. I was involved at some stages both in another place and in this House. Until about 15 years ago it was my view that legislation would not necessarily be right. I supported it in seeking equality of the sexes and improved race relations. I think, however, that I took the view that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon expressed—that education was the thing. But education, as the right reverend Prelate was absolutely right to say, on its own is not enough.
In our last debate on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, claimed to be a benevolent neutral. In fact, he opposed the Bill. He was benevolent—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will remember that on that occasion I did not oppose the Bill. I said that I could not offer the Government's support. There is a considerable difference between the two concepts.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps there is a certain subtle difference between not opposing something and being benevolently neutral. Frankly, I do not see it. The noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that he thought that the Bill was not an appropriate measure to be passed. I hope that he may now be a little more benevolent and that the Government will wish to support the Bill.
The real argument is not just about whether there is discrimination or about whether this is a field in which Parliament should consider acting against discrimination. In my view, the disablement organisations are quite clear about what they want. Although I shall not list them, organisation after organisation —those broadly representative of disabled people and separate organisations —are convinced that the time has come for legislation. If the Minister is to persist in his own version of benevolent neutrality, I hope that he will explain why the Government know best. Successive governments have always thought that Whitehall knows best, but I believe that people themselves, with their own disabilities and problems, and those working with them, have a feeling for what is needed.
The Government have made a considerable contribution in the Citizen's Charter towards asserting the belief that society owes people certain standards and that those standards are to be preserved by society. Disabled people should not be excluded from the concept of citizen's rights. Since its formation in 1981, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People has insisted that disabled people are denied their basic human rights in British society. That is because disabled people encounter discrimination daily and do not have the same rights as non-disabled people. Parents of disabled children do, not have the right to send their children to local schools. Employers can discriminate openly against

87
disabled workers. Disabled people do not have the same legal protection from discrimination as do women and black people.
Institutional discrimination is evident when the policies and activities of all kinds of organisations result in disabled people being denied the same treatment or equal access to goods and services as non-disabled people. Modern welfare services continually deny disabled people their basic rights by refusing them their entitlements, by constantly redefining or refusing to acknowledge their needs, or by providing services which infringe on their freedom or invade their privacy. That is true in so many fields that are important to human welfare.
Most modes of transport, such as buses, taxis and trains, are inaccessible to disabled people. Although 63 per cent. of disabled people in London use buses —but with difficulty—20 per cent. cannot use them at all. I know that British Rail is now making a considerable effort. Indeed, the Minister referred to that when he replied to our debate in February. We all recognise that steps are being taken. But people are still being discriminated against because they are disabled.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the mentally ill. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Rix will refer to the mentally handicapped. I have a great interest in the mentally ill; I am president of MIND. I agree that certain people cannot be accepted for employment because of the nature of their condition. However, tens of thousands of people "disabled" because of a past mental illness may now be just as capable of meeting a challenge as someone who has never had a mental illness. It is wrong that people are required to say whether they have ever had a mental illness when they apply for a job. Many people have been denied the opportunity of equal employment because they have had a mental illness. Mental illness can be transitory. It can last for months or perhaps years, but after that many people are fully competent. They should not be discriminated against.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to clarify the matter. Of course, I was not referring to people who have had a mental illness and who have recovered. I was saying that in this area the disability may not be obvious because sometimes people who are still suffering can seem completely all right. One must remember that it is a problem area.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do not for a moment disagree with what the noble Lord said either in his speech or in that explanation.
Many aspects of pleasure in life are often denied disabled people. Disabled people sometimes find that pubs, restaurants, art galleries, theatres, concert halls, cinemas and sports stadia are physically inaccessible to them. I believe that if they are not able to gain access, they are being discriminated against. One of the best ways in which we can give a real push to the important question of access is to put the force of law behind it. All our experience points to that. My noble friend Lady Lockwood, with her knowledge of the
88
issue of equality between the sexes and of whether there is discrimination against women, will know that the legislation that was passed to make such discrimination an offence was a great stimulus. I can confirm that also as a result of my experience of relations between minority groups and people of different races.
One of my sons, Paul Ennals, the education officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind, has had many years' experience of working with both blind and deaf people. I should like to say a word or two on behalf of the deaf whose disability is not immediately obvious to able-bodied people. I shall not say, "Thank the good Lord", but let us thank whoever we should thank for the fact that my good friend Jack Ashley is to join us. If he were here now, he would argue his case far better than I can because he speaks from the experience of his deafness.
Discrimination is an everyday reality for many deaf people. First, without the right to a sign language interpreter most deaf people are denied equal access to information, to education and to training opportunities. Deaf people have no right to communication support on further and adult education courses. A training course that does not provide a sign language interpreter is inaccessible to a deaf person. The majority of deaf people are therefore confined to less skilled and lower paid jobs. That means that they are being discriminated against. Sometimes deaf people are refused jobs because of their deafness. Such discrimination is the result of employers' ignorance of deaf people's capabilities. But without legislation we do not believe that the situation will change. I hope that we will be able to convince the Government of our case.
My noble friend said when introducing the Bill that she is ready to accept amendments. During the Committee stage of the Bill we will all be open to looking at ways in which the Bill can he improved. But I hope that the arguments presented by noble Lords both in previous debates and today will convince the Government that we should act because disabled people know that it is in their interests. It is not for your Lordships' House, the Government or another place to say, "We know better." The people who know best are those who suffer discrimination because of the disability from which they suffer.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, when this Bill was discussed a few months ago, before the dissolution of Parliament, I was abroad. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has brought it back. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading as I cannot think of a better person to guide it through your Lordships' House than the noble Baroness, who has so much experience relating to equal opportunities and sex discrimination.
This legislation aims not to give disabled people preferential treatment. It is intended to give them access to the law to help them secure equal treatment. Even if this legislation is passed having been improved upon by your Lordships, most disabled people would agree that they will still be a long way behind because

