Sitting of 17 June 1992

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

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Earth Summit
    Dr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the role played by the Government at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): I refer the hon. Members to the full statement made on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The successful outcome of the conference, and the constructive role played by the United Kingdom in securing that outcome have been widely welcomed.
    Dr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that many scientists take the view that the United Nations convention on climate change and the United Kingdom and European Community commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 are insufficient to prevent serious global warming? Does the Secretary of State agree with those scientists? If so, will the Government use their presidency of the EC to secure tighter commitments in that area?
    Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that some scientists take the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He is right to identify the considerable scientific uncertainty that exists in that regard. That is why we place great emphasis on the importance of keeping our commitments under review. They will, indeed, be reviewed and if there is greater scientific unanimity either way, or greater technological information that we can take into account, we shall not hesitate to amend and revise them in the light of that review.
    Mr. Bayley: I welcomed the announcement made by the Prime Minister before he went to Rio that he would recycle empty bottles from Downing street by taking them to a bottle bank. Doubtless that will make a significant contribution to the energy-saving commitments given by the Government in Rio. But will the Secretary of State reverse his advice to local authorities that he will give no more supplementary credit approvals for kerbside collections so that local authorities can do the same as the Prime Minister and encourage more people to save glass?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman examines the details, he will find that local authorities have adequate resources to fulfil their environmental obligations, and the best local authorities are discharging those obligations very effectively.
    Mr. David Nicholson: The attitude of the United States Administration to the Rio conference is to be regretted, but will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the United Kingdom Government played a part in bringing the United States Administration forward in that respect? In particular, what developments took place at Rio with regard to safeguarding tropical rain forests?
    Mr. Howard: We certainly played a part in reaching a position that enabled the United States to sign the climate change convention. As the United States is responsible for 25 per cent. of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, it was essential that it signed up to that treaty. The United States took a different view about the biodiversity treaty, but it has agreed to take part in the processes under that treaty. Nevertheless, I hope that it will be possible for the United States to sign up to that convention in due course. After very protracted negotiations we were able to reach an agreement on forests—not a convention as we had hoped, but an agreement that holds open the possibility of moving towards a convention. We shall vigorously pursue the possibilities of reviewing the agreement in that way.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that Zaire has two thirds of the world's tropical rain forests. How will any arrangements secure the future of those forests, bearing in mind the pressure on that poor country to use its resources to improve its position and that of its people?
    Mr. Howard: I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of the agreement, which sets out in full provisions that will enable progress to be made in Zaire and in other countries and encourage countries to engage in the proper management of their forests, while recognising that it would be foolish to suggest that not a single tree should be cut down and that such countries will not wish to make use of those resources. It is important that we develop a way in which sustainable use can be made of those resources, and that is the objective of the forestry agreement.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Whatever reservations there may be about the Rio summit, may I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on the signing of the two conventions on biodiversity and climate change? In order to keep up the momentum, will he give an assurance that, during Britain's European presidency—which falls to us from 1 July—we will immediately set about negotiation of the protocols to the conventions and take the lead in ensuring that they are both ratified quickly, and will now sign a like-minded countries' declaration on climate change?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can go one better than he suggests. In his statement to the House on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would write to the other countries in the European Community and to the other G7 countries proposing a follow-up to the conventions that were signed at Rio. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government in general will continue to take a lead in these matters.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State say clearly what the Prime Minister failed to say on Monday—that the Government will accept the target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 as a clear commitment with no strings attached? Will he acknowledge that if the Government had accepted that target—for which we have been arguing for many years—earlier, more progress could have been made in combating global warming and indeed in strengthening the hand of the British Government in their negotiations?
    Mr. Howard: No. I entirely reject the hon. Lady's suggestion. I do not think that there is any foundation for it at all. When we revised our commitment just a few weeks ago and committed ourselves to bringing down emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, we made it clear that we would do that if other countries took similar action. It is important to appreciate that this is a global problem which requires a global response. It is as important to secure multilateral, rather then unilateral, action in this matter as it was in respect of disarmament, when the stand taken by Her Majesty's Government proved to be effective, in contrast to the stand urged upon us by the Opposition.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he proposes to introduce to stimulate the provision of affordable housing for local people in rural areas.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): We have taken a series of measures since 1988 to boost supply of low-cost housing in rural areas to enable local people to stay in the areas where they have grown up. We have substantially increased public resources, through the Housing Corporation, for new investment by housing associations. In addition, the Housing Corporation and local authority special rural programmes should together provide around 3,400 units this year. New planning guidance permits development of low-cost housing for local needs on small sites not otherwise designated for housing.
    Mr. Ancram: I welcome the current initiatives, but does my hon. Friend accept that the continuing lack of affordable housing in a constituency such as mine severely restricts the choice in housing that the Government are seeking to promote? Will he look for new ways of bringing together the public and private sectors, including housing associations, housing trusts, building societies and local councils, to promote joint schemes that can provide local housing for local people at rents and prices that local people can afford?
    Sir George Young: I recognise the pressures in my hon. Friend's constituency. He brings to the problems his
    882
    experience as a former Housing Minister in Scotland, where he pioneered a number of innovative housing measures. On the subject of his own constituency, he will know that, last year, we were able to approve two schemes at Sillington lane, Poushot and at Nether street in Bromham and, this year, an additional scheme at East Grafton. My hon. Friend is right. If real progress is to be made, the co-operation of landowners, housing associations, planners and housing committees, as well as the private sector, will be needed. I am determined to make further progress in that direction.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that housing provision in rural areas might be improved if absentee landlords such as the Marquess of Lothian and the Earl of Ancram let out some of their huge country mansions to homeless people?
    Sir George Young: My responsibilities stop at the border. The Scottish dimension of politics continues to fox me, so I shall not enter into any local Scottish debates in the Chamber this afternoon.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend recall that just before the last general election the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a sensible guidance circular to authorities which pointed out that where large settlements or village developments were to take place it was essential to take into consideration the wishes of the people in the locality? Can he confirm that under the new regime that will be rigorously applied?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend refers to planning policy guidance note No. 3, which was issued shortly before the election. It indeed states the Government's policy on new settlements and villages. I reaffirm that where a local authority proposes such developments it must take account of local opinion and ensure that any proposal is with the grain rather than against it.
    Mr. Soley: Is not it a matter of some shame that, 13 years after the Government embarked on their absurd housing policy, Government-appointed bodies as well as Conservative local authorities in rural areas condemn them for failing to meet the need for affordable housing? Is not it a fact that in Devizes, the constituency of the hon. Gentleman who asked the question, many Government-owned houses have been lying empty for many years? Why does not the Minister transfer those houses to local authorities and housing associations? Why does he not recognise the Government's failure to deliver affordable properties for rent or purchase, especially in the rural villages of England and around London where there is the problem of the commuter belt? Why does he not use resources, especially from capital receipts from the sale of council houses, which are still unused?
    Sir George Young: I do not accept the analysis to which we have just listened. There are 2 million more homes than there were in 1979. There are more homes per 1,000 population than in 1979. The Housing Corporation programme is increasing dramatically. Its output this year is some 54,000 homes—about three times the level of two or three years ago.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that there are fresh initiatives on empty MOD stock, including those in the Conservative party manifesto. We are determined to put to good use any surplus stock that the MOD has. However,

    883
    the MOD is bringing back a substantial number of troops from Germany and other places. Much of the accommodation that is now empty may be needed for those families.

    Contracting-out
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the prospects for contracting out the functions of his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): Yes. The Department undertook a full examination in 1990 of the prospects for market-testing functions, leading to possible contracting-out. Those prospects have been reviewed by officials, with private-sector assistance, in developing a programme for market-testing in response to the "Competing For Quality" White Paper, and will be continually reassessed.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that it would be a great feather in the cap of the Secretary of State for the Environment if, instead of looking for new premises elsewhere in London or anywhere else, he set about winding up the whole of his Department? That would be a wonderful example to Whitehall. As housing is now well on the way to returning to the private sector, as the new town corporation is already being wound up, water is already in private hands, and as the countryside would be better looked after by the National Trust or the Country Gentlemen's Association, there is little excuse for carting the enormous Department of the Environment all the way down the river to Canary Wharf.
    Mr. Baldry: I know that we are having a particularly tough public spending round this year, but I cannot believe that the Treasury is suborning the likes of my hon. Friend to propose the wholesale closure of Departments. So I can only presume that her question was a freelance bid for a couple of lines in the Matthew Parris column.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister must understand that his hon. Friend has a serious point. Agencies have proliferated, work has been shed and ministerial workloads reduced —at what point will Ministers share the experience of redundancy, which is affecting the rest of the country?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed that the Department has one Minister fewer than it did before the general election, dealing with the same effective workload.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): The Government have recently announced proposals for tendering housing management functions and we are considering the responses to the consultation paper "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services". My only sadness is that I do not have the pleasure of responding to what I suspect was an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) to wind me up.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Whereas competitive tendering is bringing its successes, will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the non-competitive practices still employed by some Labour-controlled local authorities, who are seeking to preserve themselves in overstaffed departments, rather than getting on with the job of repairing roads, mending schools and cleaning the streets effectively and efficiently, which is what local residents want?
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall consult about the fairness of the terms of the local authority tendering process because we are determined that tendering should be properly conducted in the interests of the charge payer and the council tax payer next year. We wish to encourage high-quality services, properly managed, delivered at an economic price and that is the purpose of having a level playing field. As I said originally, we shall also consider extensions where we think that that makes sense.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Does the Minister still hold the view that compulsory competitive tendering guarantees quality of service and, if so, how does he justify it? Will he ensure that all future contracting documents under the compulsory competitive tendering system include a quality of service paragraph? Will that apply to contracts for refuse collection, catering, school cleaning, recreation facilities and so on?
    Mr. Redwood: It is good practice to include quality clauses. I am pleased that independent research has not shown any deterioration in quality as a result of competitive tendering—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes, the evidence is there. When properly conducted it could improve quality, because it gives people management control over quality and a right of redress if things go wrong. We want quality services at a sensible price, which is what competitive tendering can deliver.

    Housing, South-West
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the amount of additional housing that will be required in (a) Devon and (b) the south-west by the year 2010.
    Mr. Baldry: None at the present. We expect to publish, next year, regional planning guidance which will set out the broad scale and distribution of housing provision to be made in development plans in the south-west for a 15-year period.
    Mr. Steen: The Earth summit highlighted the problem of over-population and its effect on the environment, and that problem exists in Devon, where the population has increased more and more, not because of an absence of family planning, but simply because successive structure plans have allowed too much housing there. Will the Minister confirm that, in the new Devon structure plan, which is under review, he will not impose more houses on the area just because his officials want him to do so but will do what the local district councils want? Will he also ensure that, if there are any new housing developments, it is the infrastructure that counts and that too many houses are not built, disregarding—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask his question and not make statements.
    Mr. Baldry: Housing provision for Devon from 1989 to 2001 was discussed, as my hon. Friend knows, at an examination in public held earlier this year. I shall carefully consider the report of the panel conducting the examination in public and all representations and objections, including my hon. Friend's, before making a decision on the amount of housing provision for Devon until 2001.

    Residential Staff
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take account of the costs of implementing the recommendations of the Howe inquiry into residential staff in relation to pay, training and development, in the revenue support grant settlement for local authorities in 1993–94.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The cost of those new burdens, which the Government accept local authorities necessarily face, including any costs that may arise from the recommendations of the Howe inquiry, will be taken into account when decisions are taken on the revenue support grant settlement for 1993–94.
    Mrs. Prentice: I should like to be able to welcome that statement, but, unfortunately, the Minister was unable to say whether those resources will be fully met. Does he agree with me and most other people who are concerned about residential care—whether of children, the mentally disabled or the elderly—that those residents must be looked after with the highest quality of care and that that can be given only by highly motivated and properly trained professionals? Does he not also recognise that it is time that the Government put their money where their mouth is and instead of just talking about community care, gave local councils the cash to provide it?
    Mr. Squire: I note what the hon. Lady says. She is probably aware that such detailed matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, I can tell her that the settlement will reflect both the need for local authority spending and, importantly, what council tax payers and the country as a whole can afford.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Under-Secretary tell us why the provisional grant settlement has been deferred from July until the autumn? When will the community as a whole be told how much it will receive in grants and allocations from the Department of Social Security so that it can plan ahead? That information is necessary to make community care a reality and to allow authorities to do the essential job of putting the ground work in place and so ensure that the most vulnerable in society do not suffer because of the row between his Department, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury about how much money should be made available.
    Mr. Squire: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments. He knows that it is in the general interests of local government and central Government that next year services, not least the provision of care in the community to which reference has been made, and the introduction of the new tax should go through as smoothly as possible.
    886
    The Government are determined that that will be so and that is why we have announced that the decision will be made in the autumn.

    Water Legislation
    Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce provisions revising the legislation governing the water industry.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): The enhanced powers of the Director General of Water Services to monitor performance by water companies and to foster competition, will be brought into effect on 1 July. New powers for the director general to decide various types of dispute between customers and companies will be brought into effect on 1 September.
    Dr. Fox: The Minister's response will be extremely welcome in my constituency of Woodspring and throughout Bristol. Is my hon. Friend aware that the proportion of the water industry's profits that now goes to shareholders is lower than the amount of interest that was returned to the Government when the industry was in public hands? The privatisation of water has been vindicated on the ground not only of environmental stewardship, but of pure economics.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Moreover, as we said in yesterday's debate, the water companies are investing twice as much in the infrastructure as they have made in profits. That is a pretty good record, which is not matched by many other companies in this country.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister admit that it is a great pity that the Government did not take the opportunity presented by the recent legislation, which introduces the powers to which he referred, to prevent water companies from introducing compulsory metering? In virtually all cases where meters are installed, those customers, who have no choice about metering, have found that their bills have shot up well above those that are based on the rateable value of customers' houses. If he admits that mistake, we will give him every assistance in passing a quick Bill to prevent compulsory water metering.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misses the point, as did his hon. Friends yesterday. The fact is that the water companies are providing a service to the public that has to be paid for somehow. We have three powerful watchdogs—the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services and the drinking water inspectorate—which act as regulators to the industry. As we have set up those regulators, it is best to let them get on with their job and not, as politicians, try to interfere with their decisions.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave anxiety in the south-west about the water bills that have been sent out by South West Water? Has he any proposals, following the controlled experiment on the Isle of Wight, to recommend or introduce widespread water metering, at least to make certain that high consumers of water pay for the service? The burden should not be transferred to single pensioners living alone who are receiving excessive bills based on water rates.
    Mr. Maclean: There has had to be tremendous investment in the infrastructure in the south-west to comply with EC directives and improve the quality of bathing waters around the coast. That has cost a considerable amount, which has had to be paid for by consumers in the area. However, we intend shortly to issue a consultation paper on all aspects of water conservation and how it may be used, distributed and stored. Obviously, water metering will be one of the options canvassed in that consultation paper.

    Toxic Emissions, Merseyside
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to reduce the risks of toxic emissions and spillages at Shell and ICI plants at Merseyside.
    Mr. Maclean: When part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is fully implemented, all the plant operated by Shell and ICI on Merseyside will have to comply with the requirements of the Act, and this will represent a significant improvement in the regulatory control of all emissions.
    Mr. Loyden: The Minister will be aware of the appalling record of both those companies in relation to pollution through spillages and emissions. One of the companies has been fined six times and the other five times. Whatever the Government feel about the regulatory bodies, it appears that they are having no effect on those companies' disregard for pollution in that area. Is the Minister aware that there are many dangerous practices in some of their plants, about which the community is very concerned? As I have requested previously, will he make the reports of the Health and Safety Executive available in the Library so that we can see what its findings were?
    Mr. Maclean: There have been some incidents at the Shell and ICI plants at Runcorn, but, in all fairness, the hon. Gentleman should point out the huge size of the plants and the complicated processes that take place there. The new regulatory regime which has come into force in this country, which is operated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—integrated pollution control—is revolutionary. It is the first of its kind in Europe and the HMIP is looking into all aspects of the processes operated on Merseyside. They will all come under integrated pollution control. The hon. Gentleman will see that, in time, it will have considerable benefits for all people on Merseyside.

    Water Companies (Investment)
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account the Office of Water Services takes in its regulation activities of the amount of investment by water companies.
    Mr. Maclean: As the water industry is engaged in a massive capital investment programme estimated to cost £28 billion, the Director General of Water Services, as the independent regulator, has a close interest in ensuring that the investment is carried out on time and in an efficient way.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Once again, it underlines the sheer volume of that
    888
    investment, which amounts to some £960 per household in the years up to 1996. Does he not think, however, that as most of that investment is directed at water quality, it would be appropriate for the Director General of Water Services to consider whether more should be directed at water efficiency and, specifically, at encouraging investment in metering on a voluntary basis in many parts of the country?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the huge investment being made in the water industry at present. As a rough rule of thumb, it is £5,000 for every minute. My prime concern is that water companies should maintain adequate supplies to consumers while properly managing water resources efficiently and not damaging the environment. All of us could do more to conserve water, and that is why I shall shortly issue the consultation paper, which will canvass views on water conservation, management and use. Metering will be one of the options considered.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister address the issue of compound interest involved in the formula, RPI plus K, in which over and above inflation there is an increase of up to 6.5 per cent. per annum of compound interest in the charge made? Surely that should be levelled out and, although there may be justification for retaining the RPI element, surely K must be brought to an end.
    Mr. Maclean: That is a matter for Ian Byatt, the director general of Ofwat. He has recently issued a consultation paper, and he will consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman when undertaking a review of K in the next few years.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend will be aware that, notwithstanding the enormous investment in water supply, there will be a great shortage of water for the foreseeable future in some parts of the country. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need for a national water grid as, I am told, the national water supply is perfectly adequate for our overall needs?
    Mr. Maclean: The water companies have a prime duty to ensure that consumers are supplied with adequate amounts of healthy, wholesome water. In the past few years, those companies have developed river transfer schemes and the elements of a grid. However, I caution my hon. Friend when he suggests that we should have a national grid pumping thousands of millions of gallons of water around the country. We should be wary of doing that on the basis of the huge amount of energy that it would consume. My hon. Friend should not jump to the conclusion that all parts of the country have more than adequate water supplies. One of the rivers that is under threat and is very low is in the lake district; it supplies Lake Ullswater, which supplies Haweswater, which supplies Manchester.

    Rented Housing
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to make additional financial resources available for the provision of affordable housing to rent.
    Sir George Young: We are taking steps to increase supply of low-cost rented housing where it is needed. The

    889
    Housing Corporation's capital programme for new development by housing associations will rise to more than £2 billion by 1993–94 from £1 billion for 1990–91. Together with associations' use of private investment on a growing scale, that will increase their output financed through the Housing Corporation to more than 51,000 units a year by 1993–94 from 16,900 units in 1990–91. Deregulation of the private rented sector in 1989 has also led to a welcome increase in private letting.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that, despite what he says, there is a major shortage of affordable housing for rent and a number of housing problems? Will he tell his Treasury colleagues that now is the time to allow local authorities to use their capital receipts to build houses to rent, which would help to solve some of the housing problems, help the industry and also help to start the economy?
    Sir George Young: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that if one were to allow local authorities to spend their own capital receipts, that would directly reduce the amount of money that my Department could lend to other authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Otherwise, the net total of public expenditure would increase. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an argument for increasing public expenditure on housing, he can do so. But simply allowing local authorities to spend their own capital receipts would reduce the funds available to local authorities on the basis of need. We can make much better progress with the resources that we have. There are 80,000 empty local authority homes; 100,000 flats over shops that we are progressively bringing back into use; and we have fresh initiatives to bring back into use 600,000 empty properties in the private sector. As the Audit Commission recently said, we can do far more to help to meet people's housing needs by making better use of the available resources.
    Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a matter of financial resources? Many local authorities squirrel away large areas of land and wait for money to become available. They will not put them to auction and will not allow anyone else to build low-cost housing for rent. In addition, some local authorities firmly resist allowing the private sector or housing associations entry into the rented market. What can we do to make them release land?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. If he looks at the Audit Commission report published recently, he will see that one recommendation is, indeed, that local authorities should make land available to housing associations. It is inexcusable that local authorities that own land zoned for residential accommodation should sit on it when housing associations can develop it and give the local authority the necessary nominations.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Minister admit that the Government's rules on the use of capital receipts by local authorities are nonsense? Is he not aware of the thousands of young people who are homeless, many of whom sleep on the streets of our native cities? Is he not aware of the tens of thousands of young people who are living at home with their parents waiting for a home that does not exist? Is the message to them from his Government that the Government have no heart and offer them no hope?
    Sir George Young: I outlined in my initial reply the increased resources that are being made available to the Housing Corporation precisely to meet the needs that the hon. Gentleman has identified. If the Labour party wants us to return to the old regime of capital receipts, that would severely damage authorities in the inner cities that benefit from the new regime. Under the old regime, the receipts tended to accrue in areas that did not have the greatest housing need. Those areas with greatest need did not have the right-to-buy receipts. The advantage of the new regime is that it recycles those receipts on the basis of need. I should be astounded if the Labour party wanted to overturn that policy.
    Mrs. Peacock: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement of increased funding for the Housing Corporation for 1992–93. Will he assure the House that he will take steps so that the north of England receives an equal share of that money and it is not all spent in the south?
    Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Recently I met a delegation from the regional equity group and we listened to representations. Because of the increased resources available to the Housing Corporation, all regions are benefiting from an increased allocation.

    Charge Capping, Cheltenham
    Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the proposed community charge capping of Cheltenham borough council.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Cheltenham has issued a formal challenge to the cap that my right hon. and learned Friend proposed for it on 14 May. It has proposed an alternative cap, set at the level of its original budget.
    Mr. Jones: I urge the Minister to look closely at the document that Cheltenham council produced. Will he explain to the House how charge capping increases local accountability when it takes away from elected councillors the ability to put into practice the programme on which they were elected and denies the people the high-quality, well-managed services for which they voted?
    Mr. Squire: My colleagues and I will certainly think seriously about all the representations made to us by Cheltenham and other authorities before we come to our conclusions. The hon. Gentleman's wider point must be seen against the background of an overwhelming proportion of local authorities that brought in budgets at or below their ceilings. I congratulate them on that. The Government, unlike the Opposition, believe that we have a responsibility to protect charge payers from high-spending authorities and we continue to carry out that responsibility.

    Estate Action
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the estate action programme.
    Sir George Young: The estate action programme now makes a major contribution to tackling the problems of run-down local authority estates. Resources have

    891
    increased from £268 million last year to £364 million this year, and I shall shortly be inviting local authorities to submit proposals for new schemes to begin in 1993–94.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on a scheme that has contrived to spend £640 million in the seven years since it was first introduced on 700 schemes spread over 140 local authority areas, and of which he could lay claim to be the progenitor? Will he look at the publicity for the scheme to ensure that it is brought to the attention of other newer local authorities that may have lesser problems than those of the recipients of money so far? At the same time. will he look at the criteria by which schemes are judged, so that those authorities may also lay claim to some of the resources that he plans to make available?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is indeed the case that more than 250,000 homes have been improved under estate action, which has helped to transform the lives of people living on some of our most difficult estates. As I said, I shall shortly be inviting local authorities to bid for the schemes for next year, and I will ensure that information about the estate action programme is widely disseminated.
    If there are proposals to change the rules to make better use of the money, I shall be happy to discuss them with local authorities.
    Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the continued development of the estate action programme, but since, as the Minister will be aware, a large part of that programme involves tenant participation, how far has his Department's consideration of tenant participation strategy got and when will the report be published? Clearly, one has a bearing on the other.
    Sir George Young: We have made some investment in organisations such as the tenant participation advisory service. The proposals that we published last week on competitive tendering for housing management gave tenants for the first time the right to manage, rather than relying on the discretion of a local authority. We are determined to harness tenants associations' energy and enthusiasm as we develop our housing policy. We are keen to see more estate management boards, tenant management organisations and co-operatives taking over responsibility for their estates. That is a theme about which we shall hear a lot during the next four or five years.

    Local Government Review
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will ensure that full weight is given to local opinion in the forthcoming review of the structure of local government.
    Mr. Redwood: Yes. That is most important. Local opinion will be crucial in the local government commission's work programme. I have asked the commission to ensure that there are good arrangements for Members of Parliament to be able to make representations to it on those crucial matters.
    Mr. Moss: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a priority of the local government review is to preserve community identity? In the interests of testing real local opinion, does he agree that in rural areas such as Cambridgeshire it
    892
    would make sense to start at grass roots, at local parish council level, and work upwards, rather than have something imposed from the county council downwards?
    Mr. Redwood: It was clear in the legislation passed last Session that the definition of natural communities was an important task of the commission. That is one of the two guiding principles in making recommendations on a new structure. Parish councils should be prepared to have discussions with county and district councils, which will undoubtedly put proposals to the commission to see how the powers under existing legislation can best be used to ensure that strong parish councils wishing to undertake a role in the new structure can do so.
    Mr. Barnes: Why does the local government boundary commissioner have to consult the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration when drawing up proposals? Is not that wide open to abuse? For example, Derbyshire is in the first tranche to be investigated under local government, but it is likely to be at the back end when it comes to parliamentary seats. That means that, because of the link between the two, the parliamentary seats will shape the local government provision, rather than the usual practice of local government shaping parliamentary seats.
    Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with all the implications behind the hon. Gentleman's question. The purpose of the local government review is to find suitable boundaries and proposals for councils and there can be interaction only if county boundaries are to be changed. All the relevant considerations will be taken into account by the new commission as it goes about its work.
    Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is much local concern about reorganisation and that the principal concern is that there should not simply be a replication of existing councils, with either a small county council or a large, super-district council? Will the Government ensure that the review's function is such that we have an enabling council and that a new civic pride is engendered not only in the ownership of services but in the quality of services?
    Mr. Redwood: A sense of belonging and of happiness with the proposals in the local community is important, as I have already said in answer to previous questions. The style and method of operating particular councils will be reviewed by the commission in the light of proposals from the councils in the area and in the light of its thoughts about any other options that should be considered. My hon. Friend will have a full chance to influence the commission, as will other hon. Members, when it reaches their areas.

    Eco-labelling
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the introduction of eco-labels—green labels.
    Mr. Maclean: The United Kingdom has strongly supported the development of the European eco-labelling scheme, so I am delighted that the EC regulation is now in place and that arrangements are progressing for launching

    893
    the scheme towards the end of the year. We shall continue to press the Commission and the other member states to ensure that this timetable is met.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm his green credentials by telling us which washing-up liquid he uses? Will he also confirm that some of the other EC states are still dragging their feet in regard to eco-labelling, and that it would have been far better for this country to go ahead on its own?
    Mr. Maclean: I shall come clean in a moment.
    The hon. Gentleman fails to grasp the point that if we are to make any real environmental progress, we must do so in concert with other nations. We have a free trading area in Europe, where goods and products are moved around the Community. Without a Europewide ecolabelling scheme—which is now within our grasp—that arrangement would not be as effective as it should be.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I believe in being a liberated husband and sharing the household duties; unfortunately, however, washing up is not the duty that has been allocated to me.

    Earth Summit
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the fiscal and industrial consequences for the United Kingdom of decisions reached at the Rio de Janeiro conference.
    Mr. Howard: The impetus for sustainable development resulting from the Earth summit will have significant consequences in many areas of our national life. The Government are committed to reporting regularly on the progress that we make in following up the summit's conclusions.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of that answer, and the attitude of, for example, the United States Government, does the Secretary of State accept that short-term gain might mean long-term ruin—not only for developed countries but, especially, for developing countries?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is right. That lies at the heart of the whole concept of sustainable development, and I welcome his support for the steps that we have taken.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any proposed carbon tax ought to be introduced world wide, rather than imposed on countries such as ours in isolation?
    Mr. Howard: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in such matters, will be much comforted to learn that the European Commission's proposals for a carbon tax include an element of conditionality. His concern is reflected in them.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise standard spending assessments to make them a realistic reflection of local needs.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the planned changes to the standard spending assessment calculation for 1993–94.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Standard spending assessments are a realistic reflection of local needs. Discussions with the local authority associations about a few possible changes for 1993–94 began in February. Data from the 1991 census will be incorporated into the assessments as soon as possible, but for most items this will probably be for 1994–95.
    Mr. Mitchell: The Minister would need the wisdom of Solomon to devise a national system of assessment that fitted all the circumstances even approximately. Does he concede, however, that the SSAs do a particular injustice to such places as Grimsby? First, they make no allowance for unemployment; secondly, they do make allowance for ethnic communities, which do not exist in Grimsby; thirdly, they make allowance for visiting nights, but unfortunately not many tourists come to Grimsby; and, fourthly, the method of assessing debt repayment has been a particular source of grievance. The difference between the Department's calculation and the sum that Grimsby is actually repaying amounts to £30 to £40 per head on the poll tax. Does not all that make a case for a much more realistic SSA?
    Mr. Squire: I am unsurprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments. I pay tribute to him: he asks a good many questions about this subject, and he has asked a good many on this occasion. Let me concentrate on two of them.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned unemployment. As he knows, we judge that unemployment is not a relevant factor in the assessment relating to district-level services. He also raised the question of notional debt. The use of notional debt ensures that all authorities are treated fairly; if we acted otherwise, we would disadvantage authorities that had previously chosen to use capital receipts to repay their debts.
    Mr. Bruce: The county of Dorset is excellent at keeping within its spending limits, and it is a debt-free county. It is often felt that, when the Government set the SSA, Dorset is treated unfairly simply because it is a good Tory authority. The community care budget in particular will have to be increased considerably in all counties—especially in counties such as Dorset, which contain large numbers of elderly people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the new SSA for Dorset will be generous, and that an early indication is given of when it will apply?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I sympathise with some of his points. He will have heard my earlier answer on community care: the Government will not make an announcement until the autumn. However, to repeat something that I said a few moments ago, standard spending assessments are calculated according to general principles and are applied in the same way to all authorities. One of the reasons why my hon. Friend's local authority will receive a relatively lower SSA is that, by most measurements of need, it does not have the same degree of need as other areas with higher SSAs.

    County Hall, London
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of county hall, London.
    Mr. Redwood: Responsibility for the disposal of county hall rests with the London residuary body. It has entered into an agreement with the Japanese company Shirayama

    895
    for the sale of the riverside building. An alternative proposal has been received from the London School of Economics. It is the intention that a statement should be made on this proposal in the near future, when it has been fully evaluated.
    Mr. Banks: I am part grateful to the Minister for his reply. May I draw his attention to the all-party early-day motion 259, and ask him whether he is prepared to see an all-party delegation in his office before any further consideration is given to the issue? We should be grateful for that. Is it not a great shame that one of the premier, internationally known academic institutions in this country will possibly be denied access to the building, all parts of which it would use—not just the riverside—whereas a cheapjack, Japanese hotel group would use just the riverside front for a luxury hotel? It is a disgrace.
    Mr. Redwood: The Government are well aware of the strong views on this subject on both sides of the argument and will take them fully into account when coming to their conclusion.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend make sure that county hall is sold for as large a sum as possible, in order to benefit the people in all 32 London boroughs? Will he make certain that it is so well scrambled into private use that never again can it be commandeered as an autocratic socialist regional bureaucracy?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has made his point very forcefully. He has shown that there are divided views in the House on this important issue.

    Rented Housing
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to deal with the findings of the Audit Commission in its recent report on rented housing.
    Sir George Young: The Audit Commission's report "Developing Local Authority Housing Strategies" commented helpfully on national housing policy issues and recommended ways in which local authorities could improve their performance. My announcement to the House on 21 May of proposals to place further emphasis on local authorities' efficiency and effectiveness in allocating housing investment resources, having regard to their developing enabling role as well as their role as direct housing providers, will help us to get best value for money from the full range of resources for special housing going into each area, as recommended by the commission.
    Mr. Betts: Is it not true that the Audit Commission report also said that Government policies were totally inadequate to provide a proper supply of rented housing? Is it not also true that the National Federation of Housing Associations has produced a report which admits that some Government initiatives have produced some extra houses, but which also says that, as the Government insist on a very high level of private capital being included in the provisions, people on low incomes cannot afford those houses because rents have been forced up to such a high level by the Government's policy?
    Sir George Young: The Audit Commission report focuses mainly on local authorities. Its title is "Developing Local Authority Housing Strategies". It lists a range of measures that local authorities should take to make progress, such as letting their properties faster, evicting squatters and other illegal tenants, giving land to housing associations and bringing in other agencies, particularly housing associations, to help to solve local problems. It made estimates of the national need, ranging from 58,000 to 90,000. I am prepared to meet the Audit Commission and talk through some of the implications of its report which are addressed to central Government.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to help the public housing sector is to stimulate the private rented sector? Although I welcome everything that the Government have done to that end, I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that very often rents in the private sector are far too high. One way to bring them down and to make them more affordable would be to introduce a housing tax allowance of about the same value as mortgage interest tax relief. When I suggested that to a Treasury Minister earlier this week, it was not ruled out of court. Will my hon. Friend join this lobby to try to persuade the Treasury to consider such a tax allowance which, I am sure, would do a great deal to make private rented accommodation more affordable?
    Sir George Young: I am interested to hear of the exchange between my hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues in the Treasury. As he rightly says, the question of tax allowances falls to the Treasury rather than to my Department, but we are anxious to get the private rented sector back on its feet. Last year, for the first time in many decades, there were more lettings in the private rented sector than leases falling in, so there are signs that the private rented sector has bottomed out. I am prepared to consider what further measures should be introduced to encourage more people to invest in good-quality accommodation for rent.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 3 JULY
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Ballot Book has been open since 2.15 pm. There can be no more signatures. [Interruption.] From 2.15 to 3.30 is quite a long time.
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mrs. Anne Campbell

Mr. Jim Marshall

Dr. John Marek

BILLS PRESENTED
  COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE
  Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Commonwealth of Europe, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  MISUSE OF DRUGS (ANABOLIC STEROIDS)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to extend the coverage of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include certain drugs which have been misused for the purpose of improving performance in sport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
Orders of the Day

  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  3.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Today's debate may carry with it an air of familiarity for some hon. Members, given that the issue has been debated not once but twice in the Scottish Grand Committee where the principle of the Bill received broad support and, indeed, unopposed approval. Of course, I hope that that approval will be extended in the same spirit of harmony to today's proceedings.
  The Bill is an important measure whose purpose is to secure the efficient conduct of sequestrations in Scotland in a manner that provides value for money to the taxpayer while protecting the legitimate interests of debtors and creditors. The need for reform of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is widely recognised, and the Government's initiative in introducing today's Bill has been widely welcomed throughout Scotland, including by those professional bodies most directly affected by its provisions.
  The new dimension injected into the proceedings today is reflected in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his colleagues, proposing that the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee. That is suddenly the fashionable cry about legislation. The possibility of referral to a Special Standing Committee is, of course, a reform of procedure introduced by a Conservative Government a decade or so ago but unused for about eight years. I have nothing against the proposition in principle. Where some new, broad issue of policy of widespread public interest is at stake on which the special expertise of outside bodies is needed, there may in future be a case for such references. However, that hardly applies in the present case.
  It was the 1985 Act which constituted the major policy change, founded as it was on an important Law Commission report. Indeed, during an earlier discussion of the measure the hon. Member for Garscadden said:
  "It was a long overdue and well considered modernisation of law which went back to an Act of the Scottish Parliament of 1621."—[Official Report. Scottish Grand Committee, 4 June 1992; c. 20.]
  Indeed it was—but it was a technically defective reform, and we are anxious to deal in the Bill with the imbalance that it created between the interests of debtors, creditors and taxpayers.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: We may all have thought at the beginning that, as the Secretary of State says, the Bill was not a matter of great public interest, but, as time has gone by. we have all received serious and formidable criticisms. Those who know about such things think that this is a matter of considerable interest. Is this not an ideal occasion, as my hon. Friend the Member for

  899
  Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) suggested, to restore the machinery which allows some questioning of experts on the matter before we start?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's point of view is shared by his hon. Friends—but not by me. As I have said, the measure has had a wide welcome from the professional bodies most directly affected, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Law Society, and the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency.
  The question has been raised whether we allowed adequate consultation.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has already referred to the concept of harmony in Scotland —and there is certainly a Caledonian consensus that the Bill should be repatriated to enable the experts available in all aspects of the subject to be consulted and to make recommendations. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment, even at this early stage, on the proposal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland that fees could be reduced to £800 per case? We need time to deliberate on such proposals, and on the intricacies of the Bill, to ensure that the draftsmanship is correct, and that we do not have to debate an inadequate Act.
  Mr. Lang: It is certainly true that some of the practitioners have sharpened their pencils since the publication of the Bill—dramatically so. There are now suggestions that it may be possible to carry out the work covered in the past by the block fee of £2,147 for less than half that sum. I believe that it was Oscar Wilde who said that the prospect of being hanged concentrated the mind wonderfully.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has repeatedly drawn attention to that aspect of the problem, and it must be addressed, in the interests of the taxpayer. There are also the interests of the creditors and the debtors, which are addressed in the Bill.
  The hon. Lady has lost me with her reference to repatriation. We do not repatriate Bills in this Parliament; we pass legislation after proper scrutiny. The measure has been scrutinised twice in the Scottish Grand Committee and will go to a Scottish Standing Committee. That is the nearest to a patriotic front that I can offer the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the Secretary of State say a word or two more about the proposal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland which was referred to by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? That proposal would dramatically reduce the cost of schedule 2 sequestrations, and, if it were acceptable to the Government, it would in effect rewrite the Bill by removing the essential principle of transferring the work from the private to the public sector. It would be helpful to the House, and a useful preparation for the Committee stage, if the Secretary of State would say whether he is contemplating such a shift, or holding to the general shape of the Bill, which at present excludes insolvency practitioners.
  Mr. Lang: Obviously we are interested in the propositions put to us by the institute and we will study them carefully. What the hon. Gentleman has said about transferring the matter from the private to the public sector is an over-simplification, and I will deal with it later in my speech.
  900
  I want to deal with the consultation point raised earlier. The Opposition's attitude is underlined by their motion suggesting that we go to a Special Standing Committee. The urgent need to reform the Act is widely recognised; I do not accept that there has been inadequate consultation. The Government proposals have been made after careful monitoring of the operation of the 1985 Act by the Department of Trade and Industry, together with the Scottish courts administration and the accountant in bankruptcy, and the Treasury has taken an interest.
  The announcement of the Bill was made in the Queen's Speech on 6 May and it was published on 8 May, at the first opportunity. By 12 May, copies of the Bill had been sent to various interested parties for comment. As Opposition Members have said, comment has flowed in thick and fast, on the whole supporting the principle of what we are doing, although raising aspects of detail that can be dealt with in Committee.
  The principle of the Bill has been considered twice in the Grand Committee, on 4 and 7 June, 27 days after publication—rather more than the usual 12 days allowed —and has received unanimous approval. A further nine days elapsed before today's Second Reading, which we could call a special Second Reading; and the earliest date when the Bill can go into Standing Committee will be 30 June, nearly a fortnight from now. All that represents seven and a half weeks for representations and consultations—out of all proportion for a Bill of this size and very much more than some major Bills have been given. So there has been adequate consultation on what is essentially a technical adjustment to an earlier Bill whose mechanisms are not operating efficiently.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Since the remarkable information has emerged that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland appears to be prepared to cut its fees by 60 per cent., does the Secretary of State agree that, had the inquiry been made before the Bill, it might have conditioned its nature in another direction? Does not that suggest that consultation was grossly inadequate—indeed, non-existent? Given that that is so and that so much other information has come out since the Bill was published, is not the case justified for looking at the whole issue again?
  From what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), it seems that the whole nature of the Bill might be changed yet again in the course of its passage—if he is seriously considering this offer.
  Mr. Lang: We are not contemplating changing the nature of the Bill, which enacts a number of measures unrelated to fees. The fact remains that there have been negotiations in the past with the institute about the amount of the block fee, negotiations which have secured savings amounting roughly to 50 per cent. It will be clear from the figures that I will give the House shortly that the cost of administering sequestration in Scotland has soared dramatically, however, and the Government do not have the necessary powers to control these matters on behalf of the taxpayer. Even though there is still scope for futher negotiation with the practitioners and others over the conduct of sequestration, it is still necessary for the Government to have powers in this area.
  Mr. James Wallace: Those of us who have just heard the right hon. Gentleman's

  901
  illustration of what he thinks amounts to consultation will note that almost all of it has happened since publication of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will have to admit that, when the Scottish Grand Committee met, the main criticism of the Government concerned the lack of consultation before publication, not least with bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which was discussing with the accountant in bankruptcy how savings and improvements in the system could be made.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a Special Standing Committee is still the best course of action; but that as the Bill cannot go into Standing Committee until a week on Tuesday at the earliest, it is unlikely to emerge from Standing Committee before the recess, so it would be much more sensible to allow the summer for proper consideration and, if necessary, to withdraw the Bill and present it again in the autumn?
  Mr. Lang: No: and, as I have said, there has been a great deal of consultation. The hon. Gentleman will know that policy responsibility was transferred to my Department only in this new Parliament but that there were earlier consultations. The negotiations over the block fee between the institute and others involved are themselves evidence of the degree of consultation.
  There are certain flaws in the mechanisms for delivering the sequestration process which have unbalanced matters and they must be rectified. We therefore need the Bill for several areas of sequestration other than simply the level of fees.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of what he calls the consultative process, many organisations are genuinely worried and support the request to set up a Special Standing Committee? Surely that is not too much to ask in view of the situation in Scotland in respect of bankruptcy.
  Mr. Lang: I have already answered that general point. I understand that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and his colleagues sincerely hold that view. However, the Government have considered the issue carefully and have decided that the Bill does not meet the criteria and the way in which they should be applied for a Special Standing Committee. As I said earlier, the Bill is not a major policy departure; it is not a major Bill in any sense. It corrects certain mechanical failures of an earlier more substantial Bill in respect of which there was no pressure from Opposition Parties for a Special Standing Committee.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: No. I must make a little progress and I will then give way to the hon. Lady. I have already given way to her once or twice.
  I am not arguing that the Bill cannot be improved; of course it can. Almost invariably Bills are improved in Committee. I emphasise that my hon. Friends and I approach the Committee in a constructive and flexible frame of mind. We are willing to consider change as the Bill makes progress.
  I believe that the representations that we have received to date have identified the key areas in the Bill that hon.
  902
  Members will wish to consider in detail in Committee. Those include concern about confining the role of interim trustee to the accountant in bankruptcy; access to sequestration by debtors; how a debtor is to finance his petition; and whether the procedures for debtor petitions can be simplifed further while maintaining a proper balance between the interests of debtors and creditors. All those issues can be properly dealt with in Standing Committee.
  It may be helpful to the House if I sketch out the background to the Government's proposals. In so doing, I will try to avoid replicating the admirable work of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who presented the Government's case to the Scottish Grand Committee.
  The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, which modernised the law of bankruptcy in Scotland, followed on from a detailed review undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission, as I have already said. The Act has been very successful in ensuring that in every sequestration a trustee is appointed with sufficient powers to see the sequestration through to its conclusion, and that where necessary the fees of that trustee are paid by the public purse. This latter innovation—placing on the Exchequer the responsibility for meeting any shortfall in the fees and outlays incurred by the trustee administering the sequestration—was introduced to ensure that there could be no return to the previous evil of limping sequestrations.
  In such cases, the debtor might never be discharged of his obligations and creditors might never receive payment of sums owed to them, the reason being that there were insufficient assets in the debtor's estate to finance the cost of the operation. Similarly, for debtors with few assets, sequestration was not available as a means of reorganising their finances because it was impossible for them to persuade a trustee to take on the work.
  In putting forward its reforms, the Scottish Law Commission did not anticipate any substantial call on the Exchequer to finance such sequestrations. In putting forward the 1985 Bill, the Government, I must acknowledge, did not see any reason to challenge this assumption by the commission and accepted the basis on which the proposals were advanced. However, since the 1985 Act was enacted, the position has turned out to be entirely different from that anticipated.
  The cost to the taxpayer of financing the administration of individual sequestrations, through payment of the fees and outlays of the private sector insolvency practitioners who undertake the work, has risen from £13,000 in 1986 to £18.5 million in 1991. If the historical trends in the volume and costs of sequestrations were to continue, the costs would rise to some £50 million by 1993–94 and over £80 million by 1994–95. That is clearly an excessive amount of public expenditure and quite clearly does not represent value for money. It is therefore right that the Government should bring forward proposals to deal with the matter effectively, and, as I have said, that has been generally recognised.
  The total cost to the Exchequer in any individual year is a consequence of the volume of sequestrations and the fee paid to the practitioners. Since 1986, the number of sequestrations has grown enormously, some fifteenfold, from 560 to 8,584 in 1991–92. On an annual basis, the average rate of growth has been some 74 per cent.

  903
  The nature of sequestrations has also changed dramatically in the period. Historically, sequestration has always been seen as a tool by which creditors could obtain an equitable distribution of a debtor's assets towards the repayment of the moneys owed to them. In 1986, 75 per cent. of all awards of sequestration were granted on the petition of a qualified creditor. By 1991–92, they constituted only 13 per cent. of the total.
  In contrast, there has been an explosion in the number of petitions presented by a trustee under a trust deed. There were nearly 7,500 of those last year, accounting for 87 per cent. of all petitions granted. It is illuminating to examine the growth in the use of trustee petitions over the period since the 1985 Act was enacted. If the House cares to refer to the annual reports of the accountant in bankruptcy, which are to be found in the Library, it will see that the number of such petitions has grown from 31 in 1986–87 to 1,800 by 1989–90 and to 4,340 in 1990–91.
  That growth is a reflection of the growing realisation amongst insolvency practitioners, money advice agencies and debtors that the trustee route provided easy access to sequestration—a route which was never envisaged when the 1985 Act was enacted.
  For the benefit of those hon. Members who are not familiar with the practice, although by now most will be, the procedure is that a debtor is referred to an insolvency practitioner and is advised to sign a voluntary trust deed appointing that practitioner as trustee and transferring the debtor's estate to him to be realised for the benefit of the creditors. Having established that it is a small assets case, the administration of which will be funded by the Exchequer if the debtor is sequestrated, the trustee immediately petitions for sequestration and for appointment as interim trustee under the 1985 Act to administer the case. In due course, the same practitioner will be appointed permanent trustee and able to claim his fees.
  At no time is any attempt made to operate the trust deed in the way it was originally intended—as a voluntary arrangement between the debtor and his creditors which would permit the debtor to reorganise his financial affairs without having to have recourse to the very serious step of being sequestrated. The use of the legal device of the trust deed has had the effect of detracting from the usefulness of voluntary arrangements as a means whereby a debtor can avoid sequestration.
  That rapid growth in the volume of sequestrations and the change in the pattern of sequestrations is unique in Scotland. Although there has been growth in the level of bankruptcies in other parts of the United Kingdom in recent years, there has been nothing like the trend which is to be found in Scotland. Nor, when one examines the figures for corporate insolvencies in Scotland, does it show a similar growth pattern to that of sequestrations. The fact is that the level of insolvency in Scotland on a per capita basis has changed from being broadly equivalent to the level in England and Wales in 1987 to some three times that level by 1990. Those are very remarkable figures which cannot be explained in terms of relative economic prosperity or economic performance. Indeed, relative economic performance over the period has, by most criteria, moved in the opposite direction.
  The Government recognise that, with the introduction of the 1985 Act. there would inevitably be some reaction in terms of the numbers of individuals being sequestrated. However, the change that we have seen cannot be explained in those terms alone.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State seems to be saying that the real target of the Bill is the people who need to find a way out of debt. The right hon. Gentleman's theme in the past 10 minutes has been in that vein.
  Mr. Lang: Absolutely not. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Bill makes provision for a debtor to apply for sequestration. That was not the case before. The Bill tries to get the balance back on to an even keel between debtor, creditor and the taxpayers' interest.
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
  Mr. Lang: I have given way to the hon. Members for Moray and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) several times, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
  Mrs. Fyfe: If the Secretary of State is saying that the level of sequestrations in Scotland is three times that in England on a per capita basis, and that that has nothing to do with the state of the Scottish economy, what exactly is going on? If the law in England and Wales is different from that which was passed in Scotland in 1985, is not that all the more reason for taking care and for taking time for proper consultation the second time round?
  Mr. Lang: As I have said, the relative economic performance of the different parts of the United Kingdom has been moving in the opposite direction. The hon. Member for Maryhill will be aware that unemployment in Scotland is now lower than it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom, for the first time since records began. The increase in the number of company liquidations in Scotland has been small by British standards. Between 1991 and 1992, the increase was 5.7 per cent. in Scotland, compared with 31.9 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole. That demonstrates the contrast between the trend in personal sequestrations and the performance of the economy.
  Mr. Dalyell: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), the Secretary of State gave a decisive "Absolutely not", but on the issue of small asset sequestrations, which my hon. Friend raised by implication, why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that many of us have been contacted by welfare rights organisations saying that small asset sequestrations are likely to be more frequent under the coming legislation and will hurt the most vulnerable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said? Why should they all be so worried?
  Mr. Lang: I do not believe that that will be the case. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—indeed, I touched on it earlier—that before the 1985 Act there were particular difficulties with small asset sequestrations. The 1985 Act has considerably eased the position but has created a new procedure whereby debtors with small asset cases can go straight to an insolvency practitioner who can be appointed as an interim trustee and subsequently as a permanent trustee. The practitioner can pick up a fee of £2,147 for wrapping up the case. That has led to a dramatic surge of applications, which must reflect a

  905
  change in the attitude to debt and a recognition of the opportunity that the procedure provides for a relatively easy way out of problems.
  Mr. Wallace: In all fairness, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), said in the Scottish Grand Committee that the effect of the Bill should not be to deny anyone access to sequestration other than those denied it at present. So clearly no saving should be made by reducing the number of people applying for sequestration. If it is not economic circumstances, what is the reason for the increase? Of that number, what proportion were people in self-employment?
  Mr. Lang: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the latter figure, but it may be possible to identify it; if so, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give it to the hon. Gentleman either later today or in Committee. On the initial point, it is not the Government's intention to make access to sequestration more difficult. As I said, the Bill contains a provision which allows debtors direct access. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that in the Grand Committee, too. The Bill also provides for the streamlining of procedures, simplification of the handling of cases, and a reduction in the fee level. It is universally recognised that that level is far too high.
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Lang: I give way to the hon. Lady, but it will have to be for the last time.
  Mrs. Ewing: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the proposals in the Bill make the process of seeking sequestration more complex? Indeed, the process may create more bureaucracy and further costs. That was identified by an individual who works in welfare rights serving the Dumfries and Galloway region. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the proposals in the Bill mean that someone would have to approach first a welfare officer or someone in a citizens advice bureau and then a solicitor to seek legal aid? The person would then have to proceed to creditors for a protected trust deed and then seek a sheriff's ruling.
  All that makes the procedure much more complex. We argue that there must be consultation because we want to ensure access and simplicity, reduce costs, and make the Bill effective. Those aspects cannot be picked up in an ordinary Standing Committee but could be included in a redrafted Bill if we had a Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Lang: I do not accept the hon. Lady's analysis. The Government would not have introduced the Bill in its present form if we had thought what she suggested. The hon. Lady makes the mechanisms that have to be pursued by a debtor sound more difficult than they are. It is clearly desirable that a debtor should have access to independent advice. Indeed, we have gone out of our way to increase the funding of money advice centres and other such organisations to enable and encourage them to give such advice.
  No one should be urged too strongly to rush to sequestration. The House will recognise that where it is possible to avoid sequestration—for example, by a protected trust deed or some other way—it might be a desirable outcome. To make it too easy and too direct
  906
  would be to undermine the interests of the taxpayer, the creditor and the debtor. We are seeking to establish a proper balance and to simplify procedures within it, as far as that can be done.
  The hon. Member for Moray makes a point which may well have validity. There will be an opportunity to argue that in Standing Committee when we reach the clauses concerned with procedures.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to butt in and to labour the point, but it is in the interests of the House that we understand the Government's position. Is it the Secretary of State's contention that, after the machinery is in operation, he expects the case load—the number of people going through sequestration procedures—to remain as it is or to drop? If he expects it to drop, are we to deduce that people who ought to be able to follow that course will be prevented from doing so? Or is he positing, as the Under-Secretary suggested—to be fair, he was quoting creditors—that insolvency practitioners are putting people through sequestration procedures because it is in their financial interests to do so but, by implication, there is no public or individual interest in following that course?
  Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman has reached that conclusion. He referred in the Scottish Grand Committee to a "gravy train" and other hon. Members have suggested the same. I hesitate to give a forecast on the number of debtors who will seek sequestration. Given the Government's collective record on such forecasts since 1985, it might be unwise to do so. I advance the theory that the Bill is broadly neutral in that sense and seeks to achieve a better balance between debtor and creditor and, by streamlining procedures and reducing fee levels, to reduce Government costs substantially.
  I earnestly hope that the Bill will avoid the dramatic escalation of such applications in recent years, with their frightening implications for public expenditure.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: No; I must make some progress. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  What is very clear is that the trend is causing considerable alarm amongst creditors, who view with great concern the growing pattern of sequestrations in Scotland. They have expressed the fear that the present law could work against the public interest by providing an incentive for the marketing of sequestration as a solution to debt problems, since on the face of it the debtor has little to lose and the practitioner has a considerable amount to gain if a debtor is sequestrated.
  I fully accept that the majority of debtors enter into sequestration only after receiving careful advice from money advice centres and others and from the insolvency practitioner who handles their case. Nevertheless, the loss of faith amongst creditors in the sequestration process must be a matter of concern to the House.
  Sequestration and the laws of bankruptcy have always been rightly seen as underpinning the operation of the credit market. Parliament has sought to maintain a balance between the interests of debtors and creditors. There is a real danger that we have inadvertently created a situation which has lost that sense of balance and which works against the interests of creditors as well as taxpayers.

  907
  There is no doubt that the present law can give rise to a potential conflict of interest on the part of the insolvency practitioner. It certainly causes confusion as to whether the practitioner is acting in the interests of the debtor or in the interests of the creditor. Prior to the signing of the trust deed, the practitioner offering advice is acting for the debtor, but by law he must act in the interest of creditors once a trust deed is signed or sequestration is awarded. The present arrangements blur that important distinction.
  Under the present regime, an insolvency practitioner is entitled to be reimbursed with his fees and outlays from the Exchequer, where there are insufficient assets in the debtor's estate to finance the sequestration. In some 80 per cent. of all sequestrations in 1991–92—in some 6,800 cases —there were no assets in the debtor's estate which could be realised for the benefit of the creditors. Yet, despite that, the insolvency practitioner is entitled to receive a block fee of £2,147 from the Exchequer for administering the sequestration. The House has every right to question whether such a payment represents value for money to the taxpayer. I do not believe that it does.
  Moreover, under those arrangements the Government's powers to secure an improvement in the cost to the taxpayer are severely limited. While the 1985 Act gives responsibility to the accountant in bankruptcy to determine the level of remuneration to be paid to a trustee in a sequestration, he is required in exercising his discretion to take account only of the work which has been reasonably undertaken by the trustee—having regard to the value of the debtor's estate—and to the extent of the trustee's responsibilities in administering the debtor's estate. In so far as a trustee can demonstrate that he has conformed to the requirements of the 1985 Act in administering the sequestration, the accountant in bankruptcy has little alternative but to pay the fee charged. The Act certainly does not provide for the accountant in bankruptcy to take account of the interests of the taxpayer, who, after all, is being required to meet the bill, in setting the level of remuneration.
  I acknowledge that the problem was recognised by both the accountant in bankruptcy and by the insolvency profession itself. As a result. and in an effort to reduce the demand on the public purse, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the accountant in bankruptcy entered into a voluntary agreement, as I said earlier, to allow the introduction of a block fee agreement, which covers the vast majority of sequestrations. Most cases are now dealt with under this new regime.
  The accountant estimates that by this means the cost to the Exchequer has been reduced by some 50 per cent. of what it would otherwise have been if insolvency practitioners had continued to charge on the basis envisaged in the 1985 Act. However welcome this improvement, it is not a basis on which to continue the regime into the future. The Government believe that the reforms being introduced by the Bill are essential if we are adequately to protect the taxpayers' interests and secure value for money.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about the interests of the creditor. The creditor's interest is to be paid in full. Insolvency, sequestration and bankruptcy frustrate his proper right.
  Mr. Lang: As I said earlier, once the trust deed has been signed, the law requires that the interests of the creditors are paramount. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It is a matter of balance. I have referred to creditors on a number of occasions, but I am glad to underline that we must achieve a balance. After all, the creditor is probably the most innocent party of all those involved in such sad affairs.
  I stress that it is not the Government's intention to secure value for money by denying debtor's access to sequestration—quite the reverse. As I have said, for the first time, debtors will be able to petition for their own sequestration if the Bill is enacted. Instead, we will secure better value for money through simplifying the procedures which apply to sequestrations where there are few assets, and by tighter control over the fees paid to the insolvency practitioners.
  The Bill itself is principally an enabling measure and ensures that the administrative responsibility for sequestrations is brought alongside the financial responsibility, which, as I have explained, is already borne by the public sector.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants tighter control over the fees paid to sequestrators. How will he bring that about? We know from our constituency work that it will be very difficult.
  Mr. Lang: We are taking powers in clause 8, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he serves on the Committee. Such powers do not exist now and, without them, the public interest is not protected adequately, as the past seven years' experience has shown.
  The Bill places the responsibility for the conduct of sequestrations on the accountant in bankruptcy, who is a public official appointed by the Secretary of State. The accountant will have the responsibility for ensuring that an efficient, cost-effective sequestration service is operated in Scotland in a manner that not only meets the needs of debtors and creditors, but protects the interests of the taxpayer. To that extent, the accountant's role would be analogous to that of the insolvency service in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.
  It would take me a long time to go through all the clauses, but the general outline of most of them is familiar to the House. However, 1 shall touch on some of the concerns raised in earlier debates. I can best do that by referring to some of the more important clauses.
  Clause 1 enables the accountant in bankruptcy either to employ his own staff to undertake his duties or to employ agents to carry out the work on his behalf. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already explained in previous discussions, such agents could be insolvency practitioners who had contracted with the accountant in bankruptcy to provide a sequestration service in particular parts of the country. By a combination of the use of his own staff and of insolvency practitioners, the Government are in no doubt that the accountant in bankruptcy will be able to provide an efficient service across the country—I know that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was concerned about that. Therefore, the risk of the process being centralised in Edinburgh which the hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members feared can be avoided.
  It will come as no surprise to the House that the Government are fully committed to market-testing the

  909
  delivery of the sequestration service in accordance with the principles that we have established. We shall look closely at the detailed implementation of the Bill to ensure that wherever possible, the private sector has the opportunity to undertake the work where that can be done in a cost-effective manner. I say that in response to the undertone of anxiety which I detected from earlier debates in the Scottish Grand Committee that too much might be concentrated in the hands of the state. At present, the advice agency, which directs the debtor to an insolvency practitioner, determines who shall act in a sequestration in most cases. Neither the creditor nor the taxpayer, who is paying for the process, has a say in the matter. The chosen practitioner is in a monopoly position. Provided that he maintains a good relationship with the advice agency in handling its clients, he can be confident of a steady stream of work. In future, the accountant in bankruptcy will be in a position to introduce a much stronger dose of competition into the process. By tendering out the provision of the service to insolvency practitioners, he can ensure that value for money and quality of service are secured. The best and most efficient and effective practitioners are likely to gain from that process.
  Mr. Wallace: One of the important issues that arose in the Scottish Grand Committee was the fact that, at present, a debtor who went to an insolvency practitioner could be advised that there was no need for sequestration. Do the Government intend to allow the accountant in bankruptcy or those acting on his behalf to tender similar advice, or does the Bill mean that, by the time someone goes to the accountant in bankruptcy, the threshold has been crossed?
  Mr. Lang: The accountant in bankruptcy does not have the role of tendering advice; indeed, he has no right to do so. That is why the money advice centres, citizens advice bureaux and access to a solicitor with legal aid are important parts of the overall package.
  Clause 2 provides for the appointment of the accountant in bankruptcy as interim trustee in all sequestrations. I am conscious that the concentration of the responsibility for acting as interim trustee in the hands of the accountant in bankruptcy has caused concern in a number of quarters. It has been suggested that the accountant would not be able to deal with trading businesses—the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) raised that issue in the Scottish Grand Committee—or other cases where creditors require a trustee to be put in place at the earliest possible opportunity. I understand that fear.
  The Bill gives the accountant in bankruptcy precisely the same power as is currently available to an insolvency practitioner to protect a debtor's estate. He may also be appointed quickly to ensure that those assets are not dissipated. In practice, however, the particular requirements of a trading business would probably justify the accountant in bankruptcy employing an insolvency practitioner as his agent to undertake the administration of the sequestration. The Bill enables the accountant to do that.
  Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend has said, the Government are sympathetic to the argument that the private sector should be allowed to undertake the work
  910
  directly as interim trustee where there is no likelihood of any call being made on public funds to finance the sequestration. We are actively considering specific amendments to the Bill which would enable such an arrangement to operate. I realise that that aspect of the matter concerned several hon. Members earlier in our discussions.
  On the basis of a proposal, originally put forward by the Scottish Insolvency Practitioners Joint Liaison Committee, whom the Government have consulted extensively on the Bill, those arrangements would allow a creditor or debtor to nominate an insolvency practitioner in cases where there are sufficient assets to finance the cost of the sequestration. Provided that we can be satisfied that such an arrangement is workable and will not give rise either to limping sequestrations or a future demand on public funds, we would be prepared to consider amendments to the Bill in Committee to deal with that matter.
  The enactment of the Bill will improve the handling of sequestrations for the benefit of debtors, creditors and taxpayers. It builds on the experience of operating the 1985 Act and rectifies the flaws that can be clearly perceived in its administrative arrangements. I recognise the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about the effect of several provisions. I hope that I have given sufficient assurance that the Government will approach the Bill's Committee stage constructively. We are prepared to listen carefully to reasoned arguments. I have no doubt that the Bill will emerge strengthened from that process, and I commend it to the House.
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill because of the inadequate opportunity for consultation between the Government and interested bodies in Scotland on the contents of the measure."
  I must confess that Scottish politics are full of unexpected pleasures. The House will not be surprised to hear that no one's heart missed a beat at the news in the Queen's Speech that the law on bankruptcy in Scotland was to be adjusted. However, the Bill has turned out to be interesting. It is full of unlikely facts, bizarre circumstances and at least a hint of a reversal in normal political roles.
  I enjoyed watching the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who seemed to have been brought from the substitutes' bench as a late replacement for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) to introduce the Bill. He clearly enjoyed the prospect less and less the more he read about it. It is not a fit fate for such an enthusiastic member of the No Turning Back group to find himself presiding over such a snappy little nationalisation measure. If that is part of the striving for a better character in Scotland that we are promised by the Government, I welcome it.
  Today's event is unusual: the debate is about the merits of the matter. The House is being invited to give a Second Reading to the Bill, but there is a sub-theme—the question why the Bill is being debated here at all. As the Secretary of State factually reported, the Bill was discussed for not one but two days in the Scottish Grand Committee. I made no objection to its referral to that Committee, as that semed an appropriate way to deal with the Bill where there

  911
  was no head-on political collision over a matter of principle. There was no root and branch opposition; we recognised that there was a problem, to which a solution had to be found. I do not intend to rehearse in great detail the arguments deployed in the Scottish Grand Committee, but the nature of the problem must be described and considered if the present argument about the procedure —the sub-theme to which I referred—is to be understood.
  The Secretary of State made it clear that the genesis of the debate goes back a long way, to the Scottish Law Commission's report of 1982 and its wide-ranging review of the law on bankruptcy. I do not object to being quoted to the effect that that review was long overdue as I do not think that that greatly affects the subsequent argument —it was long overdue. As the Secretary of State said, the Scots statute of 1621 was then the basis of the law. Whatever respect I have for the work of the 17th-century Scottish Parliament, I am not such a purist as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and believe that mistakes may have been made in 1621, especially when we look at the circumstances that prevail today—[Interruption.] I am glad to say that I did not hear the sedentary interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East.
  There was a case for a review, which was designed partly to consider sequestration procedure. As the House knows, sequestration is a way of regulating the affairs of a debtor, protecting both the debtor and the creditor, and attempting to create order in someone's affairs when they are in chaos. One of the odd by-products of the law as instituted in 1985 was that, while it cured one defect, it created a great worry for the Government. The defect that we were trying to cure was the anomaly of a rich debtor —if that is not a contradiction in terms—being able to take advantage of professional help and sequestration law in a way not fully available to a debtor at the bottom of the pecking order. There was a simple and, possibly, human reason for that.
  If the sequestration case involved assets—regardless of whether the debts outweighed the assets—they could be used to pay for professional fees, which have a first charge on assets. Therefore, it was possible for such a debtor to engage professional help because the money needed for the fees was protected. Conversely, if the case involved virtually no assets, the insolvency practitioner was unlikely to give of his or her time and trouble with no prospect of reward. The Law Commission properly argued that that state was not right and suggested the principle correctly accepted in the 1985 legislation—that the state should take responsibility for the costs of sequestration in a small assets case that was likely to be barred for the practical reasons that I have described.
  In the Scottish Grand Committee, I mentioned the quaint, old-world atmosphere that prevailed in the Law Commission's report of 1982, which assumed that drafting legislation to give the state responsibility for paying fees would probably produce between 120 and 150 new sequestration cases a year and result in a total cost of fees to the public purse of between £6,000 and £7,500.
  After 1985 the floodgates opened. There is controversy, and I suspect more controversy to come, about exactly why that happened. In 1985 there were, not between 120 and 150 cases, but 295 sequestrations. By 1991 the number had risen to nearly 8,000. Instead of a top limit of £7,500, the state was paying insolvency practitioners £18.5 million.
  912
  I accept that that is a massive sum. I received one letter from an ingenious and brave insolvency practitioner who suggested that the sum was small when measured against the costs of the poll tax. It did not seem to be an argument likely to soften the heart of the Secretary of State, but I leave it on the Dispatch Box in front of him. No doubt he can consider it. To be serious, it is a large sum. The figures mentioned in the press over the weekend suggested that the projected cost of the entire civil legal aid scheme for the state in 1991–92, at £16.6 million, was considerably less than the fees paid to insolvency practitioners.
  It is well known to anyone who has followed the debate, even superficially, that we have in the memorandum to the Bill the exciting prospect that the £18.5 million will soon be dwarfed and that in 1993–94 the Government expect to pay £50 million and in 1994–95 £80 million to insolvency practitioners. In fairness, when that was put to the Under-Secretary, he bravely suggested that the figures were merely an extrapolation of a trend. I think that he was inviting us to take the view that the material in the financial memorandum should be disregarded and was worthless. If that was not his intention and we are to take these figures seriously, they are indeed spectacular.
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, perhaps rather meanly, pointed out that, on the present fee pattern, by the middle of this decade there would be 40,000 sequestrations a year in Scotland. That does not suggest that the Scottish Office is wholly convinced of the imminence of economic recovery, but there we are.
  I accept that the situation cannot be shrugged off. Obviously, the Scottish Office is unhappy. If it is not unhappy, we can bet our bottom dollar that the Treasury is. If I may mix metaphors, I suspect that Ministers smelt, if not a rat, at least a gravy train, as the Minister remarked. and one that should be derailed.
  I do not know entirely what Ministers' real thoughts on the matter are. During these exchanges we have tried to get to the bottom of them. The Under-Secretary of State was careful to say that he was not accusing insolvency practitioners of any sort of improper practice; he was only reflecting the views of creditors that they were pushing people into sequestration to make financial gain. It was a case of "some people say". In my experience, when that argument is used, there is at least some sort of endorsement by implication from he who spreadeth the rumour. In any event, we shall have to probe that later.
  It is clear that insolvency practitioners—there are about 220 of them in Scotland and in recent years they have, indeed, been a happy band of brothers—have done extremely well. They are mostly accountants. The figures have been extracted by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) through parliamentary questions that are well known to those of us who attended the Scottish Grand Committee debate. They reveal that those in the premier league have done extremely well. In 1991 one firm, not a great international firm but a home-grown example of entrepreneurial skill, took £3.427 million in fees from the state.
  Mr. John McAllion: Name it.
  Mr. Dewar: Pannell Kerr and Foster is the name, as I am invited to give it. It was followed by Ernst and Young with £2.2 million and Cork Gully with £1.9 million. The names are public knowledge as a result of answers from Ministers. That is the background to the problem.