89
of their disabilities. This legislation will be an encouragement. For so long people with disabilities have had to battle against difficulties and attitudes. It is important that a person's abilities are looked upon and this is the greatest encouragement of all.
Since 1970 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, many needs have been highlighted. Opponents of anti-discrimination legislation say that what is needed to combat bad attitudes is education and persuasion, and that legislation will only serve to destroy good will towards disabled people. There have been some excellent campaigns to change attitudes. For example, many years ago the Disabled Living Foundation produced a pamphlet of someone sitting in a wheelchair at the bottom of a flight of steps leading up into a church. There are still many churches which do not have suitable access for people using wheelchairs even though in some cases making easy access would mean only a small adaptation. In my local church (or perhaps I should say my noble kinsman's local church, in Masham) the only easy access is at the time of a funeral when a ramp is put up. Usually there is no ramp. Perhaps my noble friend the Bishop of Ripon will do something about that as it is in his diocese.
One slogan during the International Year for Disabled People 1981 was "Can disabled people go where you go?" There are many people who would like to see more done to improve access. At one five-star hotel here in London my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and I attended a fund-raising dinner for a charity. When we left, the duty manager said that this well-known hotel was being refurbished. He told us that many of the staff felt that better access for disabled people should be provided. He asked us to help persuade the owners. Nothing has changed. A friend of mine recently visited Canada. He came back and enthusiastically told me that I should go there as everything was far better organised for wheelchair users.
Civil rights legislation would help keep people on their toes. It would make them more aware of what is needed. Unless something affects someone personally, the average person does not think about or understand the problems. Over the years I have come across some serious cases of discrimination. At Wakefield in Yorkshire there is a spinal unit at one of the hospitals for people who have had spinal injuries. One evening a well rehabilitated paraplegic was taking out two young patients. It was their first time out since becoming paralysed. The first venture out from behind the safety of the hospital walls is an important event. When they arrived at the pub they were told by the publican to sit in the back room. He said, "I don't let dogs in here, why should I let you lot in?" I was telephoned about this incident by the person who had taken the two young patients out from hospital. He was rightly upset.
Another case concerns a woman from Scarborough who had taken her daughter in a wheelchair to the cinema and had been told by one of the managers, "You can't take that thing in here", meaning the wheelchair. The poor woman was very distressed.
90
In Harrogate the social services department had an entrance step and it was inaccessible for anyone using a wheelchair who might need help. But the police station had a splendid ramp so that disabled people had full access. Parking in Harrogate is very difficult. There was a well-known traffic warden who victimised disabled people, dishing out parking tickets. We are thankful that he has gone.
Disabled people do not fit into neat categories. They are individuals with individual problems. In fact they must be an administrator's nightmare. Having been a very fit young person when I had my injury, I remember so well the carefree life of a person without a disability: being able to jump on a bus and visit people without thinking how many steps their house involved; being able to drive any vehicle without hand controls; going to the theatre or cinema without thinking about access; being able to reach a telephone or light switch. Suddenly as a person using a wheelchair one's life had to be organised to having to think ahead and often being dependent on others; such as getting petrol put into one's car; not being able to reach a motorway telephone halfway up a bank if one breaks down. There are many different aspects which must not be forgotten. Deaf and blind people have completely different needs from those with so-called learning difficulties. The needs of the mentally handicapped will be well covered by my noble friend Lord Rix.
All the organisations involved with disability have stories to tell. They are now asking for legislation to help their members. At every conference I have attended lately the subject has been brought up. A few weeks ago, a young qualified architect who uses a wheelchair said that he had tried everything to gain employment. With his disability, he would be doubly qualified to advise on matters of access as well as on general matters.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the Minister to advise me, and update your Lordships, about employing people with a disability. I feel that there may be a need for some amendments to improve the situation. What provision is there for a disabled employee who, during the period of his or her employment, develops an illness or further disability relating to the primary disability which renders that person unable or fit to continue in his or her employment? For example, in that sort of case (where the disabled person has been employed for over two years) what, if any, provision would there be to help an employer meet his obligation to make redundancy payments?
If there is no understanding of that problem, which might arise if the disability is progressive, does the noble Baroness think that the fear of having to face those payments could be a disincentive for employers to take on disabled people when, although perfectly willing to do so, they may be afraid of the consequential financial obligations? If there is an obligation, perhaps some form of insurance cover could meet the problem. Of course, we want to encourage employment for disabled people; but we

91
must look at some of the problems and worries of prospective employers. I look forward to hearing clarification on the matter.
The field of disability is wide and varied. One of the greatest problems is lack of knowledge of the real needs. As I drove down the M.1 today to attend your Lordships' House, I called in at a petrol station. As I tried to attract the attention of an attendant to give me some petrol, I noticed a bell with the wheelchair sign upon it. It had been placed by a window high up with a large step in front, making it totally out of reach for any person in a wheelchair or even for someone ambulant. I explained to the attendant that it needed to be reached by someone seated in a car as many people cannot get out without help. Those being the people who cannot put petrol in their cars. She told me that they had only just got the bell. What is the point of giving such aids and then making them totally unuseable? How can one ensure that clear guidance goes with such devices so that they do the job for which they were devised?
One of the greatest problems is the lack of knowledge. We need legislation going hand in hand with education and promotion so that the public can understand what is needed. I have had great pleasure in meeting many inspired and considerate people, but so often one comes up against unnecessary discrimination which causes frustration and bitterness. Better conditions, helped along by legislation, could mean an insurance for all those people—such as perhaps my noble friend the Bishop of Ripon—who will become disabled in the future, perhaps through old age, as well as the millions already in society. I should like to end with the Boy Scouts' motto:
"Let us be prepared".
8.24 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House is much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the second time around, for introducing this very important Bill. We are now in a situation where we have a long Session of Parliament ahead of us; namely, about 15 months. Therefore, there is plenty of time for the Government to give serious consideration to the Bill. It may need amendment in certain sections, but I believe that the spirit of the Bill is extremely important.
My wife and I happen to live in an area of Surrey where there are a great many people who are disabled —that is, both mentally and physically. We have half a dozen mental hospitals. We also have a very big blind school, the School of Stitchery and Lace for disabled young people and the Victoria Homes for the Disabled. Therefore, there is no shortage of provision in that part of Surrey. However, there are doubtless other parts of the country where concentrations of disabled people live; an example is the Chailey Homes. This is something which needs to be looked at carefully.
As an example of an enlightened state of affairs, our local Thorndike Theatre in Leatherhead (I was trustee during its construction) has very good facilities for the disabled. But how many West-End theatres are in the
92
same position? There are also old buildings. At the time when they were built, disabled people were regarded as outcasts; in other words, if you were disabled, hard luck. These day, thank heavens, we are becoming more enlightened on the subject. It is important to remember that many people become disabled through service to their country. In the defence forces, in industry and in other forms of life it is very easy to become disabled.
One area which I think needs looking into is that of hotels. I have relations working in the hotel industry. The hotel in Scotland which my brother owns has very good facilities for the disabled. However, many hotels do not. I am thinking especially of conference hotels. My wife and I were in Glasgow over the weekend staying in a modern hotel on the banks of the Clyde. It is very well run. We were attending the annual conference of the Registered Nursing Home Association Ltd. Many people live in such homes. There were no bedrooms on the ground floor of the hotel. There were one or two lifts, but hardly of any adequate size.
There are conference hotels where, as I understand it, there are no bedrooms lower than the third floor. The first two floors are reserved for conference facilities. That is fair enough. However, disabled people attend conferences and they have every right to do so. They often contribute most convincingly to such conferences. As I said, it is an area which needs careful study. I believe strongly that the situation is covered in Clause 6 of the Bill. It is an area where I think the Government can help.
There are government grants in tourist areas to encourage tourism. Therefore, why can we not have grants for disabled people, especially in hotels where there are difficulties as regards facilities? One realises, as is outlined in Clause 7, that there are a number of problems with old buildings which were designed by architects who had no conception of what disablement really is. I believe that those are the areas which really need exploring. I say that because disabled people have an enormous amount to contribute to the community. Indeed, one has only to see the enormous courage that paraplegics display in their Olympic games. What an example they give to those of us who are able-bodied.
Therefore I hope that the Government will look on the Bill with benevolence. It may well be that amendments are needed; there are financial considerations to be looked into. The commission, as outlined in the schedule, may need some tidying up. For example, who will be serving on it? It is very important that the commission should be made up of those who have knowledge of disabled people rather than members who serve on it because they have nothing else to do—a situation in which, unhappily, some commissions find themselves. This is a very important commission and, if the Government look favourably on it, it is vital that it should be properly staffed.
I believe your Lordships' House, which has enormous experience of disablement, has done a very good job today in reintroducing the Bill. I hope that

93
my noble friend and kinsman, who is a very humane person, will give close consideration to what has been said this evening.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I should like to thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for reintroducing the Bill and giving so many of us who are concerned that particular chance.
I must confess that in my previous life I was used to appearing to fuller houses than this at this time of night. In the profession the empty seats are known as Miss Wood and Miss Plush and I only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will not read the empty seats as a lack of compassion and understanding on behalf of your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships may well recall the story of a man recollecting how, when he was a small boy, his father taught him to swim in the canal. He said that being rather small and being thrown into what seemed a great deal of very cold water was something with which he could have coped. But he found being inside a sack with six large bricks somewhat daunting and a distinct handicap. This Bill will not make the water any warmer or less wet, or the person with a disability any bigger. But it could get rid of the sack and the bricks, and that I believe is worth doing.
On my arrival in this House I believed that there could be no issue less controversial than the one before us. I had hoped to make it the subject of my maiden speech but, alas, I was in America when the opportunity arose. However, I still hold that view and hope that justice will be done today and that the Bill will have an unopposed Second Reading. We can then progress from talking about prejudice to supporting rights—acknowledging that this legislation is the only way that the rights of people with disabilities will be ensured within our society.
As my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, president of MENCAP, said on the occasion of the previous Second Reading,
"There is indeed a strong feeling that the time has come for something positive to be done and that it has become evident that it is not sufficient to rest on education and persuasion". —[Official Report, 21/2/92; col. 1478.]
As we all know, this Bill outlaws unjustifiable discrimination against people on the basis of their disability. Put simply, it ensures that disabled people have the same right to legal redress in the courts as women and ethnic minorities now have under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1968. The Government are always very keen to suggest that the best way forward is by education and persuasion and argue that since legislation does not change attitudes it is not the best way forward. This, to say the least, is questionable. Legislation does not change attitudes but it does change behaviour. It sets a framework within which attitudes will be influenced (and I believe, changed) and does so much more effectively than anything else.
If the Government believe that their policy of persuasion and education is working perhaps they can explain that to a group of four mentally handicapped people who have a learning disability and who last
94
year were about to move into a house purchased by the local health authority. Some local citizens—I shall not describe them any further than that—decided that they did not wish people with a mental handicap to live next door. They clubbed together and bought the house so as to deny access to those four people with a mental handicap or learning disability. That is a discrimination which would be totally outlawed by the passage of this Bill into an Act.
I declare my interest as the honorary chairman of MENCAP City Insurance Services Limited, which is experiencing widespread discrimination against people with a learning disability or mental handicap. There has been a significant resistance from major insurance companies to provide personal accident cover for people with a mental handicap. While parents, volunteer helpers and staff can easily be covered for personal accident, the majority of insurance companies refuse to cover people with a learning disability. To date, not one insurance company has produced a single piece of evidence as to why people with a mental handicap should be discriminated against in this respect.
In a letter I received from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, following my letter of protest after the failure of the Bill in the other place, he stated that he remained,
"unconvinced that generalised legislation of this kind is the best way to realise our common aims of integration and opportunity."
I take issue with the view that this legislation is not specific. It is certainly not piecemeal and that is the point. It is all very well doing a bit here and a bit there to reduce certain problems, but it hardly deals with the reality of people's lives.
Life does not fall neatly into compartments, isolated from everything else. To get to work I need transport; to find a job in the first place I need education and training; to have a decent quality of life I need to have somewhere to live; to relax from work I need access to sports facilities, cinemas and, particularly for me, the theatre—and I mean access in the widest possible sense of the word. This legislation deals with life as it really is and confronts the whole complexity of the problems faced.
The Arts Council receives numerous examples of discrimination both from people who attend events and who wish to be employed in the arts. Indeed, I have recently chaired an Arts Council disabled people employment initiative for six days at Newcastle, Birmingham and London—sponsored, I hasten to add, by the Office of Arts and Libraries and by the Department of Employment as well as the Arts Council itself. Many hundreds of people with disabilities who wish to be employed in the arts, but who were unable to obtain employment, turned up to those conferences, or seminars. I have to tell the House that not a single voice was raised against anti-discrimination legislation being absolutely essential if there is to be any progress in that direction.
We heard this evening about the commercial West End theatres. They are notoriously bad for welcoming disabled people. Access is difficult, if not impossible (generally blamed on the fact that the theatre is a listed building) or on fire regulations—the oldest and