  913
  It is because the Opposition recognised that there was a problem that we were happy to look at the solution to see whether some way forward could be found on the basis that, with one or two exceptions such as the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, debates on law reform Bills in this Parliament tend to be productive, and there was no reason to think that this Bill would be an exception.
  Unfortunately, the going has become rather hard and I must confess that I am unhappy about the Government's approach. There is no doubt at all that the chosen solution, although the Minister does not like it, was, as I said earlier, a matter of nationalisation; what I described in the Scottish Grand Committee as a good old-fashioned dose of the same. The work is being moved from the private to the public sector. In all cases, the interim trustee in sequestration, unless it is decided to employ a private sector professional as his agent, will be the accountant in bankruptcy.
  Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was as bemused as I was to hear the Secretary of State's justification that there would be competition in the tendering of the services to be provided by the accountant. If the legal aid bill seems to be getting out of hand, does the hon. Gentleman see some future in, as it were, nationalising the legal profession, and having an official legal aid solicitor who would ask for tenders from different private solicitors throughout the country for the handling of legal aid? Is not the important point that an element of delectus personae has been lost?
  Mr. Dewar: Yes, that is undoubtedly so. That element of delectus personae has, by definition, been lost, causing particular irritation in non-schedule 2 cases among the accountancy profession. Delectus personae might also be an issue in schedule 2 cases, but I have not pushed that because, given the general picture, there is a case for allowing the accountant in bankruptcy to undertake the work. But before that happens, we need substantial assurances about the way in which the new system will be organised and operated and whether it will allow people, not necessarily to have the professional adviser of their choice, but any professional adviser at all. That is the key to the argument and to the unhappiness of a large number of the welfare organisations which have made representations to us.
  The Under-Secretary made it clear when he introduced the Bill that his favoured solution was that the accountant should be banished from the scene and allowed to return only under sufferance as the agent of the accountant in bankruptcy, and that civil servants should rule in his stead. His analysis was clearly that this was an area where the market had not worked as it should and where the profit motive had worked too well. As a result, he was prepared to advocate to the House—all credit to him because it cannot have been easy—that the work be taken away from the private sector and given to the accountant in bankruptcy, and that, as a concomitant of that, we should contemplate the appointment of 85 new civil servants in 1993–94 and 120 in 1994–95 to undertake the additional work load. That is what we are being asked to contemplate and that is what the hon. Gentleman is personally recommending.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): In a number of respects, that is not precisely what I said, but I will come back to that later if I am successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that the House is clear, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I did say, as my right hon. Friend confirmed in his opening remarks, that we were sympathetic to the amendments that had been put forward on non-schedule 2 cases?
  Mr. Dewar: Absolutely. It came as no surprise to the Opposition that the Government were prepared to make concessions on that. I understand the arguments for that and I am happy to leave the matter to the Committee stage when we can examine it in some detail. I want to return to other aspects of the accountants' case, but I must push on. Having described the problem and the Minister's favoured solution, I come to why we believe that it is right that the Bill's next stage should be in a Special Standing Committee.
  The House will know that a Special Standing Committee has up to four sessions which allow Committee members to take direct evidence from interested bodies and parties as though they were a Select Committee. I believe that I was the first to suggest such an arrangement: my suggestion can be found in column 20 of the Hansard report of the Scottish Grand Committee debate that took place on 4 June.
  The main reason for my suggestion. and, I think, for the widespread support that it has gained from my colleagues and from other parties, is the fact that the Bill involves many complex and technical matters. There have been major protests about what are seen as unintended consequences of the legislation. It has been suggested that Ministers have a hidden agenda, and there is a suspicion that many people who require help, and who may benefit from the sequestration procedure, will be effectively excluded by some of the barriers built into the Bill.
  Such views have been expressed not only by accountants and lawyers—who might be thought to have a vested interest—but by welfare organisations of almost every kind. It is fair to say that there is scepticism everywhere; even, I suspect, among the Ministers who are handling the Bill.
  My second reason for believing that the Bill should be dealt with by a special Standing Committee is the number of complaints that have been made about the lack of consultation. I do not intend to illustrate that by means of lengthy and copious quotations; however, I do not think that the Minister would deny that a single message has emerged from almost all the representations that have been sent to hon. Members.
  Let me mention my own constituency first. Obviously, I am interested in what has been said of the Drumchapel law centre, and in the views of the Tackling Debt group, which is based in the Castlemilk law centre and represents a wide consortium of interests. Similar opinions have been expressed by the Scottish Consumer Council, a statutory body funded by the Government; by Citizens Advice Scotland, which has a uniquely wide experience of practical counselling on debt; by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, and by the Law Society of Scotland, which was caught completely on the hop by the Bill's appearance.
  I could, if I wished, underline the message that has emerged from those organisations with many quotations.

  915
  They were astonished when the Bill, fully formed and finalised in every detail, appeared in print at the Vote Office: they had had no knowledge of it, and had not been consulted about its contents. That is unsatisfactory, to say the least. Surely the discontent that has resulted is a strong reason for establishing a Special Standing Committee, allowing interested groups to argue their case and enabling the Committee to examine that case.
  There are, in my view, two broad areas of concern. I shall describe them in shorthand, as it were. First, there is the welfare point about exclusion, to which I have already referred. It is said, for example, that the accountant in bankruptcy can be brought in only by means of a petition to the court, and that the costs of that petition are immediately covered in the block fee paid to the insolvency practitioner. It is argued that, if the insolvency practitioner is removed from the scene, in many cases the debtor may have to bear the costs, or they may have to come from the assets of the sequestration; debtors may not be able to afford that.
  Such consequences may substantially reduce the number of people who can use the proposed procedures. That is an important reservation: if justified, it suggests that those who most need counselling and the help afforded by sequestration to order their affairs will be denied such assistance. Admittedly, in his closing speech on the second day of the Scottish Grand Committee, the Minister—the hon. Member for Eastwood—made it clear that that was not the Government's intention. He said that any savings would come from the streamlining of procedures and the cutting of moneys to be paid in fees to insolvency practitioners.
  Nevertheless, despite that statement—which came a little late in our proceedings—there are many lingering fears, which are widely shared. I remind the Minister of a point to which I referred before—the written answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, in which he said:
  "It is clear that the major factor influencing the number of sequestrations in Scotland is the easier access by individuals to the sequestration process … The Government are actively considering the need for changes to the present legislation."—[Official Report, 16 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 821.]
  Indeed they were.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, who is here today, will understand that the implication of the statement that the number of sequestrations is the major factor at the root of the problem is that the number of sequestrations must be cut. I shall read with care what has been said today by the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, everything that he said reinforces rather than removes that particular doubt, which is almost universally shared. Those organisations that have made it clear that they have such fears should be given the chance to make a direct contribution to the proceedings of a Special Standing Committee.
  I wish also to refer to a matter that is of particular interest to accountants. They have made many points—for example, about delectus personae, a point to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred. Advice should be available over a wide area. I know that the Minister is seized of that point. One also has to consider whether the accountant in bankruptcy is the most appropriate way to preserve creditors' assets in non-scheduled cases. These matters could be dealt with in a Special Standing Committee.
  916
  Full consideration should be given to the fundamental nature of the recommendations made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland in the letter that some of us received today. The institute challenges the whole basis of the Bill. The Bill would remove the power, except under licence, for accountants to be interim trustees in sequestration. It gives that power to the accountant in bankruptcy.
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland says that that is unnecessary and that it can still be dealt with by the private sector at a very reduced cost. It suggests that there should be a simplified procedure under which fees could be cut to about £800 in cases where assets amount to less than £2,000 and debts to less than £20,000 and that in addition the outlays would amount to £200. The institute reckons that the sum of £18.5 million in 1991 could be cut to £10.5 million. That would mean rewriting the Bill. The Government have to tell us whether they are prepared to consider such a solution.
  We pressed the Secretary of State on the issue. He did not appear to rule it out when he said that it would have to be closely considered. If a fundamental point of that kind is to be made, I cannot think of a better place for it to be argued than a Special Standing Committee. The profession should be given the opportunity to put its case and to answer questions. In that event, the arguments would not be transferred and inevitably distorted to some extent by means of a third party—a Minister. In view of the important amendments that we are asked to contemplate, there should be direct access to the parliamentary process. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the Minister will say that the Government are prepared to contemplate this proposition. If so, it would amount almost to a wrecking amendment, so fundamentally would it change the Bill.
  No Special Standing Committee has ever considered Scottish legislation, although this specific machinery has been used seven or eight times for the consideration of English legislation. I genuinely believe that this would be an appropriate Bill for that machinery. It raises non-contentious issues in a narrow political sense, but contentious legal issues with economic and social consequences for individuals who are already disadvantaged, and I believe that many hon. Members will want to probe those issues. I cannot remember a technical Bill causing so much interest from Scottish bodies with expertise to offer.
  It is only common sense to use the new procedure, and I deeply regret the fact that the Secretary of State has adopted such an obdurate attitude. I hope that in the couple of hours available to him he will consider some of the speeches that he has made in the past few weeks about the government of Scotland and how Westminster handles Scottish affairs. We have been told that there will be a new sensitivity and a tireless search for improvements within the structures of Westminster. The Secretary of State said that there is certainly room for reform. We are now presenting him with a modest opportunity to prove that and to show a touch of imagination, but we find a brick wall—a dogged refusal to act.
  It is easy for the Secretary of State to smile, but he does not know what is in his own best interests. The way in which he has handled the matter undermines his credibility and respect for his protestations that he is, to some extent, a reformed character. It is a pity, and if our proposal is not adopted, we may end up with a Bill that is not as good as

  917
  it should be, certainly not as well considered as it should be, and we shall have legislation which will leave many well informed and relevant bodies in Scotland feeling that they have been short-changed and not involved as they should have been.
  I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Second Reading, because there is still a great deal of work to be done and I do not object to our having the opportunity to discuss the problems. However, I shall certainly advise them to vote for the motion to consider the Bill in a Special Standing Committee. I also urge the Government, even now, to think again about their attitude.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: There is no doubt in the minds of those in Scotland who are interested in the issue that the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 had to be amended. That is the general view expressed in the correspondence that all hon. Members have received.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made an interesting and informative speech, but he overstated the case. He and I know that, whenever we discuss legislation in Committee, we are showered with correspondence from interested parties. To suggest that there is something new in what is happening with the Bill implies that he has forgotten all the hours that we have spent in Committee. I have with me all the correspondence that I have received since we first had sight of the Bill. I hold it up for the House because it is important. It is about one third of what I always receive on other Scottish Bills, and equally important legal Bills.
  Let me make it clear that I, too, want the Bill to be amended, but that will not surprise anyone, because there is frequently cross-party agreement among Back Benchers in Committee when we discuss Scottish legislation, and we often get the Government to change Bills. What is interesting on this occasion is that the Government said at the outset that they wanted to adopt a flexible and responsive position. I cannot say in all honesty that that has always been the case in Committee.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the hon.Gentleman agree that, if the Government were to accept the proposition that insolvency practitioners should cut fees by 60 per cent. but otherwise continue much as before, it would be a fundamental change to the Bill? If so, would it not have been a good idea to find out about that before the Bill was introduced rather than at this stage?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will also agree that one finds changes of such magnitude among those with vested interests—that has certainly been true for all the other Bills that I have considered in Committee—once the Bill has been printed. Once they begin to realise what may be changed in the playing fields to which they have grown accustomed—whoever they are—they start to examine the small print after the Bill has been printed and start to make proposals. That is not novel or different.
  It is interesting that, in trying to find a balance between the interests of the debtors, creditors and taxpayers, so much emphasis has properly been placed on those who find themselves in debt and cannot see a way out. One issue has worried me for a long time, and hon. Members will
  918
  probably concur. In our constituencies, we meet individuals who have allowed themselves to be locked into a situation, and only after they are locked in do they begin to realise what it means. To such individuals, sequestration may appear to be an easy way to resolve their difficulties at any given time and the only way to put one's affairs in some order. However, one should not enter into it lightly without having thought it through properly.
  Let us consider the case of a young man who has his whole life ahead of him. Perhaps he has written off a car or something similar and finds that he is insolvent. Under the Act, he may be advised that the easiest course open to him is sequestration. He may have an income which, although not vast, may increase. He may hope to get married, as most people do, and obtain credit to buy a house or get a mortgage and to obtain credit to furnish it. That is the natural thing to do, but if he has entered into the system under the 1985 Act, taken the advice given to him and become sequestrated, he will find to his horror that, although he has a regular income, he will not be able to obtain credit because he is barred. That could have a damaging impact at an important time in his life.
  The income and potential income of an applicant should always be considered, not only because it is in the interests of the creditors-and it is-but because it is probably in the best interests of the young person who has opportunities ahead of him. That is why the Bill needs to be amended.
  We must get the balance right and accept the need for reform. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the view set out by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland in its letter which said:
  "What is at issue is the cost of cases funded by the public."
  The fact that that is the institute's position does not surprise me, given the amount of money that goes to its members. So we must accept that the institute, too, has suggested revised proposals. What it offers is interesting, but before we comment on its proposals, we shall want to examine them in detail. We can best do that by examining them in Committee as soon as possible.
  I hope that in Committee we shall also take the opportunity to look after the interests not only of taxpayers—important though those are—but of creditors. Under the 1985 Act, sequestration is an automatic process. If formal preconditions are met, the court must make an order, and the merits of each individual case are irrelevant. Neither the sheriff nor the creditors can stop the process on the ground that sequestration is not appropriate. I have cited one instance in which I believe sequestration may not be appropriate, and there will be others.
  That defect is compounded by the lack of advance warning given to creditors. Most will learn of the sequestration only after it has been awarded, and that is unsatisfactory. I hope that we shall be able to amend the Bill to allow creditors to argue that an award should not be made, and to require the court to refuse an award if it is believed that the debtor can repay his or her debts over a reasonable period. That is in the best interests of the debtor as well as of the creditor, because it does not do to find oneself debarred.
  I hope that in Committee we can introduce and discuss amendments about a simple and cost-effective way of requiring a court to establish a debtor's free income and, if appropriate, to require him to pay that over for distribution to the creditors. I should have thought that it was our duty to all three parties—especially to the

  919
  taxpayer—to examine that idea carefully, because the allure of sequestration for many is its practical effect on their income at the time of the award.
  In theory, section 32 permits the sheriff, on the application of the permanent trustee, to make an order for contribution from income. In practice, the section is ignored; thus the debtor's income remains untouched. There are probably two reasons why the section is not used.
  First, creditors have no way of triggering use of the section. It appears to be a matter entirely within the discretion of the permanent trustee. Even if creditors could trigger the section, any contribution from income would be swallowed up in repaying the state expenditure paid to the insolvency practitioner. Secondly, insolvency practitioners, as permanent trustees, are unlikely to trigger the section of their own volition, because it would make sequestration less palatable for debtors, which in turn would have an impact on practitioners' earnings, because fewer people would use sequestration.
  I make no apology for saying that I believe that there are forces afoot in Scotland that have not been giving the best possible advice to individuals. I realise that there are those who will suggest that that is a heartless view, but I have always felt that one must examine carefully the direction of the route along which we are pointing people, especially young people. If we are sending them into a cul-de-sac—that is what sequestration is—we must be certain that that is in their best long-term and short-term interests.
  The Bill gives us a rare opportunity to consider again in depth how we can balance the interests of creditors, debtors and the taxpayer—there is no doubt that there is now an imbalance. I make no apologies for my hope that during our debates we shall elicit assurances from the Government. I stress the fact that we have no wish for the Bill to prevent those unfortunate enough to find themselves in great financial difficulty from taking a course that will assist them to get their affairs into some sort of order and allow them to begin what one would hope would be a return to a normal financial position, in which expenditure and income are in some sort of balance.
  We have a duty and a responsibility to the taxpayer to make certain that what we put into statute does not encourage people, under the private enterprise guise of opportunism, to make a lot of money at the taxpayer's expense. Sequestration makes money out of other people's misery, and anyone who thinks that it is other than a miserable process cannot have spent much time with people forced into it.
  In Committee we should not necessarily spend our time examining what the vested interests tell us, but having received many representations—as we do on every Bill—we should discuss, in a non-partisan way, constructive thoughts and ideas on how to bring the whole business of debt, credit and all that they mean into balance. That would benefit the majority of people in Scotland, most of whom are the taxpayers, who pick up the tab.
  I have said before in Committee that we often forget—at least, people who adopt the bleeding heart approach often forget—that in the end all debts have to be paid. Debts do not vanish; they are paid, either by the consumer who takes the services and goods after the debt has been incurred and not paid, or by somebody else. The shopkeeper in the high street has to adjust his prices, and providers of services have to adjust their prices to include
  920
  an element for bad debt. That is how debts are paid for. The cost of administering the legal aspect of sequestration, where that is required, is picked up by the taxpayer. There is no such thing as a debt that is written off. Debts have to be paid for. The question is whether we get the balance right.
  When we examine that question in Committee, I hope that it will not be a case of one side simply trying to reduce the taxpayer's input—although we have a proper duty to the taxpayer to do that. We must also ensure that we do not lock people into a situation in which they do not get the best advice and cannot see an alternative escape route.
  I have found some of the correspondence that I have received from the welfare bodies disturbing. They seem to think that the only route is sequestration. I have read that correspondence carefully; I will not take up the time of the House by quoting it, but I have it all with me. I was disturbed at the absence of balance. I do not doubt the integrity of welfare workers, but if they want to proffer the best advice, they have a duty to ensure that it is the best.
  I question some of that advice because of what I have discovered in my constituency. The hon. Members for Garscadden and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rightly said that we should go by our constituency experience. It conditions our views on these issues. It is always heartrending to learn about people in these ghastly circumstances, which have arisen because of a failure of control.
  Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have any information about the way in which debt is apportioned in Scotland? How much of it, for instance, is arrears of rent? Perhaps we should investigate how rents are collected by local authorities. Perhaps the old system of weekly collection was better and enabled people to keep up with their payments because they budgeted on a weekly basis. That is how people on these estates live.
  When I was a boy, Lawson's of Dundee went around the streets of Dundee picking up people's weekly payments. That form of debt collection was geared to suit the budgets of people who lived by budgeting from week to week. Removing that system introduced instability—[Laughter.] I do not find this a laughing matter. People who live comfortably, as we all do, frequently forget the problems of those who have to budget from week to week, as many of our constituents do. I do not mean to be frivolous when I say that we are not debating an abstract issue: it is real for those involved in it. That is why I welcome the chance to speak in this debate.
  I hope that the Opposition will recognise that the Government have clearly intimated that they are prepared to accept amendments and to consider changes to the Bill. We must approach it constructively, avoiding the sort of nonsense that we witnessed during the first sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee. We must approach the Bill with concern for our constituents and others; we must not play silly political games.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I will not follow the comments of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). He warned us against the bleeding heart approach. No one would ever accuse him of such an approach to those with debt problems in Scotland. On the contrary, he has been one of the supporters of Government policies that have forced people into poverty

  921
  and debt in Scotland for many years now. It was sanctimonious of him to make the sort of sickening speech that he has just delivered.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who spoke for far too long anyway.
  Originally, the Opposition did not intend to oppose the Bill. We intended to let it proceed without dividing on Second Reading and to consider its principle in the Scottish Grand Committee. Yet here we are today after two sittings of that Committee and more than four hours of debate in it, facing another three and a half hours of debate this afternoon on a three-line Whip and on a motion which will divide the House—on a measure initially thought to be non-controversial. Something went badly wrong somewhere in the handling of the Bill.
  Perhaps the answer to what went wrong can be found in the Opposition motions drawing attention to the lack of consultation by the Government before they introduced the Bill and requiring the Government to concede the idea of a Special Standing Committee. Such a Committee would allow those in Scotland who know about debt problems to come and advise us on further progress of the Bill. The experts entertain a great many anxieties about the effect that it will have on people trapped in debt.
  Complaints about the lack of consultation have come from almost everyone concerned with handling debt problems in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, complaints have come from citizens advice bureaux, money advice projects, the care in the community Scottish working group, professional bodies involved in insolvency and sequestration—and even from Conservative Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) was one of the first in the Scottish Grand Committee to complain about the Government's lack of consultation with the professionals involved in sequestration.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland recognised early in his speech that there was a perception of a lack of consultation. Of course, some complaints emanated from quarters that one would expect to complain about a Bill of this kind. I remind the House that we were told at first that this was a Bill that would end the public scandal of fat cat accountants ripping off the public purse. I have with me a copy of the front page of the Daily Record of 4 June, fortuitously timed to coincide with the first sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee. The headline that day was, "Making millions out of misery".
  The story went on to describe why there was all-party support for the measure. Labour Members told the Daily Record that one firm was raking in more than £3 million a year in fees under the present arrangements. Neither the firm in question nor the Labour Members were mentioned by name in the article, although it would seem from what my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said today that he was one of the Members in question.
  We were told in the story that the Scottish National party slammed the system as a gravy train. This being a Government Bill, it was to be expected that Government supporters would support it—although, in the wake of the Danish Maastricht referendum result, we should take nothing for granted when it comes to Government Back
  922
  Benchers these days. The story did not mention the Liberal Democrats—they are never mentioned in the Daily Record, so we should not be surprised at that.
  The Daily Record was in no doubt about who the real villains of the piece were:
  "The men in grey suits are cashing in on a Government scheme to privatise the bankruptcy business. And their bumper fees—nearly £20 million … a year—are passed on to the … taxpayer."
  I do not know where the Daily Record got the idea that this is a Government scheme to privatise the bankruptcy business. This Bill will achieve the exact opposite. Perhaps, like everyone else, the paper suffered from a lack of consultation. The Murdoch press got it right; it labelled the measure a Tory nationalisation Bill. Perhaps the Murdoch press was the only body to be consulted about the Bill before it was introduced to the House.
  Nevertheless, given the public scandal outlined by the Daily Record and given the alleged cross-party support for ending that scandal by means of the Bill, it might be expected that the Bill would receive a fair wind on Second Reading and would not receive any opposition except, perhaps, from the fat cat accountants whose firms are allegedly feathering their nests to the tune of £3 million a year in some cases. However, that is not what has happened. Complaints have been pouring in from many sources and from almost everyone involved in handling debt problems in Scotland.
  There have been complaints about lack of consultation to which reference has been made during our debate. The Bill has been banged together by Scottish Office civil servants and Ministers working together in splendid isolation. They have talked to no one about the Bill. They have sought no advice and they have consulted no one. They have simply tried to slip the Bill quietly through the House in the hope that the Opposition were looking in the other direction.
  Fortunately, the Government have not been able to get away with that strategy. Progress on the Bill was delayed in the Scottish Grand Committee, and the Committee was forced to meet a second time. My hon. Friends have tabled a motion which has allowed us to debate the matter today. In that sense, time has been bought and people with legitimate concerns will be able to lobby hon. Members on their misgivings about the impact of the Bill on people affected by debt in Scotland.
  Groups like Tackling Debt in Castlemilk, to which reference has already been made, have warned in letters that they have sent to most hon. Members that consumers and debtors will be denied access to bankruptcy procedures if the Bill is passed without amendment. They believe that as it stands, the Bill will mean that debtors cannot get out of difficulties in some cases. They also believe that debtors will have to find legal fees to petition the court for their own sequestration and that bankruptcy procedures will no longer be available to debtors who have little or no assets. Those are the views of groups much closer to the reality of handling debt problems than any hon. Member. We should pay attention to those views in the way suggested by the Opposition motion.
  The Scottish Consumer Council has described itself as having a particular responsibility for disadvantaged and inarticulate consumers. It has pointed out that the right of debtors to petition for their own sequestration will require legal knowledge and the payment of legal fees, both of which requirements tend to render the new right as

  923
  nothing other than a paper right, something which cannot be put into effect in the real world. Debtors may be entitled to that right, but in practical terms, they will not have access to it.
  The Minister will try to persude us that we can deal with those problems in Committee. In the Scottish Grand Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) pressed the Minister on whether the Government would be willing
  "to consider circumstances in which there will he no financial bar to persons … getting advice"—
  and the right to institute legal proceedings at public expense. The Minister simply replied:
  "we shall consider those matters in detail in the Standing Committee."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 8 June 1992; c. 57-8.]
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I actually said that I assured the Committee
  "that straitened financial circumstances will not be a barrier to sequestration."
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister actually said:
  "I reassure him that the Government's purpose is that straitened financial circumstances will not be a barrier to sequestration."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 8 June 1992; c. 58.]
  If the Minister had listened to the argument as I tried to develop it, he would understand that I was arguing that the Government's purpose is to cut public expenditure on bankruptcy. If they are successful in that, the by-product will be that people will not be able to have access to legal advice because of straitened financial circumstances.
  Mr. Stewart: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I am surprised that after all this time he does not appear to have read my speech. I stated clearly:
  "The savings and expenditure on sequestrations will be achieved through tighter control over the fees paid to insolvency practitioners and through the introduction of simpler procedures in small asset cases."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 8 June 1992; c. 56.]
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State repeated that point when he opened the debate.
  Mr. McAllion: I listened carefully to the Minister and the Secretary of State, and I have read the Minister's speech. I will deal with their claims later because I do not believe that they can deliver the kind of protection promised in the Bill. That will not matter once the Bill has passed through the House, because nothing can then be done to retrieve the situation.
  I have been dealing with Tory Governments in the House for five years. I have learnt not to trust Tory Governments and especially not to trust the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) when they make commitments about political issues. The Minister's policies are completely opposed to the best interests of the people I represent in the House.
  Mr. Allan Stewart rose—
  Mr. McAllion: If the Minister is about to ask me to recount an instance when he misled the House and the people of Scotland, I will do that right now: the poll tax. The Minister was one of the most vociferous supporters of the poll tax throughout the last Parliament. However, he then stood on his head and said that he no longer
  924
  supported it. He said that he supported the new council tax because the poll tax had been the disaster that we said it was going to be throughout the last Parliament when—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw the word "misled".
  Mr. McAllion: The Minister certainly gave an impression about something that was not true. Whether he deliberately misled the House, he painted a picture that could not be delivered in the real world outside the fantasy world in this place.
  The trouble with dealing with issues in Standing Committee, even in respect of a Scottish Standing Committee when there must be no fewer than 16 hon. Members from Scottish constituencies on the Committee, is that there will be a Government majority in the Committee as a result of the addition of English Members to the Committee or by keeping Opposition Members off it. In other words, the minority party in Scotland—the Conservative party—will be able to create an artificial majority on a Standing Committee dealing with a Bill on matters that relate exclisively to Scotland.
  I do not doubt the Minister for a moment when he says that he will consider just about anything in Committee. I am sure that he might even consider the possibility of establishing a socialist republic in Scotland, but that does not mean that he will concede it in the Standing Committee. He will consider any of our suggestions in Committee, but he will use the Government's inbuilt majority not to give concessions to the Opposition. That has always been my experience of Standing Committees under the Tory Government. They listen, but they never hear what is said. They have no intention of honouring the commitments they give in Second Reading debates.
  At the heart of the Bill is the Government's determination to cut public spending on bankruptcy procedures. The Secretary of State described how the costs are spiralling out of control. He said that the costs were £20 million last year; that they would be £50 million in 1993–94 and £80 million in 1994–95. He even identified the source of those spiralling costs as he did in the Scottish Grand Committee. He said that the source was the changing rate or pattern of sequestrations since the introduction of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
  Initially sequestrations were seen as a means whereby debtors' assets could be realised and the proceeds divided fairly between the creditors, the 1985 Act changed all that according to the Secretary of State. In 1986–87, 75 per cent. of the total of 437 sequestrations were creditor driven and came before the courts because the creditors asked for that to happen, in 1991–92, 87 per cent. of 8,500 sequestrations arose through the procedure which allowed debtors to appoint insolvency practitioners as trustees to petition the courts on their behalf.
  In those cases, the funding came directly from the public purse. Millions of pounds of public money will be saved only if debtors are denied access to bankruptcy procedures that are currently available to them. If those debtors have to be guaranteed continuing access to bankruptcy procedures under a different form, it is difficult to see how the savings in public expenditure can be achieved.
  If the Minister argues that, in an average sequestration, 89 per cent. of the cost of the work arises from what he describes as junior administrative grades and that that

  925
  work can be handled more efficiently and more cost-effectively in the public sector than in the private sector, that argument delights me. Of course, the Minister himself is one of the great apostles of free enterprise, and he does not really believe that argument.
  The Secretary of State said that the Government are taking the process back into the public sector so that they can then use market testing to put it back into the private sector. Their case is that they can make savings by putting the process into the public sector and make even more savings by putting it back into the private sector. That makes nonsense of the Government's arguments in support of the measure.
  The Minister knows that, if cash is to be saved, access to bankruptcy procedures must be limited to people with debt problems. That is why I continue to oppose the measure and why I shall support the motion. There must be a Special Standing Committee. The majority of hon. Members who vote tonight will not have read the 1985 Act and will not know what issues are involved in the Bill. They will simply vote on party lines on issues that they know nothing about.
  This is an important measure, which will have a real effect on real people in Scotland. For their sake, it is absolutely essential that every Scottish Member fully understands exactly what is involved in the change that will be brought about by the Bill. None of us is an expert in the matter, although some hon. Members have legal backgrounds. The real experts are in Scottish communities, working for money-advice projects, citizens advice bureaux, legal firms, accountants and so on. We need to hear from them what the implications of the measure are. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that there is a Special Standing Committee. If the Government are not prepared to concede that, it is because they are not prepared to have their Bill exposed to expert scrutiny. That is all the more reason why the Government have no right to proceed with the Bill.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: It absolutely amazes me that Opposition Members feel that the Bill should go to yet another Committee, particularly as they say that they agree with its contents. Perhaps that is simply a means of inducing an argument. To date, we have had two Scottish Grand Committee sittings; today we are having the Second Reading debate, and the Bill will then be committed to a Standing Committee. At that point we will go into the detail of the Bill.
  There has been a massive escalation in costs, from £13,000 five years ago to £18.5 million today. Surely there is something wrong. Surely we need to act swiftly. If we look to the future, we see escalating costs. I do not know what Opposition Members think, but money wasted on administration—that is what much of the money represents—could be better spent in my constituency. I look to the Government to do that as swiftly as possible, and I look to Opposition Members to back them.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the background of the legislation, but, several years ago, there were cries and calls from Opposition parties for an investigation into the matter, which could have saved £12 million to £15 million. If the Government had acted more
  926
  expeditiously, that money could have been saved and spent on better prospects. The legislation does not take account of all elements of bankruptcy law. It is almost a misnomer of a Bill, as bankruptcy is mentioned only in the title. We have not examined the regulations or other aspects to ensure that we have an effective system of sequestration in Scotland, enabling access at reasonable cost.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Bill addresses real problems. The Government have examined it in detail, and many items in the Bill will assist better administration in future. The matter is urgent and I certainly support the Government.
  I deplore the attitude of Opposition Members who complain about lack of time to debate the issues. The Scottish Grand Committee lost 45 minutes on absolute nonsense and protests about issues that have nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) took 22 minutes to debate the issues in the Bill, yet the hon. Gentleman was involved in wasting those 45 minutes in Committee. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to bear that point in mind.
  There is much talk about consultation with other quarters. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) listed several contacts. He talked about the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, local accountants, Drumchapel law centre, citizens advice bureaux and money advice centres. He omitted the Scottish Consumer Council. That organisation took account of creditors. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman omitted it. Perhaps he would like to comment on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because three parties are interested in the Bill. There are the creditors, who are important; the accountants, who certainly have an interest and have operated in such matters in recent years, and, most important, the individuals and companies which are in deep trouble. In Committee, creditors were ignored by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Dewar: At the great danger of extending the hon. Gentleman's speech, may I ask him to comment on the views of the Scottish Consumer Council? The hon. Gentleman will remember that it said:
  "We support the Bill's primary purpose."
  It went on to say:
  "We are extremely doubtful that individual debtors will feel competent to petition the court without any form of assistance."
  The council went on to say that the system was wrong and gave three specific, fundamental ways in which it should be changed and which the Government are resisting. The council said:
  "We are very disappointed that there has been no prior consultation."
  The Scottish Consumer Council has great sympathy with my point of view.
  Mr. Gallie: I have taken much time to examine all the consultations in detail. Further, I have met representatives. [Laughter.] Perhaps it is hilarious to the hon. Member for Garscadden that Conservative Members take time to talk to those bodies. I have taken time to talk to the Scottish Consumer Council. I have also taken time to talk to accountants and advisory bodies. I recognise the points that they have raised and I am prepared to take them on

  927
  board. I am quite sure that the Government have also taken them on board. The place to consider them in detail is in Committee.
  Mr. Wilson: We must get to the bottom of this. The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the Scottish Consumer Council and said that it was concerned about creditors. I am sure that it is—we all are—and that is perfectly right. However, in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the Scottish Consumer Council said:
  "Our concern is to ensure that the benefits to consumer debtors introduced with the 1985 Act are not lost in the process of this Bill."
  Does the hon. Gentleman share that concern?
  Mr. Gallie: Of course I share that concern. I have borne it very much in mind. The Bill provides protection. 1 do not necessarily agree with every issue that has been raised. Conflicting views have been put forward. I acknowledge that. I will make my judgment, and no doubt other hon. Members will also do so.
  I return to the Bill. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 was designed to help people who had reached a state of personal and financial crisis. I wish to concentrate on low assets cases. From 1985 onwards, the Act provided a great deal of protection for debtors from debt collectors, sheriff officers and institutions. It took constant pressure off them. As I said in the Scottish Grand Committee, it was a caring Act. For many people there seemed to be no way out. The 1985 Act gave them some light at the end of the tunnel.
  However, sequestration is all too often taken up as an easy option, as I said in the Grand Committee. I was told that I was insensitive in doing so. Perhaps the tears trickle down the cheeks of Opposition Members when they look at things in realistic terms. But my heart goes out to the many small businesses and self-employed people who have extended credit terms in good faith. One of the consequences of too easy recourse to sequestration is bankruptcy and loss of jobs for others. We must take that on board. There is a snowball effect. We seek protection for individuals. We need protection all round.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said, all too often people are pushed into bankruptcy without giving due consideration to what it means for the future. Once they have signed on the line with an insolvency practitioner, there is no way back. There is no pause for reflection. There is no chance of changing their mind. People often do not realise that bankruptcy means that for them credit will not be an option for the next 15 years. That can be important to young people who want to set up home. It can be important to people at large. We must bear that in mind. I suggest that, as we have done in other legislation, we could inject some form of cooling-off period into the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider that.
  What of the private insolvency practitioners? They have come in for some stick today. In many cases, these people do an excellent job. In most cases they certainly treat in a sympathetic manner the issues and the people with whom they are dealing. But others have a business approach. The current legislation offers practitioners easy access to considerable rewards. In the Scottish Grand Committee I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that he would examine that point.
  928
  The fact that a practitioner can pick up £2,300 to clear a debt of £750 is a bad deal for everyone—for the individual and certainly for the taxpayer. The accountancy profession recognises that there is a need for change. It has suggested that an element of self-regulation is possible. I believe that the industry is capable of achieving that and that it is sufficiently responsible to do so. However, there must be a major change in the fee structure.
  Opposition Members have made comments about nationalising insolvency practice. The hon. Member for Garscadden seems to have been converted on the way to the polling booth to the benefits of privatisation. I welcomed his comments about nationalisation of the bankruptcy procedure. But I also welcomed the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who suggested that the private practitioners had a part to play. That is an important point and I await further developments with interest.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden referred briefly to non-payers of the community charge. It is unacceptable to me that scroungers, the deliberate non-payers of the community charge who have incurred debts of £750, can look to the insolvency procedure for a way out at the expense of the taxpayer. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider that point.
  At the beginning of my speech, I made the observation that much of the cash currently spent on the insolvency procedure was being wasted on administration and unnecessary involvement without practical achievement. Much of that money would be welcome in my constituency. I take this opportunity to underline that if some saving can be made on administration costs in whatever way—I do not take a dogmatic approach in the argument between privatisation and nationalisation—I would like that money, all of which comes out of the same budget, to be pushed into improving the infrastructure in Ayrshire and especially into upgrading the A70 to trunk road status.
  The Bill seeks to simplify the present system. It will inject a pause for reflection. It will save wasted resource. I look forward to its early implementation.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: In the Scottish Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) spoke with exemplary brevity because of time pressure. This evening, for the first time in a Scottish debate on the Floor of the House, we have had an opportunity to hear him speak at greater length. It is clear to Opposition Members that his speeches share many of the distinctive features that we have come to associate with those of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
  Both hon. Gentlemen made reference to the appalling position of those who get into debt. It is widely agreed on both sides of the House that those faced with the pressures and anxiety of debt are in an appalling position. However, one is entitled to ask under which Government and what philosophy and attitude were so many people pushed into acquiring more and more material possessions? Which Government made credit all the easier to obtain? Now many people suffer the consequences, which affect not only them but their families.
  As I did in the Grand Committee, I immediately declare an interest. I am a parliamentary adviser to the Institute of

  929
  Chartered Accountants of Scotland. As has already been said, the institute has written a letter to the Minister of State, Lord Fraser, stating how it sees the way forward and making suggestions.
  Many of us who heard the Secretary of State try to give some semblance of having consulted on the Bill noted that almost all the consultation took place after the Bill was published. I support the case for a Special Standing Committee for several reasons which I shall give in a moment. However, I wish to say at the outset that if there was ever an argument for a Scottish Parliament to deal with Scottish affairs, the way in which the Bill has been dealt with is it.
  There have been two sessions in the Scottish Grand Committee and today's debate. Those hon. Members who support the idea of a Scottish Parliament have never believed that we should adopt Westminster procedures lock, stock and barrel. The procedures in this place are so archaic and hostile to the proper consideration of technical measures such as the Bill, that one would hope that with an opportunity to start afresh, one could do it properly. We advocate pre-legislative committees, which could examine such issues and consider the views of accountants and of the many other organisations which have written to us to explain their worries about this legislation.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), talking about how the Bill was drawn up and launched on an unsuspecting public and profession, caused me to wonder whether the Government involved anyone with practical experience of insolvency proceedings in the drafting of the Bill. I must confess that, for three or four years, I tutored in conveyancing at Edinburgh university, without having carried out a practical conveyance. There are obvious drawbacks to that, as we arc now realising.
  So much could be done to improve this legislation with input from people with first-hand, practical experience. We could achieve the Government's objective. It is accepted on both sides of the House that there should be a means for people who get into debt to have access to the courts, to undergo the sequestration process—that process takes a long time—and to start anew. Creditors' interests should be properly looked after, as should the interests of the state and the taxpayer, by ensuring value for money. Those objectives are widely shared.
  The present opportunity for comment makes us realise what could have been done at an earlier stage if the Government had consulted. The Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee, which would allow the Government to respond properly to the proposals by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. The Secretary of State said that they would be considered with interest, but it is of fundamental importance for the House to know the Government's response before we deal with the Bill, line by line and clause by clause.
  The question of debtors' access to sequestration procedures has been mentioned. I accept what the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee, in response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), and what the Secretary of State said today about it not being the Government's intention, in proceeding with the legislation, to put up
  930
  barriers that do not exist. However, whatever their intention, many organisations that have written to us are justifiably concerned that there are such barriers.
  In the Scottish Grand Committee, the Minister referred to advice by way of representation. A letter, which I and no doubt all my colleagues have received, from Drumchapel law centre encloses
  "a further Briefing Note on the Bill"
  on behalf of the "Tackling Debt Group", which referred to the fact that the group had expressed concern about
  "Advice By Way of Representation",
  because there is
  "necessity of a means test—with no scope for taking debts into account".
  which might make some people ineligible and, that "limited circumstances" are "presently available" for
  "clients incapable of self-representation through eg language difficulty."
  Whatever the intention behind the Bill, there is concern about other procedures—not necessarily those outlined in the Bill—for example, the legal aid regulations, and concern that the position is not as the Government intend. We have also received representations from Money Advice Scotland, which pointed out:
  "The concurrence of a creditor in any small assets petition is extremely unlikely"
  and which believes that some of the procedures and requirements in the legislation might also put up barriers. I accept that that might not be intended, but it might well be a consequence of the Bill.
  We must properly examine the Institute of Chartered Accountants' proposals and analyse some of the serious worries expressed by people who have to deal with debtors daily, and who feel that the Bill will block a route which is now open to them, or at least put a high barrier in their way. There is no challenge to the objectives of the legislation and there would not be the sort of partisan approach that might colour a Special Standing Committee considering a more contentious piece of legislation.
  I must refer to the proposals submitted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to the noble and learned Lord Fraser, for example in relation to cases where there are assets—non-schedule 2 cases. We heard a welcome repetition of the assurance given to me and to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) in the Scottish Grand Committee, that the Government would undoubtedly reconsider the matter.
  The institute also suggests that there should be a switch in onus. Rather than the debtor having to acquire the consent of two thirds of the creditors, one third should have to object to prevent protected trust deed status, as sequestration might thus be avoided, which would further reduce any call on the public purse.
  I understand that, in about 80 per cent. of all cases, there arc no assets. The summary administration procedure is a welcome feature of the Bill, and it has been estimated that it might cost a fee of about £800 plus outlays. which is a considerable saving on the amounts being discussed. We need some inkling of the Government's response to that proposal, because it totally shifts the background against which the Bill is being discussed.
  As another practical means to save money, it has been suggested that the accountant in bankruptcy should merely audit a sample of cases. There should be proper discussion of whether that would offer an adequate safeguard, where public money is involved.

  931
  The institute also discusses what it describes as "small asset" procedure—cases where assets are not sizeable but where a business is involved and the work will thus not be straightforward, rather than cases of consumer debt. It is suggested that the interim trustee would act, the present block fee of £2,000 would apply, and it would be up to the trustee to submit to the accountant in bankruptcy that that was the proper way to proceed. The accountant could countermand that if he thought that the case should proceed by way of summary administration.
  That would reverse what is likely to happen under the Government's proposals, when the first step in what might well be a more than usually complicated procedure would be to apply to the accountant in bankruptcy who, recognising that the case would be more than run-of-the-mill procedure, would use the powers given to him under the Bill to farm it out to a practitioner at a fee. That would involve an important loss of time and unnecessary duplication of effort. If the insolvency practitioner acts as the interim trustee—subject to the accountant in bankruptcy saying that that was not appropriate and that the case should proceed to summary administration—the safeguards would still exist, but some of the other qualities of the present system could remain.
  It is worth considering whether the debt threshold of £750 might be increased. A figure of £1,500 has been mentioned. That might need to be increased by order to keep pace with inflation. The summary administration also puts a limit on liabilities, which must be less than £20,000. If the process is triggered off by a lack or a negligible amount of assets, the size of the liabilities hardly matters.
  However, it would be a matter of public interest if someone had managed to build up liabilities of £100,000 or £200,000 on the basis of assets of, for examle, £2,000. In such a case, something would have gone very wrong and that would require further investigation. I do not believe that we need to stick to a figure of below £20,000. I have outlined some practical proposals, which could lead to a reduction in costs and achieve one of the objectives upon which all hon. Members are agreed.
  I listened to what the Secretary of State said about maintaining the local network, which is important. Since the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, I have received further correspondence from the citizens advice bureau in Shetland, which has just been established. It emphasises the importance of quick and ready access to an insolvency practitioner. Most of those serving the Shetlands come from Aberdeen and they manage to provide a quick response because of the good connections between the two. One firm of insolvency practitioners has already been mentioned in the debate and, in all fairness, I should add that the citizens advice bureau in Shetland has no complaints whatsoever about the quality of its service.
  It is assumed that, if someone approaches an insolvency practitioner, a sequestration will automatically follow. I made the point in the Scottish Grand Committee that when the insolvency practitioner is given the opportunity to analyse a person's situation, assets and liabilities, a course of action, other than sequestration, may well be counselled. In response to my intervention, the Secretary of State confirmed that other such courses would not be possible under the Bill. Once one approaches the accountant in bankruptcy, that is that. In the past, one depended on seeking advice from bodies such as citizens
  932
  advice bureaux or other advisers on money. In many parts of the country, the citizens advice bureaux and other money counselling services are not readily available. That is a serious gap. Under the Bill, the Government may push people into sequestration who might not otherwise choose that option.
  It is important not to overlook the personal dimension. The letter that I received from the Shetland's citizens advice bureau states:
  "Here the personal relationship between the debtor and his trustee is invaluable, hence why we always recommend insolvency practitioners who regularly visit the island. This relationship provides a source of security and benefit for all concerned, debtor, trustee and creditor. I doubt that it will exist when the work is taken over by a government department, the public already see these as impersonal."
  We are considering people who are in dire straits, with very serious personal problems. We cannot put a monetary value on a personal relationship such as the Shetland citizens advice bureau described, but I fear that it might be lost.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the statistics, which give the breakdown by court area, support his case? Last year, in Lerwick sheriff court, there were 16 sequestrations. That hardly suggests a rush for the "easy option" as has been suggested by some Conservative Members.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of having a copy of the detailed breakdown, but the point is well made.
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Wallace: I shall not give way, as I want to conclude.
  Sufficient arguments were made in the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee and have been made in this debate to suggest that the matter needs proper re-examination. As I told the Secretary of State, it is unlikely, given the timing of next week's meeting of the Select Committee on Selection and the fact that the Standing Committee—or better still a Special Standing Committee—will be unable to sit until 30 June at the earliest, that the Bill will finish its Committee stage before the recess. Therefore, the Government should turn "homeward and think again".
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that I made at some length in the Scottish Grand Committee. I shall confine my remarks to the motion.
  I admit to being a sceptic by persuasion, but I was drawn into suspending my normal suspicion by the Government's offers—unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who may have more experience of the Government. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), offered conciliation and even co-operation, which was very impressive. There was even a search for an understanding of the plight of persons forced into bankruptcy rather than a scurry by the Government to take back moneys from the private sector.
  I was particularly impressed by the nods and smiles of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), when the arguments for such

  933
  understanding were made. I now realise that he and his hon. Friend were squaddies, or, rather, non-commissioned officers, on the loose and that the sergeant major was on another exercise. He has now returned. The Government's normal dismissive approach to Scottish matters has been reasserted by their refusal to set up a Special Standing Committee, which we thought would be forthcoming.
  The House must ask what great concession the Government made. Was it that they would provide finances for something in Scotland or that they would concede the power to make decisions on the Bill to the majority of Scottish Members? The great concession that they nodded at and hinted at, but which they would not dare promise, was that they would listen to those in Scotland who were concerned about the Bill. I know that most Scots do not believe that. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East stressed the fact that they, and I, would have been wrong to believe it. Given the Government's breach of faith—the fact that a Special Standing Committee will not be established and will not hear evidence—Labour Members were forced to ensure that this debate took place.
  Why will the Government not listen? Are they afraid of what they might have heard from those who would have presented evidence to a Special Standing Committee? I had hoped to hear from the accountants rather than from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who nevertheless did a splendid job on their behalf. I would have liked the accountants to explain how they discovered the sudden economies that allowed them to offer a cheaper deal.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that the moneys to which he referred went, not into administration, but into profits. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) pointed out, on a time-and-line basis, each case could have been dealt with for £500 when the standing charge was £2,140. The argument about the fees charged was not about administration but about profit.
  I would be interested to hear the views of someone who can calculate, unlike the civil servants who put together the financial memorandum for the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and for the Bill. I would like to know how many cases one would reasonably expect to deal with between 1993 and 1995, given the present economic environment and the free and easy credit regime initiated by the Government.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has referred to civil servants' belief that, without the Bill, costs would escalate. May I draw his attention to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who pointed out that relatively few cases had passed through Lerwick sheriff court? Surely that gives substance to the estimates made by civil servants.
  Mr. Connarty: It probably says a great deal about frugality and the way in which people run their affairs in Lerwick rather than the Government's economic policies.
  I would have been interested in the accountants' view of how many cases could be processed, if the estimate contained in the financial memorandum of a cut of between 75 and 80 per cent. in expenditure had been realised. The memorandum states:
  "It is estimated that some 75-80 per cent. of the projected expenditure required to operate the present arrangements can be saved as a consequence of implementing the Bill."
  934
  I do not see how that can happen unless far fewer cases go through than at present, not to mention the estimates of the number of cases in the future.
  Accountants may have been tempted to give the view on the relative scale of their largesse of £18.5 million compared with other well-known transfers of profit-making enterprises to the private sector, such as British Telecom, British Gas and the electricity and water undertakings to name but a few. I am sure that those accountants do not consider their largesse to be very grand compared with the £95-a-second profits of BT.
  I hoped to have heard from the debtors, possibly through those to whom they turn when in despair. I have heard many disturbing comments today about debtors taking on credit which they cannot afford and not being frugal enough.
  For example, a client of a money adviser—a 19-year-old pregnant girl living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—had lost her job and was no longer living at home, having fallen out with her parents. Where did she accrue most of her debt? She had bank loans of £1,200, £1,100 and £1,000. Amost 60 per cent. of her debts were made up of bank loans. That has little to do with trade; it has more to do with how people who obviously do not have sufficient income to repay the debt are pushed, egged and encouraged into debt by what should he responsible institutions. That better shows the meaning of a "debtor" than those who take on debts which they do not intend to repay.
  Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Connarty: No. We have all heard enough from the hon. Member for Ayr for the moment.
  I should like to have heard about the paralysis of debt and poverty. I have heard much about that in talking to people who deal with the problem. It makes petitioning on a personal basis terrifying for many people who are in the depths of poverty and debt. It is terrifying to many and a barrier to most. We need clear amendments to the legal aid rules to assure everyone that, when people wish to present a petition, they do not find themselves facing further financial barriers. We have heard assurances from the Government on that, but I want the Secretary of State to show that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was wrong to be sceptical, and that he will produce a solution to that problem faced by many people.
  I wanted to hear more about the process through which people go. There is much talk about people being rushed into bankruptcy to get out of debt easily. Someone who deals with that matter advises me that the present procedure is extremely thorough. When a client asks such an organisation for help, his financial situation is studied closely. His income is maximised by checking on his entitlement to rebates, and creditors are contacted to explain the clients' position and requesting them to freeze interest payments accruing on accounts. Much work goes into trying to stop people entering the bankruptcy procedure. I have no evidence that people rush into it, as Conservative Members have been hinting.
  The Government's approach suggests that bankruptcy is an option—but only after a long process. I wanted to hear about that process and to see some sensitivity toward it in the Bill. I also wanted to hear about the beneficial actions of the permanent trustees to ensure that those arc not denied to people. According to my reading, they are

  935
  certainly beneficial. I accept and have stressed that it is an expensive process. Indeed, I used the word "greed" when I spoke in the Scottish Grand Committee. That may have been too strong a term, but if costs can be cut by 50 or 60 per cent. in a couple of weeks, super-normal profits were being made and there might have been an element of greed.
  Creditor pressure could be stopped, not only on the debtor but on his family, because it is distressing, frightening and crippling. The trustee could stop the recalibration of power meters, when people pay so much per unit for their power that they can never get out of debt, tackle their futures and put their lives in order. People with social fund repayments to make could have those repayments stopped to allow them a breather to try to sort themselves out. That is what credit, bankruptcy and sequestration were all about and that is what the Government said that they were about in 1985. We must ensure that those measures are still available to alleviate those pressures, even though people may not have the same automatic right to go to a permanent trustee.
  It is important that the Bill should respond to people's fears. If we create more fear, we shall do an injustice to the people of Scotland. The fears of the organisations that represent debtors must be taken on board. Most of them have been mentioned before, but I shall mention some again. The charge for lodging a petition must be dealt with. Would the accountant in bankruptcy deal with problem creditors? Would he give the protection which the permanent trustee gives? Would the limited assets or summary procedure be introduced, as the Government say? Would not it be so complicated that people would have to go to another agency for help? I should have liked to have heard people speak about those problems, and that is why a Special Standing Committee was so important.
  I wanted to hear from organisations that supported the prime purpose of the Bill. Some have been mentioned, but I refer particularly to the Scottish Consumer Council, which, although it supported the Bill, had serious reservations about it. It said:
  "We are extremely doubtful that individual debtors will feel competent to petition the court without any form of assistance 2026; it would be difficult for a debtor to present a petition in the correct form."
  It went on to make sensible suggestions about simple forms of petition and said that the technicalities of the reference to protected trust deeds should be deleted so that the debtor could petition without a qualified creditor moving against him. There should then be an agreement that no costs would be incurred in the courts in the sequestration process. It is important that we hear from those people but the Government have denied us that opportunity.
  We need to undertake a process of discussion and education, rather than just replying to people's questions and amending the Bill in a minor way. We need to enter a process of construction and, hopefully, reconstruction of the 1985 Act, not just to answer those simple questions but to give Scotland a legal process that will allow people to free themselves from the crippling spiral of debt. A Special Standing Committee would have given us that opportunity, which is why we are debating the matter tonight. Are the Government really saying that civil servants or Ministers alone can work out the results of legal procedures? The effects of the 1985 Act show that that is an untenable argument and it is unlikely that, if done alone, it will be done properly.
  936
  Are the Government also saying—it would appear that they are—that they accept that only Opposition Members will act as ciphers for the concerns, questions and suggestions of the socially sensitive organisations in Scotland? Again, that is what they appear to be saying in denying the setting up of a Special Standing Committee.
  It is important that we get around the table in a dialogue with the people who are trying to put submissions to us—accountants, consumers' organisations and debt counselling organisations—and work out a strategy sensibly and thoroughly. The present method may place us in a more defensive and protagonist position because of the Government's decision on the Special Standing Committee. I invite the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers to review their position and to help the Opposition to achieve what we thought was promised in the Scottish Grand Committee—the optimum result for debtors and creditors in Scotland.
  6.7 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State spoke of the widespread harmony for a change in the bankruptcy law in Scotland. Speeches from the two sides of the House have shown that there is harmony on that general principle. However, I wish to look at the underpinning issues because, if we are to talk about harmony, we should seek to achieve changes to the law that would have the full support of the community in Scotland. It is clear from the representations that have been made prior to the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee and since then that that harmony does not exist in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State also said that the legislation was being introduced as a result of the monitoring of the workings of the 1985 bankruptcy legislation. That is a slightly ingenuous interpretation to put on the Bill because the workings of the 1985 Act were not constantly monitored. The Department of Trade and Industry instituted not monitoring but evaluation processes in 1990, subsequent to questions that I asked in the House. So there was not consistent monitoring of the workings of that Act until that stage. That should be clearly recorded in our deliberations.
  We all welcomed the issue of access which was dealt with in the 1985 Act and we want that issue to be retained in this legislation. But if we are to move forward, we should ensure that the changes that we make are effective and will work on behalf of all the people of Scotland.
  There is no confidence north of the border that the Bill will resolve the problem of excessive cost, which is the essential trigger mechanism that has set this legislation in train. The Bill is, in effect, nationalisation, although the Minister hates to use that word. Alternative ways of saving money have been offered to him. In the Scottish Grand Committee, I suggested taking a time-and-line attitude similar to that of the legal aid provision of advice and assistance. He appeared to reject that idea, saying that the legislation had to be on the statute book before he could consider such issues. I find his attitude difficult to understand, as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has made alternative proposals. Is the Minister saying that the legislation has to be on the statute book before the institute's suggestions can be implemented or even considered?
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I was saying that the present agreement between the institute and the accountant in bankruptcy is voluntary. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers relating to the setting of fees so that he is in a much stronger position than at present.
  Mrs. Ewing: The powers do not need to be contained in legislation such as the Bill but could be introduced via other mechanisms available to the Secretary of State, such as statutory instruments, to provide elements to assist him in altering the present position.
  Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Lady that such changes would require primary legislation.
  Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. As he knows, I am not a legal expert and I am trying to get to grips with the issue as I have many worries about the legislation.
  Is the Minister prepared to take a serious look at the representations that have been made by a variety of organisations to ensure that the primary legislation provides a framework that can be used to develop bankruptcy law and address the problems at the heart of the matter? That case is being put to him firmly by Opposition Members, and I ask him to consider it seriously.
  Primary legislation can be amended in future, but we should ensure that any primary legislation that we place on the statute book does not have to be amended time and again to resolve problems that could have been avoided in the first instance.
  Mr. Stewart: The short answer to the hon. Lady's question is yes.
  Mrs. Ewing: I find that interesting, as the Minister seems to be saying that, if the Government are to take account of the proposals, a large number of Government amendments will be tabled in any Standing Committee that is established to consider the Bill.
  Consultation is important because, as a Parliament, we have not addressed the causes of bankruptcy. Hon. Members mentioned the increase in credit. In an article in the business section of The Scotsman yesterday, Gordon Milne expressed his concern at the rise in consumer credit. We should consider the self-employed. It was suggested that the Minister might supply statistics on how many sequestration cases there have been involving the self-employed and small businesses. Such issues have not been addressed, despite requests for investigations into the causes of bankruptcy.
  We need an objective appraisal of the costs of sequestration. What skills and expertise are needed? How much time needs to be spent on different cases? We should consider those questions before taking a major step forward.
  In an earlier intervention, I mentioned Mark Berman, the only practitioner in debt advice in the Dumfries and Galloway region. I said that some aspects of the Bill would make it much more complicated, at least initially, for people to start sequestration procedures. Other hon. Members have mentioned the fears of individuals—some of which are physical fears. People obviously have mental and emotional worries, but they are also anxious about physical aspects related to warrant sales, with the knock
  938
  on the door and all that that implies. Technical amendments contained in the Bill could be introduced immediately, while allowing consultation to take place.
  Some of the proposals in schedule 1 are designed to close loopholes that exist in current legislation. Paragraph 16 of schedule 1 amends section 54 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, which failed to protect the rights of secured creditors such as banks and building societies by preserving their security after the debtor obtained a discharge from bankruptcy at the end of a three-year period. Section 54 needs to be amended quickly, as debtors who are continuing to pay mortgages and rent are threatened by the possibility of eviction under the provisions of the 1985 Act. That is an horrendous position in which to place people who are honestly trying their best to continue payments, despite severe difficulties.
  Surely it is not beyond even this Government to consider the possibility of twin-track legislation in Scotland to introduce the Bill's positive proposals, and implement them simply and quickly, while taking the opportunity to look at bankruptcy law in general and ensure that the legislation is effective. If the Government are taking stock, they must bear in mind the Bill's fundamental proposals.
  The Scottish National party will support the proposal to set up a Special Standing Committee to consult all the organisations in Scotland involved in bankruptcy. Surely the Minister must have been impressed by the fact that organisations as diverse as the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, the Castlemilk law centre and the Drumchapel debt centre—organisations from different spectrums of society—are as one in asking for further consultations.
  A letter from Mark Berman in Dumfries and Galloway states:
  "There appears to have been a total lack of consultation on this important issue. In February of this year, Money Advice Scotland held a seminar on bankruptcy, at which the keynote speaker was the Accountant in Bankruptcy. At no point did he indicate that such radical changes were imminent."
  It is now June and we are talking about radical changes. He continued:
  "At no point was Money Advice Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, The Scottish Federation of Independent Advice Centres, or the Institute of Trading Standards consulted. These are groups that deal with a large number of the 'no asset' sequestrations. There was no need for the secrecy, as all groups could have, and probably would have, been able to make suggestions that would have improved the system without the destruction of a process which has, to this point, shown itself relatively successful."
  That organisation works at the sharp end dealing with debtors' problems. It knows better than any hon. Member what it is like to deal with a person who walks through the door with problems on which its representatives have to offer advice. It is on behalf of such people that we make our plea for a consultation process.
  It has already been said in today's debate that the time scale involving the Second Reading, the meeting of the Selection Committee and the establishment of a Standing Committee means that there is no opportunity for the Bill to finish its passage through the House of Commons before the summer recess. I have already drafted many amendments and, if I am chosen to serve on the Standing Committee, I shall move them and fight the Bill line by line. I am sure that many hon. Members will do the same.
  Why are we Scottish Members not using the weeks before the summer recess to meet organisations to try to

  939
  ensure the harmony of which the Secretary of State spoke? There is a Caledonian consensus that we need time to consider the issue. If we want harmony, we should ensure that the voice of those working in the sphere of bankruptcy are heard as the legislation makes its progress.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I am interested in the Bill from the point of view of low-income debtors. I have been influenced by the strongly expressed views of people in the Leith constituency who advise them.
  Many such debtors have been dragged unavoidably into the use of expensive credit for everyday living expenses. Some of their debts might be called state sanctioned debts because they pay the price of Government policies, such as the poll tax, social fund repayments and enforced rent increases. Even more fundamentally, it is the Government's failed economic policy that underlies the debt spiral, with still rising unemployment and continuing high interest rates. That, rather than the too easy access to sequestration emphasised by the Secretary of State, explains the rising tide of bankruptcy.
  Those in my constituency who give advice and have come to me with their concerns make three points. First, they ask why they, the experts, have not been consulted on the Bill and why it has suddenly appeared from nowhere. I suggest that it is because the Government are not interested in what happens to low-income debtors. Secondly, they tell me that the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 is one piece of legislation that works quite well. Indeed, I cannot think of any other legislation in the past 13 years of which that could be said. They tell me that it provides an escape route for low-income debtors. Thirdly, they believe that the purpose of the Bill is to make it more difficult for people to be declared bankrupt and that that is the hidden agenda of the Bill.
  Before this debate, there was some evidence for that in the answer that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), gave on 16 March about there being too easy access to sequestration. In the Scottish Grand Committee the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), suggested the same when he said that the 1985 Act was designed for trading concerns and that too many people were using it for the wrong purpose. Finally, today the cat was let out of the bag by the Secretary of State. The first 10 minutes of his speech were all to the effect that far too many people were using the sequestration procedures. Therefore, the open agenda of the Bill is to cut down on the number of people who gain access to sequestration.
  There are three particular concerns. The first is to do with money, the second with accessibility and the third with counselling. Clause 6 provides that money must be paid by someone seeking sequestration through a petition in court. Clause 8 talks of fees being paid to the accountant in bankruptcy. Some of that has been explained in terms of legal aid for poor people. We are told that legal aid will be available, but there is nothing in the Bill about that. Before 1985, legal aid was not available to people seeking sequestration. Even if legal aid is made available, there will be delays, many law firms will not take legal aid work and many people will be excluded from it.
  940
  On accessibility, I am sure that everybody in Scotland would like to pay a visit to Leith where the accountant in bankruptcy is based. It is impossible for people in financial difficulties to pay such a visit. In effect, we have a system of bankruptcy by post. How can people have access to good local advisers if everything is centralised in one place?
  The Bill says nothing about counselling; yet I am told by the debt advisers that insolvency practitioners give good advice to people in difficulties. That is not mentioned in the Bill. Its purpose is betrayed by that because, clearly, it is not concerned with the welfare of low-income debtors.
  We are told that the Bill has been introduced because of the expense of the present legislation. Lots of dodgy figures are floating about. It is suggested that, in 1994, 30,000 or 40,000 people will be seeking sequestration—perhaps that is the Government's comment on their own economic policies. One of those who spoke to me told me that on those projections the whole of Scotland would be bankrupt by the year 2010. That may be another fitting comment on the Government's economic policies, should they still be ruling Scotland then, which they will not.
  Moreover, if the Government want to reduce the expenditure, there are other ways of doing so, such as by reducing the sequestration period from three to two or one year, by abolishing the block fee or by taking the accountants' offer to slash lees. If the Bill were about saving money, those measures could be adopted. The hidden agenda is the desire to cut numbers. Public expenditure savings will, of course, he made through reducing the numbers of those who have access to the sequestration procedure.
  I appeal to my hon. Friends not to be seduced by the nationalisation argument. Nationalisation does not mean anything that is run by a Government official. I support nationalisation more than any other hon. Member—I hope that I am not insulting anybody present—although I would not necessarily use the word "nationalisation". I support nationalisation only if it helps working people and those who would like to be working people if the Government gave them the chance. The Bill does not help those people, which is why I shall vote against it tonight.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I shall concentrate initially on two issues. I do not know whether it is possible to have two nubs of the matter, but if it is, these are the key issues.
  The first issue has not been sufficiently covered today. The letter from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has been addressed to only a select group of Members, but it is fundamental to our consideration of the Bill. If the Minister is about to tell us, as the Secretary of State seemed to tell us earlier, that serious consideration is being given to accepting the ICAS proposition, the whole basis of the Bill is transformed. Indeed, much of its substance would be removed.
  ICAS, having seen the Government's proposals and, presumably, recognised the seriousness of the Government's intent, is in effect saying, "Okay, the game's up. We'll do a cheap deal, guy." It is proposing in certain circumstances, and in cases with no assets, which are the great majority, to offer a deal of £800 plus the necessary outlays which, typically, it puts at £200 per sequestration.