95
corniest joke of all. Both are lackadaisical and feeble excuses, as pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, in his speech to your Lordships' House on 12th May.
Many theatres do not even provide infra-red facilities or induction loops for the hard of hearing. I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will forgive me for correcting her when she quoted the figure from Deaf Accord of 4,000 people with hearing aids in this country. I checked the figure myself as I could not believe it. The correct figure is 4 million people with hearing aids in this country and there are hardly any loops of any kind available in public buildings. Your Lordships will also be only too well aware how hearing aids provided in the private sector are both over-priced and inefficient, generally ending up tucked away in a bottom drawer.
What about other disabilities? I was speaking only last Saturday to a blind man in Edinburgh, Neil Robinson, who happens to be my wife's cousin. He lost his sight as a student, only three or four years ago, through diabetes. He is totally mobile with the aid of his guide dog Ashley. He was recently denied a job as a researcher for a disability programme with BBC Scotland. One of the stated reasons for his rejection was his "difficulties in getting about". His main task would have been making enquiries on the telephone!
Finally, I refer to a letter written to the Guardian (but not yet published) by Paddy Masefield, who is a member of the Arts Council Monitoring Committee on Arts and Disability, of which I also happen to be chairman. I am sure noble Lords will forgive me for reading it out in full:
"As a middle aged male with M.E. who uses a wheelchair, I passed through Oxford Station last week. This station will be infamous to many disabled people, since, as a result of a reputed one million pound modernisation it still:-

a) requires anyone in a wheelchair to be pushed the length of the platform, across the tracks and back up another platform if they are changing trains.

b) sites a toilet for disabled people on one platform only, requiring the cross track procedure if you are on the opposite platform.

c) makes it impossible to transfer to a taxi undercover, but instead requires a journey of one hundred yards exposed to the elements down a steep slope.

d) provides insufficient staff to keep its travel contract with disabled people, so that I witnessed some months ago, a sight impaired traveller, frustrated by neglect, fall onto the tracks only minutes before a train passed over the spot.

To add real insult to the risk of real injury, the member of staff assigned to push me, saw fit to ask me how many years I had been in a wheel chair. I told him almost six. His reply was 'Good God! If I'd been a burden to people that long I would have shot myself by now!'
What should I be angry with? One man's prejudice? Management's insensitivity? BR's inefficiency? Society's apathy? Or Government's refusal to bring forward disability legislation to make all such prejudice illegal?
And who is to compensate me and my 6.8 million colleagues in the UK, for being daily disabled by such attitudes and practice?"
Who indeed?
It requires more than the Citizen's Charter to effect such a change. This rights Bill is about bringing the possibilities of an ordinary life with ordinary opportunities nearer to more people: to bridge the gap between possibility and reality. Is that too much to ask of a Government anxious to empower all our citizens?
96
I urge the Government to learn from experience and to work with us to ensure that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has a safe and unencumbered passage.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I find the speech of my noble friend Lord Rix almost impossible to follow. However, undeterred, I shall start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on her clear and comprehensive explanation of the Bill. I, too, am very glad that the noble Baroness has undertaken to introduce it again, because it will benefit from her great experience in the field of anti-discrimination.
Rather than give examples of discrimination— others, especially my noble friend Lord Rix and my noble friend on the mobile Bench beside me have made a powerful case—I shall try once more to show why I believe that the Bill is necessary and why the Government should not be too worried about possible litigation. We are all agreed that discrimination exists. Perhaps the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People put it best in a debate in the other place on 31st January—I paraphrase to avoid too much of a sense of déjà entendu and I see that the Minister looks relieved—when he said at col. 1251 of Hansard that there was too much unjustified discrimination; it was wrong; it often had a cruel impact on the quality of life of disabled people; and it was remarkably stupid because it was a waste of talent.
What is in question is how we deal with unjustifiable discrimination. The Government, as the Minister said on 21st February, believe that the answer is to use legislation selectively, carefully targeted. Specific legislation is extremely valuable, as in the example of the transport world that the Minister gave. But does the Minister agree that one cannot anticipate all the ways in which people may discriminate, either wilfully or inadvertently? There may therefore be an element of fire-brigade activity about targeted legislation on its own. One waits for the conflagration before responding. With a backdrop of general anti-discrimination legislation, behaviour is guided by the existing law, and if someone oversteps the line, action can be taken to avoid the conflagration. As my noble friend Lord Rix said, life does not fall into neat compartments.
Again on 21st February, the Minister said that the Government favoured education and persuasion and were worried about introducing a climate of litigation in the Bill. The CORAD Report of 1982 stated clearly that education campaigns on their own are expensive and rarely successful. My noble friend Lady Masham clearly showed that to be the case in her speech. I appreciate that the Government now say that there is a need for targeted legislation as well.
CORAD made two other points in favour of general legislation which would help to encourage and persuade. First, while it will not make people love one another, legislation can make them behave properly towards one another, and that, in turn, can influence attitudes for good. Secondly, legislation would ensure that any cost or effort involved in treating disabled people properly is spread around more evenly.

97
Without legislation, those lacking in goodwill could gain an advantage over those who put themselves out to help so that the Bill would encourage a climate of co-operation.
We should recognise that disabled people are no more litigious than anyone else. The experience from Australia—New South Wales and South Australia—shows the law there to be a background against which settlements and adjustments can be agreed, and education and persuasion can flourish. In this country, we have long had experience of race relations and equal opportunities legislation; so it is not a new concept.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, my noble friend Lord Snowdon has now concluded, sadly, that legislation is the only answer. We must recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said in February—and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals,mentioned this today—that there is among disabled people a mounting demand for anti-discrimination legislation. There was anger and much frustration when Alf Morris's Bill was talked out in the other place in January. There is a strong feeling that this legislation is long overdue.
On Second Reading of the Bill in February, I felt—I was not alone—that the Government's attitude was more negative than when Alf Morris introduced his Bill in the other place. I may be wrong—I hope so—it may just be the case of the Minister's rather more robust style. It would be helpful if, when he replies—robustly, I am sure—he will tell us whether the Government's attitude has hardened in any way. I should appreciate that.
The Minister said that he would consider carefully all that was said on Second Reading in February. I hope that he has, and, ever the optimist, I hope that he may even feel a bit more benevolent towards the Bill now. I hope that we will give the Bill a Second Reading. Then at Committee stage we can try to resolve, for example, the test of reasonableness; the question of the county court, and so forth. Therefore we can achieve a workable Bill which will, as my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale said in February, go a long way towards becoming a charter for people with disabilities.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, we are approaching the end of the debate. From these Benches, I should like to say how impressed I have been by the wealth of knowledge and personal experience which so many noble Lords have brought to bear on this subject. I too should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the admirable way in which she has reintroduced her Bill. It is good that the Bill has had the support, in principle, of members of all parties and of none in the House.
There can be no doubt that many employers continue to discriminate unreasonably against people with disabilities. The latest evidence that has come to my notice is from a study of 91 organisations in Sussex which was undertaken by a voluntary rehabilitation
98
and training agency called PACT. The study showed that more than 40 per cent. of the employers surveyed saw disabled people as unsuitable employees.
The basic question we now have to answer is whether it is better that progress in combating discrimination on grounds of disability in employment and in the provision of services should continue to be sought only through education, exhortation and persuasion, or that, additionally, best practice in this field should be developed through further legislation.
Having balanced the arguments, I, and indeed my party, have reached the conclusion that the time has come for this further legislation. I put it like that because already there is, as noble Lords will be aware, a statutory requirement that under the so-called quota system at least 3 per cent. of the employees in an organisation employing 20 or more staff should be registered disabled people. I well recall from my own industrial experience that 40 years ago the system was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It is clear that that is still the case.
In the debate last February, when the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, first introduced the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that the quota system did not work, largely because most people with a disability did not choose to register the fact. That is true. Indeed, because the requirements of the law do not work and the quota system therefore no longer fulfils its purpose, it can fairly be said that the law has been brought into disrepute. I do not, however, see that as a reason for repealing the existing law, such as it is, without replacement, but rather for introducing alternative appropriate legislation.
I suggest, moreover, that, if disabled people were now to be given positive rights on the lines proposed in the Bill, that might well have the beneficial effect of making such people more ready than they now are to be open about their disabilities.
In the earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that, although the Government's attitude to the Bill was benevolently neutral and he would not oppose the Second Reading, he did not see how general civil rights legislation, even when overseen by the kind of disablement commission envisaged in the Bill, could assist progress. To that end, he preferred education and co-operation. He also favoured specific legislation. He gave examples of action that had already been taken in the field of transport and through building regulations.
In my view, there is no reason why these two contrasting approaches should not go hand in hand. It seems to me that, as with sex discrimination and race discrimination, the educational process would have a better chance of success if it were to be based on legislation of a practicable kind. That is surely the rationale of the Disability Act which is to take effect in the United States next month. I do not see why the same principle should not now be followed in this country.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I believe that, although legislation will not of itself alter attitudes, it can produce marginal modifications in behaviour which may later lead to changes in attitude.

99
All we have to do tonight is to take a decision on the basic principle embodied in the Bill. There is no need to debate it in detail now: that can be left to the Committee stage. I was going to say that I would need to be persuaded that it is right that under the Bill a claim that an alleged discriminator has acted unlawfully should be brought before a county court. That is because, as noble Lords know, in the employment field the normal practice is for appellants to go before an industrial tribunal. However, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, proposes to deal with the point by means of an amendment in Committee.
I was also going to say that I was a little surprised that an effect of Clause 1 appears to be that the alleged discriminator must show that a claimant has not complied with a requirement that is reasonable. That test is different from the one that applies in both sex and race discrimination legislation, where the criterion used is that the requirement should be justifiable. I am glad that, as I understand it, that point too is to be dealt with in Committee by an amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness.
With other noble Lords, I am most anxious that the Bill should eventually be enacted. But, if it is ultimately to find favour with the Government and their supporters in this House, and more particularly in another place, defects such as those I have just mentioned must be addressed. This House is clearly the best place in which to do that, because we may be assured that far from the Bill being talked out, as a similar Bill was at Second Reading in another place earlier this year, here it will be accepted in principle this evening. I take comfort from what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to say in that respect in a brief intervention earlier in the debate. From these Benches, I am glad to help speed the Bill on its way.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords I wish to thank my noble friend Lady Lockwood for reintroducing the Bill and for explaining it so well. As is the convention on these occasions, I should explain that I speak from this Dispatch Box with a personal view, although it is the policy of the Labour Party to support anti-discrimination legislation. If we had been elected in the April election, it was our intention to introduce such a Bill.
I suppose that throughout the debate there has been a sense of déjà vu because we have to some extent repeated the arguments we advanced on 21st February. However, repeating arguments does not reduce their importance. I hope that the Minister in his reply can be a little more forthcoming than he was in February when the Government's benevolent neutrality seemed to be more like not so benevolent opposition.
I was intrigued by the Minister's intervention earlier when my noble friend Lord Ennals was speaking. He said that it was not that he was opposed to the Bill, it was just that the Government did not support it. That is truly a connoisseur's distinction.
100
There have been 11 attempts since 1982, in this Houe and another place, to introduce antidiscrimination legislation; but all have been blocked in one way or another. There can be no argument that discrimination against disabled people exists. The debate turns on the best way to deal with that discrimination. Those of us who support the Bill—that is every speaker in today's debate except, I suspect, the Minister—are convinced that legislation is the right way to deal with the problem. It is up to those who oppose the Bill—I look hard at the Minister in saying this—to show why uniquely discrimination against disabled people should not be dealt with by legislation.
We know that discrimination against disability has its roots in our social culture, but finds its expression in economic and physical disadvantage. A complicated mixture of religious, psychological, cultural and educational factors provides the seedbed for discrimination and even in today's rather more enlightened society there are still instances of insensitivity or downright ignorance. They are based on traditional perceptions of impairment. We know that discrimination has certainly not disappeared, it has just been transformed into subtler and less obvious forms.
I mentioned educational factors. The mainstream education system was never intended to educate those with special educational needs. As we know, although there have been valiant attempts to redress the balance, in general terms special education is the poor relation of mainstream education in both social and educational terms. My biggest criticism of special education is the low expectations it engenders, the feeling that the system is aimed at producing a generation of telephonists, typists and lift attendants, if a disabled person can find work at all.
This is not the place to debate the arguments for integrated education against special education. There is now great anxiety that as the Education Reform Act 1988 comes fully on stream, the little progress which has been made could be reversed. We know that the budgetary pressures on schools are leading to more expensive, older, better-qualified teachers being made redundant, to be replaced by cheaper, younger teachers. I wonder how long it will be before the same budgetary pressures lead head teachers to wonder about the effect on their budget of trying to integrate a disabled child with the attendant higher than average cost levels. The Bill mentions education only in Clause 6(2) (f). Its passage into law would help to break down the barriers in our educational system by enforcing the realisation that the effects of a disability do not start at school-leaving age.
The Bill deals with employment, which is central to the argument. The discriminatory attitudes and institutional practices which discriminate against disabled people in employment are entrenched within the British labour market. I am delighted that the Bill gives so much attention to the problem. We know that disabled people are more likely to be out of work than the rest of the community and to be out of work for longer than other unemployed workers. When they do find work it is usually low paid, low status work with poor working conditions.