  941
  I am in no position to assess whether that is a better or worse deal for the public purse than setting up a separate department, as the Government propose. If the Government agree that the ICAS deal solves most of the problem and they are willing to enter into a deal with ICAS whereby the fees are remeasured at that level, it is nonsense to proceed with a Bill whose central thrust is to set up a different procedure that would lie in abeyance for cases with no assets. The Minister shakes his head, but if he can explain to me how acceptance of the ICAS offer, if it can be called that, is not in conflict with the procedures on which virtually all our discussions in the Scottish Grand Committee and most of tonight's debate have been predicated, I shall be interested to hear from him.
  The second issue has already been raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). As several hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the drift of the Secretary of State's remarks seemed to be that the Bill was all about a numbers game; that the numbers have got out of hand. The corollary of that is that if the problem is to be resolved it must be through a cut in numbers.
  In the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary, in his reply, referred to the concern that the changes proposed in the Bill might result in debtors being denied access to sequestration; in other words, the numbers argument. He said:
  "I assure the Committee that the Government have no such intention. The savings in expenditure on sequestration will be achieved through tighter control over the fees paid to insolvency practitioners and through the introduction of simple procedures in small asset cases."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 8 June 1992; c. 56.]
  In other words, numbers have nothing to do with it. Numbers can go up. If that is what the force of social circumstances demands, so be it. But, according to that statement, all the savings will be made through cutting the level of costs per case, not attacking the number of cases.
  That is obviously at odds with what was said by the Secretary of State and Conservative Members where clearly the populist line being taken is that there are far too many cases and a bit of discipline would be a great social advance because so many people are taking the easy option.
  A written answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) seems to point in the same direction. In reply to one of her questions, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "It is clear that the major factor influencing the number of sequestrations in Scotland is the easier access by individuals to the sequestration process following the introduction of the 1985 Act."—[Official Report, 16 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 821.]
  If that is the source of the problem, one does not have to be unduly suspicious to believe that the Government's measure to deal with it will be to reduce access and thereby reduce the number of sequestrations.
  It is the Opposition's case, and, in fairness, probably that of the more enlightened Conservative Members, that all the talk of easy options and people rushing into sequestration is nonsense. It is not true; it is a false picture. I agree, as I think will my hon. Friends, that creditors' interests must be protected. We are in favour of protecting creditors' interests and that should be built into the Bill. In addition, people must be protected from themselves. The idea of them being pushed into sequestration or
  942
  encouraged into sequestration, either as an allegedly easy option or in order further to swell the proceeds for the insolvency practitioners, is outrageous. If that is happening, it should be stopped. I am sure that there is no difference between hon. Members on that. But from what has been said tonight, there is a great difference between us on the prevalence of that practice. Certainly that charge cannot be levelled without some evidence being adduced.
  Mr. Gallie: I have had constituents who have claimed that they have signed on to the sequestration process while in an emotional state without being aware of the consequences and that if they had been so aware they would not have signed on. That is a fact which to my mind is indisputable and which is part of the situation we face.
  Mr. Wilson: It may be a fact, but it is certainly not indisputable, nor is it proven. The charge that the hon. Gentleman is levelling, presumably against his local accountants, is sufficiently serious to be taken up with them. I suspect that an interesting meeting would ensue. If the hon. Gentleman makes that charge, he is presumably capable of pursuing it.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does not my hon. Friend think it rather strange that, if what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) says is correct, there is nothing in the Bill about counselling. The evidence from those involved in the money advice centres and all the other organisations concerned was that they and the insolvency practitioners give a great deal of counselling. As I said in the Scottish Grand Committee, given that such people are in an emotional state, why is there no financial provision for counselling in the Bill?
  Mr. Wilson: Those points strengthen the case that we are making for a further examination of the measure. It is offensive to insolvency practitioners, never mind to money advice organisations, to suggest that they are somehow inciting people to sequestrate, as though accountants were out in the street with a hook pulling them in in order to encourage them to sequestrate and thereby secure fees for themselves. It is not a picture that I recognise.
  I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Ayr to figures with which I was supplied by the Strathclyde money advice service based in Ayr from a survey of cases in the Ayr, Irvine and Kilmarnock area, where 83 per cent. of multiple debt cases resulted in no sequestration and 17 per cent. did so result. Given those statistics, it is improbable that such incitement is going on. If it is, it should be identified and stopped. However, I have seen no evidence that it is going on, and we should not base legislation on the assumption that it is.
  The hon. Member for Ayr referred to people escaping the poll tax by taking that extreme course of action. All hon. Members have had hundreds of cases of people who are in debt and difficulty because of the poll tax. I honestly have not come across one case in my constituency of anyone resolving that difficulty, or dreaming of resolving it, by recourse to sequestration. We are talking about people who are in multiple debt—catalogue, utility and bank debt. The idea that people are escaping from the poll tax by this device is fairly absurd.
  I referred to the number of cases in Lerwick where only 16 individuals have sought sequestration in the past year. It was suggested that that said something peculiar about—or to the credit of—Lerwick, but looking through

  943
  a list of sequestrations by sheriff court area in Scotland I am struck not by the oddity of Lerwick but by the consistency of the position. With one or two blips, which could doubtlessly be investigated further, one finds great consistency of relatively low numbers in each area in proportion to population.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) would be interested to know that, in the year ended 31 March 1992, the Dundee sheriff court had 131 sequestration cases. That is an extremely modest number in a city where everyone knows that a great deal of hardship exists.
  Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that statistic to the attention of the House. He will know from information passed to me from the Dundee money advice project that its estimate of the number of cases of debt problems that it handles in a year—this is just one project in the city—is 12,000.
  Mr. Wilson: That is a useful reinforcement of the point. Sequestrations represent only a tiny proportion of the total number of debt cases. Ayr sheriff court had 275 cases. That does not suggest that queues are forming each day to take this easy and attractive course. Incidentally, at Ayr sheriff court, the procedure has cost some £600,000. If the whole thing were wiped out, not many roads could be built on the proceeds. Falkirk has had 554 such cases, Forfar 31 and Elgin 151. Those figures are not excessive, and they do not suggest that a campaign is in operation to persuade people to sequestrate themselves.
  We want the Bill to include protection for the right of the individual. We endorse the views of all the consumer organisations that have asked us to introduce such protection, so that people are not priced out of the process as they once were. The Minister told us the other day that the Government did not intend that to happen, but intention—or lack of intention—must be translated into the legislation.
  The Scottish Consumer Council has asked for three specific assurances. First, it wants
  "a simple form of petition which can be completed by a non-legally qualified person".
  Secondly, it wants
  "the technicalities of the reference to protected trust deeds deleted; a debtor should be able to petition without a qualified creditor and without having to say what the effect would be of a trustee trying to make a trust deed protected".
  Thirdly, it wants
  "a Government undertaking that there will be no court dues in sequestration petitions."
  I am sure that the Minister is as familiar with those demands as I am, and it would be encouraging if he gave an assurance—in the spirit of what he said in the Scottish Grand Committee—that they would be observed. If he does that, we shall be nearer to accepting that the Government's aim is not to limit the number of sequestrations, but to cut the costs in the ways suggested by other hon. Members and by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
  The Opposition felt that this was a good opportunity for the Secretary of State to show a modicum of good will and common sense. In effect, the Bill overtakes an Act introduced seven short years ago by the same Government and, largely, the same Ministers. That Act was based on a travesty of false expectation in relation to its financial consequences. Now, the Government are again taking up the time of the House, Committees and individual
  944
  Members to introduce legislation that is intended to redress the calculating errors that they made in 1985. I feel that a small amount of humility is called for. It should not be beneath Ministers to accept that a bit of advice might help them to get the legislation right this time—legislation that they recognise as largely uncontentious on party grounds—so that we do not have to undo it again in a few years.
  Having considered all that the Secretary of State has said since the general election about new approaches to Scottish legislation, the Opposition considered it eminently sensible to use an existing device to involve more people—lay people; people with some knowledge to offer hon. Members on both sides of the House—in the legislative process. It was a modest proposal, which was not especially partisan, a proposal that would have made this a better Bill than it will be. The Secretary of State, however, rejected it, and it is on that basis that his good intentions will be judged.
  6.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he had experienced an unexpected pleasure in Scottish politics. No doubt that is a fairly unusual experience for him nowadays. I am not sure whether the Bill was discussed at the meeting of Scottish Labour Members on Tuesday 2 June. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who wrote in the "Commons Diary" in this week's issue of The House Magazine:
  "The day at 8.00 pm is still young and I attend a two and quarter hour meeting of Scottish Labour MPs. The Group these days is to fraternal, constructive discussion what Kylie Minogue is to Shakespearean acting".
  Let us not be churlish and deny the hon. Member for Garscadden the occasional pleasure in Scottish politics. Such pleasures are rare and unexpected; let him enjoy them.
  In our first debate, the hon. Gentleman said that he thought that I had introduced the Bill with gritted teeth. I assure him that my teeth are now ungritted, and I am delighted to be winding up the debate. We have heard a number of constructive speeches from Opposition Members: as well as two excellent speeches from Conservative Members: my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly pointed to the essential need for balance between the interests of debtor, creditor and taxpayer, while my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made a number of positive suggestions, which the Government will consider.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden, and a number of other hon. Members, have used terms such as "nationalisation", "market economy" and "market testing". In a generally constructive speech, for which I pay credit to him, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned those concepts.
  Let me make the position clear. It will doubtless come as no surprise to the House to learn that the Government are fully committed to market-testing the delivery of the sequestration service, in accordance with the principles which we have established. We shall look closely—this relates to a number of points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—at the detailed implementation

  945
  of the Bill. We shall want to ensure that, wherever possible, the private sector has an opportunity to undertake the work when it can be done in a cost-effective manner.
  At present, the advice agency directs the debtor to a particular insolvency practitioner, who in most cases determines who shall act in a particular sequestration. Neither the creditor nor the taxpayer who is paying for the process has any say in the matter. That relates specifically to the points made by my hon. Friends about the need for balance. In effect, the chosen practitioner is in a monopoly: provided that he maintains a good relationship with the advice agency in his handling of its clients, he can be confident of a steady stream of work.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has moved from a stance of opposition in the Scottish Grand Committee to his present considered scepticism. Let me tell him that the accountant in bankruptcy will be in a position to introduce a much stronger dose of competition into the process. By contracting out the provision of the service to insolvency practitioners, he can ensure that value for money and quality of service are secured. The best, most efficient and most effective practitioners are likely to gain from the process. That is market testing; it is the reverse of nationalisation.
  A number of hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) in his intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—have rightly focused on the advice function. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was among those who asked who would be responsible for that function. The Government intend to give consideration—in consultation with money advice agencies and others—to the preparation of a guide to sequestration and its consequences, which could be made available to the general public. The preparation and making of such a guide and the provision of purely factual information on the process of sequestration will be the responsibility of the accountant in bankruptcy.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the money advice organisations that the Minister is consulting include the citizens advice bureaux?
  Mr. Stewart: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance on that point. Many citizens advice bureaux give excellent advice and have developed some excellent computer software in precisely this area.
  We shall be preparing a guide and will consult organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux. However, the accountant in bankruptcy will not be involved in advising an individual debtor as to whether to petition for sequestration.
  Mr. Wallace: I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that a guide will be drawn up. Will advice and help also be given to the various bureaux with regard to alternatives to sequestration?
  Mr. Stewart: Indeed. Both the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) pointed correctly to the fact that the majority of debt problems do not result in sequestration because of the advice that people receive.
  Through the urban programme the Government have committed support amounting to £1.25 million to money
  946
  advice centres in Scotland to ensure that debtors have access to good advice. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be reassured when I tell him that the Government have also provided core funding of over 1.4 million to Citizens Advice Scotland to assist its work with citizens advice bureaux.
  Turning to the major point that hon. Members have made in this debate, I repeat the assurance that I have already given and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave earlier today—savings will not be made at the expense of debtors' rights. The savings will come from two sources: more streamlined procedures and the Secretary of State's control of fees. A number of hon. Members have referred to the letter from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which says specifically that a major contributor to the savings that it identified will be the streamlined procedures that are set out in the Bill. I am glad that the hon. Member for Garscadden agrees.
  The point that has been made about access relates specifically to legal aid. Debtors will be able to apply for legal aid for the purpose of obtaining the assistance of a solicitor in drawing up and presenting a petition for sequestration. In practice, we expect most debtor petitioners to be funded through the existing legal aid, advice and assistance scheme that is administered by solicitors. That advice can be provided quickly.
  I repeat the assurance that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in the Scottish Grand Committee debate: we are also actively considering the extension of the assistance by way of representation scheme to provide legal assistance where a solicitor may have to appear before the court. Hon. Members should, of course, be able to raise questions of eligibility in Committee. That is the correct use of the Standing Committee procedure, but I give that absolute assurance about the Government's intention.
  Hon. Members have referred to the provision of services in areas other than rural areas. In the Scottish Grand Committee proceedings the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) asked about the position in areas outside Edinburgh. The Bill will enable the accountant in bankruptcy to employ agents to perform any of his functions in individual sequestrations. I envisage the accountant taking advantage of that power, which will allow him to appoint practitioners in the more remote rural areas and in many other parts of Scotland as his agent, in order to ensure that a good quality of service is provided to debtors.
  A number of hon. Members referred to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland's proposals which we have received today. We shall need to consider them carefully. A number of interesting ideas are set out in the institute's letter.
  Mr. Dewar: They represent not minor amendments but a fundamental change to the Bill which sets out to deal with an enormous increase in schedule 2 cases and the consequential burden on the public purse. It has been decided that that problem should be dealt with by passing responsibility to the accountant in bankruptcy. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland proposes that it should remain in the driving seat but that there should be a very much lower fee scale and simplified procedures. It is not just a matter of looking at the

  947
  proposal with interest. The fundamental question is whether, subject to detailed examination, that is an acceptable proposition.
  Mr. Stewart: The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland does not ask in its letter for the withdrawal of the Bill—quite the reverse. The institute has argued consistently that there is a great deal of merit in the Bill, as I believe the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would confirm. It has put forward a series of detailed proposals and interesting ideas. One of those is encouragement of the greater use of protected trust deeds. One would need to take account of the interets of creditors when examining the proposals. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others have confirmed that we are looking sympathetically at a change in procedure for non-schedule 2 cases.
  A number of hon. Members asked detailed questions, one of which related to the self-employed. The statistics are unreliable, but they show that of those who have indicated their status, about 49 per cent. have no occupation or are unemployed and about 32 per cent. are employees. The balance is 19 per cent.
  During the debate, Opposition Members have alleged that there has not been proper consultation. It is widely recognised that reform of the 1985 Act is needed urgently. We have brought forward our proposals after careful monitoring of the operation of the 1985 Act by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Bill was published on 8 May. It was then available to interested parties. It was considered in the Scottish Grand Committee on 4 June and 7 June, some 27 days after publication. Between then and today's Second Reading debate, nine more days have passed.
  The earliest date for consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee is 30 June, merely a fortnight from now.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly told the House, by then there will have been seven and a half weeks for representations to be made and considered. I share entirely the objective of all hon. Members that we should get the Bill right. There is broad agreement on the objectives of the Bill. There is also broad agreement on the need to achieve a balance between the interests of the debtors, the creditors and the taxpayer. Of course it is our objective to get it right in Committee. That is the sensible way to proceed. I urge the House to accept the Bill and to reject the Opposition's motion.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Dewar.]
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 294.

  Division No. 34]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Allen, Graham

  Ashton, Joe

  Alton, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  948

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Battle, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Godsiff, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benton, Joe

  Graham, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Berry, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Betts, Clive

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Blair, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Blunkett, David

  Gunnell, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Hain, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Hall, Mike

  Bradley, Keith

  Hanson, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Harvey, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Burden, Richard

  Heppell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Hoon, Geoff

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cann, James

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Dafis, Cynog

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darling, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davidson, Ian

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Donohoe, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  MacDonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Enright, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Etherington, William

  Maclennan, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Fisher, Mark

  Mahon, Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fraser, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  949

  Meale, Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michael, Alun

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Milburn, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Spellar, John

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Murphy, Paul

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Edward

  Strang, Gavin

  Olner, William

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dennis

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler, Paul

  Pike, Peter L.

  Vaz, Keith

  Pope, Greg

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wallace, James

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Randall, Stuart

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Rt hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Richardson, Jo

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. David Lightbown

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Butcher, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butler, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Cash, William

  Batiste, Spencer

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clappison, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Congdon, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  950

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Elletson, Harold

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lidington, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Madel, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Malone, Gerald

  Freeman, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Marland, Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  Merchant, Piers

  Gill, Christopher

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Mills, Iain

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heald, Oliver

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Hicks, Robert

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Horam, John

  Redwood, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  951

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thomason, Roy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Watts, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whitney, Ray

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stewart, Allan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Streeter, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sumberg, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Sweeney, Walter

  Yeo, Tim

  Sykes, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Garry Waller: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is a more modest measure than the first Bill of the same name, but it represents an important part of the overall King's Cross project. Before I outline the details of the proposals, it will be helpful to the House if I put the Bill in its proper context.
  The Bill follows on from works proposed in the original King's Cross Railways Bill, which is now in Committee in another place.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Waller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall get a little further into my speech before giving way, although I shall certainly give way to him soon.
  Hon. Members will recall that the purpose of the King's Cross Railways Bill was, first, to provide facilities for an enhanced Thameslink service across London, and, secondly, to provide a second international terminal for channel tunnel passenger trains with the best possible interchange from existing InterCity and Network SouthEast services. Thirdly, it was to provide increased capacity for domestic services at the existing St. Pancras and King's Cross main line stations.
  During four days of debate in this House on the principal Bill, I attempted to demonstrate the strategic importance of the King's Cross project not only to London but to the many other parts of the country which the enhanced King's Cross and St. Pancras station would link to the capital and to Europe. I hope that hon. Members will not seek to reopen the debate on the issues in the principal Bill, which was passed on 28 January by an overwhelming majority. Perhaps if they do try to do so you, in your wisdom, Madam Deputy Speaker, will rule them out of order.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the first Bill has not completed its passage through Parliament and is being considered elsewhere. Given the hon. Gentleman's close links with the British Railways Board, and in view of the property slump in London, can he tell us whether the board is seriously considering dropping the whole project, including the office development to the north of the proposed station site? If that is on the cards, this Bill will be redundant.
  Mr. Waller: No such proposal is on the cards. Indeed, only a few days ago an important announcement was made about the new concourse building for which a planning application is to be submitted. Although there may be short-term problems when considering a Bill that will give the go-ahead to a project lasting a number of years, such short-term considerations will play a relatively minor part. The railway lands which are the essential subject of the principal Bill are regarded by British Rail as an important part of its strategy for the inter-city railway of the 21st century. As a regular user of the station, I look forward to its completion.
  In the original Bill a number of new railway links are proposed to join the sub-surface station and St. Pancras

  953
  with the east coast main line. The purpose of the works is to improve the journey opportunities and capacity at the new station complex, especially for Thameslink and for international passengers. It will be recalled that those passengers will make use of a sub-surface station which will be linked to the existing one.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has so far spent all his time referring to the original Bill and the proposals for a channel tunnel terminus at King's Cross. He will be aware that only about 5 per cent. of this Bill has any direct relevance to the international station or the original Bill. That 5 per cent. relates to four minor access points. The overwhelming bulk of the Bill is about making a railway link into a concrete batching plant at a site in Holloway in the middle of my constituency.
  Mr. Waller: I have devoted about four sentences to the original Bill, to put this one in context. I also tried to answer the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I am sorry now that I allowed the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to intervene, because I am anxious to make progress and to get on to the subject of the Bill.
  One consequence of the works carried out to provide this new link will be the displacement of the Marcon and Pioneer Willment building materials plants which are at the northern end of the King's Cross site. Here we come to the heart of the proposals in the Bill. King's Cross has been a good site for these two firms, and since the 1960s it has enabled them to dispatch concrete to locations throughout the City and the west end.
  The construction industry imposes extremely stringent requirements on its suppliers. To comply with BS5328, concrete should be discharged from delivery vehicles within two hours of loading. Sometimes it is demanded that unloading should be effected within an hour. To meet these stringent demands, and to retain the laudable commitment—I hope that all hon. Members support it—of bringing in aggregates to the plants by rail, other sites in north London were considered by the companies as an alternative to King's Cross. Lough road in Holloway was one of the few sites identified as fit for this purpose, both in reports by consultants hired by BR and—quite independently—by the Association of London Borough Planning Officers. It was the only site suitably close to central London for Pioneer Willment and Marcon.
  While preparing for this debate I visited the site. I cannot claim to have anything like the detailed knowledge possessed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, in whose constituency it lies, but I have a reasonably good idea of the location and of the implications that this development would have for the people who live alongside it.
  Since the 19th century, Lough road has been the site of a railway goods yard and it has only recently become disused. In its time it has been a cattle yard and, more recently, a Motorail depot. The proposals in the Bill seek to return the site to something akin to its original purpose. Indeed, in planning terms, the location is widely regarded as best suited to B2 or general industrial use. As recently as 1986, it was identified as such in the Islington
  954
  development plan, and it is included as such in the unitary development plan prepared by the borough of Islington in 1991, on which an inspector's report is awaited.
  The plan includes the new Holloway access road allowed for in British Rail's own plans, and Islington council has already granted itself planning permission to construct the road. I suspect that several hon. Members will want to discuss that road further today.
  The work in the Bill proposes to reinstate rail access into the site from the east coast main line. The works lie on BR land along former track formations in the area. There used to be a railway line, and the siding which provides rail access will closely match the track formation that used to be in place. The Bill also includes powers to construct and operate this facility, subject to planning permission. Consent has now been received from the relevant Secretaries of State following a public local inquiry into an appeal by British Rail against the non-determination by the London borough of Islington of BR's application for planning permission.
  Many hon. Members will know that conditions were attached to the recommendation of the inspector. Minor road improvements have also been agreed following discussions between the borough and BR.
  The railway works are in three parts. First, there is a line 1,009 m long from the Great Northern railway, now known as the east coast main line, into the site. Secondly, there is a 415 m line from the nearby Canonbury junction freight line into the line to which I have just referred. Thirdly, there is a 71 m line rejoining the siding to the east coast main line. Together, these works will allow aggregates trains to enter and leave the site from either direction without interfering with the busy commuter and inter-city traffic on the east coast main line.
  I am aware that there are 16 petitions against the Bill and that many of them reflect the natural concern of local residents about the possible dust and noise levels in the area of the new plant. The use of the site was considered in depth at the public inquiry prior to consent being given. I am sure that those are the kinds of issue that are best dealt with by the Committee if petitioners wish to pursue them and if the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight.
  Mr. Corbyn: In his researches, no doubt the hon. Gentleman considered the problem of the resiting of the concrete batching plant in the past by the same company at Monnery road, in my constituency. Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the inspector's report which rejected that planning application? Similar words to those used by the hon. Gentleman in support of the new site were used in support of the other site, but they were rejected. Many of the arguments about dust, noise, pollution and traffic apply just as much to the new site as they did to the original site.
  Mr. Waller: I have read the inspector's report and BR's arguments in favour of the proposal. I have also read the arguments of the London borough of Islington against the proposal and the arguments advanced by many local residents who were opposed to the development and who petitioned against it. I have also read a summary of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
  At the end of the day, the inspector stated clearly that he did not believe that the concerns were sufficient to overrule the desirability of the site, bearing in mind the

  955
  considerable advantages that it would provide. Because he rejected the concerns about noise, dust and traffic, he did not think it necessary to consider whether there was an overwhelming need for the project. However, if he had not felt that there were good reasons for the consent to be applied, it could have been shown that there was a need which could not have been satisfied by locating the site anywhere else.
  There are proposals to mitigate noise from the plant through the use of screening. That will provide suitable protection against plant noise and the process of loading and unloading material. The arrival and departure of trains will not significantly raise the level of noise of that busy railway route. The east coast main line carries a great deal of traffic. When channel tunnel traffic begins to use the line, the traffic will increase.
  It is important to BR's future viability and success that there should be an increase in use of its lines, and I hope that all hon. Members would support that. Set against the use of that very busy line—one of the country's premier lines—it is not felt that the arrival and departure of trains in connection with the plant will significantly raise the level of noise, especially bearing in mind the agreements and conditions applied by the inspector with regard to night-time working.
  Concerns were also expressed about the effects of dust. I noted that a number of those who gave evidence at the public inquiry had been to King's Cross and had expressed concern about the dust there. Monitoring has shown that there is not a great deal of dust at King's Cross. However, the plant at King's Cross was constructed many years ago and considerable progress has been made in applying dust suppression techniques.
  Furthermore, the aggregates used in the batching process are damp and not inherently dusty. Proposals are included for the site for the damping down of the aggregates in the handling area. It is believed that dust levels will prove to be negligible. Monitoring of dust levels at King's Cross, where the levels have inherently been much greater than is anticipated at Lough road, show that there is absolutely no threat to health as interpreted by international health organisations.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate development at King's Cross. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, King's Cross is a major terminus which will hopefully be a through station at the end of the premier east coast main line. In order to gain support for the Bill, perhaps he can explain something to me. In its very expensive document entitled "On Track for Europe", BR states that it is ordering daytime trains and that those trains
  "will provide daily services from Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham to Paris and to Brussels. Other stops are planned at Stockport, Crewe, Stafford, Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes and at Newcastle, Darlington, York, Doncaster and Peterborough."
  The whole purpose of the King's Cross development has been to garner support from the provinces on the basis that trains will stop at major cities. With regard to the list to which I have referred, why will no trains originate from or stop at Leeds or Bradford?
  Mr. Waller: I must be cautious about pursuing too far the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), because that is not the subject of the Bill. However, the prospect of channel tunnel trains going to
  956
  Leeds is by no means ruled out, although I think that that would depend on the electrification of the link between Leeds and York which would enable trains on the east coast main line bound for Newcastle and Edinburgh to divert via Leeds. That might be considered and, for constituency reasons, I hope that it is implemented when the opportunity arises.
  The second main proposal in the Bill is to improve access to the main works sites.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waller: I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  It was one of the criticisms of the local authorities that the quality of access to the site was not ideal. The No. 2 Bill benefits from more detailed construction planning, and it proposes a remedy by providing three new temporary access points and by making one of the original access points permanent rather than temporary to meet the express requirements of the railways inspectorate for vehicular access in the event of emergencies. That should help to reduce even further use of the public highway and any possible congestion. It should allow swifter movement of vehicles to and from the site.
  More of the construction traffic associated with the project will now be able to use major rather than residential roads, which will be particularly beneficial to residents of Wharfdale road, Balfe street and Railway street, three streets that figured prominently in our debate on the principal Bill.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am not trying to throw the hon. Gentleman off his stride, but he seems to have ignored the implications of clause 9, which fits in with the question of the concrete batching plant at Lough road. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the modifications proposed for the Hornsey road bridge fall within my constituency, as the boundary runs along the Holloway road, the northern side of which is in my constituency. Can the hon. Gentleman say how extensive will be those works to the Hornsey road bridge, and is he aware that the bridge was changed not so recently to make it narrower?
  Mr. Waller: I am very much aware of the latter point. If BR had anticipated the present proposals, it would not have made that change. Nevertheless, it is necessary to build a new bridge alongside the existing one to enable the project to go ahead. I cannot at this stage answer the hon. Gentleman's point in full. However, if I can make progress quickly and finish my speech, there will be time for me to answer important points like that later in the debate, if I have the leave of the House to respond.
  It is perhaps difficult for a Bill such as this to capture the imagination of the House. I hope, however, that it will be seen as an important adjunct to the original proposals.
  The House should take the opportunity to allow Marcon and Pioneer Willment to remain in the business of providing high—quality concrete to central London, but, above all, we should allow them to continue to bring in their aggregates by rail. The hon. Member for Bradford, South is very keen for that to be facilitated, not only at King's Cross but in many parts of the country, and I applaud his intent.
  It is certainly the policy of the Government and of the Opposition to develop opportunities for freight by rail,

  957
  and it commands the highest support in the House. This Bill must succeed if there is to be any credibility in that policy.
  The proposals for access to the main King's Cross site are in response to the feeling that access could be improved. I hope that the measures in the No. 2 Bill will be seen as a measure of the promoter's willingness to respond to the concerns of local authorities and others.
  I recognise hon. Members' important constituency concerns. However, there is a need for a concrete batching site. The public inquiry concluded that that was an appropriate site and that the concerns expressed by the objectors, although not totally insignificant by any means, were not such that the project should not go ahead. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I oppose the Bill, and I do so most vigorously. It is a misleadingly titled Bill, because I suspect that British Rail quite deliberately wanted to imply that there was a direct connection between the works connected with this Bill and the new channel tunnel station at King's Cross, which was approved by the passage of the original King's Cross Railways Bill. The promulgation of this No. 2 Bill by British Rail has compounded that misleading impression. It has argued that the Bill is somehow an integral part of the placing at King's Cross of the channel tunnel traffic. It has sold the virtues of the No. 2 Bill on the back of that assumption. That assumption is totally incorrect.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) tended to go a little bit in the same direction when he talked about the Bill being an adjunct to the original King's Cross Railways Bill. It is nothing of the sort. If the Bill were to fall and not be given a Second Reading, that would make virtually not one jot of difference to the proposals for the channel tunnel station at King's Cross.
  The location of the channel tunnel traffic at King's Cross and its onward progress to the north-east and north-west is of great importance to many of my hon. Friends and indeed of particular importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who has argued long and valiantly in a previous capacity for such direct links to the north. None of that—the location at King's Cross or the links to the north—would be affected at all if the Bill were defeated today.
  I hope that British Rail will not try to argue that anything else is the case, because 95 per cent. of the Bill is about the specific location of a concrete batching plant on a specific site in the middle of my constituency—nothing more, nothing less. To imply that it is anything more is actually to mislead the House and the public as well.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if British Rail made assertions about the Bill, it would be unlikely to be believed because it suborned many provincial Members into supporting the original Bill on the claim—
  Mr. Peter Snape: But not you.
  Mr. Cryer: But not me. My hon. Friend is quite right. It suborned many hon. Members on the promise that there would be daily through trains, or at least through trains
  958
  from various major provincial cities. According to the publication that it recently released, that is patently not the case.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. He will recall that, in the Committee report on the King's Cross Railways Bill, British Rail was taken strenuously to task for the way in which it argued its case. I suspect that it is up to precisely the same tricks this time.
  The statement that was issued by the propagators of the Bill in connection with the Second Reading states:
  "This Bill will confer on the Board additional powers to those being sought in the King's Cross Railways Bill".
  They clearly give the impression in that supporting statement that there is a direct connection between the No. 2 Bill and the main King's Cross Railways Bill. There is not. Again, they give the same impression in the environmental summary which is in the Vote Office. They say:
  "The King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill contains two railway works proposals which are closely connected with the major improvements planned for King's Cross".
  The works proposals are not closely connected with those major improvements. There are only two connections of any kind whatsoever. The first is the proposal in the No. 2 Bill for four new—three of them are temporary—access points to the main King's Cross works. Those are minor matters, but they are none the less contestable, and I shall refer to them in a moment, but they are not germane to the entirety of the King's Cross project. Indeed, if British Rail had wanted to, it could have introduced those new access points in amendments to the existing King's Cross Railways Bill.
  The only other connection between the two schemes is the theme that ran through the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for Keighley, and that is the assumption that, because a concrete batching plant on the King's Cross Railway lands is going to be displaced—eventually—by developments at King's Cross, another site has to be identified for it. Of course, it does not have to be at Lough road. Those are the only two connections between the two Bills. For British Rail to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.
  Mr. Snape: I might be as disingenuous as British Rail, although I hope not. If the plant is to be removed from its present site in King's Cross goods yard to the site proposed in the Bill, surely that establishes the very connection that my hon. Friend seeks to deny.
  Mr. Smith: The last thing that I would accuse my hon. Friend of being is disingenuous. He has a formidable reputation for plain and honest speaking, but I fear that on that specific point he is wrong.
  The Bill provides for the railway works in connection with a specific location for the concrete batching plant. There is a multitude of other possible locations. If one moves a concrete batching plant, one does not have to put it on Lough road. As I shall mention later, there is provision, for example, for a new temporary concrete batching plant on the King's Cross railway lands while construction continues on the new station. There is no reason whatever why that plant should not stay on the King's Cross railway lands. Perhaps a few square feet of office development might have to be removed from the London regenertion consortium scheme. But it would be perfectly possible to put the plant elsewhere.

  959
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is right to say that the removal of the concrete batching plant from King's Cross is an inevitable consequence of the original King's Cross Railways Bill, but the placing of that concrete batching plant on the Lough road site is by no means an inevitable consequence. That is the point at issue.
  There are four new access points to the main King's Cross site. Three of them will be temporary. One is on the east corner of Caledonian road and Pentonville road. The second is on the west corner of Northdown street and Pentonville road. The first of those access points seems somewhat dangerous. I am sure that after a close inspection of the maps which have been tabled you would come to the same conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Similarly, the second site lies outside the planned lorry routes for the King's Cross construction traffic. One has to assume, therefore, that the lorry routes will be changed to make use of that new access point. The second access point could also be dangerous, although perhaps less obviously so than the first.
  The third new access point is on the south corner of Railway street and York way. That proposal is supposed to move an original access point midway along Railway street, and therefore much nearer to the residential houses in Balfe street, to the new south corner. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall from our discussions about the original King's Cross Railways Bill that the hon. Member for Keighley, who sponsored that Bill also, specifically refused to remove from the Bill the provision for the original access point halfway along Railway street. Now, we are told that a third new access point will be created, but that the original access point will not be removed. Therefore, far from allaying the fears of residents and the local authority, as the hon. Member for Keighley implied, British Rail is creating extra access points without removing any of the access points provided under the original Bill.
  The new access point at the corner of Railway street and York way would require the complete demolition of the St. Pancras ironworks, a building which is considered to be the most significant unlisted building in the immediate area. There is an alternative: if British Rail did its homework properly—I am afraid that a long catalogue of instances in connection with the King's Cross project demonstrates that British Rail does not—it could have created a different access point a little further south on York way itself. That would have been much more acceptable to local people and equally good for British Rail. It would not have involved the demolition of any remarkable buildings.
  The three new access points, all of which are in my constituency, do not add anything to the original Bill. Indeed, they make life worse rather than better for local people. The three access points which I mentioned are designed to be temporary. A fourth access point, provided for in the No. 2 Bill, will be permanent. It is on King's Cross road near Britannia street. It is supposed to provide emergency access to the station.
  The new permanent access point is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who had hoped to be here with us this evening but has been unavoidably detained elsewhere. Of course there is a need for an emergency service access to the King's Cross site. However, I remain to be convinced that the position at Britannia street and King's
  960
  Cross road is the right one for that emergency access. Of course, it enlarges the area of land which will be gobbled up by British Rail in both Camden and Islington for the purposes of its new channel tunnel station project.
  The new access provisions seem to be the only parts of the Bill which have a direct impact on the main King's Cross project. British Rail has not come up with good proposals for new access points. It has come up with detrimental proposals and it could have done better.
  I note from the environmental statement tabled with the Bill that British Rail says that the provisions of the environment code of the King's Cross Railways Bill will apply to the construction of the new access points. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had a lengthy debate about the provisions of that environmental code when we discussed the main Bill. It was obvious from those discussions that the environmental code had not yet been agreed by the boroughs concerned. It still has not been agreed. It is inadequate. Blandly to say in the environmental impact statement that an environmental code will be in place to protect the interests of residents does not say much to the residents who will be affected.
  Indeed, one must raise a fairly serious question about the validity of the entire environmental statement that British Rail has tabled in connection with the Bill. For example, under the heading "Cultural Heritage", it says:
  "The planning of the King's Cross Railways Bill works has taken account of the character of the surrounding area, in particular the location and characteristics of Conservation Areas, listed buildings and other buildings of importance and interest."
  The planning has done nothing of the sort. I invite British Rail to tell that to the owners and proprietors of the Great Northern hotel, which will be knocked down under British Rail's proposals. To say that the planning has taken account of the character of the surrounding area is wholly invalid. An environmental assessment report which comes out with obviously bogus sentences of that nature cannot be taken as a properly serious document.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the conservation area and the Great Northern hotel. In the context of that argument, he should also have mentioned the Golden Lion public house, which is also in the conservation area and is likely to be demolished. Surely that is another sign of the fact that British Rail has not considered the conservation aspects of its proposals. Many people tend to think of the Great Northern hotel as the obvious watering hole for people in the area, but the Golden Lion pub is also well known and has a certain tradition and character.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I hope that he will be able to catch your eye later in our deliberations, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that he will tell us a little about the importance of the Golden Lion.
  Mr. Waller: Perhaps I could abbreviate the expected comments about that pub. Contrary to what was said, British Rail has demonstrated its concern and is in discussions with the London borough of Camden, in whose area the unlisted public house is located. It may or may not be demolished as part of the work, but it is not true to say that British Rail has not been concerned about its future.
  Mr. Smith: That is a classic instance of the way in which British Rail has acted in connection with the project—it

  961
  makes a proposal—in this case, for the demolition of a public house—begins to retreat from that position in the face of the fierce and logical opposition from all quarters and finally comes up with a half-baked solution.
  That is what British Rail did about the access points which I mentioned, which are a minor part of the No. 2 Bill, representing at most 5 per cent. of its contents. I shall concentrate my remarks on the other 95 per cent., which concerns the concrete batching plant at the Lough road site and the railway works which will reach it. We cannot consider the railway works without considering the plant, as there will be no plant without railway access.
  I shall place before my colleagues a number of reasons why we should not grant approval for a plant. The first and perhaps most important is that there is fierce local opposition to it. Several public meetings have been held. They were packed and were unanimous in their condemnation of the proposal. A number of local residents sat through the entire public local inquiry held by the planning inspector at Islington town hall, lasting several weeks. Many local residents expressed their concern in evidence to the planning inspector and many submitted petitions against the Bill.
  I shall demonstrate the strength of feeling among local people. A letter from Mr. Fitzgerald, the chairman of the governors of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart school—a primary school next door to the proposed site of the concrete batching plant—says:
  "I am appalled at the idea of British Rail's proposal to build two Concrete Batching Plants at Piper Close within 200 yards of the school. I would like to put forward my objection to these plants being sited at Piper Close. To think that our children will have to live and learn in such an environment is unthinkable, impractical and a disgrace to the powers who thought of the idea in the first place. They say it will be dustproof? They mean as near as they can make it, not quite the same thing … Must our children live and learn with windows permanently closed … The traffic hazard will be much much worse than it is at the present time."
  That is eloquent testimony to the concern felt about the school which is next door to the site in question.
  The tenants association of Tealby, Soldene, Bramall and Geary houses on the Ringcross estate has written to say:
  "We the tenants association do object on behalf of our tenants and ourselves to the planning application made by British Rail/Marcon and Willment to build one of two concrete batching plants on the site between Piper Close and the railway line".
  The letter lists the association's objections and highlights
  "The inappropriateness of this particular type of industrial activity next to residential dwellings."
  The Ringcross estate lies directly by the site in question and many of the tenants on the estate will be directly affected by the siting of the concrete plant there.
  The tenants association of Shearling way, which is also nearby, writes:
  "On behalf of the tenants of Shearling Way estate, we are objecting to the proposed concrete batching plant between Piper Close and the railway line … A number of our tenants back directly onto the railway lines and are very annoyed at the prospect of these trains running when people are normally asleep."
  I shall come to the question of night-time operations in a moment, because the situation is unclear and the hon. Member for Keighley did not touch on it. The tenants association stresses that
  "this is very much a residential area".
  962
  It is right to do so.
  A local general practitioner, Dr. Herwitz, whose practice covers the area around the site, has also written. He said:
  "I am writing to protest about the proposed plans to turn the Lough road site in London N7 into concrete batching plants. This will result in many hundreds of lorry journeys every day causing unacceptable levels of noise, dust and pollution.
  A large number of journeys by HGVs in this dense residential area would result in serious hazards to pedestrians as well as to local traffic. There are numerous schools in the area and children would clearly be at increased risk. In addition, there are several day centres for the elderly and special accommodation for the disabled. These people in particular need to be able to get to their homes and facilities locally without being threatened by enormous concrete transporters. This is a residential area which includes some light industrial buildings. The industrial units mainly involve quiet processes and little in the way of continuous journeys to-and-fro by large vehicles. By and large, such light industrial factories and workshops work well together. However the proposed concrete batching plants will destroy the equilibrium of the area … In addition, they will also result in noisy night-time deliveries to the site. I know of many shift workers, including NHS nurses, who live near to this site whose sleep will be seriously disturbed if the proposals are given the go ahead."
  That is but a small sample of the comments of local people, in positions of some authority and knowledge, who have argued strongly against the siting of the concrete batching plant at that location. Two themes of objections are overwhelmingly obvious. First, the area is residential, people's homes directly overlook the site and are cheek by jowl with it and they will be dramatically affected by the erection of the concrete plant.
  The second major theme of the residents is not just the impact of the workings on the site but all the consequent movements of traffic, especially because the concrete aggregate will enter by train and leave by lorry. There will be many lorry movements in and out of the new site throughout the day.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure he is—that one issue concerning the concrete batching plant, which came up at the Monnery road inquiry, was the short interval between the loading of lorries and the deliveries of the ready-mixed concrete? As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) pointed out, that sometimes takes an hour. There is a lot of traffic in Islington, so does my hon. Friend think that residential roads will be used increasingly to deliver the concrete quickly?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend may be right. I shall touch on that in a moment when I consider the traffic implications of the development, which are not quite what British Rail claims they are likely to be.
  British Rail is up to its usual tricks with the main King's Cross development. Originally, it argued that that development would cause negligible traffic consequences, but it was forced to admit that some would arise. In addition, the Department of Transport estimates of disruption are considerably greater than those of British Rail. British Rail is playing the same tricks in this issue.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the noise on the site. It is important to note that that will not be caused by heavy goods vehicles alone. The concrete will arrive by train, so the hon. Gentleman should take account of page 27 of British Rail's environmental assessment, where it admits that the greatest potential for

  963
  noise from trains will be between midnight and 3 o'clock in the morning. It also admits that diesel engines will idle and one can imagine the noise that they will make. The problem is not just that of noise from trains moving into and out of the site but that of diesel engines idling as unloading takes place. That will have a dramatic impact on noise levels for local residents during the most inconvenient hours of the day.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to what British Rail says in its environmental statement.
  We face something of a dilemma because in that report, British Rail suggested that there will be at least one night-time delivery of sand and aggregate to the batching plant. Of course, that will create noise. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to diesel engines idling, but they will also shunt backwards and forwards. Trucks will be pulled one by one as they pass through the unloading bays. The noise impact of those activities in the early hours of the morning on the people whose homes are directly next door will be considerable.
  Mr. Snape: I do not pretend that the noise of trains is music to everyone's ears, but will my hon. Friend tell us whether the rest of Islington, particularly its major roads, is a haven of peace and tranquillity all night?
  Mr. Smith: For once, I fear that my charitable inclinations towards my hon. Friend are departing. He falls into exactly the same trap as British Rail did in its environmental statements. It has argued that the people of Islington already have to put up with noise, so if it loads a massive amount of extra noise on them, it will not matter. My hon. Friend cannot expect the people of Islington to accept that argument, which would add extra noise on top of that from which they already suffer. I accept that they live in a congested inner-city area and that many of them live beside roads and railway lines. They accept the constraints that that imposes on their quality of life, but it would be too much to subject them to extra, intrusive noise, especially in the middle of the night.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1983 we tabled an early-day motion which called for a Londonwide lorry ban? We were not entirely successful, but we achieved a night-time lorry ban and changed the attitudes of many local authorities, particularly our own. They have done their best to curb the use of heavy vehicles at night and to reduce the noise pollution from them. It is therefore highly inappropriate that people should be expected to put up with increased noise at night, because of the concrete batching plant, when those people have enjoyed a slight improvement in their living conditions because of the operation of the night-time lorry ban on the Holloway road.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps he should have added that the former Greater London council played a creditable role in achieving a night-time lorry ban in London, which greatly benefited its residents.
  We face a dilemma on night-time working. In its environmental statements, British Rail stated that there will be night-time deliveries of aggregate and sand and floodlighting of the site to enable the night-time work to carry on. The planning inspector in a recent report, to which British Rail does not refer in any of the documents that it has laid before the House, made recommendations
  964
  that are germane to the debate. He recommended that planning permission should be granted only on condition that no night-time operations take place. We need to know from British Rail whether it intends to pursue the idea of night-time working or whether it will accept the condition proposed by the planning inspector. At present, everything that British Rail has proposed assumes that there will be night-time operations.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to the environmental assessments of noise levels, because it is beyond dispute that BR assumes night-time working will take place. However, he has disappointed me, because he has confined his remarks to the noise caused by heavy goods vehicles and shunting. I remind him—I hope that he will devote part of his speech to this—that, to unload the trucks, a vibrating machine will be necessary to grab the sand and gravel out of them. On pages 27 and 28 of volume two of the technical reports, British Rail admits that the greatest potential for noise comes from the machinery that will grab the sand and gravel from the railway trucks. That will also add to the noise caused by the diesel engines.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my argument, because I had intended to consider the issues of noise, dust and the nature of the working. However, he is right to draw our attention to page 27. A footnote to that statement says:
  "It is intended that deliveries of sand at night will be restricted, should it prove necessary."
  Who determines whether it proves necessary? We need to know whether the planning inspector's restrictions on night-time operations will be accepted by British Rail. The papers which British Rail has tabled in the House show that it will not accept that restriction.
  Mr. Waller: British Rail has accepted the condition applied by the planning inspector that there should be no night-time deliveries of aggregates to the site. It may have been thought that, compared with the large amount of traffic on the line, that was a relatively minor factor. Nevertheless, British Rail has accepted that, despite the fact that it causes some disadvantage. The limited number of deliveries at night would have been advantageous to British Rail, but it accepts the condition that the planning inspector has applied to his recommendation.
  Mr. Smith: In that case, we are making some progress. We now have an acceptance by British Rail of the planning inspector's recommendation.
  However, as the planning inspector pointed out, an inevitable consequence of reduced night-time activity on the site would be increased day-time activity. Therefore, although local residents are delighted that there will be no prospect of work until the small hours of the morning, the consequences of that must be taken into account.
  The hon. Member for Keighly briefly mentioned the history of the site, and it may be appropriate if I deal for a moment or two with that subject. The site is interesting and has served many purposes in its lifetime. It was originally used for sidings, cattle pens and the premises of forage merchants. It was very much connected with its location directly beside the railway. It went through a long and tortuous history of different tenancies, uses and applications for planning permission.
  It is worth noting that in 1962 British Rail declared the site to be surplus land and offered it to London county

  965
  council as a possible site for housing. That seems to show that, 30 years ago, British Rail felt that the best use for that site was not the use that is now proposed but something quite different. It is worth noting also that proposals have been made on several occasions for the creation of a concrete batching plant on the Lough road site. In 1970, the London borough of Islington turned down an application, giving as grounds for doing so the disturbance and noise that would be created for the occupants of an estate that was then under construction, which subsequently became the Ringcross estate, directly beside the site on which the Bill focuses.
  The latest position is that British Rail, in association with the two concrete companies, has submitted two different applications for concrete batching facilities on the site. The Department of the Environment inspector has considered the matter, there has been a lengthy public local inquiry and vigorous local opposition has been expressed to the proposal. The inspector's report was issued only a few weeks ago, with the important proviso of no night-time working. I regret to say that it does not accept the opposition of local residents and the borough but recommends approval of the concrete batching plant. However, it clearly says that harm will be done to the amenities of local residents.
  The inspector then develops the remarkable argument that, because the site is destined in the local plan for general industrial use, it does not matter what kind of industrial use the land is put to because everyone will accept that there will be disturbance and noise. There is a world of difference between an industrial use that it is possible and sensible to locate next door to residential accommodation and industrial use that it is not sensible to locate next door to residential accommodation. A concrete batching plant falls firmly in the latter category. I fear that the planning inspector has not accepted what seems to be a common-sense argument put strongly by local people.
  Everything now depends on the Bill. If it does not go ahead, the concrete batching plant will not go ahead. But if it proceeds and it receives approval from both Houses of Parliament, the concrete batching plant will go ahead and many of my constituents will be directly damaged and disadvantaged by that fact. That is why I cannot accept the proposal.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is a fundamentally flawed way of going about matters to go first to the planning authority, then hold a public inquiry and, lastly, go to the Secretary of State? Is it not presumptuous to try to present a fait accompli to Parliament? If British Rail wanted to go ahead with the project, would it not have been more courteous to come first to Parliament with its proposals for legislation and, only after Parliament had determined whether the Bill should go ahead, hold a public inquiry? Was it not presumptuous of British Rail to say to the House, "Well, we have held a public inquiry and have the Secretary of State's permission, so will you kindly rubber-stamp it?"
  Mr. Smith: Great as my respect is for the hon. Gentleman, I do not follow his argument entirely. I have long argued that the whole private Bill procedure is nonsense. It is no sensible way to make proper decisions
  966
  about local planning matters, which is basically what the Bill is about, or strategic principle decisions, which is what the main King's Cross Bill is about.
  Other matters also need to be taken into account. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Keighley said that there was no alternative site and that, as a result of the removal of the batching plant in the King's Cross development, the new batching plant had to be located in Lough road because there was nowhere else for it to go. He said that everybody else had had a look and had come to the conclusion that it must be located at Lough road. That is explicitly stated in the environmental statement issued by British Rail.
  But we are talking about a fairly substantial area. The way in which concrete is produced at a batching plant means that it can be transported from a large number of locations to central London. It does not have to come from the King's Cross or Holloway district but could come from any region within a suitable mileage of central London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned Monnery road public inquiry and the inspector's report. That involved another proposal for a concrete batching plant—in his constituency, not mine —which attracted similarly fierce opposition from local residents. I am pleased that, in that case, the inspector saw sense and decided that the proposal should not go ahead. The subject of alternative locations arose during that inquiry. The Secretary of State's inspector said that there was a potential site at Juno way in New Cross.
  Page 42 of the inspector's report stated that the potential site at Juno way
  "would be able to serve areas to the south of the Thames now operated from King's Cross."
  It also stated:
  "I do not accept that the River Thames acts for practical purposes as a complete barrier to lorry movement."
  It is clear from the inspector's report on Monnery road that the new site proposed at Juno way in New Cross could serve exactly the purpose proposed for the site at King's Cross. Since then, permission has been granted to develop the Juno way site as a concrete batching plant, so an alternative site does exist; for anyone, including British Rail, to pretend that it does not is not a valid argument.
  New Cross is not the only alternative site and the question must be asked whether British Rail has looked closely enough at the land it owns at King's Cross. The proposals for the new international station at King's Cross touch on only a small proportion of British Rail's lands at King's Cross. There are proposals for a massive development of the remainder of those railway lands by the London regeneration consortium. I am by no means convinced that it is impossible to find a corner of the King's Cross railway lands that could be used for the relocation of the present concrete batching plant.
  At a briefing meeting held in April 1991 on its King's Cross development proposals, British Rail said that it intended to build two concrete plants in the north-west corner of the King's Cross railway lands site for the period of redevelopment and construction of those lands. If it can build two concrete plants on its own King's Cross land for the duration of the King's Cross development, why on earth can it not have two concrete plants to last beyond the time of its redevelopment of the King's Cross railway lands at that location?

  967
  I cannot accept that there is no alternative to the Lough road site; there are clear alternatives, two of which I have already identified. I am sure that, if we combed the whole of central and inner London for alternative sites, we could come up with a considerable number of other alternatives.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware—although he has not mentioned it—that during the Monnery road and Lough road inquiries the issue of likely future demand for ready-mix concrete was also mentioned. I wonder whether we are planning for over-production of the material and whether we may end up with far too many facilities for producing it to meet the demand.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is correct. We all know what has happened to the construction industry in recent years. There is 25 per cent. over-capacity in office space in London. The demand for concrete has fallen substantially in recent years. We hope that the construction industry will pick up, although I doubt that it will, given Government policies. We must seriously question whether there is a need for the two plants to continue in existence or whether the need for concrete in the inner London district cannot be met by other existing plants, without dumping a new one in the middle of a residential district.
  There are other worries, some of which the hon. Member for Keighley mentioned. There is much concern about the dust that may be generated by the development. I accept that British Rail and the concrete companies say that the activity will be enclosed, the essential operation will be boxed in by protective layers and the process will be subject to dampening.
  However, two factors must be borne in mind. First, no such plant has ever been built. There is not a concrete plant in this country with an enclosed operation and the damping-down facilities proposed by British Rail for the King's Cross site. The inspector's report identifies the problem and states that he cannot make a judgment on whether such mechanisms will work, because there is no such plant up and running for him to look at.
  The second factor is that, if the protective devices are to work, there must be immaculate housekeeping at the site and everything must be done entirely by the book. From the moment they set foot on the site to the moment they leave, people must abide by the rules. I expect that, in the normal course of operations of a concrete batching plant, there will be quite a lot of hasty, perhaps understandable, breaches of the guidelines and rules. The necessity for closing doors and ensuring that everything is shut may be forgotten in haste. It may well be that the site will not be run absolutely according to the rulebook each and every day in each and every year. Therefore, there is a danger that dust will be created, with a serious impact on local people.
  Mr. Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the concrete batching plant will be subject to the increasingly stringent regulations set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990? The enforcement authority will be the London borough of Islington, which as an ultimate sanction could require the closure of the concrete batching plant if the regulations were not met. Will that not be a considerable incentive for everyone involved with the plant to ensure that the rules are obeyed?
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that the excellent environmental health officers of the London borough of Islington will do everything possible to ensure that the site is operated in accordance with the rules and the commitments presently being given by British Rail. But what will happen when there is blisteringly hot weather in the summer and all the doors and hatches in the concrete batching plant, which are supposed to be kept shut, are open because of intolerable heat? One can fully understand how that might occur.
  Roller shutters will be constantly opened and shut to allow access into and out of the various site facilities. Are we to say that no dust will ever escape when those shutters are raised or lowered? I would not accuse anyone of bad faith, but in the normal operation of such a site it will be impossible to maintain the absolute standards on dust that British Rail promises.
  Mr. Corbyn: In response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), my hon. Friend made an important point about the likely dust levels inside the plant. We are moving into uncharted waters here. Does my hon. Friend agree that Islington's excellent environmental health service will be put in an impossible bind? It will have to ensure reduced dust levels surrounding the plant while being required to look after the health, safety and welfare of those who work in the plant, where dust levels will be high. I wonder whether we are building a plant that will be a complete monster for all concerned.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One of my sadnesses is that the creation of the concrete batching plant will not provide any employment for local people —it is intended, probably rightly, to move the existing employees from the King's Cross site to this site—but their health and safety must be considered.
  I have already touched on the problem of site noise. The site is directly next door to residential accommodation. Noise will come not simply from train deliveries and shunting operations but from lorries coming empty to the plant and leaving full from it. They will rev their engines in low gear and grind their gears coming up out of the low-lying site to reach the levels of the main roads surrounding the site. There will be many noisy operations on the site, such as the descaling of the revolving drums on the backs of the lorries. Local residents will have to put up with all that.
  In addition, there will be the impact of train movements. People living in the surrounding area already experience considerable noise disturbance from the trains using the main-line tracks. The vibrations can be felt as far away as Hartham road, which is a considerable distance from the site. Although everyone in the area accepts that no one living in close proximity to a railway, as I do, can expect a wholly quiet, noise-free existence, they are entitled to ask questions about the extent of the additional noise which is likely to be imposed on them. We are talking here not just of inter-city trains or normal transport but of trains carrying extremely heavy materials on to the site.
  There is an additional problem. Some houses in the immediately surrounding streets are already experiencing subsidence from the vibrations from the railway lines. Therefore, in addition to noise and disturbance, there may well be gradual structural damage to properties immediately beside the lines.