101
For disabled people employment policies which centre entirely on the supply side of the labour market just do not work. Voluntary policies of persuasion have not worked and will not work. We have to concentrate on the work place and the opportunities for work. That means a barrier-free environment, accessible work processes and positive discrimination in favour of the employment of disabled people.
I should like to give just one of many examples affecting employment. I have been briefed by Deaf Accord, which points out that discrimination is experienced by people who are hard of hearing who do not need an interpreter but may need special equipment such as an adapted telephone or induction loop. While they are entitled to equipment in the work place, many employers remain ignorant of the situation and hearing aid workers are often denied equality of opportunity. When I read that brief, I was struck by its strength because a member of my own family is blind and also suffers from severe hearing loss and relies on an induction loop both at home and at work. Now, as a family, when we go to public places, whether it is a theatre, a church or meeting place, we always ask if the public place has an induction loop system and if not why not.
The great majority of disabled people and their families are disproportionately reliant for their income on the social security benefits system. They experience economic deprivation—in some cases severe—as a result. The facts are clear: the incomes of families with a disabled member are significantly lower than those of families without a disability. That results from a combination of higher unemployment, the extra cost of disability and the low level of benefits.
Time does not allow for debate of that issue. The Bill is not able to encompass the problem or incorporate solutions. However, if the Bill is passed into law, as I sincerely hope it will be, at least some of the employment factors resulting in the low incomes of disabled people will be addressed and reliance on social security benefits will be reduced. The arguments for a comprehensive disability income and a disability costs allowance are strong, if not stronger now than they have ever been. However, time does not allow deployment of the arguments now. The Bill does not deal directly with benefits; but, as I said, reducing discrimination would at least help to reduce the reliance of disabled people on the social security system.
There are many other areas of discrimination against disabled people; but again there is not time now to deal with them all. They are the health and social support services, housing, transport, the built environment, leisure facilities and social life, the influence of the media and, indeed, the effects on political life such as the sheer difficulty for a disabled person of physically getting to a polling station to vote.
On the subject of transport, I am told that at the new Liverpool Street station, which is a magnificent example of modern architecture, there is considerable difficulty for disabled people getting to the toilets. That is hearsay; but if it is true, it is extraordinary in view of the expenditure on the station.
102
As I pointed out when I concluded the February debate from this side of the House, the first Motion that I ever moved in your Lordships' House drew attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In that debate I coined the phrase "the disabled divide" to describe the great gulf which exists in expectation and achievement between people with disabilities and the able bodied. If enacted, the Bill will go a long way towards the bridging of that divide. In the words of President Bush when he signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990:
"Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down."
9.4 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, something less than four months ago we had a very wide-ranging and, I believe, valuable debate on a number of issues fundamental to the needs of people with disabilities. If I may say so, continuing the analogy from the world of theatre used by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, it is much the same cast again this evening with, fortunately, one or two useful new performances which have added some freshness to the performance of the play.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I certainly do not read anything into the empty seats—or Benches—that we see around us. Other noble Lords with whom I have debated social security Bills at late hours will be well used to the relatively empty Benches in this Chamber at a relatively late time of night. At this point I shall move away from the analogies with the world of theatre because I should not like to be asked as a critic how long I think this performance should run.
As I said, some four months ago I made it clear that we in the Government did not think that this Bill, or rather its identical twin and predecessor, was necessary. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, I was, I hope, arguing exactly the same line as my right honourable friend the Minister of State, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that. It may just be something to do with my attitude or other such problems which gave her a different impression. Certainly the Government's view has not changed.
At that time I argued that that Bill was not necessary and was not necessarily the right way forward at that time. That is still our view. I made it clear then and I should like to make it clear now that we are very sympathetic to the aims of the Bill and the ideas underlying it. Where we differ is on the means by which to achieve some very desirable ends. I think that all of us would agree—and my words on that previous occasion were quoted—that people with disabilities still face some considerable barriers in their everyday lives, the severity of which can vary very greatly depending on circumstances or the degree of their disability.
It is not necessary again to quote what my right honourable friend said in another place—I am most grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, did not do so—when he spoke of the common ground between all of us in the wrong that is done to various individuals and the stupidity and lack of foresight