  969
  It is worth noting that only a few years ago British Rail sold land for housing, which is now known as the Heddington Grove estate. A year later, it deliberately set about preparing these proposals for a concrete batching plant and associated works that will make life a misery for those who live in those houses.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I have a copy of the London county council planning and building regulation document of 22 January 1963—document TV51—which specifically designates the land for housing. There is absolutely no doubt that in those days the London county council architects department had information about the site from the principal housing architect:
  "Railway surplus lands, borough of Islington. Proposed use: housing."
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman, who has done much more research into this matter than British Rail ever dreamed of, is right to draw particular attention to that.
  In addition to the noise of train movements, traffic will be generated by the lorry movements into and out of the site. British Rail airily tells us in its environmental assessment that that will not affect residential roads. I am afraid that the planning inspector disagrees. He notes that the traffic generated by the concrete batching plant at Lough road would include a considerably higher proportion of heavy goods vehicles than would be generated by any other form of industrial development on the site. He accepts that point, which has been made forcefully by local people.
  The inspector goes on to address the question of where the HGVs will go and what will happen to some residential streets. He lists those most likely to be affected as Mackenzie road, Hemingford road and North road, and adds that there will be others. All are residential streets. The inspector points out that they are reasonably wide residential streets. That does not mean that people do not live in them. In all those streets people living in houses and flats will face a massive increase in disturbance from traffic as a direct result of the plant. It is nonsense for British Rail to claim that there will be no impact on residential streets.
  The direct access to the site will be from Caledonian road. At rush hours, it is extremely busy, with long queues of traffic stretching past the site. There are residents on Caledonian road, although it is a main traffic artery, and they, too, will be affected. Obviously, the traffic that at present uses the road—not necessarily HGVs—will try to find other ways of bypassing the extra traffic jams that will be created by the HGVs that will use the road as a result of the construction of the site.
  Clearly, there will be a dramatic traffic impact on all the surrounding residential areas. It is high time that British Rail owned up to that fact. The additional traffic desperately worries many people who live in the surrounding area.
  Other issues have to be addressed. There is the disruption to the flow of existing traffic that will be caused by some of the proposed railway works. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North will want to say a little about the changes to the Hornsey road railway bridge which are proposed in the Bill and which affect his constituency.
  I defy anyone to look at the before and after drawings of the Hornsey road railway bridge that are contained in
  970
  the environmental assessment published by British Rail and not be horrified at the proposed change to the Hornsey road bridge which forms the immediate sight line for all people walking or travelling up and down Hornsey road from Holloway road. That change will have a dramatic impact on the visual environment of the area.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has obviously looked at the environmental impact notes published by British Rail. Does he agree that the Hornsey road bridge drawings are completely misleading and that it is about time somebody in British Rail learnt how to do three-dimensional drawings so that we can see the impact of the change? That would be a great step forward. At first glance, there appears to be no difference whatever.
  Mr. Smith: Certainly there appears to be a difference. I suspect that in reality the difference would be far worse than what is already rather alarmingly portrayed in the documents.
  In addition, a clause in the Bill abolishes rights of reverter in connection with the proposals. We all know what the Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill said about the abolition of the rights of reverter. It was dubious about that concept in relation to the King's Cross Railways Bill. I suspect that any Committee that might conceivably be established if we were to give the Bill a Second Reading would wish to take a similarly sceptical attitude to the abolition of rights of reverter in the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Is not the answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) contained in the language used by British Rail, which would be worthy of a good estate agent or even a bad one? Describing the new Hornsey road bridge, it says:
  "The current bridge comprises three brick arches and has some visual character."
  There is no doubt that even British Rail is basically admitting that the bridge is rather attractive, but the next sentence gives the game away. It says:
  "The new bridge would be of a radically different design."
  Does that not give the game away? Is that not, in estate agents' speak, basically admitting that the bridge will be a visual horror?
  Mr. Smith: That is correct. A cursory glance at what is proposed in relation to the bridge, which is of considerable visual importance to the amenity of that area, will lead anyone to the conclusion that what British Rail proposes will be an absolute horror.
  Mr. Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to glance at the list of costs supplied with the Bill by the promoter, in which he will see that the bridge will cost just under £2 million? I can assure my hon. Friend that that would go a long way towards providing the rolling stock on the Leeds-Bradford electrification. That cannot be provided at the moment because the Industrial Bank of Scotland, which is arranging for the leasing—following the Government's insistence that the rolling stock should be leased—is saying that it wants a guarantee that, if the railway is privatised, the organisation that takes over the railway from the passenger transport authority will be able to pay for the leasing of the trains. Is it not a remarkable contrast that an important electrification scheme in the north is being placed in great difficulties because of that

  971
  bizarre leasing insistence by the Government, yet British Rail is prepared to spend almost £6 million on something that is unnecessary?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend correctly identifies the overall cost of the works in the Bill of some £5.5 million, a high proportion of which relates to the Hornsey road railway bridge. Is it not barmy that here we have a proposal which will do no one any good, which is not material to the King's Cross main proposal for a channel tunnel station, which will do enormous damage to the lives of people in the immediate area and which no one in that immediate area wants, yet it is gobbling up £5.5 million which could much better be spent on other railway improvements, the purchase of rolling stock and such like, for which people are crying out in other parts of the country? One must seriously ask whether British Rail has its priorities right.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend mentioned investment. I assure him that, if the rolling stock programme for the Leeds-Bradford electrification—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Leeds-Bradford line is not included in the Bill. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his initial intervention, but I hope that we can return to either the siting of the concreting plant or the passenger terminal.
  Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is with the Bill a list of expenditure amounting to £5,342,000 and I should have thought that it was legitimate to show where that money could be better spent as an example of the way in which costs are incurrred by the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already given one example and appeared to be repeating it.
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend is simply seeking to assist the House in setting our discussions in an appropriate context.
  I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are fond of and know well the streets and estates of Islington. You will, I suspect, share my horror at the Bill. I stress—this is an extremely important point to remind hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, of—that the Bill has virtually nothing to do with the channel tunnel station at King's Cross and the onward use of that station for links to the north-east and the north-west. The minor matters of access points could easily be dealt with elsewhere.
  Mr. John Gunnell: In the past 75 minutes, my hon. Friend has spoken mainly about planning issues, which I assume were fully considered by the planning inspector at the inquiry. Were the points that my hon. Friend has made now at such length made at the planning inquiry and did the inspector address the remarks made by my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who represent the borough of Islington?
  Mr. Smith: I made representations to the inquiry. I did not say as much as I have said in the House, but some of what I have said tonight I also said to the inquiry.
  If the Bill did not proceed tonight, the main King's Cross proposal would not be damaged or delayed in any way. If it is passed, the Bill will lead to the establishment of a concrete batching plant which is fiercely opposed and
  972
  resisted by local people. The plant is not needed at the proposed location in any event, because alternatives exist. At times, it will generate dust, fumes, noise and disruption for people living nearby. It will result in train movement that will disturb and distress those people. It will generate damaging traffic impacts in the surrounding residential streets.
  Much of the Bill deals with the protection of highway authorities, undertakers, telecommunications services and water authorities, but it contains nothing about the protection of local residents. It must not be assumed that, just because the local residents live in an inner-city area, they should be forced to put up with what no one else would endure. They are being asked to put up with work going on just beneath their windows, throughout the day and possibly at night. I believe that their interests should be taken into account, and I am here to represent them. Because I know what they think, I believe that the House should refuse point blank to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I oppose the Bill, and I ask the House to consider seriously what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Most of the works envisaged in the Bill would take place in his constituency: as I said in an intervention, the constituency boundary lies on the Holloway road, and the northern part of the scheme falls within the Islington, North constituency—that is, the works around the Hornsey road bridge and the new line that links up with the main line near Finsbury park.
  My hon. Friend's last point was important. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is not in the Chamber now. He said that there was already a good deal of noise and disturbance in the borough of Islington. That is true. Islington is an inner-city area, and a good deal of road and railway traffic goes through it. We know that because we live there and have to suffer it. Over the years, however, efforts have been made to reduce the number of heavy vehicles driving through the borough, with some success—I refer particularly to the night-time lorry ban—and conditions have improved slightly.
  It is ridiculous to suggest that, because there is already a lower standard of life than there should be in an inner-city area, the establishment of a concrete batching plant there does not matter. Does that mean that people living in an area of poor environmental quality must be consigned to live permanently in an area of ever-decreasing environmental quality? That surely is not the function of the Bill, the House or individual Members of Parliament.
  Would Members of Parliament want a concrete batching plant to be established in their constituencies alongside a new housing development? Would they want British Rail, by sleight of hand, to sell the housing development land to people who moved in on the basis that they were moving into a residential area, and that further housing would be built? That is what the land search would have revealed, as was pointed out earlier by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). British Rail has behaved very unfairly.
  British Rail is very good at lobbying tactics. It spends an awful lot of money and time on such tactics, and it has

  973
  managed to convince a good many hon. Members that only the narrow self-interest of a few London Members prevents it from establishing direct links with the channel tunnel ports and route. That is complete nonsense. During the debate on the King's Cross Railways (No. 1) Bill, it was clear that some hon. Members honestly believed that freight traffic would go through King's Cross, and that our opposition to the terminal that the Bill proposed would somehow prevent industrial development in the northeast, north-west, Scotland and Wales. That is utter and complete nonsense. Fortunately, my hon. Friend was able to expose it for what it was.
  British Rail now suggests that, if the concrete batching plant cannot be put in Lough road, the opportunity to revitalise the British economy by means of the channel tunnel connection with Europe will be lost and that that will be due to the selfishness of a few residents who live alongside the proposed concrete batching plant site in that road. It is about time that British Rail was called to account for its lobbying methods and its misinformation.
  My constituency includes Monnery road, the previously proposed site for the concrete batching plant that was referred to by my hon. Friend. Reference was also made to it in the inspector's report. We were told exactly the same story—that unless the Monnery road residents were prepared to put up with a concrete batching plant alongside their homes, vast lorry movements each day, the delivery at night of aggregates and all the dust that goes with it, they would be responsible for the failure of the King's Cross enterprise. That was complete and utter bunkum. Their campaign, in which I was delighted to play a part, was successful. They persuaded the inspector not to grant permission for the use of that site. Unfortunately, Willment Ready Mix Concrete and the other company have moved down the road and are trying to develop the Lough road site.
  I do not believe that serious consideration has ever been given to finding alternative sites. British Rail is keen to move the concrete batching plant away from its existing site because land values north of King's Cross for office development are potentially higher than the value of disused railway land around Lough road. We are expected to welcome this concrete batching plant into the borough of Islington because money can be made out of the sale of the existing site.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not entirely British Rail's fault? Is it not largely the Government's fault through imposing financial restrictions on British Rail that force it to look at every means of obtaining revenue from selling off its land? Obviously it favours selling off the most valuable land areas—hence British Rail's promotion of the Bill. If the Government provided adequate investment for British Rail, the Bill would be unnecessary.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has made a very good point. He made a similar point on previous occasions, and he was right to do so. I share his general support and enthusiasm for railways and for rail transport in general, believing it to be more environmentally friendly than road transport and also believing it to be the proper way to develop this country's infrastructure.
  Mr. Gunnell: Except in Islington.
  Mr. Corbyn: No, my hon. Friend is entirely wrong. I am not opposed to the development of the railway infrastructure in Islington, nor is my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. We spend a great deal of time encouraging people to use the railways in our borough because we suffer the consequences of selfish motorists driving in and out of London, polluting our atmosphere, when they should be travelling by train. We are talking here about an industrial development taking place in a residential area because British Rail has been told by the Government to maximise its income from the sale of its land around King's Cross site. To suggest, as I am sure my hon. Friend did not intend to do, that we are putting forward a "not in my back yard" scenario is simply not true. What we are asking the House to consider is whether it makes good sense to put the concrete batching plant on the proposed site.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred in his speech to the problem of the dust created in the area surrounding the proposed concrete batching plant. It is a very serious issue. Wherever a concrete batching plant may be sited and however well it may be managed, it will produce a lot of dust, for those who live in the area, for those who work in the area, or for those who live in the roads along which the concrete is subsequently delivered. They may also be affected by the slurry that is dropped on the roads, which subsequently dries out.
  Background dust levels throughout inner London are excessively high. We are conducting studies into the increase in childhood asthma and respiratory illnesses in inner London areas. The results are startling and frightening. I suggest that those who adopt a rather cavalier approach and say that one can resolve the dust problem by encasing the building in a steel shell should think again, because the dust is carried beyond the building. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—and I think that he agreed—even if one were to encase the building in a steel shell as proposed, there will be occasions when shutters must be opened or closed to allow the trains or lorries in or out.
  Another problem is the likely high levels of dust within the plant, making it extremely dangerous for those who work there. We should think more about the health and safety of everyone involved. If the plant is on a restricted site as proposed, it will be difficult to solve the dust problem.
  In his report, which was sent to the Department of the Environment at the end of the inquiry in May this year, the inspector examines in detail the dust problem in a case made by the London borough of Islington. He states that concrete batching is now a prescribed process under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and that these plants will require authorisation from the council under that Act. Under this procedure, the council will be able to ensure that the best available technique not entailing excessive cost is used. It is accepted that the appellants are likely to meet acceptable standards.
  That is true, because they are so vague. He goes on to deal with the
  "serious problems of increasing dust levels all around this particular plant if the construction goes ahead."
  I ask those supporting the proposal to think seriously about the dust problems that are likely to accompany it.

  975
  I believe that the Lough road site was chosen merely because it happens to be there—for no greater or lesser reason than that. It happens to be there and happens to be a convenient piece of land which British Rail finds that it can use. In our consideration of the Bill, I should have thought that we would first consider the sanity of moving the plant at all. As I said, I think that the move is motivated largely by the potential land value gains that could be made by moving the site from the King's Cross area.
  Secondly, we should consider the danger of the site's proximity to existing housing, schools and churches. It is a residential area, and any hon. Member who has been involved in campaigns to try to improve the environment and look after his constituents must be aware of the strength of feeling that goes with opposition to such a plant. Although the inspector's report does not always draw the conclusions that some of us would wish, it at least recognises the strength of feeling.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked, are the children who live in the area to sit in a school where the windows cannot be opened? Who is to clean the windows every day to ensure that sunlight gets in when the dust flies around in the dry heat of summer, as already happens?
  There will also be increasing traffic movements in the area. It is proposed that there will be three train movements a day running down the new line to deliver the aggregate to the plant itself. There will also be a large number of lorries leaving the site throughout the day. Those lorries filled with wet concrete will have two hours at the most to reach their destinations. In some cases, contractors demand one-hour delivery times.
  It is already a heavily trafficked part of London. Most roads in the borough run north to south. Like most roads in north London they are routes in and out of central London. There is increasing pressure on the borough from people trying to use it as a bypass to the City through the Marylebone road, which means more pressure on east-west roads.
  A considerable amount of work has been done on the borough's roads—width restriction, road humps and other measures—to try to reduce the amount of heavy goods vehicles using the side roads. If the plant goes ahead, I predict that there will be far more pressure to prevent heavy goods vehicles using residential roads. Such proposals are usually opposed by the emergency services, in some cases for understandable reasons. In turn, that generates greater traffic on the remaining main roads, greater congestion and greater difficulty in delivering the concrete within the one or two hours prescribed.
  The construction of the Holloway relief road which accompanies the proposal will increase traffic along the Hornsey road and across the Holloway road. I believe that it will become something of an alternative route into central London. Many of us do not want that. We do not believe that the future of the city lies in increasing road traffic by constructing such roads. The construction of the road is a by-product of the building of the concrete batching plant.
  Mr. Waller: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The London borough of Islington gave itself permission to construct the Holloway access road before the planning inquiry, and it objected to the proposal for the Lough road site. Bearing in mind the fact that the Holloway access
  976
  road will generate more continual noise than anyone expects from the concrete batching plant, I wonder whether the hon. Members for the two Islington constituencies objected to the borough's giving itself permission to construct the road.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have never favoured the construction of that relief road, because of the increase in traffic that it would bring in London. In general, I am against the construction of new roads in London, because they simply increase the traffic problem. We must look for a public transport solution to London's problems. The hon. Gentleman's question does not present me with a difficulty.
  Although the council has granted itself permission for the construction of the road, the finances are not available, whereas part of the money involved in the construction of the concrete batching plant will be spent on the construction of that road—unless I am sadly mistaken, in which case the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will quickly correct me.
  Page 24 of volume II of the environmental statement gives existing noise levels for nearby residential users. Later, the same document estimates likely noise levels if the proposed works go ahead. I am in no position to challenge the figures or the method used to produce them, but I believe that there will be an increase in noise for people living in tower blocks on the Harvest estate—the large estate to the north of the Holloway road, which contains 18-storey tower blocks. Those people already suffer considerable noise from both roads and railways. The roads immediately surrounding Hornsey road—Annette road, and others—will suffer increased noise, as will the roads immediately surrounding the plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
  Expensive works are also proposed involving the building of a new railway on existing track bed north of the Holloway road to link with the main line nearer to Finsbury park. A new bridge is to be constructed over the Hornsey road and the Holloway road, using bridge buttresses, which remain although the bridges were demolished years ago by British Rail. It seems short-sighted to demolish a bridge and subsequently have to rebuild it at considerable cost.
  The designs and drawings in the environmental statement are misleading. My intervention in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may have been misunderstood. I was trying to say that the drawings pretended to show that there was not much difference in design between the existing bridge and the proposed new bridge span, whereas the result will be an ugly bridge span built at considerable cost which will cause great disruption during its construction. With the amount of money involved, and the kind of construction methods available, I should have thought that BR would at least recognise that it could do something better and more imaginative.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Keighley will be able to help me on my next point when he replies to the debate. At the moment there are many small industrial premises under the arches of the line to the north of the Holloway road around Hornsey road. I know many of the people who work in them and operate small businesses from them. Some years ago there was an attempt massively to

  977
  increase rents, which would have put most of them out of business. But most have survived by a process of negotiation and campaigning—and in some cases rents have changed. I am not sure what effect there will be on these industrial operations during the construction. Will they be able to remain after the construction of the new line and bridge? They are important employers, and they provide opportunities for small businesses to operate in the area.
  Once again we are examining a Bill to do with King's Cross, even though we have been through lengthy processes of a similar sort in the past two Parliaments. Many of us have been unhappy about the planning procedures and the costs involved, not to mention the time taken up. British Rail has always tried to pretend that every obstacle put in the way of its grand design for King's Cross is a deliberate attempt to destroy the whole initiative.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury rightly concluded by saying that there is a world of difference between the construction of the King's Cross terminals and the location of the concrete batching plant. The proposals in the Bill are wholly unreasonable. If British Rail puts this plant in a wrong area such as ours, it will create dust and noise, it will increase traffic in the area and it will greatly damage the environment and health of local people.
  We who live in inner cities do so because we want to—because we like them. That does not mean that we like the noise and pollution that go with them. It is not right or fair that plants such as this should be put on inappropriate sites, to the detriment of the environment. The many people from the community who gave evidence to both the Monnery road and Lough road inquiries conclusively showed their concern and their determination to improve their neighbourhoods.
  This evening hon. Members will have heard what we who represent the borough have to say and I hope that they will recognise that our points are valid. British Rail has not made the case for locating the concrete plant where it wants it. The Bill should proceed no further. There should be a serious examination of the need to move the plant; of alternative sites for the plant; and of the adequacy of the site proposed, with its attendant dust and noise problems. Finally, we should also look into the likely requirement in future for ready-mixed concrete. Unfortunately there is a slump in the construction industry. London is blessed with a 25 per cent. surplus of office space which is likely to worsen if more office building goes ahead. I am sad to say that there is no major house building exercise because local authorities are denied the funds with which to undertake one.
  One wonders whom the whole enterprise is designed to serve. Instead of a concrete batching plant on the site we should like something more useful in line with what local residents have suggested. Perhaps efforts should be made to solve the appalling housing problem faced by people in our borough and throughout inner London. The site was originally earmarked for housing and that is what it should be used for. That would go some way to providing decent housing for people who are homeless or sleeping on the streets, for the concealed homeless who have to share with others, and for those who live with small children on the
  978
  top floors of tower blocks. They deserve a better chance in life, and this is a small opportunity to improve the lot of a few people.
  By contrast, the option represented by the Bill would damage the lives of a large number of people, which is why I ask the House to reject it.
  9.22 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I should like to take this brief opportunity to outline the Government's view of the Bill and to acknowledge the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), whose opening remarks admirably set the scene for the debate and whose subsequent interventions showed his mastery of his brief.
  It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge also the conscientious, as ever, defence of constituency interests mounted by my hon. Friend—if I may so call him—the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and by his colleague the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I noted too a number of pertinent interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). Perhaps he will catch the Chair's eye at some future point and say more. I also acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), whose interventions were as constructive and helpful as ever. I hope that that does not damage the hon. Gentleman's reputation any more than is reasonable, although, at this time of night, it is probably not too dangerous a compliment to pay him.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has explained, the works in the Bill are related to those in the King's Cross Railways Bill which is currently before a Select Committee in another place. The Government reaffirmed in the Second Reading debate on 1 June their belief that King's Cross is the best location for the London terminus of the proposed rail link. We believe that King's Cross would be the most efficient interchange for international passengers seeking to travel on beyond London and for domestic passengers seeking to travel to central London.
  Given that the works form a necessary part of the project which has already been endorsed by the House and passed to another place for consideration, it seems only equitable and sensible that the Bill should be allowed to proceed to Select Committee stage for detailed consideration.
  Mr. Chris Smith rose—
  Mr. Norris: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, perhaps he will allow me to suggest that a number of the detailed points that he raised might be more appropriately considered in the Bill's later stages.
  Mr. Smith: The Minister said that the works in the Bill were "a necessary part" of the King's Cross project. They are nothing of the sort. Some of the works, such as the access points, are related to the main project, but the concrete batching plant and the railway link to it have nothing whatsoever to do with the main King's Cross project. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.
  Mr. Norris: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the inevitability or otherwise of the link between the two Bills. I reaffirm the Government's view that the works in the No. 2 Bill form a necessary part of the project. I note

  979
  in passing that, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State granted permission for the plant following appeal, and although as such it does not fall within the private Bill procedure, a Bill is required for the railway lines that will enable the project to be joined to the east coast main line and thus allow the concrete to be transported by rail rather than by road. No doubt the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury would broadly welcome that, subject to the reservations that he has outlined.
  It is not my place or that of the Government on occasions such as this to argue the merits or demerits of the Bill. I simply intervene to suggest the Government's overall attitude to the Bill. As I said earlier, it is clearly appropriate that the detailed points raised by the hon. Members who have contributed to our debate should be raised in later stages with the Committee. I therefore commend the Bill to the House, and ask that it be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee for more detailed consideration.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: As the Minister has just explained, the Government and the Opposition do not officially take a position on legislation such as this. I have listened to the debate on the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill and I have listened to the debates on earlier King's Cross Railways Bills. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on his detailed knowledge and constructive arguments against the proposal. I cannot really congratulate him on his brevity, because I am sure that irony is not permitted under the rules of the House. However, my hon. Friend made some detailed objections on behalf of the people he represents, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
  The long technical summary provided by British Rail points out that the two concrete batching plants—
  Mr. Michael Brown rose—
  Mr. Snape: I will refer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in a moment, because I want to break the habit of a lifetime and comment on a speech before I have heard it. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I will get round to him.
  The non-technical summary refers to the two concrete batching plants to be displaced by the King's Cross Railways Bill works. That appears to me to provide some justification for the label "King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill" to be attached to the measure, but I do not suppose that I will convince either of my hon. Friends that such is the case.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury point out an alternative site for the batching plant south of the river. There was one advantage and one disadvantage to that alternative. The advantage from my hon. Friend's point of view is that the site at New Cross was not in his constituency. The disadvantage is that siting the concrete batching plant south of the river would generate even more heavy goods vehicle movements in the City of London and around this building, too. I do not say that our environment is more worthy of protection than that of my hon. Friends' constituents, but if we are to fulfil our party's objective of
  980
  ensuring that as much traffic as possible, particularly heavy freight traffic, is carried by rail, we must accept that meeting that objective is likely to cause some dislocation to the lives of many of our constituents.
  The argument about the dislocation to lives caused by railway marshalling yards and railway facilities is not unfamiliar. I remind my hon. Friends that bordering my constituency, a seat that is slightly more marginal than those of my two hon. Friends, is the Bescot marshalling yard. Proposals to expand the railway facilities there meet considerable local opposition. It might underline my hon. Friends' view of my foolhardiness when I say that I have always supported such proposals because I believe that our party's objective of moving traffic from road to rail should not only be shared in someone else's constituency but adopted in our own constituencies.
  Although I appreciate my hon. Friends' concern on behalf of their constituents, some of us who represent constituencies in the midlands and in the north of England would be glad of the opportunity to complain about the noise from industrial premises. Industrial premises in our constituencies are all too often deserted and derelict. The fact that the placing of industrial premises in constituencies such as Islington, South and Finsbury causes some local concern, which is rightly reflected in my hon. Friends' contributions, should not alter the fact that some of us would welcome facing the sort of problems about which my hon. Friends have complained.
  I now refer, before he has even opened his mouth to make it, to the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. The hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate tonight. [Interruption.] If he has not noticed, I am sure that he will have it drawn to his attention. I promise not to stay for it, if that is any consolation. However, the hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate on the InterCity service to and from Cleethorpes. I understand his natural concern that British Rail should see fit to withdraw the one through train a day to that part of the world.
  We faced a similar problem with InterCity services from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he takes an interest in such matters countrywide, that the InterCity service from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury has been cut because BR says, as it says about the Cleethorpes service, that it does not pay and that InterCity is charged with running a profitable service. In the words of the former chairman of British Rail, Sir Bob Reid mark I, "Our job is to run a service which is profitable, not one that is desirable." The hon. Gentleman does not share that view in respect of his own constituency and regional interest.
  I notice that BR has said that the objectives that were set by the Secretary of State for InterCity services in the United Kingdom have been considerably tightened of late. In 1988, the objective was to achieve a 2.7 per cent. rate of return on assets. InterCity achieved a 1.3 per cent. rate of return in 1988–89—a profit of £26 million.
  In 1992–93, the objective is 4.75 per cent. rate of return—a profit of £95 million—despite the recession. I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes participate in all rail debates in future attacking his own Secretary of State, refusing to support his Government and giving the Government Whip nightmares. I hope that he will pass up any opportunity of

  981
  promotion to attack the objectives that his Government have set, which have a severe impact on the InterCity service to his constituency.
  The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes cannot have it both ways. Either he supports the tightening of the financial belt on InterCity, and in doing so accepts that on any measure of profitability the one through-train to Cleethorpes, desirable as it might be, is a non-starter—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may or may not be desirable, but that is for the Adjournment debate. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill?
  Mr. Snape: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have said enough, and I am grateful to you for your guidance and for your kindness in allowing me to say what I have said already. Now that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes knows what is in order and what is not, I know that he will be careful to avoid falling foul of your justified strictures.
  I shall vote for the Bill, even though I appreciate the difficulty that it causes some of my hon. Friends. I believe that the objectives inherent in the Bill are ones that Opposition Members should support.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: When I was elected to Parliament, I thought that I would get away from planning matters, and I breathed a sigh of relief. But I have been thrown back among planning matters again. However, there is a great difference. I could have started off like the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) by expressing my disappointment that British Rail's proposals do not contain a stop for Nottingham to provide a through route via King's Cross to the channel tunnel. I am disappointed about that because I recognise that the channel tunnel will bring extra prosperity to Britain and that the prosperity will follow the lines of communication. The prosperity will come to where the railway runs, so I am disappointed that Nottingham is not part of that line.
  If the Bill fails, Nottingham will certainly never have a link with the channel tunnel. If the Bill is passed, there is a possibility that Nottingham will have that link. I believe that if the No. 2 Bill fails, the first Bill will fail. Nothing that my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) or for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) have said persuades me otherwise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury says that 95 per cent. of the Bill has nothing to do with the original King's Cross Railways Bill. I accept that. My problem is: what about the 5 per cent. that has something to do with the original Bill? If 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 per cent. is necessary for the Bill to be passed, I have a duty to support the No. 2 Bill.
  I understand the fears of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Islington, South and Finsbury. They made a valiant attempt to defend their constituents. They somewhat gilded the lilly. They used some ingenious arguments. If I had more time—I recognise the pressure of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I could pick apart their arguments. There was an element of "not in my backyard" in their arguments, but I recognise
  982
  that there are genuine fears among their constituents. My hon. Friends should express those fears. They have every right to do so.
  I represent Nottingham. The area that I represent, Nottingham, East, has some of the worst unemployment figures and some of the worst bankruptcy rates in the country. One of my wards has 40 per cent. Overall unemployment and male unemployment is much higher.
  I recognise the unemployment problems faced by the hon. Member for Islington, North, but I cannot return to Nottingham, East and tell people that I have thrown away a chance to give them extra prosperity because of what is happening in Islington.
  If I vote against the Bill and it falls, the King's Cross Railways Bill will fall, and then we shall effectively strengthen the north-south divide. In Nottingham, we would like a share of channel tunnel prosperity. Why should that stop at London and the south-east? My views will be those expressed by the majority of hon. Members in the north and in the midlands.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: Some of my comments will be similar to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who put up a spirited defence of what they think of as their constituents' interests. I was interested to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury participated in the planning process, at the end of which the planning inspector arrived at a conclusion. Had he come to a different conclusion, I imagine that the Bill before us would have been different.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that for several years I have commented, outside the House, on the channel tunnel and direct links between it and the north of England. Those links depend critically on a King's Cross terminal. Therefore, in the past eight years—not merely during the four years that the matter has been before the House—I have been active in trying to ensure that those links are in place and have supported the King's Cross project.
  I accept that my interest is in one sense strategic. I am interested in the strategic issues through which we may ensure that the channel tunnel serves the nation and not merely the south-east, and that it provides connections between the single European market and the northern industrial regions.
  While my hon. Friends who represent Islington have to consider the needs of the people there, and especially of those people near the site where the concrete plant is to be relocated, I have campaigned on behalf of the northern region, and have been dealing with the needs of 17 million people and with the economy that affects them. I must set that and its 5 per cent. of the Bill against the 95 per cent. of the Bill that my hon. Friends who represent Islington are talking about.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I have followed what my hon. Friend has said and also the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). Their arguments depend entirely on a presumption that, if the access points included within the Bill for the main King's Cross site are not given the go-ahead, the site, the project

  983
  and thereby the link to Nottingham, Leeds and the north cannot proceed. That is an incorrect assumption. Access points in the King's Cross Railways Bill provide perfectly well for access to the site. This Bill is an attempt to improve access and is not essential for the rest of the project to go ahead.
  Mr. Gunnell: I am also worried about the time scale involved in the realisation of the King's Cross project. Improved access points appear to me to affect the time scale. One of my concerns has been the way in which the timing of the project has slipped back further and further. Therefore, there is no value in delaying the Second Reading.
  The objections raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Islington, North should be discussed. But they were considered by the planning inquiry and conclusions were reached. The best place for such arguments to be considered here is in Committee, when the 16 petitions that have been received can be examined in detail. The residents who live near to the plant, who submitted those petitions, would then be able to express their anxieties to hon. Members. There is no reason for further delay, because the north needs the transport links to be in place as soon as possible after the tunnel is completed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised a different objection. He was dissatisfied with British Rail's plans for the use of the line and its provision of service to the tunnel. He will know that I am equally dissatisfied with the proposals that British Rail has produced after many years of lobbying. British Rail's planned services are not adequate for any of the northern regions, and in particular Yorkshire and Humberside. It will provide no service at all to west Yorkshire. I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposed links are highly unsatisfactory, but that does not mean that we should stop the Bill's progress at this point.
  I shall continue to argue with British Rail about the development of the line and the provision of the correct rolling stock. But we will not even need that rolling stock if the right links are not in place.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not argue but accept everything that British Rail proposes, it will run right over us without giving us any concessions at all? In the negotiations, it is important that we hold some cards on our side.
  Mr. Gunnell: I have talked to British Rail, to Bob Reid version one and Bob Reid version two, and a whole host of people about the King's Cross development. We must resist British Rail's attempts to put a block on the provision of services to the north. However, there is a difference between arguing for greater investment by British Rail and taking steps which will lead to unreasonable delays in the King's Cross project. The project has enough problems already.
  British Rail's future is surrounded by uncertainty. This project will cost at least £1.4 billion, and if that sum must be obtained primarily from the private sector, which is the present view, I worry whether the project will obtain the money and be completed in the time scale that the north of England needs. The project should be completed. Money should be provided from public funds because it is a national responsibility to ensure that national links are in place for the channel tunnel.
  984
  If we are to allow the project to have the maximum chance to succeed, we must ensure that the Bill goes to Committee stage so that hon. Member's objections can be considered in detail.
  9.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I take issue with the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). We have both represented our local authority in one guise or another. Before he entered the House, the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the local authority and, subsequently, an active director of the Yorkshire and Humberside development association. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman may wonder why I take issue with him, because he may argue that, to some extent, our interests are the same.
  I have long been uneasy about the King's Cross development. When the original Bill came before the House in 1988, I had misgivings.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) took issue with me on whether the project should be dealt with by public inquiry or private Bill. I make no apology for saying that I accept that the private Bill procedure is the correct way for such a project to come before the House. In the 13 years in which I have been a Member of this House, I have taken a close interest in private Bills. I have opposed and promoted them, and I must therefore take the rough with the smooth. Private Bills give hon. Members an opportunity to probe organisations like British Rail much more closely.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right to discuss his grave misgivings about the project. Hon. Members may ask what someone representing Brigg and Cleethorpes knows about King's Cross. For the past 22 years, since I first went to York university, I have been travelling from King's Cross to York, Scunthorpe or Cleethorpes by rail and I have spent more hours than I care to remember standing on the platforms at King's Cross waiting for a train to one of those three destinations. I hope that I shall have many opportunities in the future to stand on that platform waiting for the 7.50 train. Although the train is often delayed and I am stuck there for an hour or two, it will eventually get me all the way to Cleethorpes. I know a lot about King's Cross because the train is often delayed for more than an hour and 1 take the opportunity to go round the area.
  I am particularly familiar with the Golden Lion public house. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that he thinks that British Rail will be able to accommodate the problems with regard to that pub, but I am not sure that that is true. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) quoted only from the non-technical report, whereas those of us who take a close interest in the Bill have referred throughout the debate to the technical report. In that report, British Rail makes it clear that the public house will have to be destroyed. I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley that that has now been changed.
  However, whether British Rail comes to the House with private legislation or whether it makes assurances in correspondence, it says one thing one year and then stands on its head and swears blindly that it did not mean it. I shall not share my correspondence with the House now but I shall do so in a couple of hours. When I told British Rail in 1988 that I would oppose the original King's Cross

  985
  Bill unless I received certain assurances, I was given those assurances on paper. But today, British Rail will say that the position has changed. Its assurances are not worth the paper on which they are written—
  Mr. Tony Banks: They are like party political manifestos.
  Mr. Brown: That comment is rather near the mark.
  British Rail will say anything to get us into the Division Lobbies on private legislation. I have correspondence between myself and British Rail dating back to 1988, when the original King's Cross Bill was introduced, seeking assurances before I was prepared to support the Bill. Today, those assurances are not worth the paper on which they were written.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley assures hon. Members that they need not worry about the Golden Lion public house because, although the technical report says that it will be destroyed, that is not so, I prefer to rely on the judgment of one of the petitioners, the Camden Civic Society, which has existed for a long time. It is described in its petition as a local amenity society, founded in 1963, and is affiliated to the Civic Trust. It has been dealing with British Rail over King's Cross for a long time—more than 28 years. It has met regularly with British Rail and played an active part in monitoring planning developments in the district around King's Cross, particularly in heightening public awareness of its buildings and environment.
  In 1988, when the original King's Cross Bill was introduced, Camden Civic Society took the initiative, with officers of the London borough of Camden, in establishing a conservation area advisory committee for the King's Cross district, on the lines set out in the Department of the Environment circular produced in August 1987.
  The organisation has met regularly since then and has played an important role in discussions on the district's future. It had no hesitation in saying that the Bill would require the destruction of the Golden Lion public house. It says that the pub is a distinctive building. I have frequently visited the pub when I have been at a loose end waiting for a British Rail train to take me to Cleethorpes, and I agree. I believe that it is also an attractive building in the context of an inner-city environment. It is part of the character of what Camden Civic Society describes as the King's Cross conservation area.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned another building, but I think that he could have done it more justice. The Bill's proposals would involve demolishing the St. Pancras ironworks building—situated at 36-40 York way—which could otherwise be preserved. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is right to say that there is an alternative.
  I have been brought up on the lexicon that there is no alternative with regard to other political matters, but when it came to the issue of nuclear waste in Brigg and Cleethorpes, I proved that there was an alternative. The hon. Gentleman can take heart from the fact that I was told that there was no alternative but to have nuclear waste in my constituency as there was nowhere else for it to go. But miraculously, just one week before the 1987 general election was called, the proposal disappeared.
  986
  It is absolutely vital that hon. Members should be wary when an organisation such as British Rail seeks powers and claims that the project at King's Cross will fall unless there is a concrete batching plant at Lough road. They must be cautious if British Rail says that the King's Cross project for links between the north of England and Nottingham, through to the channel tunnel, will fall apart if the three temporary access points proposed in the Bill are not granted.
  Hon. Members are being made fools of, and taken for a ride by British Rail, if they believe that in two or three years time when they have a constituency problem involving British Rail, they can remind it that they supported it over a controversial Bill and expect it to give them similar support. They can forget that idea—I went through that experience four years ago. I know exactly what hon. Members are in for if they believe the assurances given them by British Rail.
  Mr. Waller rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 40.

  Division No. 35]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Elletson, Harold

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beggs, Roy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowis, John

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gunnell, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butcher, John

  Harris, David

  Butler, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Horam, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hoyle, Doug

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jack, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Day, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Duncan, Alan

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

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  987

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lewis, Terry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McCartney, Ian

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mahon, Alice

  Sykes, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

  Mans, Keith

  Thomason, Roy

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maxton, John

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

  Merchant, Piers

  Tracey, Richard

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wallace, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whittingdale, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Sackville, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Dr. Robert Spink.

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  NOES

  Ainger, Nicholas

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bradley, Keith

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  988

  Callaghan, Jim

  Meale, Alan

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Miller, Andrew

  Cryer, Bob

  Morley, Elliot

  Dafis, Cynog

  Mullin, Chris

  Dixon, Don

  Parry, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian

  Patchett, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Pike, Peter L.

  Eastham, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Enright, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

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

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hardy, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Vaz, Keith

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

  Wareing, Robert N

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Loyden, Eddie

  McMaster, Gordon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McWilliam, John

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

    BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signed—
    Resolved,
    That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise
    1. the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any fees paid by the Accountant in Bankruptcy under section 1B(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985;

    (b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State;

    (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act, and

    2. the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received by the Accountant in Bankruptcy in pursuance of regulations made under section 69A of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Armed Forces (Discipline)
  10.10 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I beg to move,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
  The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the statutory basis for discipline in the three services.
  The House will be aware that it is a long-established practice for service discipline to be fully reviewed every five years by means of the consideration of an Armed Forces Bill and for the disciplinary code as then enacted to be reviewed annually in the intervening years by an order in council which is itself approved by resolution of each House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important debate, and we are hearing an important statement from the Minister. It would be helpful if hon. Members who do not intend to remain left the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I ask hon. Members at the Bar of the House to retire quietly.
  Mr. Aitken: The House will also be aware that an Armed Forces Bill was considered and duly enacted in 1991. That Act continued the three service discipline Acts until 31 August 1992 and endorsed the process of annual continuation thereafter by order in council. I am therefore asking the House tonight to give its annual renewal to the discipline Acts by approving the order.
  After that brief introduction, it would on a routine occasion be appropriate for me to resume my seat and listen to the comments of hon. Members who wish to debate the order. However, this year this debate provides a useful parliamentary opportunity for the Government to respond to the principal recommendations of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, whose report was published last April.
  First, let me thank the hon. Members who sat on that Select Committee for presenting to the House such a thoughtful report on various military disciplinary matters. After giving careful consideration to the Committee's recommendations I can tell the House that the Government intend to respond constructively and positively in the following specific ways.
  The most controversial issue discussed in the report was that of homosexuality in the armed forces. After taking evidence from many quarters, the Select Committee upheld and accepted the Ministry of Defence's long-established policy that homosexual activity is incompatible with service in the armed forces. Indeed, in its report, the Committee acknowledged that the armed forces should not be required to accept homosexuals. However, the Committee did recommend that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should no longer constitute an offence under service law. That recommendation has been considered very carefully by the service personnel authorities, and they and Ministers have concluded that the Select Committee's recommendation should be accepted.
  990
  I think that the House will require a careful explanation of the effects of this decision. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 provides that homosexual acts undertaken in private between two consenting males over the age of 21 shall not be criminal offences. That Act, however, did not extend to members of the armed forces. It has therefore remained possible, though rare, for legal proceedings to be taken against service men and women for homosexual acts that are not criminal offences in civilian law.
  It is now the Government's view, following the advice of the Select Committee, that such criminal proceedings should no longer be brought. My Department has therefore accepted that the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 should not apply in future. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been asked to implement the repeal of this part of the Act as soon as the legislative programme allows.
  I should like to make it clear that this is a sensible measure of decriminalisation, whose purpose is to tidy up the differences between military and civilian law. It is not intended to alter the present disciplinary climate of service life.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for making this statement. We have been asking for some time for such a statement to be made. On the issue of decriminalising homosexual activity in the armed forces, are the people who are involved in such activities liable to be charged under other aspects of Army law?
  Mr. Aitken: No, unless they have committed offences that might also be offences under service law, such as coercion. However, the conduct of consenting adults in private will not be an offence under the disciplinary code.
  Mr. Rogers: If two consenting adult soldiers or members of the women's forces together participate in such an act, am I right in thinking that they will not be charged with conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, the usual catch-all phrase that is used? I remind the Minister that not for some time has anybody in the armed forces been charged with a criminal offence. A person has been charged either on administrative grounds or by use of the catch-all phrase, conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.
  Mr. Aitken: The offence, which is technically a criminal offence under service law, is being decriminalised. I shall deal in a moment with discharges for administrative reasons. If a service man or service woman had committed an act that was a criminal offence in civilian life or that constituted a breach of service discipline—I mentioned the offence of coercion—that would be applicable to any sexual relationship, whether homosexual or heterosexual, a service prosecution would still be possible.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the point that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made need further elucidation? I understand the Minister to be saying that a homosexual act between consenting adults in the forces will now be treated on the same basis as if it had occurred outside the forces. However, the hon. Gentleman asked whether that same act might be struck at by some other disciplinary provision under the criminal law, in so far as it applies to the armed forces.
  Mr. Aitken: I was coming to the question of discharges. It remains the policy of the Ministry of Defence not to accept homosexual activity within the armed forces. Service personnel who are involved in homosexual activity will, as at present, be administratively discharged, whether or not any criminal offence has taken place.
  I hope that the House recognises that, although we have moved in the direction of decriminalisation, as recommended by the Select Committee, we have not moved away from the standards of personal conduct required of all those who serve in the special circumstances of the armed forces.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The step that the Minister has announced is a small but brave one in the right direction. However, I hope that he will accept that many of us want the Government to go further to ensure that ultimately the standards of conduct that we accept in civilian life are precisely those that are applied to military life.
  Mr. Aitken: This would not be the House of Commons if that opinion were not expressed in it. Of course, I am aware of that view, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in coming to these decisions, any Minister feels like the over-advised centurion in Macaulay's "Lays of Ancient Rome", when
  "those behind cried 'Forward! And those before cried `Back!'"
  There are different views on the issue.
  I emphasise that homosexual activity remains incompatible with military service, and that those who engage in it must be expected to be discharged. However, in future, individuals who engage in homosexual activity that is legal in civilian law will not be prosecuted under service law and they will have no criminal record or entry on the police computer.
  Mr. Rogers: I am grateful to the Minister, but we must have elucidation on that point. If he is saying that there is to be no change in the law, we must accept it. However, in a similar debate last year, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said:
  "Our practice is that the majority of service personnel who are required to leave the services on grounds of their homosexuality are adminstratively discharged … Therefore, there is no question of such people having a criminal record on account of their homosexuality."
  The Government are now saying that they are decriminalising homosexuality per se in the armed forces but that in practice there will be no change in their attitude. Earlier in the same debate, the Minister of State said:
  "It is a long-standing policy that both homosexual activity and orientation are incompatible with service in the armed forces."—[Official Report, 17 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 115-16.] Are the Government sticking to that statement?
  Mr. Aitken: Yes, the Government are sticking to that statement, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a little churlish in suggesting that there has been no change. It is true that the administrative practices in a great many cases will remain the same but, at the same time, the Select Committee found that there had been approximately 39 cases in the past four years of those who had been found to be indulging in homosexual activities who had been prosecuted. Those people at least will in future no longer have the problems of a criminal prosecution and criminal
  992
  record, so to say that there has been no change is not fair. An important principle has been changed and there has been change in some practical cases.
  Mr. John Bowis: I welcome the step announced by my hon. Friend, because it is fair and will achieve a measure of justice in bringing together the civil and service laws. Nevertheless, does he understand that there is a need to go further and to consider the problems that some people will have if they lose their service job and wish to return to civilian life with a black mark on their record which would not be there had they conducted themselves in the same way in civilian life? In other words, someone whose activity in the services would be permissible in the Ministry of Defence could be disadvantaged at a later date, so that is perhaps the next step that my hon. Friend could investigate.
  Mr. Aitken: We shall consider that point, but it is fair to say that in the overwhelming majority of cases there is no question of a black mark being obviously on the record. In evidence given to the Select Committee, one major general said that the type of report written in such cases was at pains not to disclose the fact that there had been any difficulties leading to the administrative discharge, although someone investigating further could come across such information if he dug deeply into the records.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), will the Minister confirm that such a person discharged from the forces would not be dismissed with ignominy?
  Mr. Aitken: I think that "with ignominy" is the wrong term because the usual literal term is "service no longer required", which could have many interpretations and ignominy would not necessarily be one of them.
  It would be unfair to judge that that led to some obvious black mark or ignominious stain.
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I ask the Minister a question which was asked earlier? Why do the Government consider that homosexuality is incompatible with service life?
  Mr. Aitken: When one accepts service under the Crown in the armed forces, one also accepts that there are special responsibilities and special conditions. One set of those conditions is that one is not living totally in private but often in crowded barracks and under conditions of some stress. In those conditions, homosexual activities can cause difficulties to the community, and can have insidious effects on discipline, so they cannot be accepted as they can in civilian life.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), I warmly welcome the announcement, but my hon. Friend the Minister has already recognised the difficulties caused by his failure to go one step further. The reasons which he has just given are precisely those which used to be deployed to justify keeping women out of the armed forces. Women are now in the armed forces, and most of them perform brilliantly. They add a great deal to the services and are good or bad soldiers according to their qualities, not according to their sexual orientation.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that in the American armed forces, which have gone even further than we and have integrated women into combat units, elaborate and sometimes expensive measures are taken—for example, in the organisation and layout of barracks—to prevent the sort of problems that he has described arising between men and women, in terms of the pressures that can build up? If we were to make such arrangements to separate homosexuals, Opposition Members would be the first to make an outcry.
  Mr. Aitken: I have had enough trouble getting through this subject in Britain, without having to examine what goes on in American barracks as well. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are some special strains and stresses of service life, whether in the American armed forces or in our own.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has over-simplified the problem to some extent. But as she has intervened, I shall pay a genuine tribute not only to her but to several other hon. Members —my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and for Harlow (Mr. Hayes)—who have assiduously campaigned for changes in the law on this issue. They should take some satisfaction in the fact that a step forward has been taken in the direction that they would wish, although we may not have gone as far as all of them would have wanted.
  Another important recommendation of the Select Committee concerned ethnic monitoring and racial harassment, referred to in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the report. The Committee made two recommendations about the position of members of ethnic minorities who join the armed forces. It said:
  "We recommend that the MOD consider how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the armed forces and keep records accordingly, and we recommend that the MOD reconsider its opposition to ethnic monitoring of service personnel."
  On the latter point, I am pleased to reiterate the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 14 May that we shall extend to serving personnel our present practice of monitoring the ethnic origin of applicants to the three services.
  On racial harassment, I remind the House that it is a clear and unequivocal policy within the armed forces that no form of racial discrimination is tolerated. Any complaint by a service man or woman of harassment or discrimination will be fully investigated under the redress of grievance procedures laid down in the service discipline Acts.
  When considering record keeping, the Select Committee expressed concern about racial harassment as a form of bullying and recognised the difficulty in identifying cases in which race was the determining factor. There is no specific offence of bullying, racial harassment or racial abuse under the service discipline Acts. Such offences would be dealt with under other provisions, such as those involving conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, or common assault.
  Currently, only the Army records centrally all complaints of assault and other ill treatment. It also records separately complaints of racially motivated ill treatment. The Navy and RAF do not maintain central records of all complaints of bullying and other ill
  994
  treatment, but will do so with effect from 1 September and 1 August this year respectively. I need hardly say that bullying in itself is also regarded as a very serious matter and it has been made clear throughout the services that bullying and ill treatment will not be tolerated. I can report that the number of cases of bullying appears to have fallen significantly in recent years.
  The Select Committe made a number of other specific recommendations which are being carefully considered within my Department.
  The Committee expressed the view that there should be a presumption that under-18-year-olds should not be sent on active service overseas, unless there was an overriding requirement for their skills or the threat to national security was sufficient to warrant the conscription of minors. The services believe that their deployment of under-18s is broadly consistent with the Select Committee's view, but the matter remains under consideration.
  The Committee also recommended that the Ministry of Defence examine the terms of enlistment for under-18year-olds and bring forward proposals for change within 12 months. I can assure the House that this recommendation is also being carefully and sympathetically considered.
  The Select Committee also commented on the future of the Royal Navy detention centre and recommended that a timetable be announced for the closure of the RN detention quarters at Portmouth, and the redeployment of those facilities to the military corrective training centre —MCTC—at Colchester. A rigorous investment appraisal is being undertaken to determine the benefits and costs of such a step. The appraisal will be completed by the end of July. I ask the House to note that a decision in favour of transfer of facilities to the MCTC would necessitate further building work at Colchester, and that the time scale involved would mean continued use of the RN detention quarters into 1994–95.
  The Committee also made recommendations regarding the services' sentencing policy to ensure equality of sentencing between men and women. This followed a visit to MCTC, where detention facilities for women are now available. I can assure the House that it has always been the intention of the armed forces to follow an equal sentencing policy, and the provision of specific detention facilities for women gives added practical effect to this policy. Action is in hand to amend the necessary regulations.
  The Select Committee acknowledged the considerable changes which had taken place in the employment of service women since the previous Armed Forces Bill. It noted, however, that there were different minimum ages of enlistment for men and women—16 for men and 17 for women—and recommended that the minimum ages of enlistment for women should be brought into line without further delay.
  I am pleased to tell the House that the Navy brought the minimum age of enlistment for women into line with that for men last October and that in September this year the Army will introduce a common enlistment age of 16½ for both men and women. The RAF is currently considering a common age of enlistment for both men and women. This change is in line with our policy of aligning men and women's terms and conditions of service where practicable.
  Finally, the Select Committee recommended that

  995
  "The Government provide parliamentary time in the next five years for legislation to consolidate service law".
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I have given him all too brief notice? When may we expect a statement by the Ministry of Defence on the declassification of records in respect of those who may have been taken prisoner in the Korean war? I have told the Department of my personal concern about certain of my contemporaries. Is the Minister prepared to contact the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to ask for information? In the light of the astonishing statement by President Yeltsin in Washington yesterday, what representations are being made to the Russian Government to obtain information about any such British service men who may still be alive?
  Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that question. I can give him some limited information. We did note President Yeltsin's remarkable statement; it has raised certain questions and possible lines of inquiry. We shall follow them up, and we will certainly take into account the hon. Gentleman's point about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. About 100 service men were unaccounted for in Korea, and about 80 were missing in action but not thought to be prisoners of war. We are looking at all the cases where new information comes to light and we will follow up all leads and suggestions made to us by responsible sources.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that the children of service families caught up in sexual or physical abuse cases will be given the same protection given to children in England and Wales in relation to the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and to children in Scotland in relation to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990?
  Mr. Aitken: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I am only a Defence Minister. I am not qualified to comment on matters of Scottish law. However, I will endeavour to answer his question at the end of the debate if I am given the leave of the House to do so, or I will write to him later.
  Before that intervention, I was referring to a legal matter about consolidation. I am pleased to tell the House that the Law Commission has already begun work on that task. It is a much-needed operation because, metaphorically speaking, the MOD seems to contain a veritable legal attic full of antiquated service law that needs tidying up or, in some cases, sweeping away. I was amused to discover that naval recruitment by the press gang is still legal under the royal prerogative and that at least 44 separate statutes need to be considered by the Law Commission, ranging from the Regimental Accounts Act 1908, the Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Act 1906 and the Colonial Naval Defence Act 1831.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend may be aware that "arson" in the royal dockyards is still a capital offence.
  Mr. Aitken: I am most grateful for that interesting information. However, I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend's point has shown that there is a need for a House of Commons Discipline Act.
  I hope that the House will feel that we have made a thorough and thoughtful response to the various recommendations of the Select Committee. There are
  996
  additional points that I have not been able to cover because of the time available, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, for whom I am deputising this evening, will write to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about them. If they are raised on the Floor of the House tonight, 1 will try to respond to them at the end of the debate.
  I should like to conclude by reminding the House that, in their many different areas of operations, our services play an essential part in safeguarding our interests and freedoms. I pay tribute to their undoubted professionalism and dedication.
  The high quality of our armed forces is due in no small part to their good morale and, in a military environment, to their fair and equitable system of discipline. It is essential to preserve that and to ensure that the high levels of efficiency and effectiveness that characterise the three services are maintained. That is what the Service discipline Acts seek to do, and I therefore invite the House to approve the order.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Minister of State for Defence Procurement and I recognise that he is deputising tonight for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is in the Falkland Islands. Fortunately, I managed to get out of that so we are both meeting tonight away from our respective disciplines in defence matters. I am sure that the Minister will give his all to his duties.
  I am pleased that the Minister has discovered that the press gang is still legal. I noticed a distinct gleam in the eye of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) when the Minister said that. I will refer later to the hon. Member for Canterbury because of his view in 1989 that we could solve the ethnic minority problem in the armed forces by having an all-black regiment. I do not suppose that that idea would receive much support from the Minister of State.
  I want to pay tribute to our service men and women whose efficiency, skill and dedication are second to none and who continue to render great service to the country. Opposition Members have always supported our armed forces. We will not oppose the order because we recognise that a fair system of discipline is essential to the effectiveness and operation of our armed forces and that it is an essential framework in which they can exercise their skills and functions.
  Breaches of discipline are relatively isolated, but, unfortunately, certain breaches of discipline occur regularly. Some of them form a pattern in many regiments, much to their shame. For instance, bullying was referred to by the Minister, not casually but in passing. Bullying in the armed forces takes place either formally often by way of brutal initiation ceremonies—which still exist, although, to their credit, the Government have tried to stamp them out—or informally, when individuals or groups take it on themselves systematically to terrorise their service comrades. Such incidents have occurred over the past year. My colleagues will refer to incidents in which some of their constituents have been involved.
  Either type of bullying is absolutely indefensible. Besides being intrinsically wrong, it destroys morale and the well-being of units. Hon. Members who have served in

  997
  the armed forces realise how morale can be lowered as a result of groups of individuals bullying people who cannot look after themselves.
  Successive Ministers have taken action. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who has been transferred to the Department of Transport. When the hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, he was most diligent in pursuing bullying, but still the problem exists. The problem will not be solved until the Government bring senior officers to book. It is no good bringing the perpetrators of bullying to book—it must be senior officers who command units. If they are not good enough to control sadistic behaviour in their regiments or units, they are not fit to command. Until the Government take strong action against senior officers, we shall always have endemic bullying in martial societies.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the most endemic, sadistic and difficult methods of bullying in the armed forces is when one homosexual has a hold over another?
  Mr. Rogers: I propose to deal with that intervention with almost the contempt that it deserves. It was a sweeping and silly statement. If the hon. and learned Member had talked in terms other than specifically about homosexuality, he might have had a point. I shall refer to the general issue of homosexuality. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to keep an open mind on the issue. It is complex. Homosexuality or heterosexual activity in the armed forces can, in certain circumstances, lead to breakdowns in discipline. That is equally true of an office, a factory, or the House of Commons, if we put the issue in a general working context, but I do not want to go any further down that line.
  I was talking about bullying. Bullying takes on a special dimension when it occurs in the form of racial bigotry, discrimination and harassment. I welcome the Minister saying that he will set up the ethnic monitoring system to identify incidents and to keep records. I am not sure whether that goes far enough.
  I believe that the Government deplore bigotry in our armed forces against coloured or black recruits. But they are not doing enough to combat it. It is all right to say, as Ministers have done in the past, that people should complain. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said last year:
  "We hear of people who have left the armed forces and say that they were discriminated against during their time in the armed forces. It would be much more useful if they complained at the time. If they did, such allegations would be investigated by senior officers, and there is no doubt that any form of bullying or racial discrimination or harassment would be seriously investigated and dealt with."—[Official Report, 17 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 117.]
  How can one expect the victims of attack, racial prejudice, bigotry and harassment to feel that they have any redress in their units when the people to whom they are likely to complain are the very persons who are responsible for the general system under which they operate and, indeed, might even tolerate forms of discrimination?
  It is naive to say that, because a person does not complain at the time that he is bullied, beaten or discriminated against, he should not complain later. He operates in a system that induces an atmosphere of fear.
  998
  Complaints, even after the event, ought to be treated in a sympathetic manner. Simply to say what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said last year seems a simple cop-out.
  Much more needs to be done and much more must be done. Incidentally, as I said earlier, we do not want any further daft suggestions that the way to solve the problems of ethnic minorities in the armed forces is to set up ethnic minority regiments. I have never heard anything more daft in my life.
  Mr. Greg Knight: What about the Welsh Regiment?
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says, "What about the Welsh Regiment?" That just shows his English bigotry. But we shall leave it at that for now. I certainly shall not get involved in that one.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: What about the Welsh rugby team?
  Mr. Rogers: We do not lose every rugby match. We might do a little better next year. As a Scotsman, the hon. and learned Gentleman should be careful on that point.
  The balance of ethnic minorities in the armed forces is not improving. I hope that the new Secretary of State will address that problem. It is odd that ethnic minority groups form about 5 per cent. of the total general population but provide only about 1 per cent. of armed forces recruits. To my mind, that is a waste of an excellent source of first-class recruits.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at percentages when he suggests that certain people do not get their fair share. I do not know about the Welsh, but the Scots represent less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population but provide far more than 9 per cent. of the strength of the armed forces. Therefore, it could be argued that the Scots enjoy more than double their fair share.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Largely because of unemployment.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) says that that is largely because of unemployment. That may well be a measure. But what a silly statement the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) makes. He does a disservice by talking about the Welsh and Scots as ethnic minorities. We regard ourselves as fully integrated members of the United Kingdom, not as ethnic minorities in any sense. Peculiar we might be, strange we might be, but we are full citizens of the United Kingdom and have been for many hundreds of years.
  When I say that harassment and bigotry are shown to ethnic minorities I refer to those people who, simply because of the colour of their skin, receive a bad time in the armed forces.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Ah.
  Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Gentleman says, "Ah," in that naive way, he ignores a serious problem.
  The apparently intractable problem of recruiting more people from ethnic minorities to the armed forces requires more effort. That is why I am pleased about the setting up of a register and that there will be ethnic monitoring of applications, and of people accepted for the forces,