103
shown by those who wrongly (I stress the word "wrongly") discriminate against those disabled people who have, as my noble kinsman Lord Auckland put it, a wealth of talent and expertise to offer society. It is clearly unacceptable that people should be unjustifiably discriminated against on the basis of their disabilities.
There should be no doubt about the determination of Her Majesty's Government to continue to take appropriate action to reduce and remove such discrimination. What is in question is whether this Bill is the right vehicle. I should like to make it quite clear this evening that I do not intend to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time I should say just why we cannot lend our active support to it.
As I said, we do not deny that discrimination still exists but we believe that it is decreasing. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and all other speakers in this debate can put forward particular and horrid cases of unjustified discrimination. But attitudes are changing. I believe that they are changing relatively fast and I hope to be able to demonstrate that further.
The right reverend Prelate posed the question: should we follow the educational line or the line of legislation? I beg to dispute his conclusions. Our view is that education is the better line. But there are occasions for focused measures which are more likely to be effective in achieving positive results as well as improving awareness and positive attitudes towards people with disabilities. Therefore there will be occasions when legislation is correct, as already happens in the fields of community care, education, transport, telecommunications, social security and access to new and existing non-domestic buildings. I hope to touch on just a few of those areas in the few words I have to say. I am sure that all noble Lords will understand if I do not cover every possible facet of unjustified discrimination.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, challenged me to say, if we did not like the Bill, how we could amend it to improve it. I hope I made it quite clear that we do not see the Bill as the right way forward at this moment. Therefore we do not believe it right for the Government to come forward with amendments at the Committee stage. The noble Baroness will understand that. She has probably seen the letter that my right honourable friend the Minister of State wrote to her colleague Mr. Alf Morris in another place, setting out why he felt our objections to the Bill were somewhat more fundamental than those that could be resolved merely by means of amendments at Committee stage. Nevertheless, we are agreed on the need to do what we can to alleviate the position of people with disabilities. As I said, I should like to touch on one or two of the particular problems that have been raised in the course of the debate.
This is not directly relevant to the Bill but because it is relevant to my department I should like to say a word or two on the Government's record of expenditure by the Department of Social Security on the long-term sick and disabled. Total expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled in 1992–93 will be some £13.7 billion. That is a very large sum of money
104
indeed. It represents an increase in real terms of some £8.7 billion since 1978–79. That is a real terms increase of 170 per cent. Those figures illustrate our continued commitment and concern for people with disabilities. Again, I stress that we have seen the whole social security system for people with disabilities develop over the past few years, the most recent improvements being the introduction of the disability living allowance and disability working allowance, which came into force in April this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised questions—as did other noble Lords—about the Citizen's Charter. He said that disabled people should quite rightly not be excluded. They are not excluded from the Citizen's Charter. But one must look at the charters as a commitment by service providers to all consumers, setting standards of service or facilities against which performance can be measured. Therefore, by definition, they must encompass all groups—which includes people with disabilities—who must be seen as part of the greater whole. It would be against the philosophy of the charter initiative to introduce a provision which crosses a range of service providers and concentrates on the needs of a particular section of the community.
Perhaps I may make a few remarks about provisions within the employment field. To help disabled people find work, many of the Employment Department's mainstream services for unemployed clients have relaxed entry criteria for disabled people. Indeed, unemployed disabled people are given particular priority on five of the main employment and training schemes: Employment Training, the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, Employment Action, Jobclubs and the Job Interview Guarantee. In addition, last year over 100,000 people with disabilities were helped by the Employment Service's specialist disability schemes and services such as assessment, rehabilitation, special help schemes and the sheltered employment programme as well as the specialist job placing services. Expenditure on those specialist schemes and services last year was about £160 million and that does not include expenditure on the many disabled people helped through the mainstream employment and training programmes.
I turn now to the question of the quota raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. As I stated on a previous occasion, we acknowledge that the quota is not working. I understand that colleagues in the Department of Employment who are seriously considering the future of the quota system have decided at present to make no changes but will keep the position under review. Certainly we shall bear in mind the arguments of the noble Lord and the experience of the American legislation. With regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act, to which reference has been made by a number of noble Lords, it is early days to see how all the provisions in that Act will work. Many of them have not yet come into effect. We shall keep a close eye on developments and take note of any lessons that can be learned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke about disincentives for employers to employ disabled people. Obviously we are aware that employers could be

105
concerned about difficulties which may arise if they employ a disabled person. That is one of the many reasons for the wide-ranging advice and practical help that is available for employers and for individual disabled people. The job introduction scheme provides a grant to employers towards the cost of employing certain disabled people for a trial period, usually of about six weeks. Should a disability arise in employment, or worsen, there is considerable help for employers to assess a person's new capabilities, to rehabilitate him if necessary and to provide advice or equipment or adaptations to premises. We recognise that it may be necessary for an employer to dismiss an employee. Sadly, that must always be so if an employee can no longer do the job that he is asked to do. However, efforts have been made to find alternative jobs or to make other arrangements. If an employer acts fairly and reasonably he should not be subject to the threat of legal action. If the noble Baroness wishes to know more about the job introduction scheme, I shall be more than happy to write to her with further details.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, gave some examples of employers insisting on unnecessary qualifications for a job. Again, we fully agree that employers should not impose unnecessary restrictions on the kind of people they interview or employ. We wish continually to promote a sense of fairness, of treating people as individuals. We believe that increasing numbers of employers are recognising the importance of that for them and for the individual.
In the previous debate in February there was active criticism of the building known as Richmond House. It now houses the ministerial teams for the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. I accept that the criticisms were valid: a building built by the Government—although at the time not intended for those departments (they were then one department)—as recently as 1985 should not have been built without access for disabled people. I refer hack to that because it was built in 1985, only seven years ago. I had the privilege of visiting Quarry House in Leeds only last week. It is the new headquarters building for the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security and the management executive of the National Health Service. It is a large office building comprising office space for about 2,000 people. Only seven years ago the Government—who should be at the forefront of such matters—were making such mistakes in the building of Richmond House. Admittedly those problems have been ironed out and various noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will know that access is available to Richmond House. Nevertheless, those mistakes should not have been made at the time. However, only seven years on I hope I can give the guarantee that there are no such problems with Quarry House.
Obviously, Quarry House is still a building site, but I have been given assurances that we are requiring more than the present building regulations stipulate in order to make the building available and—to use an expression on which I am not keen—"user friendly"
106
for those with disabilities. I cite that case only in order to show that attitudes have changed during the past 15 years.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble kinsman Lord Auckland, that access is of vital importance to disabled people, as is the question of transport. However, bearing in mind the time I would rather not deal with the issue of transport, it being a matter with which I dealt at length on a previous occasion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that considerable improvements have been made in the provision of transport. I accept that there is scope for more progress, which we hope to see.
Since our last debate on the subject, the revised Part M of the Building Regulations 1991 has come into effect. The regulations greatly extend the scope of the earlier 1985 regulations. In particular, they have been extended to apply to all floors of new non-domestic buildings, including those subject to major reconstruction, and to all floors of most extensions to existing buildings. Equally important is the fact that the new requirements now address some of the needs of people with hearing and sight impairments. I understand that colleagues in the Department of the Environment are considering how those requirements can be extended even further. Research is under way to see what measures might best be applied when existing non-domestic buildings are being altered.
Obviously, I understand the frustration which many disabled people feel when they cannot gain access to buildings which often were constructed many years ago. The Palace of Westminster is a good example. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, gave a statistic which I cannot challenge or query and which for the moment I am therefore prepared to accept; that only 12 per cent. of polling stations were accessible to disabled people. Changes that we have made to postal voting go a considerable way towards ensuring that everyone can exercise their right to vote. However, I accept that that will not always be a totally satisfactory way of proceeding because many disabled people would like to cast their vote in principle. That is not a matter that worries Members of this House because on many occasions we are denied a vote.
There will always be problems with old buildings. It will be difficult to make all the necessary alterations in order to widen access, install lifts and so forth. However, I hope that by a policy of good practice rather than by legislation people will, where possible, improve access. It would not be right retrospectively to insist that owners and occupiers of buildings must make adjustments which might be over costly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke of some of the bad practices currently in use and told the horrific story of an inaccessible bell at a petrol station. I understand that there is a British Standard code of practice on the design of buildings and I hope that such criteria will be taken into account. As a result of the introduction of Part M in the building regulations such incidents should not happen in future.
Obviously in the time available I have been able to touch on only a few of the developments which introduce a wide range of improvements for disabled people. The Government believe that the best way