  999
  because the percentage of applicants from ethnic minorities accepted is less than the percentage of white applicants.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Brigade of Guards and the Household Regiments have a bad record when it conies to recruiting ethnic minorities? I do not think that there is a black officer in the Brigade of Guards.
  Mr. Rogers: That is true. One only has to see the Brigade of Guards on parade up the road to see how it encourages members of ethnic minorities into its ranks. It is a shame and a blot on the British, when across the ocean in America a black man is the No. 1 soldier. We are still talking about pathetically low numbers in our armed forces.
  An enormous amount of talent is out there to be used and I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will constructively consider our procedures for enrolling more people from ethnic minorities, as I have suggested.
  I accept that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the armed forces—an issue to which the Minister referred—is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, the Ministers' statement does not alter the fact that, if anyone engages in homosexual activity, they will be thrown out.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Quite properly.
  Mr. Rogers: That is a separate argument. I do not know whether that again demonstrates the bigotry of the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
  In addition to issues that the Minister mentioned in general terms, being a lesbian or a gay is a ground for instant dismissal—ground for administrative discharge. One does not have to participate in a homosexual act or to dress or behave in a way which will give away one's sexual orientation. All that has to be established is that one is a homosexual.
  Mrs. Currie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a person does not have to be engaged in any activity, but could be completely celibate, and that more than half of the soldiers discharged from the army under the rules are women?
  Mr. Rogers: That is correct. One does not have to be caught having sex to be dismissed—merely being a lesbian or gay is enough. The special investigation branch immediately moves in, and routinely investigates allegations of homosexuality. Suspects are interrogated, asked to name names, their rooms are searched, their letters and diaries read and any leads followed up. As a result of those witch hunts, about 75 people a year— people who might well be celibate, non-practising homosexuals—are administratively discharged.
  It is wrong for the Minister to suggest that that will alter—it will not, under the terms that he has outlined today. Those discharged lose their careers. They might be outstanding soldiers and members of the armed forces, but simply because they are lesbian or gay they have to find new employment and they lost out on pension rights. There are instances where people have lost as much as £0.25 million in such payments.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that first, no one in this country is any longer under any obligation to join the armed forces unless they wish to do so? Secondly, the conditions under which
  1000
  people have to live in the armed forces are totally different from those for the civilian occupations to which he referred.
  Mr. Rogers: I do not know whether that is strictly true. When I did my national service, I slept in a barrack room with 32 people and no one inquired about anyone's sexual orientation.
  Mr. Bill Walker: He must be joking.
  Mr. Rogers: Given his public school background, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has more knowledge of such things than I do. I do not know why some people are so defensive about that. After all, their parents ripped them out of their homes at the age of three and packed them off to a private school. They were then locked in rooms with other little boys or girls. They spent 10 years in such peculiar, unnatural circumstances, but as soon as—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address me. I do not expect to see his back.
  Mr. Rogers: I apologise.
  As soon as those little ones become big ones, they may join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, but if they happen to be homosexual, they are discriminated against and thrown out of the forces.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Rogers: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman any more; he has muttered enough.
  When Conservative Members were at public school, do they remember any time when their classmates were thrown out simply because of their homosexual orientation? How many of their classmates were sent home to their mams and dads?
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Gentleman did not mutter so much, I might give way to him.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: I shall do so in a moment.
  Last year, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made the Government's position on this issue clear when he said:
  "It is a long-standing policy that both homosexual activity and orientation are incompatible with service in the armed forces …The formation within these units of sexually motivated relationships are potentially very disruptive of discipline and morale, particularly when they cross rank boundaries."
  If the Government were prepared to follow the logic of their argument and said that any sexual activity—heterosexual or homosexual—was immediate grounds for dismissal from the armed forces, one could understand it. Although the same argument could be adduced for both types of activity, the Government pick out homosexual activity. That is wrong.
  The composition of courts martial is also important. The Government have considered that issue and last year the Minister of State for the Armed Forces argued that officers
  "know their men far better than their equivalents did 30 or 40 years ago. The conditions in which they operate, such as in Northern Ireland or on board ship, ensure that junior officers

  1001
  especially are as in touch with their men as are senior non-commissioned officers."—[Official Report, 17 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 115-16.]
  I found that statement rather odd. I remind the Minister that 40 years ago personnel were serving on board ships in much more cramped conditions than those of today. Although conditions in the Army then were not equivalent to those which exist in Northern Ireland now, they were not dissimilar.
  The Government have failed to provide evidence to support their claim that today's officers know their men better than their equivalents of 40 years ago. They should provide a much better explanation to support their argument that the expertise of officers precludes the use of NCOs on courts martial. The Minister's statement was illogical.
  The Government have also continued to turn their back on the formation of organisations to represent service personnel. We are one of the few countries within NATO that does not allow service personnel organisations. The Government say that we do not need them and that people can make representations through their platoon officers or whichever chain of command they operate under. But the letter columns of the in-house Service publications, RAF News, Navy News, and the Soldier, continue to be filled with complaints. The regular attitude surveys carried out by the MOD may assist Ministers but they are of little assistance to Parliament.
  On 17 June 1991, the Government said that they would consider providing more detailed guidelines on what is an unacceptable activity. Is the Minister now in a position to say what conclusion he has reached as a result of his considerations? We should remember that premature voluntary retirement costs the country huge sums of money. It can cost £3 million to train a fast jet pilot, but
  1002
  if he leaves the service for any reason—or for the reasons in which some pilots are caught these days, which are clearly outlined in the Minister's questionnaires on officer premature voluntary release—he has cost the country huge sums of money which we can ill afford.
  Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman said that the Soldier and RAF News were filled with complaints. I am a regular reader of RAF News and was trying to work out the last time I saw a complaint in that magazine.
  Mr. Rogers: We shall turf them out and send them to the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that complaints appear in those magazines. However, if he wants to see complaints, he need not check in Service magazines. Why does he not bother to go to the Library and get the questionnaire on officer premature voluntary release, in which members of the armed forces give details of why they are leaving the armed forces prematurely?
  The point is that, even if one soldier, sailor or airman leaves prematurely because he has a problem, it means that the chain of command is not dealing with his problem and that the problem must be dealt with. Thousands leave prematurely every year, and the problem is not being resolved. In last year's debate, the Minister said that the figures were coming down but close analysis of the figures shows that the same amount of premature voluntary retirement is taking place.
  The Minister mentioned that he was acting on a Select Committee recommendation. I join him in congratulating the Select Committee, and I welcome the Government's implementation of its recommendations. We want them to go a little further in some areas, but we respect the fact that discipline within the armed forces is vital for them to carry out their functions properly. They cannot do their tough job—whether on land, sea or in the air—
  unless special circumstances pertain to them. But the Government could go much further.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: First, I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. It is a pleasure to have heard him at the Dispatch Box, and never more so than this evening, when he introduced the debate in a manner that was as lucid as it was stylish, as one expects from him. Moreover, his speech was sympathetic to the work of the Special Select Committee, and his approval of its procedure was heartening for those who served on it. It illuminated the debate.
  Normally, a late-night debate on such an order is a relatively minor affair and quickly passed over. However, the Select Committee report highlighted a number of issues. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister grasped the nettle of the difficult matters of homosexuality and of bullying—particularly of a racial nature—in the armed forces, and the need to maintain ethnic monitoring. I thought that he struck the right balance on those issues. I agree with the judgment of the Ministry of Defence.
  The Ministry deferred judgment on a number of our recommendations. Its first deferral related to the treatment of minors being enlisted and discharged. They are important issues, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reach a conclusion before long. Surely it cannot be right that a young soldier who joins at 16, becomes dissatisfied with military life, finds it different from his expectations and does not exercise his right to leave the service in the first six months, has to serve no less than five years with the colours, as the Army requires him to fulfil three years adult service after the age of 18.
  An analogy, which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, is the difficult question whether we should require minors to serve on active duty overseas. The Select Committee was greatly exercised by this issue. We all recognised the tremendous enthusiasm of young people. Seamen could find themselves on operational duty overseas, afloat from the age of sixteen and a half, airmen could be on operational duty overseas from the age of 16 years and eight months, and soldiers could be on operational duty overseas from the age of 17.
  I well understand—I am sure that it was the view of the Select Committee—that if our nation's ultimate security is at risk, age should not be a barrier to a willingness to defend our islands and their residents. But there is a genuine distinction to be drawn if our volunteer service men are sent on an overseas expedition simply by virtue of the fact that they have taken the Queen's shilling. The distinction which we sought to make was that, if the young people have a vital qualification without which their units could not perform effectively, they should go, but otherwise they should not. Furthermore, Army personnel under the age of 18 are not allowed to serve in Northern Ireland.
  My hon. Friend the Minister also deferred judgment on our recommendation to combine the Royal Navy detention quarters with the military correction training centre at Colchester. Under "Options for Change". our armed forces are diminishing by the day, so such a rationalisation is overdue, even if the necessary building work will take a little time. I hope that the decision can be taken early, so that the amalgamation takes place as soon as possible.
  A number of matters were not acted on. The first was the disciplinary status of our reserve forces. It was
  1004
  interesting to note the policy implemented by the Ministry of Defence on the use of Reservists during the Gulf war. I am sure that the Ministry is still appraising the conclusions to be drawn from it. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force air movements squadron which performed so admirably in the conflict—as we all knew that it would. It was strange that Territorials were unable to serve in Germany, to make good the deficiency there caused by the departure of Regulars to the Gulf. I am sure that they would have been pleased to do so. However, several specialists made an outstanding contribution—not least my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
  Because the Scud missiles were not as effective as expected and the Iraqi air force never achieved air superiority, the use of civilian airliners to carry freight and troops to the war zone never became a serious problem. However, the war zone could have posed a serious difficulty for civilian crews if they had sustained casualties. Unless, in such circumstances, civilian crews are required to be subject to the Air Force Act 1955, there could be a problem in a future conflict—and there might be also in the case of merchant seamen on board ships taken out from trade.
  I know that the Ministry is examining these issues. A mini White Paper on Britain's reserve forces was published before the general election, but we have not heard the full outcome of the proposals that it contains.
  Finally, there is a controversial point—the question of the standing civilian courts in Germany primarily, but also in other places overseas where British forces are stationed, which have jurisdiction over the dependent personnel of our service men.
  They function in Germany as a legacy of the NATO status of forces Act. Civilians who commit offences there can be subject to German or British military legal jurisdiction. My belief is that civilian offenders should be wholly under German legal jurisdiction. This may be the case already—the necessary changes might have been implemented. If not, in view of German unification and the changed relationship between the host country and British forces stationed on German federal soil, I hope that our Government will re-examine the issue.
  I commend my hon. Friend the Minister again for his enlightened attitude to our recommendations, and I am grateful for the decisions that he took.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the points that he made, though the House acknowledges that he made them with some authority.
  The Minister clearly acknowledged that good morale is essential if the disciplinary code is to be rarely used—and that is devoutly to be hoped. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) and I have the good fortune to be halfway through the new and splendid defence attachment scheme. Currently, we are closely and interestingly involved with the Royal Air Force. Any criticisms that I make are directed not at the RAF's leadership but at the political leadership. I shall not seek to embarrass the hon. Member for Harlow, who has accompanied me on my visits, but he may concur at least to some extent with my observations.

  1005
  One is aware of the need for contraction and change. Perhaps it was a pity that the House paid overwhelming attention to the county regiments rather than to the other forces of the Crown. The Minister must understand that, if the high morale of the highest quality air force in the world is to be safeguarded, current anxieties require attention.
  Only a few days ago, I spoke to a number of RAF personnel of senior aircraftsman and junior technician ranks who are developing considerable skills, and who would normally have a profound commitment to the service. They are marrying and starting families and they need to know whether they will become corporals or sergeants and receive a pay rise. They cannot see much prospect of the advancement that it is natural they wish to see. If the morale of those who will fill the senior NCO ranks in a few years' time is allowed to diminish further, there may be cause for profound anxiety. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that concern is given more attention.
  An even more serious matter—one that requires urgent and balanced political consideration—is contractorisation. It seems that in this context the RAF faces serious long-term danger. If the various mechanical and technical services are contractorised at the present pace, disadvantages will ensue. We shall be capable of mounting an adequate defence of the realm only between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm. As jobs are transferred to civilians, RAF stations will become half empty, at least after 5 pm.
  The Government seem to believe that it is cheaper to employ a skilled tradesman who is a civilian than a skilled service man. If we continue to give jobs to civilians, the skilled tradesman in the RAF will be so frequently taken from his job to undertake guard duty and other such jobs that he will become even more expensive, which will lead to further contractorisation and civilianisation.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member continues, perhaps he will explain how his remarks relate to discipline.
  Mr. Hardy: I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  If service men see their ranks diminish and the numbers of their colleagues in their camps contract, RAF stations will be weaker in terms of their leisure activity and quality of life. Morale will be adversely affected and disciplinary problems are bound to increase. I think that that will be recognised by hon. Members who have examined these matters.
  Frustration may stem from disciplinary inadequacies. The hon. Member for Harlow and I recently visited RAF Sealand, where in several instances Government policy appeared to be exceedingly dangerous and likely to lead to disaffection, at least to some extent. We were told of the positive push for more privatisation. We met a small group of men and we were given some interesting information about their professional activities.
  It appears that, shortly before the Tornados went to the Gulf, it was discovered that they needed a gadget called a capacitator. The RAF went to private contractors, who said, "Yes, we can make the capacitators. It will cost you several thousand pounds each and it will take 16 to 18 weeks before we can deliver them." A small group of men
  1006
  at RAF Sealand gave up their weekends and produced capacitators for —105 each. As a result, the Tornados were able to go to the Gulf.
  I opened a book—this is relevant to the question of morale—about the Gulf war which had been published in the United States of America. Its reference to the contribution of the RAF was to state that 12 Tornados had been shot down, which was not true. In my view, leadership within the service is of high quality, but leadership at political level allows that sort of statement to go unchallenged.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: I do not want the hon. Gentleman and me to seem too much like a double act, but we are doing an attachment together, and he has talked a great deal of common sense. Although I am not attacking Government policy in any way, I think—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—that the Minister should consider carefully what is being achieved at Sealand.
  Time after time, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money were saved by the ingenuity and hard work of people there. It will cost —600 or —700 for contractors to provide a little cable; at Sealand, it can be done for —50. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is happening there is a model of what should be happening throughout the armed services, not just in the RAF?
  Mr. Hardy: I do agree. Because other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not labour the point, but I hope that I shall catch the eye of the Chair towards the end of our attachment or soon after it.
  Many Opposition Members were never ardent cold war warriors, even if we accepted the need for national defence. however, it seems obvious to me, as an internationalist, that as the world moves towards having sane international authority and the capacity to make a contribution to securing peace and stability, Britain will have a role to play, because our armed forces are of very high quality, Surely, in terms of quality, the RAF is unmatched in the world, and it will have to maintain the capacity to make that contribution, as it did in the Gulf.
  When we watch the Red Arrows fly, with their remarkable skill and precision—bearing in mind that that outfit employs only 71 people—and when we see the contribution made on, say, Battle of Britain day, in an entirely voluntary capacity, at the splendid RAF station in South Yorkshire, Finningley, we must accept that, despite the efforts made at the stations by RAF personnel of all ranks, they need rather more political championing than they have received over the past two years.
  Sadly, over the past 12 months, a myth has arisen that is very hard on the tradition— for tradition it is, although it involves the youngest service men. That myth holds that the Gulf contribution was of no account and, indeed, unsuccessful. I consider that it was remarkably successful in ensuring that a very large Iraqi air force was grounded. Over the past few weeks, not a single Front Bencher did not allow ridiculous twaddle to be talked about Bomber Command, and thus about the heart of the history and tradition of the RAF. That is relevant to discipline, because tradition and history are.
  No one has paid any attention. No one responsible for the political leadership of the Air Force—I am not talking about serving ranks—told the British public that the contribution of Bomber Command, and the sacrifice of the

  1007
  lives of thousands of air crew members, ensured that the German industry produced fighters rather than bombers. We must ask which towns would have been blitzed if those men had not flown in German night skies. If they had not, thousands of German guns and German soldiers would probably have achieved success on the Russian front and brought a very different accounting when the Normandy invasion took place.
  The RAF is aware of that, and it is a pity that no one in government made it plain—just as it is a pity that the Government have been so obsessed by some of their articles of dogma in the past two years. In the various RAF stations that we have visited, we have been met with the utmost courtesy and co-operation, for which I am extremely grateful—as, I know, is the hon. Member for Harlow. We would, however, be acting irresponsibly if we did not reflect some of the anxieties that we have encountered, to which I trust the Government will attend a little more carefully.
  11.24 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends for the first positive step that has been taken for a number of years to ease the burden carried by homosexual and lesbian people It is entirely appropriate that it should have been made by a Conservative Government, led by a Prime Minister who wants the nation to be at ea se with itself; a nation in which every citizen is encouraged to make his or her best contribution.
  It is worth remembering that 78 gay or lesbian military personnel were dismissed from the forces in 1990 after admitting to homosexuality. Six were court-martialled and three were imprisoned for 18 months for offences that were not crimes under civilian law. In the case of lesbians, they have never been crimes under civilian law. Between 1987 and 1989, more than 300 were discharged and 32 imprisoned. As has already been said, we cannot afford to lose good soldiers at that rate.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Good soldiers?
  Mrs. Currie: Yes, good soldiers. These people were volunteers. After having been recruited and trained, over 300 were discharged. Over half the people discharged from the Army were women. The Minister should be proud that at a stroke he removed that legal discrimination. I hope that he will ask for any existing prosecutions to be stopped and the slate wiped clean for the individuals concerned.
  Before the Minister becomes too complacent—as the response to his announcement showed he still has a little further to travel—it is a complex and sophisticated journey. On the basis of what he said, a homosexual soldier—I use "soldier" to cover all the forces, and both males and females—even if entirely celibate and not practising, could still be dismissed from the services.
  That raises two different questions: first, how do we treat homosexuals in our society at large? The civilian police, just like the military police, should have something better to do with their time than hound people. That is not on any longer. That is why it will not do to continue the general armed forces ban on homosexuality. It leaves good soldiers, good personnel, open to blackmail and undue pressure. It is way out of line with what happens in the armed forces of a number of our NATO allies.
  1008
  That leads, secondly, to the whole question of pastoral care in the armed forces. The issues are very complex. I have read the Select Committee report on the Armed Forces Bill. It is about time that a woman was on the Select Committee. That does not mean that I am volunteering, but the fact that all the members are male flavours some of its reports. However, the Ministry of Defence is getting much better at discipline and is to be congratulated. It has dealt much better with bullying. It is dealing with alcoholism far better than it used to do. The Ministry has picked up the issues that face women soldiers—for example, maternity leave, instead of just dismissing them out of hand when they get pregnant, even though it took a court case to push it into doing that.
  Now we have to face the question of what happens when two soldiers have sexual relationships, whether they are on duty or off duty, and what to do about the mess and the misery that can occur when a soldier has an affair with somebody outside the services. This is a matter that affects people with other sexual orientations. Recently there have been two dreadful cases involving the murder of people associated with or in the armed forces. They show how far tragic passions can take them. Now that women are serving with distinction in combat positions in all the armed forces, the issue is being addressed. It is being tackled in the Navy, at least. Reference is made to that in the Select Committee report. We need to take that a little further.
  We often deal with very young people. I put on record that I wonder whether sixteen and a half is too young to be recruiting soldiers. The advice that I give to my sixteen-and-a-half-year-old constituents, male and female, is that they ought to be at school.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend's point is exactly the one that the Select Committee thought about most seriously: would the parents of young people—16 and 17-year-olds who are, in some cases, children—wish them to be under the influence of overtly homosexual people? I do not think they would. They would wish the environment to be as nomal as possible, compatible with the rigours of military life and discipline.
  Mrs. Currie: I say to my hon. Friend, whose view I treat with the greatest possible respect, that I have a 17-year-old daughter and I think that she should still be at school. I should worry as much if she went into the armed forces, not because of some bloke or woman who might attack her but because she would be putting her life at risk—that is the point about joining the armed forces.
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mrs. Currie: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way, but time is very short.
  We are talking about young people who are often far from home and often for the first time. They are often in dangerous or isolated circumstances and stress is a big problem. These were the issues raised with us by the Gulf families campaign about soldiers of all ages and backgrounds and the difficult circumstances in which they can find themselves.
  There are several issues that we must put to the Ministry of Defence. How are we to ensure the maintenance of good discipline in all environments, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation? How are we to ensure that those responsible for discipline are sensitive

  1009
  and supportive and do not merely put the boot in and the cuffs on at the first hint of trouble? I think that it will mean a lot of retraining for those in charge of personnel matters because the evidence given to the Select Committee by some senior officers do not fill me with confidence. Some talked as if this were still the 19th century.
  With those words I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends and support the order.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I begin on a note of unanimity by agreeing that there is inadequate time for the House to discuss this important order. I hope that those who fix things in the House will take that on board.
  The continuation order gives further life to section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 1991 but one must go back a stage further to realise that we are in effect renewing the Army Act 1955 which, I submit, is an old Act requiring a great deal of revision. I listened to the Minister talking about the attic of regulations and disciplinary procedures which need to be examined. To that I say, "Hear, hear," because the 1955 Act deals with a number of capital offences which are inappropriate and archaic, in addition to other matters to which the Minister referred.
  I hope that this will be the last year that we shall deal with disciplinary matters by order. Perhaps in future there will be primary legislation to deal with discipline in the armed forces, which will give us appropriate, modern disciplinary codes for all service men.
  I shall not vote against the order tonight if there is a Division. However, I hope that if the Minister takes on board the need for new legislation, it will incorporate some of the points raised tonight, especially the liberalisation of matters affecting people's sexual orientation. I hope that new legislation will mean that it is no longer a matter for disciplinary action.
  Another issue that I hope will be included in any future legislation relates to the 307 service men executed in the 1914–18 war on charges including cowardice, desertion, disobedience, sleeping at posts, quitting posts and hitting a superior officer. Future legislation should include a schedule to exonerate them and/or give them a pardon. That could be the vehicle for excusing brave British soldiers from unfair ignominy.
  Hon. Members may wonder why I raise this issue tonight. This morning I received a letter from a gentleman who wrote:
  "I myself was a soldier during that war and I fought in Belgium and France from 1917 until the war ended. During that time I actually saw posted an official notice reporting the execution of a soldier in my own unit and I remember vividly the feeling of horror I had and my fear that such a fate would befall me. I was only 18 at this time and now at the age of 94 I applaud your efforts to get this matter reviewed."
  I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind, and that, if nothing else, the Secretary of State will agree to receive a small delegation in the not-too-distant future, so that we can amplify our concern and demonstrate why there has been a miscarriage of justice and why—even at this late stage—it is appropriate to review the subject. That could be done fairly, to the advantage of those British soldiers who lie with their comrades in Flanders, and all along the western front as well as in Gallipoli.
  I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider. I realise that the hour is late and that there are only a few
  1010
  minutes of the debate left, so I shall not labour the point further. This is a matter associated with discipline, and thousands of people in this country still feel strongly about it. It is time that we recognised the people who were shot at dawn as victims of the great war, and as brave British soldiers.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Aitken: The debate must end in five minutes' time. With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to some of the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sorry that, for reasons of time, I shall not have the opportunity to reply to all the points, but I shall do my best to cover what I consider to be the principal questions which need a response. I am sorry that my response will be so brief and that so many hon. Members who wished to speak have not been able to make their contributions.
  Perhaps because of his good nature, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who opened the debate for the Opposition, found it difficult to criticise much of what the Government were doing. I am grateful for that. He was straining a little far when he banged on about bullying and made it sound as if it were an enormous problem. Even one case of bullying is too many; the services take an immensely serious view of it, and it has been made clear throughout the armed forces that it will not be tolerated. A range of measures to combat bullying have been introduced in the past few years, including the banning of initiation ceremonies.
  We should see the matter in perspective, however bad any individual case may be. We have about 300,000 service men, yet in 1989 only 25 allegations of bullying were substantiated by courts martial; in 1990 there were 1I cases, in 1991 six cases and in 1992 two cases. That is hardly endemic bullying—as the hon. Gentleman described it.
  Ms. Joan Walley: Does the Minister agree that, despite what he said, on the basis of the experience of a constituent of mine there is still an urgent need to review the subject of bullying? The Select Committee report represents some advance, but it does not go far enough. There should be a specific offence of bullying, and we should do more in addition to the measures introduced in 1988 to start to wipe out institutionalised bullying in the armed forces.
  Mr. Aitken: I cannot accept the phrase "institutionalised bullying", because it implies that the institution itself approves—which it definitely and categorically does not. But I hear what the hon. Lady has said and I am sympathetic to her argument that any bullying is unacceptable, appalling, disgraceful and not to be tolerated. I take it from what she said that she had a serious case involving a constituent. If so, if she writes to me or comes to see me—or rather, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—the matter will be taken immensely seriously and thoroughly and carefully investigated.
  Ms. Walley rose—
  Mr. Aitken: I do not think that I should give way to the hon. Lady twice, as other important speakers contributed to the debate.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), the Chairman of the

  1011
  Select Committee, who, with his Committee, has done a superb job of work. I was grateful for his generous comments about me, and I thank him above all for showing that the Select Committee system can work well. It takes two hands to clap, and both the Government and the Select Committee have responded in equal part in introducing many reforms which started with the Committee—to its credit.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) referred at some length to the treatment of minors. That is a difficult subject and, as I said earlier, the Government are considering it carefully.
  The services do not wish to take on personnel who cannot adapt to service life. We make every effort to ensure that such recruitment does not take place. Any minor has the opportunity after the first 28 days of service and before six months' service has elapsed to leave easily. Thereafter, any request to leave the services—usual contracts are for three or four years-on compassionate or other grounds will be carefully and sympathetically considered on merit.
  As Major General Stone said in evidence to the Committee, it costs the taxpayer £23,000 to train a junior infantryman. Such resources should not be easily thrown away if there is a brief moment of personal unhappiness in a young person's career. We are carefully considering the matters raised in that connection this evening—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members—Conservative, Labour and the Liberal Democrat spokesman—have been disappointed not to be able to speak on the important matters raised in the defence debate. Could the Clerks investigate when the rules were changed? You will recall that the late George Wigg was able, under exempted business, to go on at great length on precisely such orders as this one.
  By what alchemy did this become time-limited business and cease to be exempted business? Many of us wanted to raise all sorts of important personal issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) wanted to say a great deal more, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The Liberal Democrat spokesman was not called either. Doubtless a battery of Conservative Members wanted to make constituency points too. How did this come about?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I sympathise with hon. Members who have not been able to speak, but I can only operate the rules as they stand. I am sure that a little perusal with the Clerks or in the Library might throw light on the history of the matter.
  Ms. Walley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I echo what my hon. Friend said. I wanted to speak not so much about an individual case of bullying as about the implications that arise—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot continue the debate under the guise of a point of order.
  Ms. Walley: If I may—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. You may not.

  Rail Service (London-Cleethorpes)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I am most grateful to those who determine whether we secure Adjournment debates that I should have the good fortune to be able to raise the subject of the direct rail services between London and Cleethorpes. I am delighted to see attending the debate the Minister for Public Transport, who is to reply, my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). They too have an interest in the debate following the recent proposal by British Rail to withdraw the high-speed 125 train service that operates once a day in the morning from Cleethorpes to King's Cross and calls at the stations of Cleethorpes, Barnetby, and Habrough in my constituency, and then at Great Grimsby, Market Rasen and Lincoln before joining the main line at Newark. So the train services my constituents and those of the other hon. Members whom I have listed.
  I know that my remarks will be heard by British Rail because of the forceful support offered by the constituents of my hon. Friends.
  This train is the premier service to London from north Lincolnshire and south Humberside. It was introduced 10 years ago in 1982. Until then, we had four direct trains in each direction with full first and second-class carriages. They were diesel-haul locos with buffet and dining car services. Those four trains were withdrawn in 1982 and BR said that they were to be replaced by a single, but premier, train which would arrive in London about 9 am, and that there would be a return train in the evening. That train has been well used and well supported for 10 years by local people in all our constituencies.
  Four years ago, when BR proposed to introduce the new 225 trains—the trains with electric overhead wires —my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and I wondered what might happen if all high-speed main line train services were only 225 trains. We recognised that there was no electrification between Newark and Cleethorpes. In 1988, we took the trouble to press BR very firmly about the future of high-speed train services between south Humberside and north Lincolnshire and London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and I wrote to BR stating that we noted the tremendous investment that the Government were making available to BR for the 225 electrified trains. We said that it might be possible that one day the diesel electric-powered 125 trains, like those on the Cleethorpes to London service, might wear out. We wanted to know what would happen then.
  We were accused of raising fears where there were none. However, we were very specific in what we said to BR. Back in 1988, I wrote asking specifically about the future of that train after 31 December 1991—just 150 days ago. I received a letter from Mr. Prideaux, who was then the managing director of InterCity. He wrote in 1988:
  "Thank you for your letter of 21 April. I would confirm the assurances given in the letters of my InterCity marketing manager at York that we plan to continue the operation of a through service between Cleethorpes and King's Cross for the foreseeable future. We have not reached the stage of planning
  1014
  timetables beyond 1991, but it may help if I say that we have already decided to retain a number of refurbished high-speed train sets to operate services beyond the electrified area including that to Cleethorpes after that date."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle was taken to task by Mr. Holland, the InterCity marketing manager, when he wrote to BR in similar terms to mine. Mr. Holland assured him:
  "May I support the assurances about the future of the train which you have already received from Chris Austin British Rail's parliamentary affairs manager. The train performs reasonably satisfactorily in the financial sense and serves an area with potential for future growth. There is no (nor has there been) any intention of withdrawing it. We cannot of course unconditionally guarantee its continued existence for ever any more than any commercial business can indefinitely underwrite any product since its survival will obviously depend on its usage and earnings remaining satisfactory. But I am puzzled as to why you should believe that this train is to be withdrawn. Can you elucidate upon the cause of your fears?"
  My hon. Friend was taken to task in no uncertain terms by BR. Those assurances today are not worth the paper on which they are written.
  I took the trouble to write to BR when the announcement was made 10 days ago, and I received responses from the parliamentary affairs manager and Mr. Brian Birdsall, the director of the east coast main line. He refuted my allegation that BR had misled my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and me. It denies that anything that it said in 1988 was at variance with the position in 1992. Never again will I treat anything that I see on paper from British Rail as anything other than worthless.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It shows great initiative and the determination of hon. Members to oppose the proposal. He is telling a story of deceit and incompetence. As a supporter of British Rail and public transport—indeed, I am a frequent user of it—I find it very hard to love British Rail or even to support or condone its behaviour. It made promises that it obviously had no intention of keeping and which it is now betraying, and it is badly letting down our area. Like the hon. Gentleman, I want it to know that we shall oppose its proposal tooth and nail with every weapon at our disposal.
  Is not the most appalling aspect of the sorry saga the fact that British Rail is not only judge and jury in its own case but able to manipulate the evidence as well? It says that usage has not been adequate, but it is the controller of that usage. It looks as though it has set out deliberately to run down usage of that valuable service to our area by bringing the times forward to 6 am, a very inconvenient time, and changing them later in the evening so that people find it more difficult to spend a day in London and get back quickly. It has reduced services on the train, particularly breakfast and restaurant car services. Most appalling of all, it has cut out cheap fares on the service with the deliberate intention of keeping places empty, to fill up at Newark and beyond. In other words, it is depriving the people of Grimsby and Cleethorpes of the service by increasing the fares so that it can fill the train later on.
  Does not that show that British Rail is prepared to fiddle the evidence so that it can use the remaining 125 trains for other purposes elsewhere which are more

  1015
  convenient to it but not to the area? Does not that show also that it will do the same thing again? If it takes off the service, it will then use the form in usage—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That is a speech, not an intervention.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, I—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but that is enough.
  Mr. Brown: I could not disagree with anything that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has said. He is absolutely right about deliberately running down the service. British Rail has attacked me for making that allegation. Indeed, I have gone even further than the hon. Gentleman. I have accused British Rail of sabotaging the service, but that is what is happening.
  Until last year, it was possible for passengers from Cleethorpes, Grimsby, Market Rasen and Lincoln to use the cheapest fare of the day on that train. Last year, British Rail withdrew that cheapest fare. If a housewife wishes to go to London as a casual passenger—perhaps she wants to do a day's shopping in London—she is encouraged not to use that train, because the cheapest fare of the day is now not available until after 9.30.
  As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has said, British Rail is judge and jury, yet it wants to have it both ways. Normally, one restricts the use of cheap tickets on a train in the morning and evening rush hours because it is a full train and one wants to use a pricing policy to ensure that those who travel on the train regularly, such as season ticket holders or business men, can get seats. Until last year, the casual traveller was encouraged, with all sorts of promotions and advertising deals, to take advantage of that train. Now they are denied the opportunity. Then British Rail has the cheek to advise the four hon. Members who represent north Lincolnshire and south Humberside that the reason that it will suspend the service with effect from next year is because not enough people use the train between Newark and Cleethorpes. That is a ridiculous argument.
  British Rail is proposing that we should have small regional connecting services between Newark and Cleethorpes. That will simply encourage more people to drive their motor cars to either Newark or to Doncaster. In two or three years, British Rail will say, "Oh well, none of you is using the line between Cleethorpes and Newark, so we are certainly going to close it between Barnetby and Lincoln," leaving my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle without any railway service whatsoever in Market Rasen.
  We are already seeing the beginnings of that plan of attack. British Rail is making it more financially worthwhile for a passenger to travel to London via Doncaster from Grimsby and Cleethorpes and Barnetby. The ticket via Doncaster to London costs £31. The cheapest ticket via Newark costs £38. British Rail will encourage more and more people to travel via Doncaster to London to enable it to reserve its position on the total closure of the line in three or four years.
  I have dealt with British Rail for many years. I have seen its promises on pieces of paper. I have quoted those promises today, four years later, in the House. I can see exactly what will happen. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that there is at the least a case for local
  1016
  Members of Parliament saying to British Rail that, as the Government intend to privatise it during the next 18 months to two years, it should defer its decision? In the event that a private operator wants to take over the service, it should still be in operation on vesting day when ownership and control of British Rail or its track authority passes to the private sector. It would be an act of sabotage if British Rail ran down services and the direct train, in particular before the private sector had an opportunity to operate in the new environment that the Government intend to create in later years.
  British Rail wrongly and unfairly seeks to put the blame on the Government. In its letter of 15 June, it says that anything that it said to me in 1988 is made redundant by the new targets on assets employed which the Government require it to meet. I do not accept that. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would elucidate on whether that is just another of British Rail's lame excuses.
  I believe that, properly marketed, the train could continue to be as viable as it has been in the past. It is our only link with London. We used to have an air service from Humberside airport. We used to have competition. That competition spurred both Air UK and British Rail to provide a good service. For a time, we had true competition. There is no longer a direct air service between south Humberside and north Lincolnshire and London. Now there is not to be a direct railway service.
  At the least British Rail should defer its decision until ownership has passed from the state to the private sector. I understand that it will be possible for private companies to operate over British Rail tracks when new legislation is in place in about 18 months. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is the case.
  In the meantime, I hope that the attendance of my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln and for Gainsborough and Horncastle and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will be noted by British Rail. I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said. I hope that British Rail will take the fact that the debate has been attended by all the Members of Parliament for north Lincolnshire and south Humberside as a signal that we are all angry on behalf of our constituents. We shall not let the train go without one hell of a fight. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can give us some words of encouragement.
  11.58 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): This is an important debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for the vigour and clarity with which he argued his case. I understand that he made the same speech in a debate earlier this evening. That is a great credit to his ingenuity as a parliamentarian but also clearly underlines the importance of the subject.
  The presence on the Front Bench of two fellow Ministers who represent contiguous constituences, straining at the leash to contribute to the debate but having to remain mute, is a great stimulus to provide what I hope will be a constructive response. I find it interesting, but not entirely surprising, that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has joined in the debate and that there has been apparent agreement between Members on both sides of the House on the issue.

  1017
  British Rail has not proposed to close the line. We are concentrating on the absence of a through service from Cleethorpes, via Great Grimsby and Newark to London. The existence of a through service is often a crucial factor when business men and women decide how to travel to London. I accept, as I am sure that British Rail accepts, that a connecting service—albeit a frequent class 158 service—on the line from Cleethorpes to Newark will not be acceptable to some passengers. They might prefer to drive direct to Newark, with consequences for the road system, or to drive straight to London. That is not an acceptable or a sensible consequence environmentally or in terms of the best usage of our rail system, and it is important to look for solutions.
  British Rail has tried to encourage patronage of the line. As far as I am aware, the line is almost unique. I can find only one other example where saver tickets are issued on an InterCity line. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes criticised British Rail for not offering super-saver tickers, which were withdrawn, but at least saver tickets are still in existence and that is almost unique. The truth is that fewer than 100 passengers use the through service on the line beyond Newark—there is one through service in either direction each day.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that I have no power to intervene in British Rail's decision. There is no way in which the Government can direct British Rail to continue a through service after May 1993. One can argue the case—as I am sure that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will do with vigour—but the Government cannot issue a direction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes asked two key questions. First, he asked me to comment on InterCity's objectives and, secondly, to look to the future. What are the possible solutions for the service, if British Rail perseveres with its intention to withdraw it?
  First, on the InterCity objectives, InterCity provides not a social but a commercial service. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's implicit acceptance of that policy. I know that he supports the notion that InterCity should seek to operate commercially and to cover its costs. There is no division between the two sides of the House on that issue. The Labour party and the Government are at one in expecting InterCity at least to recover its revenue expenses. We have set ambitious targets for InterCity. Clearly they have not been met for the past year and are unlikely to be met this year, because of the effects of the recession, but they are certainly more modest than the targets that would apply to the private sector, and do not entail the sort of return on assets that a private sector bus operator, airline, or any other provider of transport, would expect. However, it is not a social service, and British Rail is right to seek to protect its bottom line and to adjust the services it provides to strive to meet the objectives that we have set.
  My hon. Friend asks whether British Rail is fair to blame the Government. If he is referring to the objectives that we have set for it, I am unrepentant. It is important that BR has targets to meet. It has not done so this year, but those targets are modest and, in a reasonable economic climate, achievable. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be happy for BR to achieve those targets in its commercial services.
  1018
  The second, more important, question relates to the implications of our BR privatisation proposals for the service from Cleethorpes to London. I very much hope that the private sector will consider that service. I hope that the debate will stimulate its interest. In the past few weeks, I have spoken to several dozen potential freight and passenger service operators and a number would be interested in running such a service.
  My hon. Friend wrote to me about the loading factors yesterday and he might be interested to know about them. British Rail has told me that passenger numbers on the two InterCity services between Newark and Cleethorpes are very low and have fallen in recent years. The south-bound morning train carried on average 170 in 1987, falling to 120 in 1990 and further to 90 in 1991. The corresponding figures for the evening return train were 130 in 1987, 100 in 1990, and 90 in 1991. So there are now barely 100 passengers to be found on a train with a capacity of 480.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for obtaining those interesting and helpful figures for me. I am also grateful to him for kindly agreeing to meet a delegation next week from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and myself. I can give my hon. Friend the reason for the fall in passengers. Those who are on a tight budget now wait until 9.30 before using the super-saver ticket on the train to Newark, where they change. If that super-saver ticket was once again available on the direct train, more people would use it.
  Mr. Freeman: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument. Our proposal for franchising passenger services will permit the operator of a privately run train to make such crucial decisions about pricing in order to tap the market.
  Our legislative policies, which we hope will receive Royal Assent next year, will open access so that private operators are encouraged to run new services and franchise existing services. Next year, BR may decide to withdraw the Cleethorpes service. I have no power to stop it doing so—that commercial judgment is its responsibility.
  A private sector operator may consider the loading factors and find them depressing. However, it might believe that the service could be improved if the fare structure was altered, the service was better marketed and the times of the trains were changed. Any such timetable change, however, would have to be negotiated with BR. We propose a right of appeal to a regulator should it be impossible to reach agreement between the potential operator of any particular service and BR.
  A new operator may consider introducing the changes I have described and may consider introducing on-board services such as providing coffee and a newspaper for every commuter from Great Grimsby. Many private sector operators want to change the quality of such services and the timing of the trains.
  There is a lot to play for. I hope that the private sector will not be put off by the raw figures. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the cost of running the diesel through-train service is £1 million a year. That train travels in the morning from Cleethorpes to London—presumably it stays there for part of the day—and returns in the evening. That figure includes

  1019
  operation costs, which are exacerbated by the need to provide on-train door assistance at stations with short platforms, and cleaning facilities at Cleethorpes.
  The extra revenue for the portion between Newark and Cleethorpes is some £300,000 a year. Therefore, British Rail calculates a saving of £700,000 by withdrawing the service, on the assumption that passengers will transfer to other British Rail services and use east coast main line service trains where additional capacity exists. So no extra cost is entailed in providing that service.
  There is a prize for British Rail for improving profitability, but also an opportunity for the private sector.
  1020
  When my hon. Friend comes to see me next week with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I shall rehearse at greater length the exciting challenge for the private sector in franchising and operating services on British Rail. I cannot foresee whether that will mean that a private sector train will be able to provide through services if British Rail withdraws them. There are 12 months to go, but the Government certainly intend to open up those opportunities, and I hope that they will be grasped.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Narayan Shankar
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision on the application by Narayan Shankar for political asylum, August 1989, ref. S670769.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I expect the decision to be taken soon and I will inform the hon. Member at that time.

  Wheel Clamps
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what instructions are issued to private companies authorised to clamp vehicles regarding any decision to fit a wheel clamp;

  (2) what information he has on the degree of liaison between the Metropolitan police and private companies authorised to clamp vehicles in respect of prioritising illegally parked vehicles.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the decision to fit a wheel clamp to a vehicle may only be authorised by a police officer. Private companies are employed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to carry out the physical task of applying wheel clamps and their operatives act on the instructions of a police officer.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of those private companies authorised by the Metropolitan police to clamp vehicles on public roads.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the information requested is as follows:Parking Protection Limited
  Highway Maintenance Service Limited

  United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the general council of UKIAS.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I hope to meet members of the executive committee of UKIAS soon to discuss the organisation's future.

  Crime, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's letter of 5 June to the hon. Member for York about recorded crimes in North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give the average number of remand prisoners held in police cells in Cumbria over the last convenient period for each police station; how many police hours were spent looking after them; and at what cost to public funds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 27 October 1991 to 25 January 1992, a daily average of 20 prisoners who normally would be held in prison were held in the following police stations in Cumbria:

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Carlisle

  Kendal

  Penrith

  Whitehaven

  Workington

  Information is not available centrally on the numbers held in individual police stations over this period. The available information does not separately identify the number of prisoners held on remand.

  During the same period, a total of 17,598 police hours were taken up with tasks relating to the custody and transport of prisoners who would normally be held in prison. The cost to the Prison Service of the police cells operation in Cumbria was £309,433.48.

  Feltham Remand Centre (Suicides)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent suicides at Feltham remand centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is already an active suicide prevention management group at Feltham. In addition, the governor recognises the widespread concern about recent deaths at the establishment and has chaired a special group to identify what more could be done.

  The group is taking forward a range of initiatives, including a review of induction procedures and of measures to curb the incidence of bullying. Staff have been given refresher training in suicide prevention and a training pack has been produced for future use. Case conferences are held each week to manage prisoners identified as being at risk. A prison visitor scheme has been set up to support those who do not receive regular visits. Links have been made with the local branch of the Samaritans. The establishment is also continuing to develop its policy of encouraging regular contact between prisoners and their families, particularly where there is concern about the prisoner's welfare. In addition, a new unit is to open on 22 June with specially trained staff whose role will be to work to modify the behaviour of known bullies. Video cameras are also being installed in trouble spots to help staff to identify bullies.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the law to bring the provisions concerning manslaughter into line with the protection given to the pre born against abortion after 24 weeks and the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  Although no suitable legislative vehicle is, at present, in prospect, we shall seek to amend the presumption in that Act to bring it into line with the
  521
  24-week limit now in the Abortion Act 1967 and with the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992 when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give further consideration to the points made in the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection report on the London hospital medical college in October 1991; and if he will publish a full detailed response to each point.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The allegations in the BUAV's report were thoroughly investigated by the Home Office scientific procedures inspectorate and considered in detail by Home Office officials. A reply was sent to the general secretary of the BUAV on 17 March, and he has been invited to put any further specific questions to the Home Office in writing.

  Turkish Refugees
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meetings about the hunger strike by the Turkish/Kurdish/Aleri refugees in London; what evidence he has of the after-effects of torture of former Turkish refugees living in London; what information he has about the treatment of their wives and children; what representations he has received about this matter; and what representations he has made to the Turkish authorities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  On 1 June we were informed that 54 of the original 62 hunger strikers had abandoned their protest. On 5 June we were informed that the remaining eight had taken the same step. Representations have been made in individual cases about the circumstances of Turkish refugees and asylum applicants with exceptional leave living in London and about their families remaining in Turkey. Applications for family reunion are considered in the light of the immigration rules and other published guidelines. My right hon. and learned Friend has had no contacts with the Turkish authorities on these matters.

  Asylum
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reduce the time before an asylum seeker given exceptional leave to remain may apply to bring in his family and immediate dependants from four years to three years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. The period of four years reflects the view that family reunion for someone with exceptional leave should not normally be allowed until it is apparent that his stay in the United Kingdom is likely to be permanent.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of asylum seekers for each month from January 1990 until the present date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information available is given in the table.522

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants

  1Number of principal applicants

  2 31990

  41991

  1992

  January

  4,455

  2,165

  February

  3,360

  3,445

  1,420

  March

  3,885

  1,595

  April

  5,275

  1,440

  May

  3,665

  3,805

  1,370

  June

  3,000

  5—

  July

  3,725

  5—

  August

  6,980

  3,340

  5—

  September

  3,525

  5—

  October

  4,375

  5—

  November

  8,005

  3,790

  5—

  December

  2,210

  5—

  22,000

  44,840

  5—

  1Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest 5.

  21990 figures may understate because of delays in recording. Reliable monthly estimates are not yet available.

  3In addition, about 55 applications by nationals of Afghanistan to the British High Commission in New Delhi were processed locally.

  4In addition, about 15 applications by nationals of Afghanistan to the British High Commission in New Delhi and 40 applications by nationals of Liberia to the British High Commission in Lagos were processed locally.

  5Not yet available.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure greater uniformity in practice about what constitutes urgent and compassionate grounds for family reunion in the cases of asylum seekers seeking exceptional leave to remain.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Compelling and compassionate grounds are considered in the light of the circumstances in each individual case. I am satisfied that decisions in such cases are properly taken.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy to lessen vandalism in Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Vandalism in Wales is being most effectively addressed when organisations such as the Police, local authorities and other local agencies combine their efforts to develop practical preventive policies. It is such approaches which our policies seek to support.

  Squatting
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he plans to introduce legislation on the squatting of residential property before the end of the current year;

  (2) how many responses he has received to his consultation paper on squatting; whether he will list the name of each respondent; and whether he will state the number of respondents who were in favour or opposed to each of the four options consulted on.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The Government are committed to strengthening the law against squatting and last year a consultation paper was published setting out various proposals. The responses to

  523
  this exercise raised a number of issues which require and are receiving careful consideration. It is not possible at this stage to say when legislative proposals will be brought forward. The Government wish to ensure that any new measure should be fair, easy to administer and be effective.

  In all, we received 216 responses to the consultation paper. Analysis of the results shows that 133 responses—62 per cent.—were in favour of strengthening the law, 58–27 per cent.—were opposed, and 25–11 per cent.—came to no clear conclusion. However, those respondents opposed to strengthening the law can generally be taken to have supported option A—leaving the criminal law unchanged; six respondents favoured option B—a limited extension of the law to certain types of squatting; 17 favoured option C—extending the criminal law to all squatting in residential premises; and 56 supported option D—a general extension of the criminal law to cover squatting in any premises.

  Eighty four of the responses were from private individuals or companies, and we also received responses from the following public bodies, local authorities and organisation:

  The Association of District Councils

  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  The London Boroughs Association

  The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  The London Borough of Brent

  The London Borough of Croydon

  The London Borough of Greenwich

  The London Borough of Hackney

  The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Newham Borough Council

  Tower Hamlets Borough Council

  Wandsworth Borough Council

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  City of Bristol

  City of Carlisle

  Chester City Council

  Exeter City Council

  Swansea City Council

  Cheshire County Council

  Cumbria County Council

  Gwent County Council

  Oxfordshire County Council

  Ashford Borough Council

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Borough of Broxborne

  Borough of Crewe and Nantwich

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Darlington Borough Council

  Daventry Borough Council

  Gillingham Borough Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Borough of Luton

  Medina Borough Council

  Newport Borough Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  Test Valley Borough Council

  Wallingford Borough Council

  Bridgenorth District Council

  Carrick District Council

  Fenland District Council

  Hinkley and Bosworth District Council

  Mid-Bedfordshire District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  North Kesteven District Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  Penwith District Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Rother District Council

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  524

  Vale of the White Horse District Council

  Anstey Parish Council

  Bagworth Parish Council

  Burbage Parish Council

  Carton Parish Council

  Growby Parish Council

  Nailstone Parish Council

  Shelter

  Squatters Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH)

  Homeless Occupiers Project

  Law Centres Federation

  South Manchester Law Centre

  Salford Law Centre

  National Federation of Housing Associations

  SHAC (The London Housing Aid Centre)

  Housing Centre Trust

  CHAS Housing Aid Centre (Huddersfield)

  Hyson Green Squatters Support Group

  Waterloo Action Centre

  Blackwater Valley Homeless Forum

  London Private Tenants Workers Group

  Direct Action Group Housing

  Housing Advice Response Unit

  Eastern Housing Advice Group

  Teenage Information Network

  Housing Law Practitioners Association

  Self-Help Community Housing Association Ltd. (Bristol).

  National Housing Law Service

  Action on Drugs, HIV and Homelessness

  Lambeth Self Help Housing Association Ltd.

  Lifeshare (Manchester)

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Department of Education and Science

  Department of Trade and Industry

  The Crown Estate

  The Lord Chancellor's Department

  The Crown Prosecution Service

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Offices

  The Magistrates' Association

  The Association of Chief Police Officers

  The Metropolitan Police

  The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales

  Office of the High Sheriff of the Counties of Greater London and Surrey

  The Justices' Clerks' Society

  The General Council of the Bar

  The Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate

  The Law Society

  Liberty

  Justice

  The Social and Liberal Democratic Lawyers Association

  The Institute of Legal Executives

  The National Association of Estate Agents

  The Property Managers Association

  The Confederation of British Industry

  The British Property Federation

  The Property Advisory Group

  The County Landowners Association

  The National Trust

  The Church Commissioners

  The Small Landlords Association

  The British Retail Consortium

  The Institute for Housing

  The Council of Mortgage Lenders

  The Institute of Rent Officers

  The Association of Tenancy Relations Officers

  The Newspaper Society

  The Association of British Insurers

  The Oxford Street Association

  The Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  South London Women's Centre

  Bournemouth Chamber of Commerce and Trade

  Newham Chamber of Commerce

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  525

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom

  National Union of Students

  Middlesex Polytechnic Students Union

  In addition, one petition was received from the New Horizon youth centre containing 332 signatures opposing any change in the law.

  Police
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of extra police posts that have been sought by each of the police authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The four Welsh police authorities have made applications for increases in establishment for 1993–94, as follows:

  Posts

  Dyfed-Powys

  75

  Gwent

  37

  North Wales

  58

  South Wales

  44

  Authorised Establishments

  Force

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Avon and Somerset

  3,050

  3,070

  3,081

  3,085

  3,087

  Bedfordshire

  1,030

  1,046

  1,085

  1,117

  1,178

  Cambridgeshire

  1,180

  1,198

  1,209

  1,231

  1,241

  Cheshire

  1,860

  1,868

  1,889

  1,900

  1,920

  Cleveland

  1,474

  1,489

  1,502

  1,502

  1,502

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,156

  1,175

  1,183

  1,187

  Derbyshire

  1,793

  1,793

  1,812

  1,825

  1,850

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,827

  2,846

  2,865

  2,880

  2,928

  Dorset

  1,235

  1,257

  1,272

  1,287

  1,302

  Durham

  1,357

  1,375

  1,378

  1,389

  1,389

  Dyfed Powys

  935

  935

  944

  944

  969

  Essex

  2,762

  2,804

  2,875

  2,892

  2,950

  Gloucestershire

  1,164

  1,164

  1,164

  1,183

  1,184

  Greater Manchester

  6,943

  6,988

  7,021

  7,057

  7,077

  Gwent

  995

  1,007

  1,009

  1,009

  1,010

  Hampshire

  3,128

  3,148

  3,175

  3,202

  3,269

  Hertfordshire

  1,631

  1,651

  1,669

  1,680

  1,684

  Humberside

  1,972

  1,992

  2,007

  2,025

  2,034

  Kent

  2,941

  2,968

  3,020

  3,054

  13,096

  Lancashire

  3,158

  3,173

  3,203

  3,225

  3,229

  Leicestershire

  1,733

  1,760

  1,814

  1,827

  1,853

  Lincolnshire

  1,183

  1,183

  1,198

  1,206

  1,206

  Merseyside

  4,679

  4,701

  4,701

  4,706

  4,706

  Norfolk

  1,338

  1,362

  1,409

  1,421

  1,446

  Northamptonshire

  1,106

  1,121

  1,142

  1,167

  1,190

  Northumbria

  3,483

  3,514

  3,560

  3,586

  3,613

  North Wales

  1,326

  1,330

  1,352

  1,352

  1,369

  North Yorkshire

  1,368

  1,383

  1,408

  1,414

  1,418

  Nottinghamshire

  2,294

  2,318

  2,344

  2,344

  2,344

  South Wales

  3,109

  3,137

  3,168

  3,168

  3,168

  South Yorkshire

  2,951

  2,978

  2,998

  3,016

  3,031

  Staffordshire

  2,166

  2,188

  2,203

  2,211

  2,215

  South Wales

  3,109

  3,137

  3,168

  3,168

  3,168

  South Yorkshire

  2,951

  2,978

  2,998

  3,016

  3,031

  Staffordshire

  2,166

  2,188

  2,203

  2,211

  2,215

  Suffolk

  1,186

  1,186

  1,205

  1,216

  1,233

  Surrey

  1,639

  1,649

  1,659

  1,670

  1,673

  Sussex

  2,923

  2,940

  2,964

  2,982

  3,014

  Thames Valley

  3,576

  3,620

  3,685

  3,725

  3,812

  Warwickshire

  981

  992

  1,008

  1,016

  1,020

  West Mercia

  1,963

  1,991

  2,024

  2,024

  2,053

  West Midlands

  6,754

  6,830

  6,895

  6,958

  6,977

  West Yorkshire

  5,227

  5,259

  5,281

  5,295

  5,295

  Wiltshire

  1,074

  1,085

  1,099

  1,114

  1,181

  City of London

  798

  798

  798

  798

  798

  Metropolitan

  28,115

  28,415

  28,412

  28,322

  28,322

  1 The establishment of Kent will increase to 3,136 from 1 January 1993 when reimbursed posts for the Channel Tunnel are introduced.

  526
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the established number of full-time officers in each of the police authorities in each of the past five years; and what measures he proposes to enable police authorities to place more policemen on the beat.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The authorised establishments for each police force in England and Wales for the period 1988–89 to 1992–93 are set out in the table.

  The Home Secretary attaches importance to increasing the numbers of officers on the beat, but recognises that this is one of many needs. Measures recommended to forces to improve operational deployment include civilianisation, which has enabled the release of 5,700 officers; streamlining of organisational structures; shedding unnecessary middle management; improvement of technical support; and the introduction of flexible shifts.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Children's Play and Recreation Unit
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to continue the developmental and strategic work done by the national children's play and recreation unit beyond the end of the unit's present guaranteed funding period on 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am giving very careful consideration to what should happen when the national children's play and recreation unit's present funding comes to an end in March 1993 and I shall be announcing my conclusions at the earliest possible opportunity.

TRANSPORT

  Airline Failures
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to establish a scheme to give financial protection for consumers in the event of the financial failure of an airline.

  Mr. Norris
  My predecessor announced in a written answer on 11 March that he proposed to introduce a scheme providing financial protection for passengers who book tickets on United Kingdom airlines, on the basis of a compensation fund to be financed by a small levy on United Kingdom airlines.

  The Civil Aviation Authority has been asked to develop the details of a scheme, for which primary legislation will be needed, and it is currently working on proposals.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with the International Air Transport Association agency programme joint council to discuss the concept of financial protection for airline passengers.

  Mr. Norris
  I myself have had no such meetings, but the Civil Aviation Authority's report on financial protection for scheduled passengers—CAP 595—published in August did take account of IATA's response to the consultation document issued by the authority and IATA's comments were recorded in the report.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking following his responses to the recommendations on aircraft noise prepared by the noise review working party 1990.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's responses to the recommendations on aircraft noise of the noise review working party were published in August 1991 as part of the consultation paper "Control of Aircraft Noise." We are considering the responses to this paper and our decisions will be announced in due course.

  Rail Emergency
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the implication for contingency planning of the 528
  emergency which occurred between Hither Green and Grove Park stations on the evening of Tuesday 9 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail is holding an internal inquiry into the 9 June incident when an electrical sub station at Grove Park flooded and caused the track supply power to be cut off. British Rail is looking at how best to deal with similar electrical engineering difficulties in the future and also at what improvements can be made in keeping passengers better informed.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what compensation under the citizens charter will be made to the passengers trapped for four hours on a train between Hither Green and Grove Park stations on 9 June.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the passengers charter, with effect from January 1993, monthly and longer season ticket holders will be able to claim discounts when they renew their tickets if, during the preceding 12 months, performance has been more than a small margin below the standards set in the charter. The delays caused by the flooding of the electrical sub station at Grove Park on 9 June will be included in the performance statistics used for this purpose.

  Other ticket holders who were delayed can make claims immediately.

  London Transport Board
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the members of the London Transport Board with their functions and their remuneration.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:

  Member/Responsibilities

  Current annual salary £

  Executive Members

  Mr. Wilfrid Newton CBE

  106,500

  Chairman and Chief Executive of LT Board

  Chairman of:

  London Underground Ltd

  Corporate Strategy Group

  Executive Committee

  Design Policy Committee

  Mr. Anthony Sheppeck

  76,150

  Board Member for Finance

  Member of:

  Audit Committee

  Corporate Strategy Group

  Executive Committee

  London Transport Property

  Non-Executive Director:

  London Underground Ltd

  Non-Executive Members

  Sir Neil Shields MC

  28,000

  Deputy Chairman of LT

  Chairman of:

  LT Property Board

  Member of:

  Remuneration Committee

  Design Policy Committee

  Sir Alan Bailey

  8,790

  Board Member with special interest in passengers with disabilities

  529

  Member/Responsibilities

  Current annual salary £

  Mr. Keith Brown

  8,790

  Chairman of:

  Audit Committee

  Member of:

  Bus Privatisation Committee

  Mr. J. Keith Davies

  8,790

  Member of:

  Safety Audit Committee

  Dr. Stephen Glaister

  9,960

  Member of:

  Corporate Strategy Group

  Fares Revenue Committee

  Bus Privatisation Committee

  Tendered Bus Division

  Non-Executive Director:

  Victoria Coach Station

  Mrs. Helen Robinson

  8,790

  Member of:

  Design Policy Committee

  Remuneration Committee

  Mr. Oscar Roith

  29,290

  Board Member with special interest in safety

  Chairman of:

  Safety Audit Committee

  Mr. Roy Thomas

  8,790

  Member of:

  Audit Committee

  Remuneration Committee

  Bus Privatisation Committee

  Mr. David Thompson

  8,790

  Chairman of London Buses Ltd

  Member of:

  Audit Committee

  London Transport Property

  Total emoluments, including salaries, fees, pensions and other benefits received by members of the board are published each year in London Transport's annual report and accounts.

  Regional Airlines
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to take forward the recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority that consideration be given to safeguarding slots at Heathrow for regional airlines within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The authority has made no such recommendation.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he had with professional railwaymen or their associates, or those of civil engineers, prior to drawing up his specification for the proposed London to Kent fast rail link; and what estimate he has made of the capital saving available from his specification compared to a three or four-line scheme, respectively.

  Mr. Freeman
  The paper "Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Design Standards Brief", circulated on 21 May 1992, was prepared after consultation with British Rail, which also took independent engineering advice. British Rail estimates that the additional cost of four tracks, compared 530
  to the proposal for a two-track line with a freight capability outlined in that paper, would be of the order of £2 billion. A three-track scheme is unlikely to have much practical advantage over two tracks with passing loops, and no cost estimates have been made of that option.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, as part of his plans for privatisation and deregulation of the buses in London he will prohibit London Buses Ltd. or any of its subsidiary companies from disposing of property that could be a major asset to any future competitor.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Pollution
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the levels of pollution which are currently forecast to result from the increase in road traffic.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government are to introduce into United Kingdom law two new EC directives prescribing stricter limits on emissions of gaseous pollutants and particulate matter from motor vehicles. Both directives will help to put the United Kingdom and its EC partners on a course for substantial longer-term progress in improving the quality of air in our towns and cities. The United Kingdom is also working with other member states with a view to limiting emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what budget exists for independent legal representation for the immigration appeal tribunal; and how many independent solicitors have been retained by the IAT in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no separate budget for legal representation for the immigration appeal tribunal, IAT; any such fees are paid out of the general budget for the Lord Chancellor's Department. The IAT has been represented by the Treasury Solicitor when representation has been necessary in the last three years.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show in league order the income tax thresholds in each member state of the European Community with the lowest at the end.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates based on the latest available information are given in the table. Unless otherwise stated the figures relate to 1992.

  The threshold is the amount of gross income below which no tax is payable.

  Thresholds given relate to a single person, and to income from employment only. Standard deductions available to all employees have been taken into account.
  531
  Using the exchange rates published in the Financial Times on 16 June 1992 the league order is as follows:

  Country

  Threshold £

  France

  6,445

  Luxembourg

  5,739

  Spain

  4,294

  Belgium

  4,190

  Greece

  3,752

  United Kingdom

  3,445

  Italy

  3,421

  Germany

  3,244

  Ireland

  3,206

  Denmark

  2,895

  Portugal

  2,167

  Netherlands

  1,461

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state in pounds sterling how much would be deducted in income tax from(a) a single person and (b) a married couple if their overall income was equivalent to (i) £100 per week, and (ii) £200 per week in each member state of the European Community.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates based on the latest available information are given in the table. Unless otherwise stated, the figures relate to 1992.