107
forward is to build on such achievements and continue to work to improve awareness and appreciation of the needs of disabled people and to continue to take legislative action where appropriate. We do not believe that the establishment of a disablement commission along the lines proposed by the Bill with wide-ranging powers is the right way forward. That might create considerable administrative and practical difficulties, not least as regards the duplication and overlap with the wide range of existing statutory advisory and enforcement organisations.
An additional tier in the form of a disablement commission may result in considerable confusion for everyone, not least for disabled people themselves.
The issues we have debated this evening rightly raise strong feelings. In this House we have a long and enviable record of examining draft legislation to look not only at what it seeks to achieve but also the ways in which it seeks to achieve it. I hope that I have made clear that we do not have reservations about the underlying aims of the Bill. The Government wish to see the elimination of unjustified discrimination on the grounds of disability. However, we do not believe that the Bill before us is the best way to achieve that elimination and it is with considerable regret that we cannot support the Bill. However, we do not seek to oppose its Second Reading.
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am grateful to all nine noble Lords who have spoken so robustly in favour of the Bill. I regret that the Government still believe that the Bill is unnecessary and that they cannot give it active support.
However, I am glad that they will not oppose the Second Reading, as that will give us an opportunity for further discussion. I hope that in due course we may be able to convince the Government, as apparently all the organisations concerned with disabled people have been convinced, that legislation in this sphere is necessary.
We have had some excellent contributions to the debate. It is not quite the same cast as on the previous occasion. For example, we are extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is with us this evening. She spoke very movingly about her own experience. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate, whom we are also extremely glad to have with us because it is good to have Members of the episcopate Benches with us on these occasions, will make sure that in his diocese ramps will be provided for all occasions, and not just for funerals.
I was grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; for his contribution. He spoke of my perseverance; but I believe we should pay tribute to and thank him for his perseverance. As he said, his first. Private Member's Bill was in 1968—a long time ago.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and for her kind words. The reason that I am new in the cast this time is that I was in hospital for many weeks after an operation in December, followed by two others, connected with my disablement dating back to 1945. Therefore, I was unable to be present for the debate.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord's absence on the previous occasion was unavoidable. Indeed, the noble Lord and I spoke about that beforehand. Nevertheless, we are extremely glad to have the noble Lord here this evening. Indeed, as I say, we pay tribute to his perseverance in the furtherance of this cause.
I am sorry that the Government have stuck to their previous attitude. It is rather interesting that the Minister should say that there is common ground; that the aims and objectives are the same, and that he completely agrees that there should be no unjustifiable discrimination. He accepts that it still exists and he believes that it should be ended. Yet the Government will not take the necessary step to outlaw it. In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made the point that the Bill would make unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people illegal. The thrust of what most of the other speakers said underlined the fact that unless we have legislation, that discrimination will continue.
I was not sure why the Minister was so unsympathetic to the idea of a commission. He said that it would be confusing and conflict with the other measures taking place. Two commissions presently exist for the purpose of assisting those who are discriminated against in the fields of sex and race. There is other legislation in those fields but the Commissions do not cut across and interfere. They take aboard the advantages that other legislation may provide and so too would a commission for disablement.
Again perhaps I can refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. He said that the Bill deals with life in its entirety and all its complexities. Yet the Minister in his response was once again dealing with the issues individually as though it was not a comprehensive barrier that faced disabled people.
That is the view of the Government at the moment. So be it. I hope that eventually we shall be able to change their mind, and it may be that there will have to be further attempts in another place to do that. In the meantime, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading in order to enable us to proceed to further stages. I hope we can improve the Bill and are able to send it to the other place for their support, and also for government support at that stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: FINES
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS: FINES
  BLAKENHURST PRISON: OPERATION SPECIFICATION
  BLAKENHURST PRISON: OPERATION SPECIFICATION
  POLISH NATIONALS: IMMIGRATION RULES
  POLISH NATIONALS: IMMIGRATION RULES
  RECONVICTIONS WITHIN TWO YEARS
  RECONVICTIONS WITHIN TWO YEARS
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: ACCOUNTS
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: ACCOUNTS
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: PUBLIC FUNDING
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: PUBLIC FUNDING
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: STAFF STATISTICS
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: STAFF STATISTICS
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: FLOORSPACE AND VISITOR STATISTICS
  NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM: FLOORSPACE AND VISITOR STATISTICS
  GREENHAM COMMON: US FORCES' RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT
  GREENHAM COMMON: US FORCES' RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT
  DEFENCE EQUIPMENT SALES TO BALTIC STATES
  DEFENCE EQUIPMENT SALES TO BALTIC STATES
  LITHUANIA: DISCUSSIONS WITH MoD
  LITHUANIA: DISCUSSIONS WITH MoD