  All amounts given in the table relate to weekly income and tax due and to income from employment only. For married couples it has been assumed that only one spouse is in employment and that the couple have no children.

  Social security contributions are not included in the table, but have been taken into account in calculating tax due where there is tax relief for such contributions. In some countries, social security contributions will be much

  Income Tax, NICs and indirect Tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1978–79—percentages of gross earnings

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0.5 Per cent.

  1 Per cent.

  1.5 Per cent.

  2 Per cent.

  5 Per cent.

  10 Per cent.

  (a) Single person

  Income Tax

  17.0

  25.0

  27.7

  29.5

  50.5

  66.6

  NICs

  6.5

  6.5

  5.6

  4.2

  1.7

  0.8

  Total income tax and NICs

  23.6

  31.5

  33.3

  33.7

  52.2

  67.5

  VAT

  —

  2.7

  2.8

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.2

  7.5

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Domestic Rates

  —

  42.5

  43.7

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic Rates

  —

  3.1

  2.8

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  45.6

  46.5

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Married couple, both partners working

  Income Tax

  0.0

  13.3

  19.9

  23.1

  33.5

  50.9

  NICs

  6.5

  6.5

  6.5

  6.5

  3.4

  1.7

  Total income tax and NICs

  6.5

  19.8

  26.4

  29.6

  36.8

  52.6

  VAT

  —

  3.1

  3.1

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  10.4

  8.7

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Domestic Rates

  —

  33.2

  38.2

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic Rates

  —

  3.4

  2.5

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  36.6

  40.7

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Married couple, one partner working

  Income Tax

  9.5

  21.3

  25.2

  27.2

  48.8

  65.7

  NICs

  6.5

  6.5

  5.6

  4.2

  1.7

  0.8

  Total income tax and NICs

  16.0

  27.8

  30.8

  31.4

  50.5

  66.5

  VAT

  —

  2.6

  2.8

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9.3

  8.3

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Domestic Rates

  —

  39.7

  41.9

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic Rates

  —

  3.0

  2.5

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  42.6

  44.4

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Married couple with two children, one partner working

  Income Tax

  -4.1

  14.4

  20.6

  23.7

  47.1

  64.8

  NICs

  6.5

  6.5

  5.6

  4.2

  1.7

  0.8

  Total income tax and NICs

  2.5

  20.9

  26.2

  27.9

  48.8

  65.6

  532
  more significant than income tax for people at these levels of earnings. Using the exchange rates published in the Financial Times on 16 June 1992 the information is as follows:

  Tax due on earnings (£/week)

  weekly earnings

  Country

  Single person

  Married couple

  £100

  £200

  £100

  £200

  Belgium

  7.31

  47.88

  3.62

  28.63

  Denmark

  48.40

  122.82

  23.44

  97.86

  France

  nil

  19.95

  nil

  7.74

  Germany

  10.59

  9.24

  3.26

  6.35

  Greece

  nil

  2.37

  nil

  0.81

  Ireland

  14.27

  50.06

  nil

  33.72

  Italy

  6.57

  34.17

  0.30

  27.91

  Luxembourg

  nil

  17.56

  nil

  2.32

  Netherlands

  11.65

  26.28

  7.67

  22.31

  Portugal

  1.53

  5.27

  0.46

  4.19

  Spain

  2.18

  26.02

  nil

  15.99

  United Kingdom

  6.75

  31.51

  0.13

  23.25

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the direct and indirect tax burden in 1978–79 and in 1992–93 as a proportion of gross earnings for(a) a single person, (b) a married couple both working, (c) a married couple with one partner working, (d) a married couple with two children, one partner working and (e) a married couple with two children, both working at 50 per cent., 100 per cent., 150 per cent., 200 per cent., 500 per cent. and 1,000 per cent. of earnings.

  Mr. Dorrel
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The requested figures for 1978–79 and latest estimates for 1992–93 are given in the table.
  533

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0.5 Per cent.

  1 Per cent.

  1.5 Per cent.

  2 Per cent.

  5 Per cent.

  10 Per cent.

  VAT

  —

  2.7

  2.7

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.7

  7.3

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Domestic Rates

  —

  32.2

  36.2

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic Rates

  —

  3.0

  2.7

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  35.3

  38.9

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Married couple with two children, both partners working

  Income Tax

  -11.1

  6.4

  15.3

  19.7

  31.9

  50.0

  NICs

  6.5

  6.5

  6.5

  6.5

  3.4

  1.7

  Total income tax and NICs

  -4.6

  12.9

  21.8

  26.2

  35.2

  51.7

  VAT

  —

  3.4

  3.4

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  11.0

  9.1

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Domestic Rates

  —

  27.3

  34.3

  —

  —

  —

  Domestic Rates

  —

  3.5

  2.6

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  30.8

  36.9

  —

  —

  —

  Income Tax, NICs and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1992–93—percentages of gross earnings

  Multiples of Average Earnings

  0.5 Per cent.

  1 Per cent.

  1.5 Per cent.

  2 Per cent.

  5 Per cent.

  10 Per cent.

  (a) Single person

  Income Tax

  14.5

  19.7

  21.6

  26.2

  34.5

  37.2

  NICs

  6.8

  7.9

  6.2

  4.7

  1.9

  0.9

  Total income tax and NICs

  21.3

  27.7

  27.9

  30.9

  36.4

  38.2

  VAT

  —

  5.8

  6.0

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  6.9

  6.5

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Community Charge

  —

  40.4

  40.3

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Married couple, both partners working

  Income Tax

  1.1

  12.1

  16.4

  18.6

  28.2

  34.1

  NICs

  4.7

  6.8

  7.6

  7.7

  3.7

  1.9

  Total income tax and NICs

  5.8

  19.0

  24.0

  26.3

  32.0

  36.0

  VAT

  —

  6.4

  6.6

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.3

  7.1

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Community Charge

  —

  33.7

  37.7

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Married couple, one partner working

  Income Tax

  9.8

  17.4

  19.9

  24.3

  33.7

  36.9

  NICs

  6.8

  7.9

  6.2

  4.7

  1.9

  0.9

  Total income tax and NICs

  16.6

  25.3

  26.1

  29.0

  35.6

  37.8

  VAT

  —

  5.6

  6.1

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.6

  7.0

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Community Charge

  —

  38.5

  39.2

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Married couple with two children, one partner working

  Income Tax

  -0.1

  12.4

  16.6

  21.9

  32.7

  36.4

  NICs

  6.8

  7.9

  6.2

  4.7

  1.9

  0.9

  Total income tax and NICs

  6.7

  20.4

  22.8

  26.5

  34.6

  37.3

  VAT

  —

  5.8

  6.5

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.2

  6.3

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Community Charge

  —

  33.4

  35.7

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Married couple with two children, both partners working

  Income Tax

  -8.8

  7.2

  13.1

  16.1

  27.2

  33.6

  NICs

  4.7

  6.8

  7.6

  7.7

  3.7

  1.9

  Total income tax and NICs

  -4.1

  14.0

  20.7

  23.8

  31.0

  35.5

  VAT

  —

  6.9

  6.9

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.7

  7.3

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding Community Charge

  —

  29.6

  34.9

  —

  —

  —

  Notes to Tables
  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.
  2. Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.
  534
  3. In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couples with two children. The figures for 1978–79 assume that both children are aged younger than 11 years.
  4. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are estimated to be £329.90 per week in 1991–92 and £351.40 per week in 1992–93, using the Government Actuary's Department's assumption of 6½ per cent. growth in whole economy underlying earnings over 1991–92.
  5. The estimates of indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, uprated to

  535
  later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. They are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variations, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years. 6. It has not been possible to make satisfactory estimates of the burden of the 1992–93 community charge in the absence of sample survey results, which would enable actual payments net of adjustments arising from the community charge reduction scheme and community charge benefit to be related to earnings.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in taxation per individual arising from each relevant component of the 1992 Budget, both at current prices and net of indexation, for those at one half and three-quarters of average earnings, average earnings, and one-and-a-half, two, five and 10 times average earnings; and if he will provide comparable figures for each budget since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: Individuals will be affected directly or indirectly by most Budget measures. Changes in individual tax burdens will depend not simply on the level of income of the individual in question but also on their specific circumstances. It is therefore not possible to provide an assessment of the impact of the measures contained in the 1992 Budget, or in previous Budgets, in the form requested.

  Vehicle Tax
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the percentage increases in vehicle excise duty on(a) motorcycles under 250 cc, (b) motorcycles over 250 cc and (c) cars in each of the past five years, and the average income from fuel duty by (i) motorcycles and (ii) private cars expressed as a percentage of the vehicle excise duty payable; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The real percentage increases in vehicle excise duty applied in each of the last five budgets are shown in the table. It is estimated that the average amount of duty paid on fuel consumed by a motorcycle in 1992–93, is about 225 per cent. of the applicable rate of vehicle excise duty. The corresponding estimate for cars and light goods vehicles is 340 per cent. Estimates for private cars are not separately available.

  Annual percentage increase in VED rate for:

  Motorcycles under 250 cc

  Motorcycles over 250cc

  Cars

  1988–89

  0

  0

  0

  1989–90

  0

  0

  0

  1990–91

  0

  0

  0

  1991–92

  50

  25

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  10

  Inflation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Britain's retail price inflation rate; and what is the EC average.

  Mr. Nelson
  The inflation rate in the United Kingdom, as measured by the retail prices index compared with a536
  year earlier, stood at 4.3 per cent. in May this year. The corresponding figure for the EC in April, the latest month for which information is available, was provisionally 4.8 per cent.

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he expects labour costs to adjust, within the framework of the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Nelson
  Membership of the exchange rate mechanism will contribute to achieving the Government's objective of defeating inflation on a lasting basis. Within this framework the growth of United Kingdom unit labour costs is forecast to continue to fall as nominal earnings growth slows and productivity picks up.

  Premium Bonds
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will supply figures for the number of purchases of premium bonds for each calendar year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of purchases of premium bonds, for each calendar year from 1979 to date, has been as follows:

  Year

  (000s)

  1979

  4,463.1

  1980

  4,103.1

  1981

  3,674.1

  1982

  3,298.3

  1983

  3,499.5

  1984

  3,328.6

  1985

  2,530.0

  1986

  1,949.8

  1987

  1,962.0

  1988

  2,036.7

  1989

  1,418.0

  1990

  639.5

  1991

  727.4

  1992

  1391.7

  1 January to May: provisional.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority unemployment levels take within the economic strategies of the Government.

  Mr. Nelson
  The object of the Government's economic strategy is to secure permanently low inflation and a healthy supply side. This is the only way to ensure sustained increases in employment.

  Financial Regulation
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the regulations which govern the publication of reports by the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulatory bodies; and if he will make a statement on policy regarding publication.

  Mr. Nelson
  The publication by the SIB and the self regulating organisations of reports is a matter for the bodies concerned. My officials are discussing with the SIB the scope of its ability to publish reports within the powers transferred to it under the Financial Services Act.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the executive agencies that have sought Treasury approval for the introduction of an agency-specific pay system, separate to the national civil service structure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The following executive agencies have had approval to introduce a specific pay system for some or all of their staff:

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Royal Mint

  A number of other agencies are considering changes to their pay and grading systems.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those executive agencies that operate for which the Treasury has approved a group bonus scheme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The following executive agencies operate a group bonus scheme:

  Central Office of Information

  Companies House

  Directorate—General of Defence Accounts

  Driving Standards Agency

  Forensic Science Service

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Meteorological Office

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Royal Mint

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Cost of mortgage interest relief (£million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  1991–921 2

  Northern

  60

  80

  70

  95

  100

  140

  180

  200

  210

  250

  310

  350

  310

  Yorkshire

  110

  155

  150

  160

  210

  260

  340

  350

  360

  370

  460

  510

  450

  North West

  135

  200

  180

  215

  260

  330

  440

  490

  510

  530

  690

  770

  640

  East Midlands

  85

  115

  110

  130

  180

  230

  300

  320

  330

  340

  430

  480

  410

  West Midlands

  145

  160

  190

  170

  230

  280

  370

  350

  360

  430

  550

  620

  510

  East Anglia

  45

  50

  60

  75

  90

  130

  170

  170

  180

  220

  270

  300

  250

  Greater London

  235

  280

  290

  260

  400

  500

  670

  620

  650

  780

  980

  1,100

  710

  Other South East

  375

  555

  600

  650

  740

  950

  1,270

  1,220

  1,260

  1,350

  1,750

  1,940

  1,510

  South West

  110

  140

  170

  140

  230

  300

  400

  380

  400

  520

  660

  730

  570

  England

  1,300

  1,735

  1,820

  1,900

  2,440

  3,120

  4,140

  4,100

  4,260

  4,790

  6,100

  6,800

  5,360

  Wales

  45

  65

  80

  80

  110

  150

  200

  210

  220

  180

  240

  270

  230

  Scotland

  85

  125

  120

  140

  190

  260

  350

  300

  310

  370

  470

  530

  420

  Northern Ireland

  20

  35

  30

  30

  40

  50

  60

  60

  60

  60

  90

  100

  90

  United Kingdom

  1,450

  1,960

  2,050

  2,150

  2,780

  3,580

  4,750

  4,670

  4,850

  5,400

  6,900

  7,700

  6,100

  1 Provisional.

  2 Higher rate relief was abolished in 1991–92.

  Public Expenditure
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the total public expenditure on(a) total social services (b) education (c) housing (d) social security and (e) care services expressed (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1975.

  General government expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product, by function 1978–79 to 1991–921

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Estimated Outturn

  Defence

  4.4

  4.5

  4.8

  4.9

  5.1

  5.1

  5.3

  5.0

  4.7

  4.4

  4.0

  4.0

  3.9

  3.9

  Overseas services, including overseas aid

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  0.6

  0.6

  0.7

  0.6

  0.8

  0.8

  0.7

  0.8

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  Maxwell Group
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation report into the Maxwell affair as soon as he receives it and on any consequential changes that may be required to the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Nelson
  I shall study IMRO's review and the SIB's assessment of it carefully and consider whether any changes in the Financial Services Act regime are needed.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of providing mortgage interest tax relief for each year since 1979 inclusive for(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) the English regions and (f) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table. Estimates of the regional distribution of mortgage interest for the years 1979–80 to 1982–83 have been derived from the results of the survey of personal incomes. However, following the introduction of MIRAS in April 1983, regional information cannot be extracted from Inland Revenue records. Broad estimates for the years 1983–84 to 1991–92 have accordingly been based on analyses of the family expenditure surveys for the years concerned.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on general Government expenditure by function in the period 1978–79 to 1991–92 in cash terms is given in table 2.2 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement", Cm. 1920. This information is shown as a percentage of gross domestic product in the table. Corresponding data for earlier years are not available on a consistent basis.
  539

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Estimated outturn

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  2.4

  2.0

  2.1

  2.4

  2.9

  2.4

  2.5

  2.3

  2.2

  1.6

  1.7

  1.5

  1.3

  1.2

  Of which: Employment and training

  0.6

  0.6

  0.8

  0.9

  0.8

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  0.9

  0.8

  0.7

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  Transport

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  1.9

  1.8

  1.7

  1.6

  1.5

  1.4

  1.2

  1.3

  1.4

  1.7

  Housing

  2.7

  2.8

  2.4

  1.7

  1.4

  1.5

  1.4

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  0.7

  1.0

  0.9

  1.0

  Other environmental services

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  1.4

  1.5

  1.4

  1.2

  1.2

  1.3

  1.2

  1.1

  1.2

  1.3

  1.4

  Law, order and protective services

  1.5

  1.6

  1.7

  1.8

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  1.9

  2.0

  2.1

  2.2

  Education and science

  5.7

  5.5

  5.9

  5.8

  5.7

  5.5

  5.4

  5.1

  5.2

  5.1

  5.0

  5.1

  5.1

  5.3

  Arts and libraries

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Health and personal social services

  5.4

  5.4

  6.0

  6.2

  6.1

  6.0

  6.0

  5.8

  5.8

  5.8

  5.7

  5.7

  6.0

  6.4

  Of which: Health

  4.6

  4.6

  5.1

  5.3

  5.2

  5.1

  5.1

  5.0

  4.9

  4.9

  4.8

  4.8

  5.0

  5.4

  Social security

  9.9

  9.8

  10.4

  11.5

  11.9

  12.1

  12.2

  12.2

  12.2

  11.5

  10.6

  10.3

  10.6

  11.9

  Miscellaneous expenditure2

  1.6

  1.5

  1.2

  1.3

  1.4

  1.2

  1.3

  1.1

  1.2

  1.3

  1.1

  1.4

  1.3

  1.1

  Total expenditure on services

  38.3

  37.7

  39.3

  40.3

  41.4

  40.4

  40.4

  38.9

  38.2

  36.4

  34.2

  34.8

  35.3

  37.4

  Privatisation proceeds

  —

  -0.2

  -0.1

  -0.2

  -0.2

  -0.4

  -0.6

  -0.8

  -1.2

  -1.2

  -1.5

  -0.8

  -1.0

  -1.4

  General government gross debt interest

  4.3

  4.6

  4.9

  5.2

  4.9

  4.8

  4.9

  4.9

  4.6

  4.2

  3.9

  3.6

  3.3

  2.9

  Other accounting adjustments

  1.4

  1.8

  2.4

  1.7

  1.2

  1.5

  1.6

  1.4

  1.3

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  1.5

  1.4

  Adjustment3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.1

  General government expenditure

  44.0

  43.9

  46.5

  47.0

  47.3

  46.2

  46.3

  44.4

  42.9

  40.8

  38.0

  39.1

  39.1

  40.5

  1 Using GDP figures adjusted to remove the distortion caused by the abolition of domestic rates.

  2 Includes contributions to the European Communities and activities required for the general maintenance of government, such as tax collection, and the registration of population.

  3 Difference between Treasury's overall assessment of outturn and sum of department's own estimates.

  Relocation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants, and in which Departments, he believes could be relocated to provincial centres as part of the policy of devolving and decentralising Government Departments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government's relocation policy is not centrally directed. Relocation decisions are a matter for individual departmental Ministers. Departments are continuing to review the location of their work in the light of their own particular circumstances and operational requirements in accordance with clear guidelines, a copy of which was placed in the House of Commons Library in December 1991.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government intends to continue its previous policy of devolving Government Departments to provincial centres.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes. There are often substantial advantages to be gained from relocating offices away from London and the south-east. The Government's relocation policy is therefore to pursue the relocation of Government work where that provides best value for money.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce value added tax on the sale of second-hand goods in charity shops; whether the seventh European Commission directive on value added tax applies to goods which are being resold for charitable purposes; and what estimates have been made of(a) the gain to the Exchequer and (b) the loss to charitable income of levying value added tax on goods sold in charity shops after 1996.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: We have no such plans and so no financial effects are anticipated. In principle the draft seventh VAT directive, if adopted as at present drafted, would apply to donated second-hand
  540
  goods being sold for charitable purposes from 1993. But these are zero-rated in the United Kingdom and our zero rates are already fully safeguarded until at least 1997 under the sixth VAT directive. Decisions on tax matters within the EC require unanimity and there is no question of the United Kingdom being forced to accept unwelcome proposals to end zero-rating after that.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to introduce a quality audit for institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Forman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 9 June 1992,Official Report, columns 88–89.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the maximum salary payable, including perfomance-related element, and the length of time of the contract of the chief executive of the Teachers' Pensions Agency.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1992–93, the chief executive of the Teachers' Pensions Agency will be able to earn up to £43,470 including performance pay. The chief executive's contract is for five years.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Teachers' Pensions Agency as an agency; and whether the cost was borne by the parent Department or the new agency.

  Mr. Forth
  The cost of the launch and associated publicity was £20,000. A total of £17,000 was borne by the Department and the remaining £3,000 by the agency.
  541
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Teachers' Pensions Agency; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. Forth
  The chief executive of the Teachers' Pensions Agency gained a first degree in botany from the university of Manchester.

  Personal Records
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what conclusions he has reached on the implications of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Graham Gaskin for people seeking access to personal records for which he has responsibility and what action he intends to take.

  Mr. Forth
  The consultation document issued by the Department of Health on the implications of the Graham Gaskin judgment took the view that the application of the judgment should be restricted to social services records. Some of the responses queried this interpretation. We are therefore considering whether there are any implications for educational records.

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his assessment of the maximum size of class in which the national curriculum can be satisfactorily delivered.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for schools to determine the appropriate size of teaching groups for different subjects in the light of their individual circumstances. The most important thing, however, is the quality of the teaching which pupils receive.

  Technology Schools Initiative
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to direct further resources towards the technology schools initiative network of schools; what are the differences in the criteria met by those schools from those of city technology colleges and whether the TSI network of schools will be given the opportunity to became full city technology colleges;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's future support towards recently designated technology schools within the technology schools initiative; and what steps these schools themselves can take to ensure that support.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have announced capital allocations totalling £25 million in 1992–93 to support the technology teaching plans of 100 schools selected as a result of competitive bidding. These schools retain their existing status as grant-maintained, voluntary-aided, county or voluntary-controlled schools; in this respect they differ from city technology colleges established under the Education Reform Act (1988). The Government plan to expand and develop the network of schools supported by the technology schools initiative in future years.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if the technology schools initiative provision for the Southampton area is to be maintained; and what is the financial commitment for 1992–93.
  542
  Mr. Forth
  The following school in the Southampton area was selected for support under the technology schools initiative in 1992–93.

  Applemore School—£250,000 allocation.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps a local education authority school would need to take to achieve levels of provision equal to those of city technology colleges; how many of the existing TSI schools operate within the local education authority system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Of the 100 schools selected for capital support in 1992–93 under the technology schools initiative, 70 are maintained by local education authorities of which eight are voluntary aided schools. The recurrent funding of these schools is unaltered by their selection within the technology schools initiative. The funding of city technology colleges is determined separately.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide details of the financial implications of a primary school with 360 full-time five to 11-year-old pupils and 39 full-time equivalent three to four-year-old nursery pupils opting for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  The main recurrent grant for GM schools is annual maintenance grant—AMG—which is calculated with reference to the local management of schools scheme of the former maintaining LEA. This is set for GM schools in most LEAs at 15 per cent. above their LMS 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. Calculation of AMG in respect of nursery pupils depends upon the relevant LEA's funding arrangements for such pupils.

  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 primary schools with more than 200 pupils can receive £30,000 plus £30 per pupil, to a 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 with a £5,000 minimum. 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.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prosecuting Authorities (Representations)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will outline his policy concerning representations to be made by individual Departments to the prosecuting authorities while considering evidence against individuals in cases concerning their Departments.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The prosecuting authorities for which I am responsible as Attorney-General apply a dual test when considering

  543
  any prosecution. First there must be a sufficiency of evidence. Secondly, a prosecution must be required in the public interest.

  In 1951 my predecessor then Sir Hartley Shawcross gave an authoritative explanation of the duty of the prosecutor in relation to the second test. That explanation referred to the duty of the Attorney-General when considering whether to authorise a prosecution but the principles are of general application. Briefly, it is the duty of the prosecuting authority, where appropriate in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown, to acquaint itself with all the relevant facts, including, for instance, the effect which the prosecution, successful or unsuccessful as the case may be, would have upon public morale and order, and with any other consideration affecting public policy. Such consultations may, where appropriate, include Ministers and Government Departments. The assistance of those consulted is confined to informing the prosecuting authority or the Law Officers of particular considerations that might affect the prosecution decision, and does not consist, and must not consist, in telling it or them what the decision ought to be. Responsibility for the eventual decision does not rest with those making representations as to the public interest but with the independent prosecuting authorities.

  Where a Department believes that it has information material to a prosecution decision it should so inform the prosecutor either directly or, where appropriate, through the Law Officers.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of shipping his official car from British Guyana to Rio de Janeiro for use during his visit to the Earth summit; how much was spent on re-equipping the car for this visit; and what attempts were made to seek appropriate vehicles in Brazil prior to deciding to import the car from Georgetown.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The cost of shipping a protected vehicle from Guyana to Rio de Janeiro for my use during the Earth summit was £2,400. The vehicle is used by our diplomatic missions in south and central America as the situation so requires. The cost of necessary repairs to the car amounted to about £15,000. No suitable vehicles were available in Brazil at the same or lower cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Skopje
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's current policy in EC discussions concerning the naming of the Republic of Skopje.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We hope that EC partners can soon find a common position which will allow recognition of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  Iraq
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the safety of the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shias in southern Iraq and the Marshlands in the last three months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We remain concerned about the plight of the civilian population in the whole of Iraq and in particular about recent reports of increased military attacks on civilians in the southern marshes.
  On 4 June the Governments of France, the United States and the United Kingdom told the Iraqi Government that they should cease repressive actions against all the peoples of Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.

  We are determined to keep up the pressure on Iraq to meet all its obligations under Security Council resolutions.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 86, if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation on the environment protocol of the Antarctic treaty before the end of July.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We wish to introduce legislation as soon as possible to enact the provisions of the environmental protocol. It will unfortunately not be feasible to do so before the end of July.

  Ceremonial Dress
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 63, if he will specify in each case the items of ceremonial dress for which expenditure was incurred.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Ceremonial dress normally consists of a uniform, a hat, boots and a sword.

WALES

  Learning Disabilities
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated in joint finance money to the health service in Wales; and what proportion has been spent on projects for people with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £1.8 million has been allocated in 1992–93 to projects in Wales under the joint finance scheme. A detailed breakdown of this amount, to identify the sum allocated to projects related to people with a mental handicap, could be made only at disproportionate cost. However, the main support for developing services for people with a mental handicap is the all-Wales mental handicap strategy, under which £41.5 million has been allocated in 1992–93.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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".
  545
  Mr. David Hunt
  The programme has yet to be finalised. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Ysgol Derwyn School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Ysgol Derwyn CP school, Clwyd; and if he will meet(a) the staff and governors and (b) the parent teacher association of the school.

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

  Numbers of Persons in Households Accepted as Homeless

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  21987

  1988

  1989

  31990

  1991

  Aberconwy

  151

  203

  159

  130

  99

  167

  74

  153

  177

  108

  162

  137

  104

  Alyn and Deeside

  301

  250

  205

  237

  251

  239

  427

  366

  330

  485

  528

  474

  499

  Arfon

  80

  59

  51

  55

  61

  38

  62

  51

  102

  63

  65

  77

  93

  Blaenau Gwent

  333

  361

  388

  464

  459

  454

  447

  489

  463

  595

  695

  841

  761

  Brecknock

  69

  114

  86

  160

  152

  134

  217

  162

  180

  176

  243

  269

  318

  Cardiff

  690

  1,410

  973

  1,053

  730

  862

  1,646

  1,751

  1,592

  2,971

  3,334

  2,483

  4,052

  Carmarthen

  187

  160

  152

  127

  192

  138

  218

  165

  255

  213

  164

  189

  227

  Ceredigion

  94

  102

  92

  103

  149

  203

  149

  140

  188

  187

  180

  331

  373

  Colwyn (b)

  55

  40

  42

  72

  55

  60

  71

  102

  104

  87

  93

  103

  178

  Cynon Valley

  898

  1,018

  965

  985

  1,207

  959

  840

  942

  603

  710

  530

  623

  1,017

  Delyn

  175

  151

  264

  240

  197

  255

  297

  391

  712

  679

  1,002

  825

  683

  Dinefwr

  49

  34

  35

  108

  31

  67

  104

  93

  141

  185

  124

  181

  410

  Dwyfor

  138

  60

  106

  74

  69

  124

  126

  142

  163

  119

  178

  162

  127

  Glyndwr

  56

  54

  63

  39

  37

  52

  64

  55

  63

  30

  43

  46

  87

  Islwyn

  189

  175

  159

  68

  118

  143

  142

  139

  121

  204

  313

  370

  399

  Llanelli

  133

  100

  140

  179

  219

  213

  227

  371

  408

  302

  343

  297

  383

  Lliw Valley

  113

  129

  134

  140

  119

  204

  158

  205

  254

  143

  288

  338

  284

  Melrionnydd

  369

  489

  235

  145

  159

  106

  106

  147

  137

  210

  230

  250

  257

  Merthyr Tydfil

  454

  392

  272

  238

  253

  232

  225

  179

  207

  191

  359

  496

  365

  Monmouth

  515

  380

  532

  437

  475

  447

  717

  664

  618

  576

  357

  281

  388

  Montgomeryshire

  124

  110

  125

  89

  83

  58

  52

  97

  100

  156

  127

  188

  259

  Neath

  481

  483

  624

  —

  1,016

  965

  806

  793

  629

  636

  496

  610

  656

  Newport

  864

  1,110

  1,358

  1,300

  1,218

  1,199

  1,513

  1,258

  1,550

  1,635

  2,460

  2,696

  2,936

  Ogwr

  338

  343

  517

  736

  599

  448

  826

  1,667

  994

  1,193

  1,176

  1,332

  1,671

  Port Talbot

  170

  133

  94

  112

  160

  226

  164

  304

  357

  327

  442

  303

  340

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  135

  164

  130

  97

  96

  78

  148

  108

  176

  194

  153

  209

  255

  Radnorshire

  19

  38

  45

  14

  19

  34

  54

  23

  31

  60

  36

  64

  45

  Rhondda

  569

  834

  1,164

  1,049

  852

  479

  317

  320

  268

  270

  292

  166

  358

  Rhuddian

  237

  139

  172

  257

  268

  204

  242

  249

  296

  256

  273

  293

  177

  Rhymney Valley

  534

  720

  510

  284

  418

  344

  629

  643

  410

  580

  655

  439

  395

  South Pembrokeshire

  143

  188

  181

  202

  230

  280

  224

  165

  210

  271

  241

  248

  205

  Swansea4

  1,604

  1,838

  2,820

  1,887

  1,416

  1,396

  762

  685

  654

  439

  345

  450

  1,779

  Taff-Ely

  390

  253

  200

  188

  158

  176

  186

  278

  321

  395

  442

  568

  715

  Torfaen

  1,049

  978

  723

  790

  675

  426

  531

  958

  708

  881

  968

  1,216

  1,038

  Vale of Glamorgan

  620

  749

  636

  1,329

  896

  726

  570

  427

  293

  755

  1,042

  1,160

  1,184

  Wrexham Maelor

  235

  471

  353

  212

  238

  441

  411

  567

  522

  717

  740

  863

  730

  Ynys Mon

  137

  83

  33

  26

  44

  54

  50

  62

  65

  106

  49

  97

  111

  Wales

  12,698

  14,315

  14,738

  114,446

  13,418

  12,631

  13,802

  15,311

  14,402

  17,105

  19,168

  19,675

  23,859

  Percentage change on previous year

  —

  12.7

  3.0

  -2.0

  -7.1

  -5.9

  9.3

  10.9

  -5.9

  18.8

  12.1

  2.6

  21.3

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.
  1 Includes an estimate for Neath as this is not available.
  2 Excludes data for Islwyn for the October to December quarter.
  3 Excludes those persons made homeless in Colwyn as a result of the major flooding incident in February 1990.
  4 It is known that the figure for Swansea prior to 1991 was under-recorded by the authority.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he proposes to assist local authorities in their attempts to tackle the maintenance problems of housing stock.

  Mr. David Hunt
  For the private stock, this year I have made over £169 million available for home renovation and disabled facilities grants—an increase of £82 million over last year—with a further £26 million available for area renewal and defective dwellings.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of individuals registered under the homeless persons legislation as being homeless in Wales for each year since 1979 inclusive with the percentage increase/decrease on the previous years, and if he will provide a breakdown by local authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Numbers of persons in households accepted as homeless by local authorities under part III of the Housing Act 1985 are given in the table:

  For the public stock, I have increased subsidy allowances by an average of 7.5 per cent. per dwelling this year with biggest increases going to authorities with stock in poorest condition. Authorities estimate spending on management and maintenance within their housing revenue accounts at over £190 million this year. In addition to the estimated £91 million available to authorities for capital expenditure from credit approvals, usable receipts and revenue contributions I have set aside up to £6 million to tackle problems on selected estates under our estate partnership programme.
  547
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the proportion of the housing stock in Wales earmarked for the elderly in(a) 1980 and (b) 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the proportion of Welsh housing stock suitable specifically for elderly persons.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to restore the level of council housing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local authorities are being encouraged to develop their enabling role and work in partnership with housing associations who are now the main providers of new social housing in Wales. Inclusive of private finance Housing for Wales's total programme for 1992–93 will amount to over £180 million, which will provide some 4,000 new homes.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new council houses were built in 1991; and how many council houses were sold.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1991, a total of 421 council houses were built and 3,668 were sold.

  Disablement Benefits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people living in Wales who suffer disabilities receive disablement benefits.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available information on the numbers of recipients in Wales of social security disablement benefits and state compensation for disablement—war pensions—is shown in the table. The total of the numbers of recipients of the different benefits may be greater than the number of people receiving benefit as people may receive more than one benefit.

  Benefit

  Latest date for which estimated number of recipients is available

  Number in receipt

  Attendance Allowance

  31 March 1991

  63,000

  Mobility Allowance

  2 April 1992

  59,000

  Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit

  30 March 1991

  19,000

  War Pension

  31 December 1991

  12,000

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  31 March 1990

  22,000

  Source: Department of Social Security.

  Notes:

  1. The above figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand (000).

  2. Attendance allowance is an estimate based on a 1 per cent sample.

  3. Industrial injury disablement benefit numbers are current assessments but do not include reduced earning allowance or other industrial injury benefits and are based on a 10 per cent. sample.

  4. War pension figures are based on a 10 per cent. sample.

  5. Severe disablement allowance is based on a 1 per cent. sample.

  6. The above refer to Wales as a statistical region with the exception of war pensions which is based on post office locality.

  Historic Buildings Council
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the next report of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales.
  548
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 35th annual report of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales has been published today. The report covers the financial year 1990–91 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the statutory responsibilities that he intends to propose shall be placed on the unitary local authorities in Wales following his proposed reorganisation of local government in Wales;

  (2) if he will list the non-statutory and permissive powers he plans to propose shall be made available to the unitary local authorities in Wales following his proposed reorganisation of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Consultation on the reorganisation of local government in Wales has proceeded on the basis that the new unitary authorities will be responsible for those services currently the responsibility of the existing district and county councils. Detailed discussions on service delivery arrangements under the new structure are taking place with the local authority associations under the aegis of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Superphoenix Fast Reactor
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what United Kingdom investment has been made to date into the superphoenix fast reactor in France; and whether there are any outstanding commitments to the project by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nuclear Electric has a 1.65 per cent. holding in the German company Schnell-Bruter-Kerngraftwerks GmBh, SBK, which has a 16 per cent. holding in Superphoenix. There are no outstanding commitments.

  Innovation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to complete his consideration of the Faraday proposals, put forward by the Prince of Wales's working group on innovation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the Faraday proposals during the debate on science and technology on 11 June,Official Report, columns 481-82.

  Privatisations
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the role, responsibilities and powers of the regulatory bodies for former privatised industries within his Department's responsibilities to ensure more effective limitation of charges to the consumer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The powers of the regulators were reviewed in the preparatory work for the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992. The provisions of that Act
  549
  enhance the powers of the regulators, and facilitate greater competition in gas. The industry regulators have already achieved price reductions in real terms since privatisation of 11 per cent. in BT's average residential bill, and 13 per cent. for domestic gas. Price rises for domestic electricity are limited to the increase in the RPI for the first three years of the new arrangements.

  Export Credits
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has had any discussions with Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan on unfair competition in conditions governing export credits available in EC countries.

  Mr. Needham
  No. However, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State wrote to Sir Leon Brittan in September 1991 offering support for the Commission's work on eliminating subsidies in export credits and my officials are currently engaged in discussions on this with the Commission and their counterparts in other member states.

  Ferrybridge C
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the present timetable for the installation of flue gas desulphurisation equipment at Ferrybridge C power station.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President is considering an application from PowerGen for consent to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment at Ferrybridge C. Subject to this, the timetable for installation of the equipment is a commercial matter for the company, consistent with meeting its emission limits set by the United Kingdom's national plan for implementing the European Community's large combustion plants directive.

  European Community Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the directives relevant to his Department made by the EC in the past 12 months; and what estimate he has made of the number of companies each directive will affect.

  Mr. Needham
  Following is a list of EC directives adopted since 1 June 1991 for which my Department has policy responsibility. No estimate has been made of the number of companies each directive will affect.

  European Community Directives

    Directives adopted by the Council of Ministers
    Council Directive 91/287/EEC of 3 June 1991 on the frequency band to be designated for the co-ordinated introduction of digital European cordless telecommunications (DECT). Official Journal Reference L144 of 8 June 1991.
    Council Directive 91/368/EEC of 20 June 1991 amending Directive 89/392/EEC relating to machinery. Official Journal Reference L198 of 22 July 1991.
    Council Directive 91/371/EEC of 20 June 1991 on the implementation of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning direct insurance other than life assurance. Official Journal Reference L205 of 27 July 1991.
    Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings. Official Journal Reference L374 of 31 December 1991.
    Council Directive 91/675/EEC of 19 December 1991 setting up an Insurance Committee. Official Journal Reference L374 of 31 December 1991.
    550
    Council Directive 92/31/EEC of 28 April 1992 amending Directive 89/336/EEC relating to electromagnetic compatibility. Official Journal Reference L126 of 12 May 1992.
    Council Directive 92/38/EEC of 11 May 1992 on the adoption of standards for satellite broadcasting of television signals. Official Journal Reference L137 of 20 May 1992.

    Directives addressed to Member States by the EC Commission under delegated procedure
    Commission Directive 91/410/EEC of 22 July 1991 adopting to technical progress for the fourteenth time Council Directive 67/548/EEC relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Official Journal Reference L228 of 17 August 1991.
    Commission Directive 91/442/EEC of 23 July 1991 on dangerous preparations, the packaging of which must be fitted with child resistant fastenings. Official Journal Reference L238 of 27 August 1991.
    Commission Directive 92/8/EEC of 18 February 1992 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 76/768/ EEC relating to cosmetic products. Official Journal Reference L70 of 17 March 1992.
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the draft directives issued by DGXXIII of the European Commission in the past 12 months; what estimate he has made of the number of companies each directive will affect; and at what cost.

    Mr. Needham
    DG XXIII of the European Commission has issued three draft directives in the past 12 months. They are:

    (i) Proposal for a Council Directive supplementing the Statute for a European association with regard to the involvement of employees.

    (ii) Proposal for a Council Directive supplementing the Statute for a European cooperative society with regard to the involvement of employees.

    (iii) Proposal for a Council Directive supplementing the Statute for a European mutual society with regard to the involvement of employees.

    No estimate has yet been made of the number of organisations likely to be affected by the directives, or the potential costs. A public consultation exercise is to be undertaken shortly which aims to assess the possible effect of the directives.

    United States Exports
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give figures for the total United States exports to each of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Japan, (c) Germany, (d) France and (e) Italy for the latest available year.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The information is published in the OECD publication "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

    Trade Balances
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the invisible trade balance for each of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the USA, (c) Germany, (d) France and (e) Japan for the latest available year.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The information is in the table:

    Balance on invisible transactions in 1990

    Country

    Balance £ million

    United Kingdom

    4.3

    USA

    8.9

    Germany

    -13.1

    551

    Country

    Balance £ million

    France

    2.3

    Japan

    -15.5

    Source: IMF Balance of Payments Statistics, CSO.

    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the United Kingdom's bilateral trade balance with the United States for the latest available year; and what is the United Kingdom's trade balance with(a) Canada, (b) Japan, (c) France and (d) Germany.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: Information on United Kingdom visible trade is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

    Visible Exports
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give figures for the total visible exports for the top 10 exporting countries for the latest available year.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The information is available in the publication "GATT Focus Newsletter" issue 89 for April 1992, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

    Car Imports
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give figures for imports of American-built cars from the United States of America to the United Kingdom for the latest available year, and comparable figures for imports from Germany and Japan.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: Information on United Kingdom imports is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House. The statistics classify goods according to the country of dispatch, which may differ from the country of manufacture.

    Exports
    Mr. Oppenheim
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures for United Kingdom exports expressed as(a) per capita and (b) as a percentage of gross national product for the latest available year.

    Mr. Needham
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The most recent year for which the OECD has published information on both the United Kingdom's population and exports is 1990. Based on this information, the value of United Kingdom visible exports per capita was £1,805 in 1990.

    The OECD does not publish United Kingdom figures for gross national product. On the basis of gross domestic product, the United Kingdom's exports of goods accounted for 18.9 per cent. of GDP in 1990 and 18.2 per cent. in 1991.

    Assisted Areas
    Mr. Hutton
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the involvement of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte in the review of assisted areas being conducted by his Department; and whether he will make a statement.
    552
    Mr. Sainsbury
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: None.

    Protective Equipment
    Mr. Hawksley
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made to consult the industry on appendix 4, glove and arm protection in the use of personal protective equipment at the workplace directive; where the section appears in the consultation document; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    I have been asked to reply.

    Proposals to implement the use of personal protective equipment directive—89/656/EEC—were published by the Health and Safety Commission—HSC—on 6 December 1991 in its consultative document "Personal Protective Equipment at Work. Proposals for Regulations and Guidance". A copy is in the Library. The closing date for comments was 5 April 1992.

    Within the consultative document, the HSC requested comments on the need for guidance in support of the regulations. It proposed that specific guidance on "Hand and Arm Protection" be prepared as appendix 4 to the supporting guidance. Both sides of industry will be further consulted following the preparation of such specific draft guidance.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Agencies
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the executive agencies that have been established to date and the number of staff currently employed in each case, in full-time equivalents.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The current list of established agencies including organisations that are operating on next steps lines showing the staff employed in each case is as follows:

    Agency

    Staff1

    Accounts Services Agency

    90

    ADAS Agency

    2,500

    Building Research Establishment

    700

    Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

    230

    Central Office of Information2

    670

    Central Science Laboratory

    370

    Central Statistical Office

    1,090

    Central Veterinary Laboratory

    590

    Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment3

    600

    Civil Service College

    230

    Companies House2

    1,070

    Compensation Agency4

    150

    Defence Research Agency

    12,150

    Directorate General of Defence Accounts3

    2,130

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    4,580

    Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency4

    250

    Driving Standards Agency

    2,080

    Duke of York's Royal Military School

    100

    DVOIT

    590

    Employment Service

    38,400

    Fire Service College2

    160

    Forensic Science Service

    600

    Historic Royal Palaces

    330

    Historic Scotland

    630

    HMSO2

    3,250

    Hydrographic Office3

    860

    Insolvency Service

    1,470

    Intervention Board

    980

    Laboratory of the Government Chemist

    340

    Land Registry

    9,800

    553

    Agency

    Staff1

    Medicines Control Agency

    300

    Meteorological Office

    2,390

    Military Survey3

    1,300

    National Engineering Laboratory

    390

    National Physical Laboratory

    830

    National Weights and Measures Laboratory

    50

    Natural Resources Institute

    440

    Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation3

    1,510

    NHS Estates

    120

    Occupational Health Service

    100

    Ordnance Survey

    2,380

    Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland4

    210

    Patent Office2

    1,080

    Planning Inspectorate

    630

    Public Record Office

    440

    Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

    60

    Queen Victoria School

    60

    Radiocommunications Agency

    520

    RAF Maintenance3

    13,300

    Rate Collection Agency4

    270

    Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

    240

    Registers of Scotland

    1,280

    Royal Mint2

    1,020

    Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

    140

    Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

    210

    Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)3

    2,300

    Social Security Agency4

    5,350

    Social Security Benefits Agency

    63,100

    Social Security Contributions Agency

    8,000

    Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

    4,000

    Social Security Resettlement Agency

    520

    Teachers' Pensions Agency

    300

    The Buying Agency2

    110

    Training & Employment Agency4

    1,670

    Transport Research Laboratory

    580

    United Kingdom Passport Agency

    1,250

    Valuation Office

    5,200

    Vehicle Certification Agency

    80

    Vehicle Inspectorate2

    1,820

    Veterinary Medicines Directorate

    80

    Warren Spring Laboratory

    310

    Wilton Park Conference Centre

    30

    72 in number

    210,960

    Customs and Excise5 (30 Executive Units)

    26,800

    Inland Revenue5 (34 Executive Offices)

    62,100

    TOTAL:6

    299,860

    TOTAL CIVIL SERVANTS:7

    290,490

    1 October 1991 figures for Civil Servants and Armed Forces Personnel. Casuals are excluded. Part time staff are counted as half units.

    2 Trading fund.

    3 Defence Support Agency.

    4 Northern Ireland Civil Service.

    5 Departments operating fully on 'Next Steps' lines. Staffing figure for Inland Revenue excludes the Valuation Office which is a free standing agency.

    6 Includes 8,070 Armed Forces personnel in Ministry of Defence Agencies, and 1,300 locally engaged staff in Service Children's Schools (North West Europe).

    7 Includes 7,900 Civil Servants in agencies of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all units of central Government that are currently under consideration for executive agency status, their parent Department, and the number of staff employed in each case, in full-time equivalents.
    554
    Mr. Waldegrave
    The current list of activities announced by Departments as under consideration for executive agency status, together with their parent Departments and staff employed is as follows:

    Candidate name

    Parent Department

    Staff1

    Army Logistics2

    Defence

    12,700

    Chessington Computer Centre

    Treasury

    440

    Child Support Agency3 4

    Northern Ireland

    See note

    Common Services Division2

    Defence

    1,700

    Defence Animal Centre2

    Defence

    150

    Defence Operational Analysis Centre2

    Defence

    180

    Defence Postal Courier Service2

    Defence

    600

    Defence Analytical Services Agency2

    Defence

    150

    Directorate Information Technology Bureau Services2

    Defence

    120

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency3

    Northern Ireland

    250

    Equipment Test and Evaluation2

    Defence

    2,220

    Fuel Suppliers Branch

    Environment

    20

    Her Majesty's Prison Service

    Home Office

    34,900

    Human Factors Research2

    Defence

    390

    Meat Hygiene Service5

    Agriculture

    See note

    Ministry of Defence Police2

    Defence

    4,550

    Naval Training2

    Defence

    5,040

    National Health Service Superannuation Branch

    Health

    630

    Office of Population Censuses and Surveys6

    See note

    2,150

    Pesticide Safety Directorate

    Agriculture

    150

    Property Division

    Treasury Solicitor

    120

    Property Holdings Portfolio Management

    Environment

    460

    Royal Air Force Training2

    Defence

    11,200

    Royal Parks

    National Heritage

    580

    Scottish Office Superannuation

    Scottish Office

    160

    Scottish Prison Service

    Scottish Office

    4,100

    Social Security Child Support Agency7

    Social Security

    See note

    Valuation and Lands Office3

    Northern Ireland

    350

    Youth Treatment Service

    Health

    220

    29 in number

    TOTAL8

    83,530

    TOTAL CIVIL SERVANTS9

    67,200

    1 October 1991 figures for civil servants and armed forces personnel. Casuals are excluded. Part-time staff are counted as half units.

    2 May be launched as a Defence Support Agency.

    3 Northern Ireland Civil Service.

    4 Estimated to require 550 staff by April 1993. Of these 120 will come from the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency.

    5 Estimated to require 1,800 staff, drawn from a variety of sources.

    6 Independent Government Department. Responsible Minister: Secretary of State for Health.

    7 From early 1993 the agency is estimated to require 4,500 staff, 1,500 of which will come from the Social Security Benefits Agency.

    8 Includes 16,330 armed forces personnel in Ministry of Defence candidates.

    9 Includes 600 civil servants in candidates of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

    Many other areas are under internal consideration for executive agency status.

    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what central guidance has been provided to departments and agencies on the subject of market testing and contracting out; and if he will place a copy of the guidance on the Library.
    555
    Mr. Waldegrave
    In addition to the White Paper "Competing for Quality: Buying Better Public Services" Cm 1730, central guidance is contained in the public competition and purchasing unit's note No. 34. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

    Name

    Department first entered

    Grade on entry

    Current Department

    Sir Robin Butler

    Her Majesty's Treasury

    Assistant Principal

    Cabinet Office

    Sir Terry Burns

    Her Majesty's Treasury

    Chief Economic Adviser

    Her Majesty's Treasury

    Sir Derek Andrews

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Assistant Principal

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Sir Anthony Battishill

    Inland Revenue

    Assistant Principal

    Inland Revenue

    Mr. Patrick Brown

    Department of the Environment

    Principal

    Department of Transport

    Sir John Caines

    Ministry of Supply

    Assistant Principal

    Department for Education

    Mr. John Chilcot

    Home Office

    Assistant Principal

    Northern Ireland Office

    Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield

    Ministry of Housing and Local Government

    Assistant Principal

    Property Services Agency

    Sir Christopher France

    Her Majesty's Treasury

    Assistant Principal

    Ministry of Defence

    Mrs. Barbara Mills

    Serious Fraud Office

    Grade 2

    Crown Prosecution Service

    Mr. Peter Graham

    Her Majesty's Treasury

    Assistant Parliamentary Counsel

    Parliamentary Counsel Office

    Sir Peter Gregson

    Board of Trade

    Assistant Principal

    Department of Trade and Industry

    Mr. Graham Hart

    Ministry of Health and Social Security

    Assistant Principal

    Department of Health

    Sir Russell Hillhouse

    Scottish Education Department

    Assistant Principal

    The Scottish Office

    Sir Geoffrey Holland

    Ministry of Labour

    Assistant Principal

    Department of Employment

    Mr. Thomas Legg

    Lord Chancellor's Department

    Legal Assistant

    Lord Chancellor's Department

    Sir Richard Lloyd-Jones

    Admiralty

    Assistant Principal

    Welsh Office

    Sir Malcolm McIntosh

    Ministry of Defence

    Grade 1

    Ministry of Defence

    Sir James Nursaw

    Home Office

    Legal Assistant

    Treasury Solicitor's Department

    Sir Michael Partridge

    Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

    Assistant Principal

    Department of Social Security

    Sir Brian Unwin

    Commonwealth Relations Office

    Assistant Principal

    Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

    Sir Clive Whitmore

    War Office

    Assistant Principal

    Home Office

    Mr. Richard Wilson

    Board of Trade

    Assistant Principal

    Department of the Environment

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Fair Employment
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how and where the post of Fair Employment Commission director was advertised and recruited.

    Mr. Atkins
    The post of chief executive of the Fair Employment Commission, was filled in 1989 following

    Permanent Secretaries
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each permanent secretary, his or her current Department, the grade at which they entered the civil service, and the Department at which they began their civil service career.

    Mr. Waldegrave
    There are currently 23 permanent secretaries—Grade 1—in the home civil service. Details of their starting grade, Department first entered and current Department are as follows, although most have had wider experience:

    advertisements in the Belfast Telegraph, the Belfast Newsletter, the Irish News, The Guardian, the Irish Times, The Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Times.

    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors other than religious discrimination contribute to apparent discrepancies in work patterns in Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Atkins
    The existence of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland was central to Parliament's acceptance of the need for strengthened legislation to deal with
    557
    continuing inequalities in employment. It was, however, also accepted that other factors contribute to the differentials in employment and unemployment between Catholics and Protestants. The hon. Gentleman may find it useful to refer to the discussion on this complex matter in SACHR's "Report on Fair Employment" (Cm 237).

    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the sectors of employment and (b) the individual companies or employers considered exempt for the purposes of fair employment monitoring.

    Mr. Atkins
    Only private sector concerns with 10 or fewer employees are exempt from the monitoring provisions of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989.

    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the difference between a target and a quota when the FEC investigates or scrutinises the annual monitoring returns of a company and sets a target to balance the work force.

    Mr. Atkins
    Under fair employment legislation the promotion of affirmative action to secure change permits the setting of goals and timetables against which progress may be measured. Goals and timetables are targets that an employer would expect, and should make good faith efforts, to reach within a certain timescale. Quotas on the other hand reserve jobs or training places for people on the basis of religious belief or political opinion and are unlawful in Northern Ireland.

    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will institute a survey of whether Protestant employers are more likely to discriminate than Roman Catholic employers.

    Mr. Atkins
    I have no plans to do so.

    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent to which balance in the work force is an accurate measure of equality of opportunity and sectarian balance can be achieved by discrimination.

    Mr. Atkins
    Balance in a work force is no guarantee that equality of opportunity is being afforded to both sides of the community. It is for this reason that the law requires employers regularly to review not only the religious composition of their work forces but their employment practices.

    Travellers
    Mr. Trimble
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the sites that have been provided for travelling people or itinerants.

    Mr. Atkins
    Fully serviced sites have been provided for travelling people by district councils in Coalisland, Newry and Omagh and two sites in Londonderry.

    Two serviced sites in Belfast are due for completion by September 1992. In the interim, travelling people are being provided with basic amenities at these two locations.

    A partly serviced site has also been provided in Tattykeel, Omagh.

    Mr. Trimble
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many travelling people or itinerants are presently residing on sites provided for their accommodation.
    558
    Mr. Atkins
    There are approximately 620 travelling people currently residing on sites provided by local councils.

    Mr. Trimble
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many travelling people or itinerants are known to be trespassing on(a) public land and (b) privately owned land.

    Mr. Atkins
    There are approximately 319 travelling people—75 vans—on public land and 46–11 vans—on private land. Their locations are as follows:

    People

    Vans

    Public land

    Belfast

    236

    51

    Strabane

    18

    7

    Armagh

    40

    11

    Fermanagh

    25

    6

    Private land

    Craigavon

    16

    4

    Magherafelt

    30

    7

    Mr. Trimble
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of travelling people or itinerants currently residing in Northern Ireland; how many are United Kingdom citizens; and how many are immigrants from the Republic of Ireland.

    Mr. Atkins
    A survey of travelling people in Northern Ireland in 1988, indicated that there were 1,050 individuals. Their numbers have not changed significantly during the last 3½ years.

    It is estimated that 85–90 per cent. of those currently residing in Northern Ireland were born in Northern Ireland.

    Market Testing
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Mates
    The proposals for market testing in Northern Ireland departments and agencies are under consideration and an announcement will be made shortly.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of individuals registered under the homeless persons legislation as being homeless in Northern Ireland for each year since 1979, inclusive with the percentage increase or decrease on the previous year; and if he will provide a breakdown by local authority.

    Mr. Atkins
    The information requested is not available prior to April 1989 when the homelessness provisions of the Housing (NI) Order 1988 came into operation. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is the sole public housing authority in Northern Ireland, and I am advised by its chairman that the number of applicants accepted as being either homeless or threatened with homelessness since 1 April 1989 and the percentage increase on the previous year is as follows:
    559

    Year

    Number

    Difference

    1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

    5,166

    —

    1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

    7,219

    +39.7

    1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

    7,494

    +3.8

    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the total expenditure and (b) the additional specific allocation for tackling homelessness which was provided in the latest financial year giving a breakdown by local authority.

    Mr. Atkins
    The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is the sole public sector housing authority in Northern Ireland. No resources are allocated to the executive specifically to tackle homelessness. However, its chairman has advised me that the executive spent £1.216 million on homelessness in 1991–92.

    Cancer
    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what were the cancer mortality rates in each electoral ward in the Southern health board area in each of the past 10 years;

    Cancer mortality rate per 100,000 of population

    Health board area Unit of management

    1982

    1983

    1984

    1985

    1986

    1987

    1988

    1989

    1990

    Eastern

    North-West Belfast and South-East Belfast

    260

    272

    291

    279

    280

    279

    277

    307

    294

    North Down and Ards

    196

    204

    200

    222

    196

    213

    224

    232

    221

    Down and Lisburn

    168

    175

    187

    176

    152

    186

    172

    179

    191

    Northern

    Bankside

    161

    137

    174

    154

    161

    184

    166

    183

    165

    Causeway

    188

    196

    173

    185

    205

    193

    206

    216

    233

    Loughside

    174

    201

    195

    208

    201

    208

    223

    216

    225

    Southern

    Craigavon and Banbridge

    155

    170

    170

    184

    156

    173

    180

    196

    193

    Armagh and Dungannon

    186

    174

    149

    164

    179

    204

    201

    188

    189

    Newry and Mourne

    196

    200

    162

    139

    197

    175

    161

    213

    182

    Western

    Foyle

    150

    148

    160

    157

    167

    188

    181

    170

    168

    Omagh and Fermanagh

    142

    170

    189

    204

    178

    161

    237

    191

    202

    Note: Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

    International Fund for Ireland
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the board of the International Fund for Ireland to discuss his Department's contacts with the fund; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Mates
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with the chairman of the board of the international fund; the last such meeting was on 8 June. The Government are conscious of the valuable work being carried out by the fund which is making a significant contribution to the economic and social regeneration of the areas in which it works. We look forward to maintaining close contact with the board which is performing such a significant role.
    560
    (2) what were the average cancer mortality rates, in each health unit of management in Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years.

    Mr. Hanley
    This information is not available at electoral ward level. Figures at board level and figures based on the presently defined boundaries of health board units of management, are as follows:

    Year

    Rate per 100,000 of population

    1982

    177

    1983

    180

    1984

    160

    1985

    157

    1986

    176

    1987

    184

    1988

    181

    1989

    198

    1990

    188

    Note: Figures for 1991 are not yet available.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Gravel Extraction and Waste Tipping
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the local authority associations and European Community institutions about the environmental problems arising from the twin industries of gravel extraction and the tipping of waste.

    Mr. Baldry
    There have been no specific discussions about the environmental aspects of gravel extraction and subsequent landfilling of wastes, but there has been involvement with the local authority association and the European Commission in consideration of a draft Directive on landfilling of wastes.

    Water Regulation
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account the Office of Water Services takes of the level of investment in the water industry in its regulatory functions.

    Mr. Maclean
    As the water industry is engaged in a massive capital investment programme estimated to cost £28 billion, the Director General of Water Services, as the independent regulator, necessarily has a close interest in ensuring that the programme is carried out on time and in an efficient way.

    Rented Housing
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received over the shortage of affordable rented accommodation.

    Mr. Baldry
    I receive such representations fairly frequently. There are local shortages of rented housing in some parts of the country, and the Government have a major public expenditure programme, amounting to nearly £8 billion this year, to build new social housing, renovate existing housing, and help council tenants on low incomes to afford their rents.

    Mortgage Repossessions
    Mr. Trimble
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the schemes to assist home owners threatened with repossession by banks and building societies.

    Sir George Young
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Wales and I met the Council of Mortgage Lenders on 2 June to review progress with mortgage rescue schemes.

    We were encouraged to hear the lenders' estimate that measures taken since December will save some 55,000 repossessions this year.

    Both mortgage lenders and the Government will continue to give priority to making rescue schemes work.

    Earth Summit
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining agreements reached at the Earth summit.

    Mr. Howard
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and for York (Mr. Bayley).

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet Maurice Strong to discuss the outcome of the Rio de Janeiro summit.

    Mr. Howard
    I had very useful discussions with Mr. Strong while in Rio, but I have no specific plans at the moment to meet him again.

    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the official texts of the agreements reached at the United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro.
    562
    Mr. Howard
    The climate change convention text is already in the Library; the other texts will follow when official copies are available.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Hague
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings have been made by local government as a result of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.

    Sir Michael Neubert
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings have been made by local government as a result of the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Redwood
    Research commissioned by the Department and carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies at the university of Birmingham has found that annual cost savings of 6 per cent. of contract value have been achieved by local authorities as a result of competition for services under the Local Government Act 1988.

    River Quality
    Mr. John Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of rivers in England are in good or fair condition; and what is the European average.

    Mr. Maclean
    The 1990 river quality survey published by the National Rivers Authority shows that around 90 per cent. of river length in England and Wales is of good or fair quality. A review of river classification schemes across the European Community published in 1988 by the Water Research Centre showed that the average figure in the EC for rivers of comparable quality was 75 per cent.

    Urban Programmes
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional statistics he proposes to collect under the Government's review of inner cities and urban renewal programmes.

    Mr. Redwood
    Inner city policies and programmes are regularly evaluated. We will continue to assess them in the light of various pieces of information including existing statistics, the 1991 census of population, experience of the first two rounds of city challenge and results of current research assessing the impact of inner city policies generally.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Michael
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will implement the principle of subsidiarity in the way the responsibilities of his Department are exercised and in the relationship between his Department and locally elected bodies.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The Government are always guided by a proper interpretation of the rules of subsidiarity when conducting their relations with local government.

    Poll Tax
    Mr. Canavan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost to date of introducing, administering and collecting the poll tax, including the cost of Government-initiated relief schemes.
    563
    Mr. Robin Squire
    The cost of preparing for administering and collecting the community charge in England up to 1 April 1992 has been about £1.2 billion. Government relief schemes have reduced the burden of local domestic taxation to 15 per cent. of local government spending and have not added to overall public expenditure.

    Pollution Inspectorate
    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he will arrange for hon. Members who wish to do so to visit the inspectorate.

    Mr. Maclean
    Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has a key role in protecting the environment by enforcing the industrial pollution control regulations. The system has been strengthened by the introduction of integrated pollution contol under the Environmental protection act 1990, and the inspectorate's manpower complement has been increased significantly, from 199 at the time of its setting up in 1987 to 377 today.

    Where hon. Members are seeking factual information on particular cases dealt with by the inspectorate, I am happy to arrange for those hon. Members to meet the inspectorate.

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what powers of enforcement Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has with regard to integrated pollution control; and what considerations are taken into account in determining the charges levied on industry for administering the inspectorate of pollution;

    (2) how many staff are currently employed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; what are the current operating costs of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and what the figures were for the previous two years.

    Mr. Howard
    The enforcement powers of inspectors of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—in relation to integrated pollution control are contained in part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They include powers to revoke an authorisation to carry on a process; and to serve an enforcement notice to secure necessary improvements in the operation to a process, to serve a prohibition notice in relation to a process where there is considered to be an imminent risk of serious pollution.

    It is an offence to operate a prescribed process without an authorisation or in contravention with the conditions within an authorisation, and to fail to comply with an enforcement or prohibition notice.

    HMIP's fees and charges for pollution control are set so as to recover the inspectorate's costs relating to the carrying out of integrated pollution control and regulation of premises under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, as required by the relevant legislative provisions—section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act and section 11A of the Radioactive Substances Act.

    There are currently 308 staff in post in HMIP. The figures for the previous two years were:

    1 April 1990 172

    1 April 1991 226.5

    HMIP's authorised complement for 1992–93 has been increased to 377.5. Recruitment of additional staff is in progress.
    564
    In 1991–92, the operating cost of the inspectorate, on a full economic cost basis, was £20.5 million. For 1992–93, the forecast cost is £27.5 million, of which some £12.3 million relates to integrated pollution control and Radioactive Substances Act regulation and is recoverable through fees and charges. The increased total cost for 1992–93 is mainly due to the increase in staff in post and complement. Equivalent cost information for 1990–91 is not available.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Pickthall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring the Director General of Water Services is undertaking of the charging policies of water companies.

    Mr. Maclean
    The director general monitors the charging schemes operated by water and sewerage undertakers to ensure that they do not give undue preference to or unfairly discriminate against any group or class of customer.

    Sir John Hannam
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring the Office of Water Services is carrying out over the level of water charges in the south-west.

    Mr. Maclean
    The Director General of Water Services monitors all water companies to ensure that they comply with the RPI plus K formula which is a condition of their licence, and that they do not give undue preference to or unfairly discriminate against any group or class of customer.

    Environmental Protection Agency
    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to bring forward legislative proposals for the environmental protection agency.

    Mr. Maclean
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 13 May,Official Report, column 125.

    Data Protection
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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.

    Mr. Howard
    My Department observes the provisions of the Data Protection Act. Consultations with the Data Protection Registrar have taken place where necessary, and I am satisfied that arrangements are effective.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by local authority in England and Wales the current percentage rate of community charge outstanding in respect of the uniform business rate.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Community charge is not payable in respect of the uniform business rate. Authorities in
    565
    England collected 89 per cent. of their 1991–92 budgeted community charge income by 31 March 1992 and 95 per cent. of their non-domestic rates income by the same date.

    I have today placed in the Library of the House collection figures for each authority in England. Figures for Welsh authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    Mr. Hutton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average annual increase in uniform business rate in(a) the South Lakeland district area and (b) the rest of England and Wales for 1991 and the current year.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    [holding answer 11 June 1992]: In each financial year the increase in the uniform business rate poundage is limited to the rate of inflation as measured by the retail prices index in September of the preceding year. This was 10.9 and 4.1 per cent. in 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively.

    In 1991–92 the annual increase in the aggregate rate bill for businesses in the South Lakeland district was 17.4 per cent. and for the rest of England and Wales it was 10.1 per cent. These figures take account not only of the increase in the poundage, but also of the transitional arrangements which are phasing in the effect of the 1990 reforms. For the current year, taking account of the changes to the transitional arrangements proposed in the Budget, we estimate the figures to be 2.8 per cent. and zero respectively.

    Pollution
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to open records of pollutant discharges and offer environmental monitoring activities for public inspection.

    Mr. Maclean
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 June 1992,Official Report, column 439.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purpose the community charge register has been used; and what plans he has for using this register in the future.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Charging authorities use their community charges register to determine individuals' liability for the community charge. Under the council tax authorities will not require a register of all adults, although they will generally wish to identify who is liable in respect of a property. In the initial stages the community charges register will help them to do this, but after 1 April 1993 it will quickly lose its relevance.

    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had, since 1 January 1990, about purchases by local authorities of computer equipment and software for the administration of the community charge which failed to operate efficiently; what estimates he has made(a) of the number of local authorities involved and (b) the extra costs incurred; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    My Department has not received any specific representations.

    Grant Settlement
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the new grant settlement for 1993–94 for local authorities.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities on 21 May 1992,Official Report, column 195.

    Council Tax
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to ensure that local authorities use computer software for the administration of the council tax which is(a) efficient and cost effective and (b) compatible, as far as possible, with equipment used in the administration of the community charge.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    It is a matter for local authorities to decide which computer system they use to run the council tax. My Department has sponsored a detailed council tax computer system specification produced by the Local Authority Systems Alliance. This offers advice on all identified user requirements and addresses the varied application needs of authorities for in-house computer development, software house systems and package evaluation. A copy has been sent to all authorities.

    Rent Control
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many lettings became available as the result of the abolition of rent control in June 1987.

    Mr. Baldry
    Rent control in England was ended, for new lettings only, when the relevant provisions of the Housing Act 1988 came into effect on 15 January 1989. The most recent figures available are from the 1990 private renters survey. By summer 1990 there were an estimated 480,000 lettings in the newly decontrolled sector in England, 130,000 of them in properties which had not been let to private tenants two years earlier.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what receipts have been received by the Easington district council in each year since 1987 through the sale of council houses, land and other buildings.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The information is as follows:

    Easington DC: Total sales of fixed assets

    £'000

    1987–88

    3,022

    1988–89

    4,280

    1989–90

    5,152

    1990–91

    4,582

    1991–92

    13,925

    1 Provisional.

    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review the regulations governing service charges to former council tenants; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    No changes are proposed. Council tenants who purchase their flats under the right to buy normally
    567
    covenant in their lease to pay a reasonable contribution towards the costs of repairs and other services provided by the landlord. This follows private sector practice.

    The protections against unreasonable service charges in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 apply to all leaseholders, including former council tenants.

    Local Government Commission
    Mr. William O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what review the Local Government Commission for England will be conducting of the functions of parish or town councils in respect of developing enhanced responsiveness to local needs; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The policy guidance to the Local Government Commission makes it clear that in considering whether options for changes to local government structure allow for the effective local discharge of functions or enhanced responsiveness to local needs, the commission should take into account the scope for delegations to parish councils.

    Mr. William O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what review the Local Government Commission for England will be conducting of parish, town and community boundaries; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    My right hon. and learned Friend may direct the Local Government Commission to review parish boundaries under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1992. He has not yet decided what parish reviews he will direct the commission to carry out.

    Emissions
    Mr. Ainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many fossil-fuelled power stations have had their consent to emit sulphur dioxide reduced under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement;

    (2) when the review of existing consents for the emission of sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide from all fossil-fuelled power stations will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Maclean
    No authorisations for fossil-fuelled power stations have yet been granted under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Two applications for authorisation, in respect of National Power's stations at Pembroke in Wales and Padiham in Lancashire, are currently being considered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The company has agreed to extend the determination period for these applications until 30 September. The remaining applications for authorisation are the subject of appeals to my right hon. and learned Friend about commercial confidentiality. They cannot be determined until after the appeal decision, which will be made as soon as possible.

    Planning and Compensation Act 1991
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what parts of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 remain to be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for doing so.
    568
    Mr. Baldry
    The main provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 have already been implemented. Following further public consultations, my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to make orders and regulations giving effect to the remaining provisions in the summer and autumn of 1992, as follows:

    Early Summer

    Notices etc. of applications for planning permission—(section 16)

    Land of interested planning authorities and development by them—(section 20)

    Mid Summer

    Remaining enforcement provisions—(sections 2, 4 (part) and 10)

    Demolition of buildings—(section 13)

    Autumn

    Remaining provisions on Planning obligations—(section 12, (Schedules 106A and 106B))

    Simplified planning zones—(section 28).

    EC Directives
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the environmental directives which have been issued by the European Community in the past 12 months; and what estimate he has made of the number of companies each directive will affect.

    Mr. Maclean
    The following is a list of environmental directives issued by the European Community since 1 June 1991. Information on the numbers of companies affected by each directive is not collected centrally.

    Directive No.

    Directive title

    91/322

    Protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work.

    91/325

    Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (12th adaptation)

    91/326

    Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (13th adaptation)

    91/338

    Restrictions on marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (cadmium)

    91/339

    Restrictions on marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (ugilec, DBBT)

    91/368

    Noise from construction plants

    91/382

    Worker protection from exposure to asbestos

    91/410

    Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (14th adaptation)

    91/414

    Marketing of plant protection products

    91/441

    Amending diretive 70/220 on air pollution by emissions from vehicles

    91/542

    Amending directive 88/77 on air pollution by emissions from diesel engines

    91/632

    Classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (15th adaptation)

    91-659

    Restrictions on marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos)

    91/676

    Protection of waters against nitrate pollution form agriculture

    91/689

    Hazardous waste

    91/692

    Standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment

    92/3

    Supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community

    92/143

    Aircraft noise

    Homelessness
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of providing bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless persons for each year since its introduction; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) region and (b) local authority.

    Mr. Baldry
    The available information for England is as follows:

    Bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless persons: England

    Net expenditure £ million

    1984–85

    15.7

    1985–86

    33.9

    1986–87

    75.5

    1987–88

    104.2

    1988–89

    90.2

    1989–90

    72.6

    Tables giving the readily available breakdowns by region and by local authority, covering 1988–89 and 1989–90, have been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of individuals registered under the homeless persons legislation as being homeless in(a) England as a whole and (b) Great Britain as a whole for each year since 1979 inclusive, with the percentage increase/decrease on the previous year; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local authority.

    Mr. Baldry
    The available information represents the numbers of households for whom local authorities accepted responsibility for securing permanent accommodation, under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985. Estimates of the total number of persons in these households are not available centrally.

    The information for England is as follows:

    Year

    Households accepted

    Percentage increase/decrease

    1979

    55,530

    —

    1980

    60,400

    +8.7

    1981

    66,990

    +10.9

    1982

    71,620

    +6.9

    1983

    75,470

    +5.4

    1984

    80,500

    +6.7

    1985

    91,010

    +13.1

    1986

    100,490

    +10.4

    1987

    109,170

    +8.6

    1988

    113,770

    +4.2

    1989

    122,180

    +7.4

    1990

    140,350

    +14.9

    1991

    145,140

    +3.4

    A new reporting system was introduced for non-metropolitan districts from the fourth quarter of 1980 and for the other authorities from the third quarter of 1982. As a result figures for 1979 to 1982 are not strictly comparable with those for later periods.

    From the second quarter of 1991 the definition of acceptances was altered to exclude intentionally homeless and all the figures have been adjusted to the new basis.

    Regional estimates on the old basis for each quarter of 1984 and 1985 appear in table 1 of "Homeless Households
    570
    Reported by Local Authorities in England: Supplementary Tables". Results for subsequent quarters of 1986 to 1990 inclusive appear in table 1 of various issues of "Local Authorities' Actions Under 'the Homelessness Provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England, Results for …Quarter 19 …, Supplementary Tables".

    Regional estimates on the new basis for 1991 appear in the information bulletin "Households Found Accommodation Under the Homelessness Provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England: Statistics for the First Quarter of 1992". It is not appropriate to calculate percentage changes between figures on the old basis and the new basis. Estimates adjusted to the new basis, from 1984 onwards, will be published later this year.

    Copies of all these publications and the list of relevant issues for regional estimates for 1986 to 1990 are available in the Library.

    I have also placed in the Library tables giving the information actually reported by individual local authorities in England for each year from 1981 to 1991 inclusive. Information for the years 1979 and 1980 is available in edition no. 54, table 14, edition no. 61, table 11, and edition no. 62, table 13, of "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library.

    For information about Wales and Scotland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland.

    Fire Regulations
    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions planning appeals to his Department under section 13 of the Hampshire Act 1983 have not been upheld; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    Since 1 November 1990 my Department has received six appeals under section 13 of the Hampshire Act. One of these was withdrawn, one is under consideration at present and the other four appeals were upheld.

    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that the provisions of section 13 of the Hampshire Act 1983 with respect to fire safety in very large low-rise buildings are upheld in the planning appeal process.

    Mr. Baldry
    Appeals to the Secretary of State under section 13 of the Hampshire Act are not part of the planning system. They arise from the refusal of the building control authority to approve plans deposited in accordance with the requirements of the building regulations. The Secretary of State will continue to consider each case on its own merits, with the interests of the health and safety of people in and around buildings in mind.

    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been carried out by his Department into the effectiveness of sprinklers, fire ventilation and other fire protection measures in very large low-rise buildings; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Baldry
    My Department has carried out research over a number of years into many aspects of sprinkler performance, fire ventilation and other fire protection
    571
    measures. The knowledge gained from this work has informed the recently completed review of the technical content of building regulations, and has provided the basis for most of the guidance available to designers on such systems. This guidance includes methods applicable to very large low-rise buildings. The Department will continue to support work in these areas to improve our understanding of the processes involved, and to develop and refine the guidance available to designers and enforcing authorities.

    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to local authorities to require measures to assist fire fighters, such as sprinklers and fire ventilation in very large low-rise buildings.

    Mr. Baldry
    The Building Regulations 1991, made under the Building Act 1984, require provision to be made for access and facilities for the fire service. The functional requirement is set out in schedule 1 of the building regulations, under part B5. The requirements to provide adequate means of escape—B1—and to address the dangers of internal and external fire spread—B2, B3, B4—also assist fire fighters. In some parts of England and Wales local Acts contain provisions which also have a bearing on assistance to fire fighters.

    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek to amend the Building Regulations 1991 to require the provision of sprinklers and fire ventilation in very large low-rise buildings.

    Mr. Baldry
    A major review of the building regulations and associated technical guidance on fire safety has just been completed. There are no plans to amend the regulations on the lines suggested.

    Mr. Denham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement regarding the appropriate fire protection measures required in very large low-rise buildings.

    Mr. Baldry
    The latest approved document on fire safety, published by HMSO in December 1991, gives guidance on fire protection measures appropriate to satisfy the requirements of the Building Regulations. Other Government Departments issue guidance on the measures necessary to satisfy other legislative requirements. Guidance on measures to reduce property fire losses has recently been published by the Loss Prevention Council.

    Dittiscombe Equestrian Centre
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the appeal by the Dittiscombe equestrian centre, Dittiscombe, Slapton, south Devon, against the level of business rate will be heard; when it was first lodged; and what is the reason for the time taken for the hearing.

    Mr. Robin Squire
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The proposal dated 2 August 1990 was received as an appeal by the Devon valuation tribunal on 4 January 1991 and is provisionally listed for hearing on 9 November 1992.

    Following revaluation on 1 April 1990, the tribunal initially received more than 10,000 list appeals. Most of these were received towards the end of that financial year and by the end of April 1992 some 4,000 had been resolved.
    572
    Valuation tribunals are independent bodies and the priority and timing of cases is primarily a matter for them. In general, tribunals are adopting a systematic approach to the settlement of cases, with a view to establishing a common level of value for classes of property in particular locations in the 1990 rating list. This means mainly concentrating on more significant cases which could have a bearing on the assessments of similar properties in the same area, and provide many ratepayers with sufficient evidence to enable them to settle their cases by agreement.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Trade Gap
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government expects to publish their response to the second report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1991–92, on the trade gap in food and drink; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gummer
    The Government's response is published today, and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

    I welcome the report of the Select Committee as a valuable contribution to the debate on the trade gap. It supports the Government's view that collaboration between producers is the best way for them to produce what the market wants, and that close collaboration is also needed between producers, processors and retailers.

    The Government are addressing these needs through the group marketing grant which they introduced in April. We believe that it can make a real contribution to improved marketing at home and abroad.

    I am delighted that the marketing initiative is moving forward on such a broad front. Food from Britain is working with us on the group marketing grant and will certainly have a role to play in other ways too. The National Farmers Union has its own Food from the Countryside programme and regional food fairs are planned. Several food and retail companies are sponsoring the three-year initiative with Strathclyde university on improving opportunities for British suppliers. there has never been so much interest in this subject, and I am sure that working together we can make a real impact.

    The response acknowledges that the Committee and the Government are in agreement that intra Community trade in agriculture produce should be conducted on a fair footing. However, the Government do not accept that the taxpayer should offset the cost of national food safety or animal welfare measures, since these are ultimately of benefit to the industries concerned. For the same reason the Government do not feel that an increase in its contribution to Food from Britain is justified at present. The Government agrees with the importance which the Select Committee places on marketing and collaboration.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will now review his policy about not slaughtering the offspring of BSE-infected cattle;

    (2) if he will make available in the Library the results of the research funded by his Ministry into the genetic link with BSE conducted by Dr. Wijeratne and that carried out

    573
    by his Central Veterinary Laboratory into the same topic; and whether he will convene the Tyrrell committee to assess the findings of this research.

    Mr. Gummer
    The work by Dr. Wijeratne and colleagues into a genetic susceptibility to BSE is not complete. When it is, the outcome will be published without delay.

    The Tyrrell committee is well aware of this research and of progress on it. Preliminary results so far show only that in one breed there appear to be some cows with an inherited increased susceptibility to BSE. This does not mean that BSE is a genetic disease. In addition, increased susceptibility is irrelevant if an animal is not exposed to infection.

    The Government's policy of slaughtering affected animals and banning the feeding of ruminant derived protein is already designed to ensure that cattle are not exposed to the source of infection. All the evidence indicates that other possible sources of infection, particularly maternal or horizontal infection, will have little or no effect on the epidemic. There is therefore no justification for a calf slaughter policy or further control measures.

    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times the Tyrrell committee has met each year since 1989.

    Mr. Gummer
    Seven times in 1990, six in 1991 and on three occasions so far this year.

    Farmers Charter
    Dr. David Clark
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has produced a charter for farmers; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gummer
    I shall be announcing shortly my Department's contribution to the implementation of the principles of the citizens charter, for the benefit of consumers as well as farmers.

    Whaling
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 642, when he expects to announce Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the French proposal for an Antarctic whale sanctuary; whether he is awaiting scientific advice on that proposal; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Gummer
    The French proposal for an Antarctic whale sanctuary addresses a number of issues to the International Whaling Commission's scientific committee, now in session at Glasgow. This is an interesting proposal; we shall need to consider the scientists' advice on it when available; and we will take full part in the IWC's deliberations about it at the 44th annual meeting in Glasgow from 29 June to 3 July.

    CAP Reform
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for CAP reform during the British presidency of the EC.

    Mr. Curry
    We aim to carry forward the process of CAP reform by ensuring, in particular, that all necessary 574
    action is taken to implement the measures agreed on 21 May and by seeking agreement on reform of the EC regimes for sugar and wine, on consolidation of the rules on milk quotas and on a new agrimonetary system.

    Eggs
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what egg marketing regulations are applicable in England and Wales for the sale of duck and goose eggs; if the sale of these eggs is affected by any European Community regulations; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Curry
    Duck and goose eggs are outside the scope of the EC regulations on egg marketing standards. There are no United Kingdom marketing regulations relating to the sale of duck and goose eggs.

    Compensation
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in establishing regional quantities for determining compensation in the arable sector and for the beef special premium.

    Mr. Curry
    In the arable sector, the area on which cereals, oilseeds, protein crops and set-aside payments are made will be reduced in-year and an additional, uncompensated set-aside requirement will be imposed the following year if the regional base area is exceeded. The regional base area will be equal to the average of cereals, oilseeds and protein production and set-aside for 1989, 1990 and 1991. Regional boundaries will be established once the necessary Commission implementing regulations have been agreed.

    Beef special premium payments will be reduced if, in respect of applications for the premium payment on young animals, the regional ceiling is exceeded. In determining the level of regional ceilings, member states may take the number of animals on which premium was claimed in 1990, 1991 and 1992. The make-up of regions and the choice of reference year will be decided once implementing regulations have been agreed.

    Sheep Dips
    Mr. Ron Davies
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the number and efficacy of non-organophosphorous sheep dips.

    Mr. Soames
    Three non-organophosphorous sheep dip products are currently licensed but, along with other sheep dips, these are currently subject to review by the Veterinary Products Committee. Data have been requested from the industry, and these must demonstrate that modern standards of safety, quality and efficacy are met before reviewed licences can be issued.

    Fur Farms
    Mr. Bowden
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ban fur factory farming of wild animals.

    Mr. Soames
    The European Commission is expected to issue proposals for Community controls on the keeping of animals for fur.

    Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to ensure there are proper slaughterhouse facilities in the New Forest area, following the closure of the last slaughterhouse in that area as a result of EC directives.

    Mr. Soames
    The Government have no reason to doubt that there will be sufficient slaughtering capacity, either nationally or locally, following implementation of the EC single market requirements on 1 January 1993. It will be for individual slaughterhouse operators to take commercial decisions whether to upgrade their premises to meet the new requirements, which the Government fully support.

    Animal Transport
    Mr. Bowden
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he plans to take to ensure that, as required by article 5.2 of the new EC directive on the protection of animals during transport (19/628/EEC), itineraries are drawn up for animal transport journeys exceeding 24 hours to ensure that the animals are rested and given food and water;

    (2) whether he will require his officials from 1 January 1993 to ensure that the animal welfare requirements of EC directive on the protection of animals during transport (91/628/EEC) have been taken into account before issuing health certificates under directive 90/425/EEC for animals being transported from the United Kingdom to other countries.

    Mr. Soames
    Proposals for the implementation of directive 91/628 are under consideration and will be issued to interested organisations for comment. Further decisions remain to be taken in the Community on the resting, feeding and watering of animals at appropriate intervals and on the arrangements for certification.

    Agriculture Council
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 15 and 16 June.

    Mr. Gummer
    I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council together with my hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department.

    As regards rabies, strict conditions were agreed for the commercial import of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom from 1 July 1994. Imports will be limited to registered traders, and involve vaccination and a blood test to authenticate its success; tight controls will be imposed on the origin, transport, destination and identification of the animals concerned. These arrangements are at least as strict as our present quarantine arrangements. It was also agreed that if any proposal is made to change quarantine requirements for pets it must provide at least the same level of protection as for traded animals. This represents a most satisfactory result on what was potentially one of the most serious problems of the single market.

    The Council adopted a directive on milk hygiene which sets strict standards for production and trade in milk and milk products. This represents a further useful step towards the single market. However, allowance is also made for the manufacture of products with traditional characteristics such as soft cheeses. This responds entirely satisfactorily to concerns that were widely expressed that the directive could render such products unmarketable.

    The Council discussed certain details of the CAP reform package agreed last month. I stressed there could be no question of amending that agreement to provide concessions for certain countries. Implementing texts are expected to be adopted at the next meeting of the Council which will now start on 30 June.

  SCOTLAND

    Learning Difficulties
    Ms. Lynne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been allocated in joint finance money to the health service in Scotland; and what proportion has been spent on projects for people with learning disabilities.

    Mr. Stewart
    The information requested is not held centrally. Revenue expenditure allocations to health boards are not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for health boards themselves to determine how much will be spent on joint finance projects.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by local authority the current percentage rate of community charge outstanding in respect of the uniform business rate.

    Mr. Stewart
    The information requested is not held centrally.

    Kingston Bridge, Glasgow
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the daily vehicle capacity for which the Kingston bridge, Glasgow, was designed; and what is the latest available estimate of daily vehicle usage.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The anticipated daily vehicle flows and current estimated daily vehicle usage at the Kingston bridge, Glasgow are matters for Strathclyde regional council as the local roads authority responsible for the bridge.

    Market Testing
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
    I am currently considering the market testing programme for my Department.

    Football Grounds
    Mr. Chisholm
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will allow standing room to be retained at Scottish football grounds.

    Sir Hector Monro
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 4 June 1992 at columns 627–28.

    Housing Expenditure
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of local authorities qualifying for housing support grant and the total housing support grant expenditure expressed in(a) cash terms and (b) at 1990–91 prices; and if he will provide a breakdown for each of the local authorities in receipt of housing support grant for each year since 1979, inclusive.
    578
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The housing support grant payable to individual local authorities in each financial year since 1979–80, expressed in cash terms and in real terms at 1990–91 prices is shown in the tables:

    Housing support grant (expressed in cash terms)

    Area

    1979–80

    1980–81

    Scotland

    213,400,000

    228,200,000

    Berwickshire

    1,304,502

    1,306,875

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    1,725,856

    1,753,749

    Roxburgh

    1,734,338

    1,971,598

    Tweeddale

    289,209

    285,768

    Clackmannan

    1,850,234

    1,818,745

    Falkirk

    7,957,349

    7,479,143

    Stirling

    1,929,781

    1,916,151

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,094,232

    1,452,108

    Nithsdale

    1,147,826

    905,200

    Stewartry

    548,774

    676,321

    Wigtown

    1,046,584

    1,154,830

    Dunfermline

    5,391,353

    6,079,270

    Kirkcaldy

    6,303,279

    6,500,216

    North East Fife

    1,586,114

    1,664,141

    Aberdeen

    9,749,391

    10,733,105

    Banff and Buchan

    4,966,010

    5,495,862

    Gordon

    2,857,278

    2,860,784

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,304,661

    1,373,533

    Moray

    4,237,483

    4,402,062

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    413,089

    470,225

    Caithness

    1,231,796

    1,044,456

    Inverness

    2,461,414

    2,323,484

    Lochaber

    1,860,212

    1,825,267

    Nairn

    320,089

    351,660

    Ross and Cromarty

    3,889,456

    4,249,933

    Skye and Lochalsh

    342,729

    343,792

    Sutherland

    674,923

    729,163

    East Lothian

    4,723,964

    5,062,507

    Edinburgh

    11,269,405

    12,517,913

    Midlothian

    3,496,811

    3,334,405

    West Lothian

    4,655,453

    4,796,099

    Argyll and Bute

    3,410,909

    3,565,946

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    464,877

    458,385

    Clydebank

    3,548,652

    4,032,786

    Clydesdale

    1,842,814

    1,651,898

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    677,835

    670,398

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    1,982,826

    1,812,670

    Cunninghame

    4,800,670

    4,656,897

    Dumbarton

    2,997,918

    2,805,151

    East Kilbride

    327,324

    340,284

    Eastwood

    282,503

    303,824

    Glasgow

    41,496,149

    49,487,984

    Hamilton

    4,960,259

    5,015,434

    Inverclyde

    5,602,776

    6,140,965

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    3,584,819

    4,168,590

    Kyle and Carrick

    4,422,325

    4,351,786

    Monklands

    4,601,208

    4,359,605

    Motherwell

    7,919,644

    8,193,225

    Renfrew

    6,486,220

    6,571,032

    Strathkelvin

    1,956,176

    2,401,186

    Angus

    4,236,548

    4,372,617

    Dundee

    7,740,698

    8,602,017

    Perth and Kinross

    3,502,848

    3,118,176

    Orkney

    1,074,091

    1,103,278

    Shetland

    2,099,598

    1,889,843

    Western Isles

    1,016,718

    1,247,658

    Area

    1981–82

    1982–83

    Scotland

    161,900,000

    104,632,870

    Berwickshire

    1,038,356

    686,226

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    1,154,679

    552,583

    Roxburgh

    1,537,295

    1,165,695

    Tweeddale

    109,055

    0

    Clackmannan

    1,283,981

    689,627

    Falkirk

    4,428,554

    1,494,309

    579

    Area

    1981–82

    1982–83

    Stirling

    1,016,562

    1,335,195

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,272,965

    1,387,048

    Nithsdale

    100

    0

    Stewartry

    542,539

    412,797

    Wigtown

    767,726

    452,325

    Dunfermline

    2,800,067

    683,115

    Kirkcaldy

    3,077,166

    696,260

    North East Fife

    979,538

    829,197

    Aberdeen

    9,533,966

    7,089,761

    Banff and Buchan

    4,343,622

    3,306,069

    Gordon

    2,379,107

    2,240,622

    Kincardine and Deeside

    933,388

    817,907

    Moray

    3,552,254

    2,301,798

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    435,542

    505,386

    Caithness

    876,132

    817,378

    Inverness

    1,631,231

    1,375,208

    Lochaber

    1,813,360

    1,383,564

    Nairn

    251,993

    206,063

    Ross and Cromarty

    4,199,542

    3,493,364

    Skye and Lochalsh

    316,747

    316,309

    Sutherland

    519,316

    477,942

    East Lothian

    3,155,554

    2,079,858

    Edinburgh

    7,869,440

    2,327,904

    Midlothian

    1,791,607

    906,746

    West Lothian

    2,182,016

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    2,811,692

    2,767,417

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    193,589

    0

    Clydebank

    3,285,203

    2,201,808

    Clydesdale

    578,477

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    117,762

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    819,727

    167,191

    Cunninghame

    2,744,500

    745,237

    Dumbarton

    1,177,708

    0

    East Kilbride

    98,060

    0

    Eastwood

    15,462

    0

    Glasgow

    44,099,691

    37,292,928

    Hamilton

    3,243,635

    1,543,988

    Inverclyde

    4,443,201

    3,048,261

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    1,885,952

    298,335

    Kyle and Carrick

    2,807,798

    911,439

    Monklands

    4,252,050

    3,222,528

    Motherwell

    5,737,727

    3,296,551

    Renfrew

    2,186,158

    0

    Strathkelvin

    1,539,073

    1,198,935

    Angus

    2,499,757

    1,221,795

    Dundee

    5,285,879

    1,820,168

    Perth and Kinross

    1,309,294

    0

    Orkney

    1,082,222

    852,422

    Shetland

    2,624,591

    2,654,652

    Western Isles

    1,267,392

    1,358,959

    Area

    1983–84

    1984–85

    Scotland

    72,135,479

    67,211,241

    Berwickshire

    648,884

    486,805

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    373,420

    107,262

    Roxburgh

    1,260,321

    1,265,786

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    45,021

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    20,431

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,574,069

    1,673,013

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    414,643

    359,095

    Wigtown

    255,317

    200,315

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    309,583

    87,427

    Aberdeen

    3,724,702

    3,053,523

    Banff and Buchan

    2,437,206

    1,943,394

    Gordon

    1,709,877

    1,940,317

    Kincardine and Deeside

    972,194

    854,052

    Moray

    1,987,151

    1,790,081

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    515,570

    487,297

    Caithness

    819,544

    826,248

    580

    Area

    1983–84

    1984–85

    Inverness

    1,241,308

    1,305,145

    Lochaber

    1,334,449

    1,225,81

    Nairn

    265,393

    227,117

    Ross and Cromarty

    3,091,946

    3,241,650

    Skye and Lochalsh

    323,325

    394,993

    Sutherland

    446,107

    467,987

    East Lothian

    1,050,527

    392,369

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    2,554,514

    2,308,945

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    0

    0

    Clydebank

    1,855,408

    1,774,590

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    0

    0

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    32,355,851

    32,269,404

    Hamilton

    119,816

    0

    Inverclyde

    1,865,250

    1,162,804

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    447,952

    0

    Monklands

    1,705,278

    1,956,032

    Motherwell

    1,037,418

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    326,922

    2,775

    Angus

    181,321

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    731,864

    779,233

    Shetland

    2,409,052

    2,764,219

    Western Isles

    1,723,845

    1,863,547

    Area

    1985–86

    1986–87

    Scotland

    64,178,219

    44,469,760

    Berwickshire

    446,429

    201,135

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    1,306,156

    951,730

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    0

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,759,500

    1,382,490

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    343,400

    253,704

    Wigtown

    95,565

    0

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    2,260,303

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    1,599,685

    558,241

    Gordon

    1,800,235

    1,838,802

    Kincardine and Deeside

    942,305

    779,199

    Moray

    1,509,258

    682,537

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    497,879

    388,218

    Caithness

    750,997

    663,077

    Inverness

    1,510,450

    1,033,853

    Lochaber

    1,398,166

    1,441,327

    Nairn

    218,689

    181,633

    Ross and Cromarty

    3,474,516

    3,178,298

    Skye and Lochalsh

    467,318

    586,754

    Sutherland

    518,431

    522,874

    East Lothian

    23,235

    0

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    2,155,278

    1,373,972

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    0

    0

    Clydebank

    1,778,773

    804,237

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    581

    Area

    1985–86

    1986–87

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    0

    0

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    32,675,646

    21,891,239

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    Inverclyde

    562,537

    0

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    0

    Monklands

    328,169

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    804,942

    684,343

    Shetland

    2,778,672

    2,934,933

    Western Isles

    2,171,685

    2,137,164

    Area

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Scotland

    41,917,523

    54,631,469

    Berwickshire

    225,306

    91,417

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    1,115,301

    1,124,908

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    0

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,337,917

    1,557,353

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    386,158

    413,062

    Wigtown

    265,382

    410,486

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    0

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    617,681

    246,862

    Gordon

    2,723,337

    3,276,799

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,267,315

    1,617,844

    Moray

    982,346

    614,211

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    462,702

    384,299

    Caithness

    759,297

    1,012,850

    Inverness

    1,157,218

    1,370,584

    Lochaber

    1,396,801

    1,800,599

    Nairn

    209,500

    274,618

    Ross and Cromarty

    3,339,315

    3,793,708

    Skye and Lochalsh

    789,606

    985,932

    Sutherland

    643,801

    796,808

    East Lothian

    0

    0

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    1,709,251

    1,586,284

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    51,224

    124,971

    Clydebank

    786,456

    1,031,201

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    63,514

    33,496

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    15,116,893

    24,660,513

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    Inverclyde

    0

    0

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    0

    Monklands

    0

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    0

    582

    Area

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    743,450

    850,377

    Shetland

    3,172,405

    3,677,667

    Western Isles

    2,595,347

    2,894,620

    Area

    1989–90

    1990–91

    Scotland

    65,296,686

    57,963,694

    Berwickshire

    48,841

    0

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    1,339,141

    1,321,472

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    0

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,684,048

    1,504,110

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    509,240

    436,944

    Wigtown

    551,246

    600,795

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    0

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    136,886

    0

    Gordon

    3,788,264

    3,792,482

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,922,521

    1,882,382

    Moray

    528,935

    0

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    393,499

    386,736

    Caithness

    1,229,421

    1,330,831

    Inverness

    1,949,824

    1,934,977

    Lochaber

    2,148,759

    2,398,530

    Nairn

    344,628

    350,804

    Ross and Cromarty

    4,154,244

    4,231,891

    Skye and Lochalsh

    1,203,495

    1,303,836

    Sutherland

    969,864

    1,006,044

    East Lothian

    0

    0

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    1,775,900

    1,041,664

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    278,995

    317,125

    Clydebank

    1,010,546

    650,646

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    0

    0

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    30,697,621

    24,536,123

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    Inverclyde

    0

    0

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    0

    Monklands

    0

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    776,917

    783,399

    Shetland

    4,112,702

    4,393,805

    Western Isles

    3,741,152

    3,757,098

    Area

    1991–92

    1992–93

    Scotland

    55,435,945

    47,470,415

    Berwickshire

    0

    0

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    1,139,087

    726,723

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    583

    Area

    1991–92

    1992–93

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    91,878

    123,120

    Stirling

    132,696

    116,455

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,288,127

    1,151,985

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    175,842

    208,499

    Wigtown

    455,431

    360,746

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    0

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    0

    0

    Gordon

    3,808,288

    3,598,836

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,828,221

    1,587,282

    Moray

    0

    0

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    330,314

    326,070

    Caithness

    1,249,076

    1,161,797

    Inverness

    1,657,779

    1,299,935

    Lochaber

    2,463,394

    2,315,434

    Nairn

    306,917

    246,839

    Ross and Cromarty

    4,159,560

    4,060,836

    Skye and Lochalsh

    1,343,234

    1,339,757

    Sutherland

    992,735

    853,085

    East Lothian

    0

    0

    Edinburgh

    526,144

    535,752

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    618,210

    315,749

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    301,748

    73,749

    Clydebank

    438,557

    150,464

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    7,774

    10,760

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    61,626

    100,892

    Eastwood

    8,108

    11,583

    Glasgow

    22,687,417

    17,400,837

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    Inverclyde

    153,317

    169,044

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    2,382

    15,273

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    6,720

    Monklands

    0

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    28,488

    36,735

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    29,303

    27,462

    Orkney

    639,138

    359,131

    Shetland

    4,603,666

    4,592,216

    Western Isles

    3,907,490

    4,186,649

    Housing support grant (expressed in real terms)

    Area

    1979–80

    1980–81

    Scotland

    463,067,442

    418,454,542

    Berwickshire

    2,830,705

    2,396,441

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    3,745,022

    3,215,882

    Roxburgh

    3,763,428

    3,615,356

    Tweeddale

    627,569

    524,018

    Clackmannan

    4,014,916

    3,335,066

    Falkirk

    17,267,054

    13,714,642

    Stirling

    4,187,529

    3,513,681

    Annandale and Eskdale

    2,374,429

    2,662,757

    Nithsdale

    2,490,726

    1,659,882

    Stewartry

    1,190,812

    1,240,182

    Wigtown

    2,271,036

    2,117,633

    Dunfermline

    11,698,969

    11,147,669

    Kirkcaldy

    13,677,804

    11,919,566

    North East Fife

    3,441,789

    3,051,566

    Aberdeen

    21,155,696

    19,681,492

    Banff and Buchan

    10,775,996

    10,077,863

    Gordon

    6,200,152

    5,245,872

    584

    Area

    1979–80

    1980–81

    Kincardine and Deeside

    2,831,050

    2,518,673

    Moray

    9,195,128

    8,072,142

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    896,383

    862,260

    Caithness

    2,672,936

    1,915,238

    Inverness

    5,341,147

    4,260,615

    Lochaber

    4,036,568

    3,347,026

    Nairn

    694,577

    644,845

    Ross and Cromarty

    8,439,927

    7,793,180

    Skye and Lochalsh

    743,705

    630,418

    Sutherland

    1,464,550

    1,337,080

    East Lothian

    10,250,768

    9,283,212

    Edinburgh

    24,454,051

    22,954,328

    Midlothian

    7,587,907

    6,114,360

    West Lothian

    10,102,103

    8,794,695

    Argyll and Bute

    7,401,504

    6,538,941

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    1,008,760

    840,549

    Clydebank

    7,700,399

    7,394,994

    Clydesdale

    3,998,815

    3,029,116

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    1,470,868

    1,229,321

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    4,302,634

    3,323,926

    Cunninghame

    10,417,216

    8,539,438

    Dumbarton

    6,505,334

    5,143,857

    East Kilbride

    710,277

    623,985

    Eastwood

    613,018

    557,128

    Glasgow

    90,044,590

    90,747,028

    Hamilton

    10,763,517

    9,196,894

    Inverclyde

    12,157,747

    11,260,801

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    7,778,880

    7,644,020

    Kyle and Carrick

    9,596,226

    7,979,950

    Monklands

    9,984,394

    7,994,288

    Motherwell

    17,185,236

    15,024,068

    Renfrew

    14,074,776

    12,049,422

    Strathkelvin

    4,244,805

    4,403,099

    Angus

    9,193,100

    8,018,148

    Dundee

    16,796,932

    15,773,677

    Perth and Kinross

    7,601,007

    5,717,857

    Orkney

    2,330,724

    2,023,101

    Shetland

    4,556,024

    3,465,440

    Western Isles

    2,206,228

    2,287,853

    Area

    1981–82

    1982–83

    Scotland

    270,740,313

    163,338,282

    Berwickshire

    1,736,410

    1,071,241

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    1,930,934

    862,616

    Roxburgh

    2,570,770

    1,819,721

    Tweeddale

    182,369

    0

    Clackmannan

    2,147,161

    1,076,550

    Falkirk

    7,405,733

    2,332,707

    Stirling

    1,699,965

    2,084,321

    Annandale and Eskdale

    2,128,740

    2,165,266

    Nithsdale

    167

    0

    Stewartry

    907,271

    644,401

    Wigtown

    1,283,844

    706,107

    Dunfermline

    4,682,465

    1,066,384

    Kirkcaldy

    5,145,849

    1,086,904

    North East Fife

    1,638,051

    1,294,427

    Aberdeen

    15,943,354

    11,067,549

    Banff and Buchan

    7,263,703

    5,160,975

    Gordon

    3,978,506

    3,497,747

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,560,876

    1,276,803

    Moray

    5,940,323

    3,593,247

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    728,343

    788,938

    Caithness

    1,465,128

    1,275,977

    Inverness

    2,727,857

    2,146,783

    Lochaber

    3,032,425

    2,159,828

    Nairn

    421,400

    321,677

    Ross and Cromarty

    7,022,763

    5,453,354

    Skye and Lochalsh

    529,686

    493,778

    Sutherland

    868,436

    746,097

    East Lothian

    5,276,934

    3,246,785

    Edinburgh

    13,159,819

    3,634,000

    Midlothian

    2,996,048

    1,415,486

    West Lothian

    3,648,917

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    4,701,905

    4,320,106

    585

    Area

    1981–82

    1982–83

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    323,733

    0

    Clydebank

    5,493,742

    3,437,156

    Clydesdale

    967,369

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    196,930

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    1,370,804

    260,995

    Cunninghame

    4,589,542

    1,163,360

    Dumbarton

    1,969,444

    0

    East Kilbride

    163,983

    0

    Eastwood

    25,857

    0

    Glasgow

    73,746,536

    58,216,532

    Hamilton

    5,424,230

    2,410,259

    Inverclyde

    7,430,226

    4,758,521

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    3,153,819

    465,719

    Kyle and Carrick

    4,695,393

    1,422,812

    Monklands

    7,110,570

    5,030,562

    Motherwell

    9,595,022

    5,146,117

    Renfrew

    3,655,844

    0

    Strathkelvin

    2,573,744

    1.871,611

    Angus

    4,180,266

    1,907,296

    Dundee

    8,839,410

    2,841,393

    Perth and Kinross

    2,189,491

    0

    Orkney

    1,809,766

    1,330,683

    Shetland

    4,389,022

    4,144,073

    Western Isles

    2,119,420

    2,121,418

    Area

    1983–84

    1984–85

    Scotland

    97,228,171

    95,496,286

    Berwickshire

    968,079

    691,671

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    502,828

    152,402

    Roxburgh

    1,697,082

    1.798,477

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    60,623

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    27,511

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    2,119,559

    2,377,080

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    558.336

    510,216

    Wigtown

    343,796

    284,615

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    416.868

    124,220

    Aberdeen

    5,015,488

    4,338,562

    Banff and Buchan

    3,281,814

    2,761,248

    Gordon

    2,302.431

    2,756,876

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,309,105

    1,213,470

    Moray

    2,675,793

    2,543,415

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    694,239

    692,370

    Caithness

    1,103.555

    1,173,965

    Inverness

    1,671,480

    1,854,400

    Lochaber

    1,796,899

    1,741,686

    Nairn

    357,364

    322,696

    Ross and Cromarty

    4,163,452

    4,605,860

    Skye and Lochalsh

    435,372

    561,221

    Sutherland

    600,704

    664,934

    East Lothian

    1,414,584

    557,493

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    3,439,774

    3,280,637

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    0

    0

    Clydebank

    2,498,395

    2,521,405

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    0

    0

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    43,568,689

    45,849,596

    Hamilton

    161,338

    0

    Inverclyde

    2,511,648

    1,652,156

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    603,189

    0

    Monklands

    2,296,238

    2,779,205

    586

    Area

    1983–84

    1984–85

    Motherwell

    1,396,933

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    440,216

    3,943

    Angus

    244,157

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    985,490

    1,107,164

    Shetland

    3,243,903

    3,927,507

    Western Isles

    2,321,239

    2,647,798

    Area

    1985–861

    1986–87

    Scotland

    86,419,017

    57,973,536

    Berwickshire

    601,138

    262,212

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    1,758,801

    1,240,734

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    0

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    2,369,250

    1,802,300

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    462,404

    330,744

    Wigtown

    128,683

    0

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    3,043,605

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    2,154,052

    727,758

    Gordon

    2,424,102

    2,397,176

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,268,858

    1,015,812

    Moray

    2,032,288

    889,798

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    670,418

    506,105

    Caithness

    1,011,253

    864,428

    Inverness

    2,033,893

    1,347,795

    Lochaber

    1,882,697

    1,879,003

    Nairn

    294,475

    236,788

    Ross and Cromarty

    4,678,601

    4,143,426

    Skye and Lochalsh

    629,266

    764,929

    Sutherland

    698,092

    681,651

    East Lothian

    31,287

    0

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    2,902,184

    1,791,195

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    0

    0

    Clydebank

    2,395,202

    1,048,453

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    0

    0

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    43,999,308

    28,538,776

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    Inverclyde

    757,483

    0

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    0

    Monklands

    441,895

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    1,083,893

    892,152

    Shetland

    3,741,614

    3,826,161

    Western Isles

    2,924,277

    2,786,139

    587

    Area

    1987–88

    1988–89

    Scotland

    51,828,731

    62,996,816

    Berwickshire

    278,579

    105,415

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    1,379,009

    1,297,158

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    0

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,654,261

    1,795,820

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    477,463

    476,311

    Wigtown

    328,130

    473,341

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    0

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    763,729

    284,662

    Gordon

    3,367,258

    3,778,553

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,566,966

    1,865,574

    Moray

    1,214,617

    708,261

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    572,106

    443,144

    Caithness

    938,829

    1,167,941

    Inverness

    1,430,837

    1,580,452

    Lochaber

    1,727,068

    2,076,313

    Nairn

    259,035

    316,668

    Ross and Cromarty

    4,128,881

    4,374,613

    Skye and Lochalsh

    976,305

    1,136,901

    Sutherland

    796,025

    918,818

    East Lothian

    0

    0

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    2,113,396

    1,829,181

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    63,336

    144,107

    Clydebank

    972,410

    1,189,102

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    78,532

    38,625

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    18,691,214

    28,436,611

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    Inverclyde

    0

    0

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    0

    Monklands

    0

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    919,235

    980,589

    Shetland

    3,922,506

    4,240,803

    Western Isles

    3,209,005

    3,337,854

    Area

    1989–90

    1990–91

    Scotland

    70,644,473

    57,963,694

    Berwickshire

    52,841

    0

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    1,448,816

    1,321,472

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    0

    0

    Stirling

    0

    0

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,821,971

    1,504,110

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    550,947

    436,944

    Wigtown

    596,393

    600,795

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    588

    Area

    1989–90

    1990–91

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    0

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    148,094

    0

    Gordon

    4,098,522

    3,792,482

    Kincardine and Deeside

    2,079,975

    1,882,382

    Moray

    572

    0

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    425,726

    386,736

    Caithness

    1,330,110

    1,330,831

    Inverness

    2,109,514

    1,934,977

    Lochaber

    2,324,742

    2,398,530

    Nairn

    372,853

    350,804

    Ross and Cromarty

    4,494,476

    4,231,891

    Skye and Lochalsh

    1,302,061

    1,303,836

    Sutherland

    1,049,296

    1,006,044

    East Lothian

    0

    0

    Edinburgh

    0

    0

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    1,921,346

    1,041,664

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    301,845

    317,125

    Clydebank

    1,093,310

    650,646

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    0

    0

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    0

    0

    Eastwood

    0

    0

    Glasgow

    33,211,751

    24,536,123

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    Inverclyde

    0

    0

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    0

    0

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    0

    Monklands

    0

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    0

    0

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    07

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    0

    0

    Orkney

    840,546

    783,399

    Shetland

    449,532

    4,395,805

    Western Isles

    4,047,552

    3,757,098

    Area

    1991–92

    1992–93

    Scotland

    48,083,080

    39,400,746

    Berwickshire

    0

    0

    Ettrick and Lauderdale

    0

    0

    Roxburgh

    988,001

    603,185

    Tweeddale

    0

    0

    Clackmannan

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    79,692

    102,191

    Stirling

    115,096

    96,659

    Annandale and Eskdale

    1,117,274

    956,155

    Nithsdale

    0

    0

    Stewartry

    152,519

    173,055

    Wigtown

    395,024

    299,421

    Dunfermline

    0

    0

    Kirkcaldy

    0

    0

    North East Fife

    0

    0

    Aberdeen

    0

    0

    Banff and Buchan

    0

    0

    Gordon

    3,303,168

    2,987,057

    Kincardine and Deeside

    1,585,731

    1,317,454

    Moray

    0

    0

    Badenoch and Strathspey

    286,502

    270,640

    Caithness

    1,083,402

    964,299

    Inverness

    1,437,896

    1,078,954

    Lochaber

    2,136,656

    1,921,825

    Nairn

    266,208

    204,878

    Ross and Cromarty

    3,607,848

    3,370,519

    Skye and Lochalsh

    1,165,072

    1,112,006

    Sutherland

    861,061

    708,066

    East Lothian

    0

    0

    589

    Area

    1991–92

    1992–93

    Edinburgh

    456,358

    444,677

    Midlothian

    0

    0

    West Lothian

    0

    0

    Argyll and Bute

    536,213

    262,074

    Bearsden and Milngavie

    261,725

    61,212

    Clydebank

    380,388

    124,886

    Clydesdale

    0

    0

    Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

    0

    0

    Cumnock and Doon Valley

    0

    0

    Cunninghame

    6,743

    8,931

    Dumbarton

    0

    0

    East Kilbride

    53,452

    83,741

    Eastwood

    7,033

    9,614

    Glasgow

    19,678,223

    14,442,806

    Hamilton

    0

    0

    lnverclyde

    132,981

    140,308

    Kilmarnock and Loudoun

    2,066

    12,676

    Kyle and Carrick

    0

    5,578

    Monklands

    0

    0

    Motherwell

    0

    0

    Renfrew

    24,709

    30,490

    Strathkelvin

    0

    0

    Angus

    0

    0

    Dundee

    0

    0

    Perth and Kinross

    25,416

    22,794

    Orkney

    554,364

    298,081

    Shetland

    3,993,049

    3,811,569

    Western Isles

    3,389,211

    3,474,946

    Homelessness
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless persons for each year since 1979; and if he will provide a breakdown by local authority.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The information requested is not held centrally.

    Data Protection
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Officials are aware of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation or other initiatives that may affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984, and will consult him as necessary when planning the collection, use or disclosure of automated personal data.

    Aircraft Noise
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the noise insulation of schools in the vicinity of military airports.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967–1979 place a duty on education authorities to secure that every part of a school building under their management shall have acoustic conditions and insulation against disturbance by noise appropriate to the use for which the part of the building is designed.
    590
    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has commissioned into the effects on the teaching of pupils in schools in the vicinity of military airports as a result of aircraft noise.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 16 June 1992: None.

    Rents
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in public sector rents in real and constant price terms since 1979 in Scotland.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The increase between average weekly public sector rents in 1979–80—expressed at 1992–93 prices, using GDP deflators and such rents in 1992–93—was as follows:

    £

    Local Authority

    11.94

    SSHA/Scottish Homes

    14.94

    New Towns

    11.18

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current average length of time it takes to have a case heard by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Scotland.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: The annual reports of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board give details of time taken to resolve cases. Copies of the reports are available in the Library. Separate details for Scottish cases are not available.

    Mrs. Fyfe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board may make an award in cases where the procurator fiscal has not brought charges, and the accused does not admit the offences.

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    [holding answer 16 June 1992]: Yes.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were eligible for employment training in each of the years since it started in Scotland.

    Mr. Stewart
    [holding answer 16 June 1992:] The information is not available in the form requested. Those aged between 18 and 59 and registered as unemployed for six months or more are eligible for employment training. Certain groups are also eligible if they have not been unemployed for six months—for example, people with disabilities, lone parents, returners to the labour market, ex-regulars and people seeking skill shortage training; data is available in respect of the long-term unemployed only, as set out in the table.

    Registered number unemployed for six months and over in Scotland

    Number

    January 1989

    150,500

    January 1990

    119,600

    January 1991

    104,800

    January 1992

    122,200

    Hospitals (Assaults)
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals in Scotland where(a) staff and (b) patients have been assaulted by other patients or members of the general public in the last six months; and if he will provide the statistics of these assaults.

    Mr. Stewart
    This information is not held centrally.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Mature Students
    Mr. John Evans
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of mature students who have paid national insurance contributions and who are not entitled to claim social security benefits.

    Miss Widdecombe
    People who are in full-time education and have previously paid national insurance contributions are entitled to claim contributory social security benefits apart from unemployment benefit. It is estimated that there are about 280,000 full-time students in England over age 21, but the number of these who have paid national insurance contributions is not known.

    Maxwell Pensioners
    Mr. Frank Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990 will apply to each of the Maxwell-owned pension schemes.

    Miss Widdecombe
    Section 58B will apply to any salary-related pension scheme that is being wound up, or where the employer goes into liquidation.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Sproat
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the name of the body which adjudicates on appeals against decision on levels of disability living allowance; how many people serve on this body; what are their names; how many of these persons have medical experience; how often the body meets; how many cases are currently waiting to be heard; and how many have been waiting for, respectively, over three months and over six months.

    Mr. Scott
    Disability appeal tribunals adjudicate on appeals against decisions on disability living allowance. The administration of these tribunals is the responsibility of the president of the independent tribunal service, his honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may wish to contact his office direct to obtain this information.

    Mr. Sproat
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delays in hearing appeals on disability living allowances.

    Mr. Scott
    There are no delays in hearing appeals on disability living allowance. If the hon. Member wishes to obtain more detailed information on the time taken to clear appeals he may receive this from the office of his honour Judge Holden, the president of the independent tribunal service, which is responsible for the administration of disability appeal tribunals.

    Severe Disablement Allowance
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because 196 days of continuous incapacity commenced before their 20th birthday; and what proportion of these were(a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (2) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because of previous receipt of noncontributory invalidity pension; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (3) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance or war pensioners' mobility supplement; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (4) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of a previous assessment under the industrial injuries or war pensions schemes; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (5) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of receipt of a vaccine damage payment: and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (6) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of being registered blind or partially sighted; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (7) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of receipt of an invalid tricycle, car or car allowance; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (8) how many people in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available became entitled because they were classified as 80 per cent. disabled by adjudicating medical authorities; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (9) how many people were in receipt of severe disablement allowance at the last date for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women.

    Mr. Scott
    Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table. The latest date for which information is available is March 1990. The information is based on a 1 per cent. sample and has been rounded to he nearest 1,000. It is statistically unreliable to express the separate entries as proportions or percentages.
    593

    Severe disablement allowance beneficiaries as at 31 March 1990

    Condition

    Male

    Married Women

    Single Women1

    Total

    Under 20 when incapacity arose

    20,000

    1,000

    15,000

    35,000

    Links with NCIP/HNCIP/SDA

    1,000

    1,000

    1,000

    3,000

    MOB A/AA awarded

    5,000

    15,000

    5,000

    25,000

    Blind/partially sighted

    4

    2,000

    4

    2,000

    Other passport benefit2

    1,000

    1,000

    1,000

    3,000

    Adjudicating medical authorities

    5,000

    10,000

    4,000

    18,000

    Others

    381,000

    43,000

    76,000

    199,000

    Total

    112,000

    71,000

    101,000

    285,000

    Notes:

    1 Single women includes single, divorced and widows.

    2 Other passport benefits include invalid tricycle, car or private car allowance, vaccine damage payments, industrial injuries and war pensions.

    3 Other condition relates to those transferred from NCIP/HNCIP with continuous entitlement.

    4 Figure less than 500.

    Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of receipt of attendance allowance, mobility allowance or war pensioners' mobility supplement; and what proportion of these were(a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (2) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of receipt of a vaccine damage payment; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (3) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of receipt of an invalid tricycle, car or car allowance; and what proportion of these were (a) men. (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (4) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available became entitled because 196 days of continuous incapacity commenced before their 20th birthday; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (5) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of a previous assessment under the industrial injuries or war pensions schemes; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    6) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by virtue of being registered blind or partially sighted; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women;

    (7) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available became entitled because they were deemed 80 per cent. disabled by adjudicating medical authorities; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women:

    (8) how many people awarded severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were (a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women.
    594
    Mr. Scott
    Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table. It is based on a 1 per cent. sample and has been rounded to the nearest 1,000. It is statistically unreliable to express the separate entries as proportions or percentages.

    Severe Disablement Allowance Awards during the period 3 April 1989–31 March 1990

    Condition

    Male

    Married Women

    Single Women1

    Total

    Under 20 when incapacity arose

    5,000

    3—

    4,000

    10,000

    Links with NCIP/HNCIP/SDA

    3—

    3—

    n/a

    3—

    MOB A/AA awarded

    1,000

    3,000

    1,000

    5,000

    Blind/partially sighted

    n/a

    3—

    nla

    3—

    Other passport benefit2

    3—

    3—

    3—

    1,000

    Adjudicating medical authorities

    1,000

    2,000

    1,000

    4,000

    Total

    8,000

    6,000

    6,000

    20,000

    n/a = Not available.

    1 Single women includes single, divorced and widows.

    2 Other passport benefits include invalid tricycle, car or private car allowance, vaccine damage payments, industrial injuries and war pensions.

    3 Figures less than 500.

    Totals may not sum due to rounding.
    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were refused severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available(a) on grounds of age, (b) through failure to pass the incapacity conditions, (c) through failure to pass the 80 per cent. disability test, (d) through failure to satisfy residence and presence conditions and (e) for other reasons; and what proportion in each category were (i) men, (ii) single women and (iii) married women.

    Mr. Scott
    The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Alfred Morris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people applied for severe disablement allowance in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were(a) men, (b) single women and (c) married women.

    Mr. Scott
    In 1991–92 almost 64,500 claims were received. Information by gender is not available.

    State Pensions
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receive a state pension in Wales.

    Miss Widdecombe
    In September 1991, 529,000 pensioners received a state pension in Wales.

    Notes:

    (1) Figure rounded to nearest thousand.

    (2) Figure does not include those in receipt of graduated retirement benefit only.

    Pension Law
    Mr. French
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to announce the names of the committee that will examine possible changes in pension law.

    Miss Widdecombe
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to make an announcement soon.

    Benefits
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the(a) administrative costs, (b) benefit expenditure and (c) administrative expenditure as a proportion of expenditure, for (i) supplementary benefit and (ii) single payments for the last three years of their operation.

    Mr. Scott
    Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

    £ million

    Year

    1985–86

    1986–87

    1987–88

    (a) Administrative costs1 2

    839

    929

    1,106

    (b) Benefit expenditure 1

    7,377

    7,962

    7,952

    (c) (a) as a percentage of total expenditure

    10.2

    10.4

    12.2

    1 Supplementary benefit and single payments.

    2 Estimate.

    Single Payments
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State Security what was the number and percentage applicants who were awarded single payments three years of their operation; and if he will breakdown by(a) region and (b) DSS office.

    Mr. Scott
    Information is not available in the precise form requested. Single payments could be awarded to people entitled to supplementary benefit. National figures for the number of payments made in each year, and the total number of people receiving supplementary benefit is in the table.

    The number of people who received awards is likely to he significantly lower than the number of payments in any given year, since any one person may have received more than one award.

    Similar information for each office can be derived from information held in the Library.
    596

    Number of payments (000)

    Number of recipients of supplementary benefit (million)

    1985–86

    4,375

    4.8

    1986–87

    4,230

    5.1

    1987–88

    2,750

    5.0

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of claims for single payments which were initially rejected by DSS offices which were the subject of awards following appeal for the last three years of its operation.

    Mr. Scott
    The information is in the table.

    Single payments awarded following Social Security Appeal Tribunal hearings

    Number

    1986

    13,920

    1987

    20,866

    1988

    31,034

    Social Fund
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure of providing(a) maternity payments, (b) funeral expenses and (c) cold weather payments for the past three years expressed (i) in cash terms, (ii) in cash terms at 1990–91 prices and (iii) as a percentage of total social security expenditure; and if he will provide a breakdown by (1) region and (2) local DSS office.

    Mr. Scott
    Not all the information requested is readily available and it could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available will he placed in the Library shortly.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to draw the social fund to the attention of those it has identified as likely to be applicants; and what is the total expenditure involved.

    Mr. Scott
    Information about the Fund is included in general guides to social security published by the Department. There are also two specific leaflets on the fund, numbered SFL2 and SB16. These leaflets have been revised and clarified recently. It is not possible to isolate expenditure on the social fund from other departmental publicity spending.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to alter the eligibility criteria used in making discretionary awards under the social fund; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Scott
    I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 8 June at columns 6-8.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are(a) the administrative costs, (b) benefit expenditure and (c) administrative costs as a proportion of expenditure, for (i) the social fund, (ii) income support and (iii) income support and social fund combined, for each of the social fund's operation;
    597
    (2) what was the total expenditure of administering the social fund expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) at 1990–91 prices and (c) as a percentage of gross social fund expenditure; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local DSS office;

    (3) what is the total expenditure of the social fund expressed as a percentage of (a) total social security expenditure and (b) total running costs for each year of its operation.

    Mr. Scott
    Information on social security expenditure and administration costs for 1988–89 to 1990–91 is in the Library. Details of social fund administration costs for 1991–92 are not yet available. Information about administrative costs by region or DSS local office is not available.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications initially rejected by(a) social fund officers and (b) social fund inspectors were the subject of awards following review for each year of its operation; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local DSS office.

    Mr. Scott
    The information requested about social fund officers' decisions is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Regarding social fund inspectors' decisions, I am informed by the social fund commissioner that information by each local office is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The table summarises the data collected by DSS region.

    Region

    1988–89

    1989–90

    1990–91

    1 1991–92

    London North

    —

    0

    10

    25

    London South

    —

    1

    8

    9

    Midlands

    —

    3

    3

    14

    North East

    —

    3

    17

    26

    North West

    —

    1

    11

    26

    Scotland

    —

    0

    9

    47

    Wales and South West

    —

    1

    8

    21

    1 Data for 1991–92 is provisional.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total budget for(a) the social fund, (b) budgeting loans, (c) crisis loans and (d) community care grants and the percentage of each budget which was actually spent for each year of its operation; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local DSS office.

    Mr. Scott
    Information on social fund allocations and expenditure is in the Library. The allocations for loans are not subdivided for budgeting and crisis loans.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that social fund applicants and potential applicants are made aware of the role of the social fund inspectors;

    (2) what is the estimated cost and time scale for implementing any planned improvements to the computer system which are deemed necessary for the efficient operation of the social fund and the production of reliable performance data;

    (3) what is the level of departmental manpower absorbed by the social fund expressed (a) in numbers and (b) as a percentage of total departmental manpower for each year of its operation.

    Mr. Scott
    The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the 598
    Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

    Loans and Grants
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants were refused(a) budgeting loans, (b) crisis loans and (c) community care grants for each year of their operation; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local DSS office.

    Mr. Scott
    Information is not available in the form requested.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the performance targets in working days which were set for(a) budgeting loans, (b) crisis loans and (c) community care grants and the actual average clearance times achieved in each of the years for which information is available; and if he will provide a breakdown by region.

    Mr. Scott
    Performance targets and clearance of social fund applications are a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

    Mortgage Interest Payments
    Ms. Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will change the procedures of his Department in respect of mortgage interest payments, so that mortgage lenders receive payments by the due date, instead of one month in arrears to prevent mortgagors being threatened with repossession.

    Mr. Burt
    The Council of Mortgage Lenders gave an assurance last December that lenders would not seek possession if the mortgage interest due was paid direct from income support. The present direct payment scheme began on 25 May.

    Mortgage payments are usually made at the end of each calendar monthly period. Similarly, the direct payment of the income mortgage interest allowance is made to lenders at the end of each four-weekly period. While the payment date may be changed, that of itself would not have the adverse effect suggested. Consequently, we see no reason to change the procedures.

    Priority Groups
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure greater consistency within and between local DSS offices in the treatment of priority groups.

    Mr. Scott
    Social fund officers are already provided with a framework of directions and guidance which allows them to meet highest priority needs whenever they occur. Copies are available in the Library.

  HEALTH

    HIV Statistics
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been(a) tested and (b) proven to be HIV positive in the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool health authority areas in each year since 1988–89.

    Mr. Sackville
    Records are not routinely kept by district health authorities of the total numbers of people tested for HIV and a detailed breakdown is therefore not available. In respect of Hartlepool, Sunderland, Durham, North West Durham and South West Durham health authorities, 23 individuals have been reported as infected with HIV to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre since April 1988; 14 of these were in the 12 months to March 1992. The AIDS (Control) Act provides that where the number of newly infected HIV persons is fewer than 10 the district health authority is not required to provide numbers.

    Ischaemic Heart Disease (410-414)

    1987 deaths

    1988 deaths

    1989 deaths

    1990 deaths

    1991 deaths

    North East Thames RHA

    Male

    5,881

    5,538

    5,401

    5,225

    5,341

    Female

    4,426

    4,404

    4,233

    4,193

    4,234

    F01 Basildon and Thurrock

    Male

    429

    392

    382

    366

    412

    Female

    263

    293

    296

    258

    272

    F02 Mid Essex

    Male

    403

    371

    381

    393

    355

    Female

    285

    288

    248

    265

    266

    F03 North East Essex

    Male

    602

    578

    522

    500

    559

    Female

    451

    459

    436

    454

    470

    F04 West Essex

    Male

    360

    371

    342

    328

    413

    Female

    269

    279

    246

    75

    262

    F05 Southend

    Male

    553

    514

    516

    464

    462

    Female

    445

    437

    397

    377

    415

    F06 Barking, Havering and Brentwood

    Male

    761

    688

    751

    729

    742

    Female

    559

    538

    573

    576

    564

    F07 Hampstead

    Male

    148

    133

    117

    104

    125

    Female

    119

    104

    108

    114

    111

    F08 Bloomsbury

    Male

    206

    193

    210

    166

    281

    Female

    144

    134

    142

    155

    247

    F09 Islington

    Male

    218

    221

    227

    202

    1—

    Female

    181

    187

    158

    161

    1—

    F10 City and Hackney

    Male

    245

    251

    216

    251

    231

    Female

    211

    187

    195

    185

    197

    F11 Newham

    Male

    336

    282

    296

    270

    283

    Female

    220

    239

    210

    203

    227

    F12 Tower Hamlets

    Male

    266

    243

    240

    222

    211

    Female

    193

    181

    164

    141

    160

    F13 Enfield

    Male

    397

    382

    355

    341

    333

    Female

    315

    308

    289

    298

    318

    F14 Haringey

    Male

    267

    239

    227

    240

    230

    Female

    240

    224

    219

    196

    199

    F15 Redbridge

    Male

    384

    323

    324

    346

    382

    Female

    248

    286

    266

    304

    228

    Heart Disease
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what form figures exist for the incidence of coronary heart disease broken down to local authority districts or wards; and if she will publish the number of cases for both men and women in each local authority district or ward over the past five years.

    Mr. Sackville
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the number of cases of coronary heart disease for both men and women for each health district within the North East Thames region over the past five years.

    Mr. Sackville
    Information on the incidence of heart disease in the community is not available centrally. The table shows the numbers of deaths for ischaemic heart disease in each health authority in the North East Thames region. Due to boundary changes in 1991, figures for Islington are no longer available separately.
    601

    1987 deaths

    1988 deaths

    1989 deaths

    1990 deaths

    1991 deaths

    F16 Waltham Forest

    Male

    306

    357

    295

    303

    322

    Female

    283

    260

    286

    231

    298

    1 Please note there were certain boundary changes in 1991 to Bloomsbury and Islington.

    Source: OPCS Death Registrations.

    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list in rank order the incidence of coronary heart disease, as a percentage of the male and female population, of each health district in the North East Thames region; and if she will break down these figures to local authority districts or wards.

    Estimated percentage of deaths by cause and by sex 1987 to 1991

    Ischaemic heart disease (410-414)

    1987 Per cent. of deaths

    1988 Per cent. of deaths

    1989 Per cent. of deaths

    1990 Per cent. of deaths

    1991 Per cent. of deaths

    North East Thames RHA

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F01 Basildon and Thurrock

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F02 Mid Essex

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F03 North East Essex

    Male

    0.4

    0.4

    0.3

    0.3

    0.4

    Female

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    F04 West Essex

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F05 Southend

    Male

    0.4

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.3

    0.3

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F06 Barking, Havering and Brentwood

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.3

    0.2

    F07 Hampstead

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F08 Bloomsbury

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.4

    0.3

    1—

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    1—

    F09 Islington

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.2

    1—

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    1—

    F10 City and Hackney

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.2

    0.3

    0.2

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F11 Newham

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F12 Tower Hamlets

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F13 Enfield

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F14 Haringey

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.2

    0.3

    0.2

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    F15 Redbridge

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.2

    0.2

    0.2

    0.3

    0.2

    F16 Waltham Forest

    Male

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    0.3

    Female

    0.3

    0.2

    0.3

    0.2

    0.3

    Please note 1991 figures based on 1990's populations.

    1 Due to boundary changes in Bloomsbury and Islington Health Authorities the rates cannot be calculated for 1991.
    602
    Mr. Sackville
    The information is not available precisely in the form requested. The table shows the death rate per head of population for each district in North East Thames regional health authority. Figures on incidence within the community are not collected centrally.

    Maternity Services
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions she has reached as a result of her review of maternity services; and what steps she has so far taken to implement those conclusions.

    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will be responding to the report of the Health Select Committee on maternity services, second report, Session 1991–92.

    Mr. Sackville
    I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 22 May at column 306.

    Abortion
    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the progress of the research commissioned by her Department into the effects of post-abortion trauma.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The Department funded a major study by the Manchester research unit of the Royal College of General Practitioners into the long and short-term sequelae of abortion. The study ran from 1976 to the end of 1990. A number of papers have been either published or are in the public arena having been presented through conferences. Only one of these papers, that on the psychiatric sequelae of abortion, addressed the effects of post-abortion trauma. The paper was presented to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of General Practitioners on 7 November 1990. The final conclusions of this part of the study are expected to be published later this year.

    Mr. Alton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department is conducting as to the stage of development at which the unborn child experiences pain; what steps she is taking to reduce the level of pain experienced by an unborn child which is aborted; and if she will make a statement.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The Department is not currently supporting any such research. The abortion procedure is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned in discussion with the patient.

    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service abortions have been performed in each year for the last 10 years; and how many applications for national health service abortions have been refused over the same period.

    Mr. Sackville
    The number of abortions performed in the National Health Service in England, Wales and Scotland in each of the last 10 years for which full figures are available is shown in the table. Information on the number of applications for an NHS abortion which were refused is not available centrally.

    Number of National Health Service abortions England, Wales and Scotland 1981–1990

    Year

    Number of NHS abortions1

    1981

    72,430

    1982

    75,144

    1983

    75,694

    604

    Year

    Number of NHS abortions1

    1984

    78,776

    1985

    80,168

    1986

    83,800

    1987

    86,828

    1988

    88,439

    1989

    89,980

    1990

    93,312

    1 These figures include those abortions carried out in England and Wales under an agency agreement (operations carried out in non-NHS premises on NHS patients).

    Hospital Assaults
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hospitals where(a) staff and (b) patients have been assaulted by either patients or members of the general public in the last six months; and if she will provide the statistics of these assaults.

    Mr. Sackville
    This information is not available centrally.

    Limbless Ex-Service Men
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will meet members of the British Limbless Ex-Sevicemen's Association to discuss her Department's guidance on priority treatment for their disabilities.

    Mr. Yeo
    We have no plans to meet members of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association at present.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospitals have been closed, (b) beds have been closed, (c) hospitals have been opened and (d) beds have been opened, since 1979.

    Mr. Sackville
    Information is not available centrally in the form requested.

    Smear Tests
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the time between a smear test taking place and the result being given to the patient.

    Mr. Sackville
    Health authorities have made significant progress in ensuring that women receive the results of a smear test within the national one month target. At December 1990, around two thirds were meeting the target, by December 1991 more than 96 per cent. of health authorities were reporting cervical smear results within one month or less. We expect regional health authorities to monitor the performance of districts to ensure this high level of performance continues.

    NHS Trust Federation
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the relative roles of the National Health Service Trust Federation and regional health authorities.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The National Health Service Trust Federation is a body set up by the trusts themselves to represent them. It has no statutory role.
    605
    Regional health authorities are statutory bodies which have a key strategic role in the management structure of the reformed NHS. They are the Government's agents for managing change and for ensuring the implementation of the Government's policies on health.

    District Health Authorities
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each major type of service and treatment provided by the national health service and indicate which of these services are provided by all district health authorities.

    Mr. Sackville
    It is the responsibility of each district health authority to secure a comprehensive range of services for their resident population based on a local assessment of their health needs. A list of the services provided by each of the authorities for their resident population is not held centrally.

    NHS Spending
    Mr. Hinchliffe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of annual NHS spending as a proportion of gross domestic product excluding capital receipts from the disposal of NHS properties.

    Mr. Sackville
    Total United Kingdom national health service spending is estimated at 5.8 per cent. of gross domestic product for 1992–93. Excluding capital receipts the figure is estimated to be 5.7 per cent.

    Human Growth Hormone
    Miss Emma Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy to continue Department of Health funding for a specialist counsellor at the Institue for Child Health for those suffering from Creutzfeld-Jakob disease;

    (2) what measures she intends to take to ensure that former recipients of human growth hormone treatment will be able to obtain life assurance;

    (3) whether all people who were injected with human growth hormone treatments have been contacted and made aware of the possible implications of contaminated treatment.

    Mr. Yeo
    In the United Kingdom and Eire 1,910 patients were treated with pituitary derived human growth hormone between 1959 and 1985 when the link with Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease—CJD—was discovered. Action taken to trace these patients has revealed that 1,777 are still alive. Of these, 1,689 are believed to be currently resident in Great Britain of whom some 1,580—over 90 per cent.—have been linked to a general practitioner's list. Efforts continue to trace the remaining patients and separate arrangements have been put in hand for tracing patients resident in Northern Ireland and Eire.

    In June 1991 the Department funded a trial by the Institute of Child Health at Great Ormond Street Hospital of arrangements for notifying and counselling these patients on the risk of CJD, in consultation with their general practitioner. Regional health authorities have agreed to adopt similar procedures in notifying and counselling the remaining patients resident in their regions. The counsellors used by the regional health authorities will be trained at the Institute of Child Health.
    606
    Central funding has been extended for this purpose and to enable the Institute to continue to investigate the health and welfare needs of these patients.

    By now we estimate that some 500 patients have been notified and offered counselling. We have asked for reports on the progress of the counselling programme. If these indicate that obtaining life assurance is a problem, we will consider an approach to the industry.

    Residential Care
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will institute a policy requiring the constant availability of beds in nursing homes for people in(a) local auhtority residential homes and (b) private residential homes.

    Mr. Yeo
    No. Forcing either local authorities or private home owners to keep beds empty as suggested would neither serve the interests of prospective residents nor be an efficient use of resources.

    Greenwich Healthcare Trust
    Mr. Austin-Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will defer any decision on the Greenwich Healthcare Trust application until after the consultation on the acute services strategy for the Greenwich health district has been completed;

    (2) if she will defer any decision on the Greenwich Healthcare Trust application until the long-term future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital is known:

    (3) if she will publish the business plan for the Greenwich Healthcare Trust when she receives it.

    (4) if she will make it her policy to disclose any advice or comments which she receives from the South East Thames regional health authority on the Greenwich Healthcare Trust application.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    In reaching a decision on whether to grant trust status to Greenwich Healthcare, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take into account the outcome of consultation on all of the relevant issues surrounding the trust application. Requests for copies of responses to consultation on the trust application should be directed to the South East Thames regional health authority. It is not our policy to publish confidential advice from regional health authorities to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. With effect from 1993–94, all established trusts will publish their annual business plans. Financial summaries produced by potential trusts are confidential. It is for the trust project team to decide whether to publish these summaries.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role her Department plays in the appointment of chief executives or general managers of national health service trusts; and what role is played by the region and the district health authority.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    Regions, as co-ordinators of regional trust development programmes, are closely involved in assessing the leadership and management of proposed trusts and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, considers carefully the views of regions and districts. The appointment of chief executives of NHS trusts is a matter for the chairman and non-executives of each trust.
    607
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department gives about the reappointment of chief executives or general managers of hospitals to those positions when they become national health service trusts; and what information she has on how many have done so.

    Dr. Mawhinney
    The chief executive of a trust is appointed by the chairman and non-executive directors. All chief executive posts must be advertised except where the trust's project manager is appointed. The hon. Member may wish to approach trust chairmen for the additional information he requires.

    Jennifer Bennett
    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to reply to written representations from the Matthew Trust sent on 14 April concerning the disclosure of Miss Jennifer Bennett's identity and medical records to the press.

    Mr. Sackville
    We are investigating the issues raised by the Matthew Trust and will send a response as soon as possible.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
Several Lords Several Lords —Took the Oath.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their present policy towards curbing carbon dioxide emissions in Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, our policy is set out in the report on the United Kingdom National Programme for Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions, published last month. Copies have been placed in the Library.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this is the third time that I have asked various Ministers for a straight Answer to the Question. Each time that the Government have published their policy they have made it conditional upon other countries following suit. Following the Rio Conference and the clear assertion by the United States that it will not observe targets, will the noble Lord now tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government still intend to proceed with their promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in this country to their 1990 level by the year 2000?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extraordinary assertion in saying that he has not had a straight Answer. Having directed him towards the report, I thought that that was a very straight Answer.
As the noble Lord knows, we have signed the Climate Change Convention at Rio. I can also tell the House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to the President of the Council of Ministers at the European Community and to the President of the G7 countries suggesting that we go forward together to ratify the Climate Change Convention.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in this as in some other great matters, is it not better that we should set an example to other countries rather than feel that we should keep in step with those who may not have done so well?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course we should set an example. That is why the Prime Minister was the first world leader to announce his intention to be present at Rio. However, we believe that firm action to reduce CO2 emissions has to be taken in step with the remainder of our competitors and the developing world because that is the best way to tackle what is undoubtedly a global problem.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I happen to be in the business of promoting energy efficiency which I believe to be in the public interest as well as, I hope, in the commercial interests of my company. We should be much helped if we knew that the Government's policy on emissions was absolutely firm, irrespective of what any other nation might do. Does the Minister accept that we ought to set an example in this area as other questioners have pointed out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, whatever other countries do regarding their targets on CO2 emissions, we hope that they will ratify the convention with us. We are firm supporters of moves towards greater energy efficiency, as the noble Lord knows with his experience in that field.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the Minister state what progress has been made in the installation of desulphurisation equipment in British coal-fired stations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord's question has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions. However, I understand that substantial progress has been made.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister read the proceedings at the Rio Conference which emphasised the importance of forestry in observing carbon dioxide emissions? In those circumstances does he support an increase of the afforestation programme in the United Kingdom as well as expressing concern for forestry in other parts of the world?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as a former chairman of the Forestry Commission, the noble Lord knows that the Government have an outstanding commitment to forestry. The programme is changing emphasis, with afforestation coming downhill and on to better land. Such a programme will help all our environmental needs.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the general belief is that the Rio Conference was particularly weak on the issue of emissions? I understand that the Bush Administration notes that,
"nothing in any of the language [of the treaty]…constitutes a commitment to a special level of emissions at any time".
Does the Minister believe that, as well as setting an example, the British Government could have pushed the Bush Administration a little harder in order to make the conference more successful?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government cannot be held responsible for what other world leaders and other countries decide is in their interests. However, it is our firm intention to ratify the convention with other countries and to provide leadership. The noble Lord will know that the United States signed the Climate Change Convention. The United States' support of the process is to the benefit of the whole world.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, how much of the total amount of carbon dioxide which goes up into space is the result of man's activities and how much is the result of natural activities such as volcanos?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not have that figure readily available. However, perhaps I can be helpful by telling my noble friend that this country is responsible for some 3 per cent. of the world's CO2 emissions.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that for every cubic foot of carbon dioxide which is put out as a result of burning hydrocarbons a cubic foot of water vapour is generated, which is just as effective a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand, and it has been readily accepted, that there is no clear scientific agreement on global warming. There are certain warning signals of which we would be wise to take note.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister appeared to he pleased that the American Administration had signed the treaty. I was earlier trying to make the point, perhaps clumsily, that the Americans in their administrative comments on the treaty said that nothing in its language constituted a commitment to a specific level of emissions at any time. Therefore, they were not signing any great agreement. Does the Minister believe that our Government should both set an example and press the American Administration more strongly?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has never asked a question clumsily and he did not do so when asking the previous question. I believe that the agreement which we signed in the Climate Change Convention is challenging but achievable. For that reason we have said that we shall ratify the convention and we should like all other countries to do so too.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that unless our policy is conditional upon other countries following suit industries will be driven into areas where the conditions are less robust with the effect that carbon dioxide emissions will increase?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. This is a global problem and it needs a global solution.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, will the Government follow the example of other countries and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by supporting a greater use of the railways and by intelligent funding of the same?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a variety of ways and means of achieving our targets and we shall look at them all.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he believed in Britain taking a lead, particularly as other members of the EC have promised targets far in excess of those promised by Her Majesty's Government. I ask the Minister to give the House a straight answer. Will the Government
182
now say that, irrespective of what the Americans do or what anyone else does, the British Government are firmly committed to reducing our carbon dioxide emissions to the 1990 level by the year 2000?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, clearly the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has not listened to anything that I have said during the past nine minutes. I have said that it is a global problem which needs a global solution. Acting unilaterally will help nobody and will cause substantial harm to our industries.

Arab-Israeli Negotiations
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they and the EC are taking to help build confidence among the parties in the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and between the Arab states and Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are active with our European partners in emphasising to all parties the importance of grasping the unique opportunity for peace offered by this negotiating process. As a member of the EC troika, we have a particular role to play. We shall continue to urge all parties to institute confidence-building measures such as an end to Israeli settlement activity and an end to the Arab boycott of Israel.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful Answer. Is it not the case that at present there are little or no postal and telephone links between Israel and its Arab neighbours, with the exception of Egypt? Will the Government press for restoration of those links before a general peace settlement can be achieved?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. I understand that the Government of Israel do not prevent postal services and telecommunications operating between Israel and the occupied territories and the Arab world. I also understand that some Arab countries are not co-operating at present. We would consider it a useful confidence-building measure if those Arab countries allowed the establishment of direct links. We shall see what can be done.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will maintain and keep the British troops in the multinational force which is monitoring the Egyptian/ Israeli border? That measure will certainly build up confidence. It would be a mistake to withdraw the troops.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot commit the Government for all time and in all circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will understand that. So far as I can see at present, there is no reason for change in this matter. We believe that confidence-building measures of the kind which he

183
mentioned, and in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has taken a great interest, are very important. We intend to pursue them.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, would not the recognition of the state of Israel by the Arab states be the most effective means of building peace in the Middle East?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem; and that is the problem for many people. Nor do we recognise Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel. The city of Jerusalem as a whole is a special case, and the status of it has yet to be determined. It is the UK's view that the city should not again be divided.

Wheel Clamping: Private Operations
2.52 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the recent decision of the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh ruling that private wheel-clamping operations on private lands in Scotland are illegal, they have plans to introduce legislation to similar effect in England and Wales.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, until the terms of the recent Scottish judgment have been carefully studied, it is too early to say whether legislation is needed in England and Wales or what form it might take.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is it not interesting that it has been clearly held that to clamp cars on private property in Scotland has been deemed to be illegal by the Scottish court in question—a court of some importance? Is it not right to say that if it is illegal in Scotland, it should be illegal also in England and Wales? Why should England and Wales be discriminated against adversely in that regard?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on his first point that it is interesting; that cannot be denied. With regard to the second point, wheel clamping on private land is the subject of common law and not statute law. Therefore, it is a matter for the courts to decide.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, as part of the ruling, the chief justice in Scotland said that the practice amounted to extortion and theft? Has my noble friend found, with all his experience, that Scottish law often provides remedies in such matters where English law does not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend was referring to the comments made by the Lord Justice General. It is often the case that Scotland leads the way. It may be the case that England will follow.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, it is obvious that the law of Scotland is greatly superior to that of England since it needs no amendment to make illegal this practice of extortion and robbery. Nevertheless, did the noble Earl notice that the Lord Justice General remarked that he had great sympathy with people on whose land other people illegally parked their cars? Can he tell us what remedy is available for such people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are other remedies such as barriers or gates, which could be equally as effective but legal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the objection is not only as regards the fixing of a clamp but also the arbitrary fixing of a fine and the fact that the clamp will not be removed until the fine has been paid, against which there is no appeal? Is there no way of ensuring that profit is not made from this even though the vehicle may have been clamped to protect private property?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting point, which we are studying.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that the result of the decision by the Scottish court and the comments of the judge who presided over it have received widespread support throughout England and Wales, particularly in London where clamping results in the clamped vehicle being immobilised and therefore becoming a bigger nuisance than the other vehicles? The indiscriminate nature of the clamping and choice of vehicles for clamping is causing the whole scheme to come into disrepute. It is already regarded as nothing more than tax gathering, but it is fast becoming much more than that. As the judge in Scotland said, it is horrific.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that it is far more than tax gathering, because it is becoming a very effective means of improving traffic flow in London. Studies from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory have proved its effectiveness beyond doubt. The level of illegal parking has fallen by more than 50 per cent. since clamping began.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say how traffic flow in London is improved by securing that a vehicle which is obstructing the traffic cannot be moved away?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, because the decision can be made whether to clamp the vehicle or tow it away.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are some areas in which there is a considerable amount of illegal parking on private land? It is only the threat of clamping which can prevent that taking place.
Th Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that problem but there are other methods, which I have already mentioned, which could be used.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the illegality in Scotland lies in the demanding

185
of money rather than in the actual act of clamping? In other words, if a landowner merely clamps an offending car, thereby causing delay and inconvenience to the owner without demanding payment for the unclamping of the vehicle, has no offence been committed?
The Earl of Caithness; My Lords, that is very similar to an earlier question. We are considering that aspect.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the Government consider extending the recent Scottish decision to cover public wheel clamping operations on public land in this country? Private enterprise operations are grossly misconstruing the present regulations in order to promote their private interests at the expense of the public welfare.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the present situation is that the police, under powers in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, are authorised to do the clamping. To date, Parliament has only sanctioned wheel clamping on streets in parts of central London.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any decision in the English courts which has held that it is legal to clamp on private land?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know of any decision. It is a matter to be tested.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people believe that the threatening behaviour of many wheel clampers can be compared to the aggressive antics of 18th century highwaymen, who were rightly hung at Tyburn?
Is my noble friend aware also that last week a vehicle was clamped in front of my garage, obstructing all access to it? The clampers refused to unclamp the vehicle despite being instructed to do so by the managing agents, who claimed that they were being held to ransom. Is it not time that we should at least have a code of conduct, if not legislation, to regulate this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend's plight. He found himself in a difficult situation. I am sure that he will find comfort in the fact that the person whose car was clamped probably will not park there again.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is there a regulation in existence which states that £38 is the total amount which can be charged by the wheel dampers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The release fee is £38.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for the department to issue a code of conduct in order to help people know exactly where they stand?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall look carefully at the regulations. If they are not as clear as the noble Lord would wish them to be, I shall take the matter further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Automobile Association and the RAC have both expressed considerable anxiety in this connection about underhand practices carried out by shady operators? Does he agree that there is a clear need, which is not met at present, for a code of conduct at the very least, if not statutory control? What does the Minister say about that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, regulations have been approved by Parliament in that respect. On-street clamping is permitted only in parts of central London. The situation as regards clamping on private land in England and Wales remains unclear.

Business
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose of Beoch and Lord Hylton. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 13 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, 14 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

Hong Kong and South China
3 p.m.
Lord Mac Lehose of Beoch Lord Mac Lehose of Beoch rose to draw attention to developments in Hong Kong and South China; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled the Motion because the retirement of Lord Wilson and the arrival of Mr. Patten in Hong Kong early next month mark the beginning of the last phase of British administration and it seemed to me to be an appropriate moment at which to take stock. I am grateful for the opportunity to have a debate on the matter. I am particularly glad that my noble friend Lady Dunn was able to reschedule her programme to enable her to be with us today.
Lord Wilson has had a notable governorship in which he had to confront many new problems, including the new, close and proper involvement of China in Hong Kong in the period before China takes over. Just when the relationship with China appeared to be progressing satisfactorily it was destroyed by the events of June 1989, three years ago, and by the reaction to them, including the reaction of some people in Hong Kong and the consequent hardening of China's attitude towards Hong Kong. Thereafter, Lord Wilson had the unenviable task of rowing, often

187
against the tide, to get the relationship back to a practical basis on which all the work involved in achieving a smooth transition can be tackled. He addressed it with great courage and skill as well as with total commitment. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to him taking his seat next month.
But if Lord Wilson is to retire I have no hesitation in welcoming Mr. Patten as a replacement. It is a most imaginative appointment but it is a sign of how seriously the British Government take their responsibilities for Hong Kong that for the first time a man who is both a Privy Counsellor and of substantial Cabinet experience should be appointed. At this juncture his great political experience should serve Hong Kong well.
I assume that the appointment signifies no break in continuity of government policy, but a change in governorship inevitably produces a pause, albeit on this occasion there is not the time for a long one. It will be valuable to use the pause to bring this fresh mind to bear on the elements that favour a smooth transition and those that stubbornly appear to threaten it; those that make for a constructive relationship with China and those that do the reverse.
Before he sets out Mr. Patten will have been briefed on all the political difficulties that have made his task what is so often described as awesome. But he will find not a community that is weighed down with political care but one that is most obviously thriving in circumstances of steadily rising prosperity. It is also a community not at all at arm's length with China but, on the contrary, in ever closer economic and social contact with it. Indeed, Hong Kong combines with South China to make up the area of most rapid economic growth in the whole world. That is why I worded the Motion to include a reference to developments in South China, since they have a close bearing on Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's success is based on business which provides the revenue to fund modern Hong Kong, which in turn funds much of the investment in southern China. But the major player in this success story is of course the Chinese Government, to which great credit is due and all too rarely given. It is due to the policy of opening to the world initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 and doggedly maintained ever since in spite of domestic difficulties. It is that which attracted the capital and management and introduced the incentives that produced the regenerated and booming cities of South China and indeed elsewhere. Their greater degree of financial autonomy and significant role for market forces have led to huge improvements in production and therefore to standards of life for tens of millions of people.
The concept of "one country, two systems" embodied in the Joint Declaration and codified in the Basic Law is a product of that Chinese policy. In considering the details of current problems between China and Hong Kong in implementing the Joint Declaration one should not lose sight of the apparent success of China's grand design and of the benefits it is conferring on people in Hong Kong and China
188
alike. It is reasonable to hope that, if the overall design is right, differences regarding detail can sooner or later be resolved.
It is noticeable that the business sector in Hong Kong increasingly takes a confident view of the future. However, on the political side there are indeed differences. To resolve them the importance of achieving a sound working relationship with China similar to that in commercial affairs cannot be over-emphasised. There is a long list of points which need to be agreed to achieve a smooth transition. Moreover, without Chinese support the market simply will not supply capital, as has been shown over the airport. In any event, there can be no confidence in a Hong Kong constantly at loggerheads with a future paramount power.
There is nothing new about China's power and influence in Hong Kong. It has been recognised as a fact of Hong Kong life for many years and Hong Kong has been able to live with it and prosper. However, it has done so with a profile that may have been high commercially but politically low. Since Tiananmen some in Hong Kong favoured a high, even confrontational, stance vis-à-vis China, and China has responded with interest. As the novelist and journalist Frank Ching wrote in the South China Mail on 4th June,
"Three years on it is time to heal wounds".
I am sure that he is right and I hope that Mr. Patten will succeed in doing just that. On a practical note, I cannot see how all the things necessary for a smooth transition can be done unless there is a deliberate move on both sides to let bygones be bygones. Since Hong Kong is the junior partner I suggest that that is where the change should start.
I wonder to what extent our relations are bedevilled by Chinese suspicion that the promotion of democracy at this stage in Hong Kong is to embarrass China or to prolong British influence—a sort of poison pill left behind. Its attitude has been affected by the belief that some of the most vociferous advocates of increased democracy in Hong Kong or abroad also advocated either the overthrow of the present Chinese Government or, if not, dissociated themselves from it. It sees the former Kuomintang/Nationalist threat being replaced by an anti-Peking threat under the cloak of democracy. Nor are the Chinese impressed with the style of confrontational politics adopted by the newly elected groups. That does not seem conducive to a smooth transitional period.
Of course, all that may simply reflect first lively steps in unfamiliar legislative procedures. However, that unhappy background exists and is a fact which I must bring to your Lordships' attention before I turn to the immediate issue; that is, whether there should be more seats in the Legislative Council for members directly elected for geographical constituencies. The British Government said that they will discuss the matter with the Chinese Government. At present there are 18 such seats out of 60. Under the Basic Law and its annexures the number in 1997 will be 20 and in 1999 there will be 30, with the ultimate aim of election of all members by universal suffrage.
To change those numbers would require amendment of the Basic Law. On numerous occasions the Chinese Government have made it clear that the Basic Law will not be amended at present. Perhaps I may add that in all fairness I believe that we would take a similar attitude to any suggestion that the Joint Declaration should be amended. I therefore see no point in pushing against this pretty solid brick wall. However, if the Government feel under an obligation to make the attempt, I hope that they will do so soon and get it out of the way one way or another. As long as there is alleged doubt as to whether the change in the number of seats is possible it represents yet another element of uncertainty. Time is short if all that is necessary is to be done in time for the 1995 elections —elections that will be so crucial if the council then elected is to carry through to 1999, as we all so very much hope.
I feel sure that the Government realise that the views on this issue of elections in Hong Kong are far from unanimous. Some highly articulate and attractive people feel passionately and strongly about it. Many of them are my friends. They had 10 per cent. of the vote. But they are matched by others who, with equal if not greater claims to have the interests of the Hong Kong people at heart, feel that progress should be gradual and cautious. Moreover, there is clearly a very large number of people who are simply indifferent, but who would probably become actively opposed if pursuit of electoral ideals resulted in a damaging row with China that affected the tenor of their lives. I presume that that accounts for the fact that of all the eligible electorate more than 80 per cent. either did not register to vote or did not vote.
Against that background I do not believe that the Government should take this probable impasse too tragically. A large and immediate increase in direct elections to the Legislative Council need not necessarily be the only panacea for Hong Kong's urgent problems or for meeting the right of Hong Kong people to continue their free and stable lives in prosperity. For my part, I would see merit in a determined attempt by all parties, even in the new circumstances of an elected council, to return to the less strident consensus approach formerly favoured in the council.
There has been controversy over who should be appointed to the Executive Council. That body is very important to the Governor, as I know. He takes its advice on all matters of importance. It is up to him to decide how that advice can best forewarn him of public opinion or of opinion in the Legislative Council of what is feasible and what is not. Like Cabinet membership here, it is a personal decision of the Governor. Nobody has hitherto asserted a right to membership. Similarly, there are rules governing the behaviour and freedom to speak of members. Here again, it is up to the Governor to decide whether or not a rule may be dispensed with. In the light of his decision it is up to a member whether or not to serve. This is not a question of human rights but of orderly
190
practice in the Governor's Cabinet. I thought it right to make that point since it has been quite highly publicised.
The list of matters needing agreement between the two governments is very long and I shall not go through it, although I hope that in her reply the Minister will tell us what progress is being made on them. I shall refer to the best known—that is, the financing of the airport. I must admit that initially I had some sympathy with the Chinese for insisting on being fully in the picture about such a vast project the pay-back period of which spans 1997. I also have some sympathy with them over the figures appearing to change, although I am sure that in reality they have not done so. But the replacement of Kai Tak, the westward movement of the harbour, and the opening of new land available on Lan Tao are all now long overdue. I am very glad that the Prime Minister has intervened personally in this matter and lifted the negotiation of detail to Minister of State level. I hope that, with the personal assurance of the Prime Minister, the Chinese Government will soon be satisfied.
I might add that this is a very old project elaborated as long ago as the 1970s. Indeed, it was at one time my own favourite project. I am very sorry that then I allowed arguments against it to prevail. However, the attractive side of it always seemed to me that it was so apparently self-liquidating. That was not only because of the immediate cash-flow from the airport and from the new land opened up, but because the land freed for development at Kai Tak and the Kowloon flight path was among the most valuable in the world and the resultant return to the Government from the land sales and premiums would have been enormous. I am no longer familiar with the details, but I am surprised that, despite explanations, the Chinese Government should still be worried that the SAR might be left with a burden. I should have thought that, on the contrary, it is likely to be left with a sure-fire winner. However that may be, I wish the Minister of State success in his work on this quite fascinating project. I hope that he will take the precaution of arming himself with an interpreter who can master the details involved.
In conclusion, I emphasise two points. The first is that a new zone of prosperity covering a huge area in South China has developed which includes Hong Kong at its heart. It is the most striking economic development in China for many years and it changes one's whole perception of future prospects. The second point is my hope that both sides will now take steps to re-establish the sound working relationships of the 1970s and the 1980s. In that connection I repeat my friend's words,
"Three years on it is time to heal wounds".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord MacLehose really is unique in the depth of his knowledge of Hong Kong. He has done your Lordships a considerable service in the way he has introduced this debate. He has done perhaps an even greater service to Hong Kong, China and to the

191
United Kingdom by instigating it. On a more personal note, he did me the very signal honour of inviting me to join him two months ago on a five-day trip in South China immediately following a week in Hong Kong.
At the end of those two weeks I came away with a number of clear impressions and conclusions, some of which I instanced on 7th May in our debate on Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech. If I repeat some of those this afternoon I do so because I believe them to be important. My own affinity for Hong Kong goes back to 1957 when I was stationed there during my National Service. However, it really took root when I lived and worked there in the mid-1970s and it has grown ever since.
By far the biggest change that I have noted over the past 15 years is what I can best describe as the axis of view. In the mid-1950s China was still very much a potential enemy. By the mid-1970s, while that threat had largely receded, the view of China was still very much "from Hong Kong". Today that has almost totally reversed. As my noble friend Lord Cromer said in his quite remarkable maiden speech on 7th May, his tendency was,
"to view Hong Kong from China, rather than the other way round".—[Official Report, 7/5/92; col. 49.]
I fully concur with that.
The provinces of Guangdong and, perhaps only to a slightly lesser extent, that of Fujien are advancing economically so rapidly that it is now only the political border with Hong Kong that legally separates Hong Kong from the rest of South China.
Hong Kong's economic success story is truly remarkable, and the fact that my contribution will be thin on statistics is solely to avoid repetition with other speakers. Facts and figures regarding South China are perhaps less well known and just some may serve to illustrate the quite incredible —on 7th May I used the expression "mind boggling"—speed of the economic advancement that has been made. GNP in Xiamen, previously Amoy, in Fujien Province has increased by a factor of four-and-a-half in the decade 1981–91. Over that same period, the per capita income of urban residents has increased five times. In Guangzhou, previously Canton, GNP rose at an average rate of 12.3 per cent. per annum over the same 10-year period. Similar statistics apply to Shantou, previously Swatow, and to Shenzhen, previously Shumshun. In all four cities, Deng Xiaoping's "open policy" has been and is being vigorously pursued with emphasis on getting the basic infrastructure in place first in order to cater for the enormous expansion in commercial and manufacturing activities and in population. The improvements in and plans for highways, railways, ports, airports, telecommunications and power generation had me, for one, almost reeling by the end of our five days. And it was not just talk. Of course, our visits to each city being, by definition, short were therefore "organised", but there was no way that one could fail to see the tremendous strides in activity that both had taken place and were still taking place.
Hong Kong is inextricably involved in such activities by way both of direct investment and joint ventures. There are today four times more people
192
working directly or indirectly for Hong Kong manufacturing in Guangdong Province than there are actually working in Hong Kong. In round figures, there are 3 million relative to 0.7 million. Not only is there a very significant two-way flow of capital investment—by the mainland Chinese in Hong Kong and by Hong Kong in mainland China—but there is now a significant move by Hong Kong residents to buy property north of Hong Kong's political border and to commute into Hong Kong to work.
Then there are the smaller but less significant examples that are indicative of economic progress in South China, such as the proliferation of mobile 'phones; the traffic jams; the significant reduction in the number of pedal bicycles, which are being replaced by motor bikes and, to a lesser extent, by cars; the abundance of goods of high quality in the shops; the variety and smartness of clothing and in particular the colourful ladieswear; and the quality, efficiency and technical standards of the hotels. Perhaps the most facetious but indicative example was the necessary use of broad shoulders and sharp elbows to ensure a place in the lift for breakfast on a Friday morning in a revolving restaurant at the top of the World Trade Building in Shenzhen. It is useful to travel with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with his considerable height. In their different ways and at various stages of economic advancement, all four of the cities that we visited reminded me absolutely of Hong Kong some 15 to 20 years ago.
However, as always, such progress inevitably brings its problems, one of which is China's acknowledged necessity to control movements of population from the relatively less advanced hinterland and the north into the far more prosperous areas of South China.
For that and many other reasons, Beijing seems to be pursuing its own brand of capitalism. Certainly in South China it has avoided the catastrophic economic position now experienced in the republics of the previous USSR and to a lesser extent in the previous satellite countries of Eastern Europe. China's brand of capitalism is perhaps one that the world has not seen before—namely, extensive economic freedom coupled with what we might regard as unacceptably totalitarian political control. While the latter may not be to our liking from a Western viewpoint, it is one that, from an entirely pragmatic point of view, I can well understand.
As always with the unique juxtaposition of Hong Kong and South China, the problems are those of confidence and understanding. For the peoples of Hong Kong who will find themselves subject to a very different political regime on 1st July 1997, it is a question of confidence that Beijing will adhere to the terms of the 1984 Joint Declaration as detailed in the Basic Law and an understanding of the basic political position from which Beijing is moving. Perhaps even more important is the necessity for confidence and understanding from Beijing of just what makes Hong Kong tick and of the motives of both Hong Kong and the United Kingdom in continuing to encourage Hong Kong's economic success story.

193
Perhaps I may give just two illustrations on this last point. Inevitably, both are topical and have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. First, there is the continued wrangle over whether the People's Liberation Army should physically have its headquarters on the present HMS Tamar site on Hong Kong Island or at the new base being built on Stonecutters Island which, incidentally, by that stage will be connected to the Kowloon Peninsula. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, has said, there is the continuing "battle" over the financing of the new Chep Lap Kok airport.
It is difficult for the Western mind to ascertain whether Beijing genuinely cannot understand the very laudable motives behind each of those or whether it finds it politically convenient not to understand. Both are classic examples of the continued modernisation and development of Hong Kong where, in my opinion, it is really crazy to block an enormous potential area of development by, in the case of the military, insisting on a maintained presence on Hong Kong Island and, with regard to the airport, ignoring the financial implications of the quite enormous development possibilities of the present Kai Tak airport site. Funds raised from such potential developments, and particularly from the sale of the leases on the Kai Tak site, are integral to Hong Kong's overall financing. They have been included by Hong Kong in its overall calculations but studiously excluded by Beijing, resulting in each party approaching the situation from a significantly different direction.
It will take time and it will take infinite patience, but the rewards are there. Each party—and by that I mean Hong Kong and the United Kingdom on the one hand and China on the other—must do its utmost to appreciate the position from which the other is coming. The present Hong Kong political situation is a very curious one, there being various degrees of what might be described as "opposition parties" but no government party. It may therefore be that the business community of Hong Kong will have to become more overtly political—against its natural inclination, I am sure. Either way, the future of Hong Kong is not, in my opinion, going to be helped one iota by the continued overt push for the acceleration of agreements that have already been made regarding the extension of direct elections. Again, as my noble friend Lord Cromer said last month:
"It would be patronising to the Chinese people to suggest that they require instruction from us about the way in which they ought to determine their own political future"—[Official Report, 7/5/92; col. 50.] —
because that is exactly what Hong Kong will be on 1st July 1997, part of China's political future.
"Unique" is sadly nowadays a rather overplayed word. Of course there will be problems and tensions over the next five years but I really do believe that the United Kingdom (and of course Hong Kong) does have a unique opportunity to hand over a vibrant Hong Kong as a supreme example of how a mixture of Oriental and Occidental capitalism can work to the advantage of all. In South China there are already most impressive examples, particularly in
194
Guangdong. Mr. Patten, as the new Governor of Hong Kong, has a tremendous task in front of him but I have no doubt that he can and will succeed by building on the firm but utterly fair approach pursued by Lord Wilson and indeed by his two predecessors, not least the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch. Given a fair wind and pragmatic restraint I most firmly believe that Hong Kong, as part of South China, will go from strength to strength way beyond 1997.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for the opportunity his Motion gives me to offer in this House my warmest congratulations to Mr. Patten upon his appointment and to promise him every possible assistance in his new and challenging task. At the same time, I should like to pay a public tribute to Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. When he leaves office on 3rd July, after five years as Governor, he has good reason to be proud of his achievements. Under his stewardship, major political reforms have been introduced and the Hong Kong economy has reached unprecedented levels of performance. He will take with him the gratitude as well as the affection of the people of Hong Kong.
Your Lordships know well that Hong Kong is an extraordinary city, full of exceptionally resourceful people. We are probably better qualified, economically and educationally, than any of Britain's colonies to be the masters of our own destiny. Yet history, geography and politics deny us that possibility, and we have had to depend on the governments of Britain and China to determine our political fate.
Today, eight years after the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed, anyone can see that nonetheless Hong Kong has not only put its back into building a future, but its heart, its soul and its wallet as well. An economic powerhouse is emerging in South China, centred around Hong Kong. Thanks to investment from Hong Kong and Taiwan, the provinces of Guangdong and Fujian in South China are enjoying double digit growth. Thanks to the lower costs in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan manufacturers are maintaining their competitive edge overseas, while their own populations are transferring to better paid, more productive tasks in services and the professions.
Economically, 1997 is already upon us. The economies of Hong Kong and South China are integrating with astonishing speed and producing phenomenal benefits for one another. Whichever political theories are debated in China, it is capitalism and the market economy that drive China forward. China's official figures show that nearly 50 per cent. of industrial output in China is now accounted for by the private sector. New issues of shares in China's fledgling stock markets are being snapped up by international investors. The incredible dynamism across the border has in turn engendered in Hong Kong a new level of confidence. The Hong Kong stock market is trading at record levels. Optimism and energy assault the senses wherever you go.

195
This dynamic and positive picture is not, I regret to say, reflected in the political relationship between Britain and China over Hong Kong. Their work was by no means finished when the Joint Declaration was signed and our fate was sealed in 1984. Many important tasks remained to be done in these years of transition. A solid, sustained effort and a collaborative relationship between the two governments were essential. Unhappily, the relationship has become one of suspicion and mistrust, inertia on major issues and endless wrangling over details. There is little point in seeking to apportion blame for this state of affairs: what matters is that the last remaining five years of British administration must be put to better use. The people of Hong Kong deserve no less.
A working relationship with China is not something we in Hong Kong can afford to see turned on and turned off according to political needs or diplomatic whim or editorial pressure, for we, the people of Hong Kong, have to live with the consequences. The appointment of a new governor represents a fresh opportunity to break out of the vicious circle of recriminations into which Sino-British relations over Hong Kong have drifted, and get it back to a more constructive and workmanlike basis.
Before this can begin, Mr. Patten has to resolve the problem created by the British Government's promise to raise with the Chinese Government the possibility of faster progress towards a fully elected legislature than is presently envisaged by the Chinese Basic Law. Well meant though it was, I am bound to say that I always thought this promise was unwise. And I speak as one who lobbied here in 1989 for more directly elected seats than we have been allowed.
The virtue of having the future constitution passed by the National People's Congress in China more than two years ago was certainty, but talk of change revives uncertainty, tension and discord in our community. Discussions on this issue will use up time and goodwill. Both are in short supply. Meanwhile, the community is divided and distracted from other important tasks, and the expectations of many in Hong Kong are unfairly raised.
Since a promise has been made, the British Government must fulfil it—and quickly—and report back frankly. We can then get back to work to our agenda. Hong Kong people can cope with disappointments: it is uncertainty that causes problems.
As we move into the closing stages of British administration and towards unprecedented constitutional changes, the people of Hong Kong must be encouraged by both governments to find strength through unity and to focus clearly on the reality of their future. The current preoccupation with the one single issue of a few more directly elected seats in 1995 obscures the fact that structures have no real life of their own and that democracy is a means to an end. It is the people who participate and hold the levers of power that matter.
What Hong Kong needs are local leaders of vision and commitment who will serve the community through and beyond 1997. But such people need some inducement to aspire to serve after 1997, if they are to take the risks and make the sacrifices which public
196
service demands. Those coming to prominence under the system now in place need to be reassured by China that they will not, for that reason, be regarded with suspicion after 1997. Those who have already established good relationships with China's leaders must not be frozen out by Britain on that account. It is a joint responsibility of the British and Chinese Governments to create together the conditions that will encourage the future leaders to emerge and to make a reality of the high degree of autonomy that has been promised to us.
All of that can only be done if there is mutual trust. Without trust, every suggestion by China will be interpreted as unwarranted interference in Britain's administration. Without trust, every initiative by the British side will be interpreted as a devious plot to maintain hidden control over Hong Kong after 1997. The British and Chinese Governments must lay those ghosts to rest, and get down to the practical tasks that are essential if this unique political experiment is to succeed.
Hong Kong people and businessmen day by day show how to build a mutually beneficial relationship with China. They have done so despite bad memories of a China from which many of them fled. They have done so despite the fact that China's leaders still proclaim an ideology that has been discredited virtually everywhere else. They have done so despite their political inexperience and impotence. They have done so despite the shock in Hong Kong of the tragic events in Tiananmen Square only three years ago.
Britain's objectives in Hong Kong may understandably be limited to an honourable and successful withdrawal in 1997. But that does not mean that Britain's interest should be so short sighted. On the contrary, it is only by having a clear vision of the needs of Hong Kong after 1997 that the remaining years of transition can be successfully completed. That vision can only materialise with the co-operation of the Chinese Government. And let me stress, co-operation need not inhibit frank exchanges or undermine Britain's effective administration of Hong Kong up to 1997 as enjoined by the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
I am sure that Her Majesty's Government can learn much about dealing with China from the outstandingly successful example of the Hong Kong people themselves. The fruits of that experience will be freely available to Mr. Patten when he arrives. The people of Hong Kong look forward to welcoming him and to working with him as we go forward together to make history.
3.44 p.m.
The Marquess of Huntly: My Lords, I must first advise the House, and especially my noble friend Lord Geddes, that I have not been rummaging in his briefcase to read his notes. I make that point because much of what I have to say may sound familiar on account of his having spoken earlier this afternoon. I was fortunate enough to be invited to visit Zhu Hai Special Economic Zone by its Mayor in November of last year. It was a brief visit, but I was shown something of the extent of the developments currently

197
being undertaken in the area. For mile after mile—and I only saw a relatively small corner —factories are being erected, together with blocks of flats, to service a development zone which will supply goods of every description through the new deep-sea port at present under excavation and the new airport proposed to serve the zone.
I should just say here that as one drives through the economic zone there are bulldozers flattening and clearing countryside where very soon there will be factories appearing as if from nowhere. Moreover, in no time at all they will be operational. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, the speed at which such developments are taking place is astonishing to see. As noble Lords will know, that is part of the Guangdong Province. Zhu Hai itself is only one of three special economic zones, Shenzhen and Shantou being the others.
Internal visa posts monitor the passage of huge volumes of workers in and out of the zones, where working permits bring prosperity to those fortunate enough to be in employment. The prosperity of Guangdong Province has, understandably, brought about an imbalance in prosperity which in itself is seen as distasteful by some Northerners on account of the impact on consumerism that was bound to materialise. The driving force behind that growth has been foreign investment in manufacturing, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Geddes said, from Hong Kong, where it is estimated that in excess of $15 billion has been invested in the area widely referred to as the Pearl River Delta.
When I was in Hong Kong in April of this year the Hang Seng index was booming on the revelation that Mr. Deng Xiaoping, China's 87 year-old paramount leader, had visited Guangdong and pronounced his support for continuing economic reforms. I understand that one should not underestimate the importance of such an occurrence in the perceptions of both Chinese and Hong Kong businessmen. Confidence soared as a result and property prices in Hong Kong have never been more buoyant. Currently, 40 per cent. of inward-investment in property in Hong Kong is coming from Chinese businessmen from the Guangdong Province.
Perhaps we should consider the attitude of central government in China to this phenomenon, as surely there is a contradiction between the ideals of a communist state with the effective practice of capitalism. In the region of 45 per cent. of Guangdong's production is believed to be private sector. Before the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in the 1970s, there were only state-owned industries, which were overmanned and under-productive. So how can those economic practices live harmoniously with the political ideology?
The question is constantly asked whether China will follow the Soviet Union into political turmoil. Members of the Chinese Communist Party have long been critics of the Soviets and foresaw the downfall of their system. While the Russians were placing chief emphasis on political reform, the Chinese, under Deng Xiaoping, were stressing the primary importance of
198
economic reform. China adopted the position of pragmatic but systematic reformer at a time when the Soviet leadership was still trying to find ways of making their administratively-dominated economy more efficient. Finally, after Tiananmen Square in 1989 China turned its back on political reform while, in contrast, the Soviet Union concentrated increasingly on political rather than economic reform.
I believe that we should be aware of the extent that government in China is centralised and the risks of intervention in the affairs of the prosperous regions if we are to evaluate the likelihood of intervention in the affairs of Hong Kong. China has always been less centralised than the USSR. Despite this there have been centuries of disputes between Beijing and the provinces over the appropriate degree of central control. It has been accepted nevertheless that a significant degree of provincial autonomy is desirable. There seems to be a long-term cycle of decentralisation and this has hastened economic development in China. What Mr. Deng Xiaoping said in Shanghai this April was that other provinces should follow the lead of Guangdong and accelerate economic reforms.
The Chinese economy has been performing very impressively in the 1980s and there is a growing satisfaction with standards of living. From a material point of view people live better lives than ever before. In Guangdong Province this prosperity is likely to accelerate through the 1990s bringing about a sharper distinction between those living in the north and those in the south.
At this time there is no sign of the central government tolerating any movement for democratisation as evidenced in Tiananmen Square. Indeed, this incident illustrated that the leadership was prepared to fight to stay in power at almost any cost. The chaos in the former Soviet Union serves to warn the Chinese leadership against radical reforms.
I have concentrated on the issue of stability in China at this time and the aspirations, as I understand them to be, of those who will be taking the decisions that will so decisively affect Hong Kong, and I feel that we should be encouraged by what we can acknowledge as reforms within China itself. We can be heartened by the relative absence of centralised policy-making where it might interfere with economic growth. I cannot come to terms with the tacit endorsement of capitalism under strong communist leadership but I believe that the confidence in a settled future that is gaining in Hong Kong is justified.
I am conscious that there may be many of your Lordships in this House whose experience of trading both in Hong Kong and South China will be far-reaching. My experience is limited to a short period of years. Nevertheless I am fortunate to be associated with businesses based in Hong Kong with manufacturing capacity in Guangdong and with businesses importing into and exporting out of China. These are of a size whereby any serious threat to the current stability between Hong Kong and China would almost certainly be catastrophic; on the other hand, these are typical of the businesses which show promise of being the future backbone of the industrial and commercial composition of the region.

199
I only mention my own minor involvement with the region as it is through this, understandably, that I formulate my vision of the economic and political circumstances currently prevailing. I have not touched on the two paramount issues which I know your Lordships will debate with authority, as has already been mentioned today; namely, the construction of the airport and the continuing democratisation of Hong Kong.
I have read in a recent article an image of the reform process in China. It is likened to groping for stepping stones while crossing a river. However fast the current may be and however deep the water, at least when crossing a river it is normally clear where the other bank is. For the reformers in China now the problem of maintaining the direction of the reforms is much more complicated. After the turmoil of 1989 and the failure of every other ruling communist party to devise a successful reform strategy from which the Chinese could learn, the problem is as much one of direction as of finding the stepping stones.
The solution will require wisdom, flexibility, boldness and determination. The success of this "crossing" will affect so many millions of people that I am sure that this House could only wish the leaders every success in continuing the initiatives that they have so wisely begun.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, one of the difficulties of a debate on this particular subject is that most of us who participate are, I suspect, devoted and dedicated readers of the Far East Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal. On this occasion I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, made life even more difficult for those who have to follow him. He raised a number of highly controversial issues which many of us were pleased to hear coming from him but which will by no means be universally popular in Hong Kong. But he did so with the clarity and force that we would expect and with an authority that few, if any, of us can match.
However, we owe him a special debt for introducing the debate in these terms and at this particular time. Not only are we about to have a new Governor with a very different background and style from his predecessors but the change is arriving at the perfect time for the exercise of the considerable skills and political contacts which he has. For the next five years it is a matter for skilled politics and negotiation. It is also a great relief. He is a first-rate appointment and a welcome relief from some of the other suggestions, regardless of their undoubted abilities in other fields.
The political climate for doing business in China has also taken a major turn for the better in the willingness—particularly since Deng's visit to Guangdong at the beginning of this year—of the authorities, particularly in the south, to demonstrate open and practical enthusiasm for the introduction of market forces.
I think at this point I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of a quoted company registered and operating out of Hong Kong, particularly since its
200
sole purpose is to invest in the People's Republic of China. We do that by investing in the shares of foreign companies and it is interesting that they are as to 75 per cent. Hong Kong companies. We also invest directly in ventures located in the People's Republic.
We are now moving into a new and fascinating area —the officially recognised stock markets of China. The past 18 months have seen the opening of stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzen and at least two more are expected. Let me say at once that I do not suggest that these institutions constitute the ideal vehicle for pension funds or the savings of widows and orphans. Nonetheless, no one interested in China and the events in the Chinese economy which involve Hong Kong can afford to ignore them or to ignore the implications of their establishment because they are yet another example of the speed and the extent of change in the management of the economy.
There are many other areas which demonstrate this most extraordinary series of changes in the approach of the Chinese authorities. There is the move to market pricing, particularly in Guangdong. The extent and the areas of the deregulation of pricing in terms of rice and other products would cause problems in this country and in the PRC would have been regarded at best as a very sick joke.
To take one example, there are the power stations. Not only are the power stations in this stronghold of communism totally unionised, not only have they been allowed to import unsubsidised foreign coal, but electricity prices are 50 per cent. higher than in other parts of the country to help them pay for it. I think that even the Union of Democratic Mineworkers would have a bit of a problem with that. Indeed, I would see a great problem in raising the whole subject in this House, with the embarrassment it might cause some of my former colleagues.
But perhaps even more significant is that all price restrictions on grain have been lifted both in Guangdong and Hainan, a proposition which would not be universally popular in the capitalist West and certainly probably not within the Common Market.
Of course there remain some serious problems. They are the result of an unprecedented attempt to introduce alien economic concepts into a country which has neither experience of them nor any.natural sympathy with them. Some of those problems become increasingly urgent as the process of change develops. There is a total lack of company law. There is the need for the development of effective reporting and accounting techniques. One of the problems which worries many people, certainly in Hong Kong, is the difficulty which the People's Republic of China seems to be having in establishing a legal framework.
To do business in China one is working in an entrepreneurial society, but one with no controls, little regulation, no accounting standards and annual reports and accounts which are almost as fictitious as some of those of the late Mr. Maxwell. It is becoming increasingly difficult for businessmen to live with those problems. Fortunately Hong Kong is already playing a large role in the industrial and commercial life of South China. As one of the world's most sophisticated financial centres—traditionally people have seen

201
London, New York and Tokyo as the three big international centres—it is possible that Hong Kong, even absorbed within China, could take the place of Tokyo as a genuine international financial centre. It also has the obvious ability to make a major contribution to the solution of some of the problems with which the authorities in China are now faced.
While one can understand the fears of people living in Hong Kong, and one can be suspicious of the intentions of some sections of the Chinese leadership, Hong Kong is not just a treasure chest to plunder. If the process of transition goes well, Hong Kong can continue to make a major and unique contribution to the economic progress of the PRC.
It is difficult to exaggerate the importance—not just to Hong Kong and the PRC but to the whole region —of ensuring that the positive benefits of transition from British colonial rule are fully exploited. Of course at the end of the day only the PRC can ensure that that happens; but Hong Kong—I repeat—already has a major presence there. Its importance is apparent, not merely to outsiders but to many younger PRC apparatchiks who have been educated abroad, who understand the system and who are highly sophisticated. In any case, there are some 24,000 Hong Kong companies already operating within the PRC. The Hong Kong dollar circulates freely in much of South China. There are also the close family ties, not to mention its dominant position as an export market.
There is an opportunity for Hong Kong to continue to make a major contribution to the development of China and the region after 1997. The people of Hong Kong have a real and justified anxiety about the future, which is of course uncertain. That is not helped by media comment on both sides of the Atlantic, which is almost perverse in its refusal to face the realities of that complex situation.
It is sometimes forgotten that the Chinese also have their worries. I was interested to hear the comments about the airport by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. I am bound to say that, having lived through the Channel Tunnel and sundry other large projects, if one were to have a government who sat back totally unconcerned with a project which they would inherit in five years' time, costing about £100 billion, one would think that they were unusually backward. They have anxieties, and some of them are legitimate. Some of them are illogical, but they stem from what has been a closed society for many years.
Most of the Chinese leadership, especially in Southern China, has already achieved the ultimate political paradox: the injection of capitalist institutions and practice into a political system which is unshakeable in its commitment to what it sees as the basic principles of socialism. It is an interesting paradox. Some of the arguments are fascinating. They are consciously seeking to accelerate the introduction of market forces while at the same time leaving no doubt whatsoever that it does not at this stage intend to change the party's control of the nation.
That causes obvious worries in many people's minds because it is largely unexplored territory which
202
the people of Hong Kong are entering, as indeed it is for the world, because the implications could be considerable; but it could turn out to he the beginning of a surprising success story. It would be the ultimate tragedy if those elements of success were frustrated by the fighting of bygone battles and a refusal to recognise the realities of the situation.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, a week ago I was a guest of the Hong Kong Association at its celebration of the 9th Dragon Boat Dinner when I had the pleasure of listening to an excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, during which she remarked that she appreciated coming to the House of Lords because it made her feel so young. I think that we can take that as a compliment. I should like to return the compliment this afternoon by saying how much her presence here rejuvenates us all and how her speech today was proof—if any proof is needed—of how lucky are the people of Hong Kong to have her on their side.
I happen to believe that they are also lucky to have Martin Lee on their side. He is the founder and leader of the United Democratic Party. At great cost to himself, Martin Lee has determined that Hong Kong shall enjoy in the future those values and privileges which we sometimes seem to take for granted here: representative government, an impartial judiciary, and an effective court of final appeal. He has no British passport in his back pocket, no convenient foreign bolt-hole. His endeavours on Hong Kong's behalf mean that he is on the Chinese Government's black list. He was removed summarily from the Basic Law Drafting Committee, and they have made it plain that his face does not fit, and that whatever their plans are for the future of Hong Kong, he will not be part of them. He is a brave man, and he deserves our support.
I am fully aware—and some of the remarks we have heard this afternoon bear this out—that a number of perfectly respectable people in Hong Kong do not necessarily welcome moves towards more representative government. This is best expressed perhaps in the feeling that the business of Hong Kong is business and that the boat must not be rocked in the interests of stability and the future prosperity of the territory and its people. I argue that the right conditions for financial success are precisely those of open government, open administration and an effective judiciary. All those will he best served by a truly representative government.
Martin Lee and his party's elected representatives should not and cannot he brushed under a convenient carpet by China or anyone else. The 1991 election—whatever its shortcomings, some of which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, mentioned earlier—showed beyond doubt that the United Democrats were the only party that then commanded popular support.
If the voters of Hong Kong are to be represented and the elected members of the UDM are to be more than a powerless opposition, one of Mr. Patten's first tasks as governor should surely be to consider bringing some of those members on to the Executive

203
Council rather than leaving them on the margin. That would be sensible not only for Hong Kong, but for its relationship with Southern China and Guangdong in particular.
As noble Lords heard from my noble friend Lord Geddes this afternoon, the success of Hong Kong's exported capitalism into the special economic zones has been tremendous, as has its effect on people's lives there. This what we may call "galloping" capitalism is probably irreversible. China's leaders have recognised that a dirigiste centrally controlled economy does not work. What they have yet to recognise is that communism itself does not work.
In Southern China they use what has been called "the book of capitalism with socialist covers". They are attempting to shore up communism with the props of capitalism. But how long can this last? The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked about this. How long will it be before the capitalists of Southern China start making awkward noises about company law and accounting regulations to protect their businesses; about property law and effective policing to protect their houses? How long will it be before they require a say in how their taxes are spent? Will they put regional or national interests first? The new prosperity and the prospect of freedom that it brings will surely change the political face of China.
This may not happen soon, but happen it certainly will. In the meantime, Hong Kong which has so convincingly demonstrated its entrepreneurial ability to China, has an opportunity also to demonstrate that open and representative government is the most effective guarantee of the stability which business needs in order to succeed. If, as is possible, boom turns to bust—which is always on the cards, particularly for an export-led economy such as China's which has not enough land to feed its own people—this bust will inevitably affect Hong Kong. It is crucial that democratic institutions are in place to deal with the consequent strains in the territory.
There is a tag that goes, "Always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse". For Hong Kong, Nurse will be pensioned off in 1997. As for fear, President Roosevelt said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Hong Kong is a great success story. It is brimming with skills of every kind. How lucky it is to have the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and Martin Lee, as well as a number of resourceful and energetic businessmen and entrepreneurs. The new governor has been dealt a tricky hand, but he is fortunate in having great talents at his side to help him. I wish him every success.
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to stay through the debate but I have a long-standing engagement in the country and have found no way of avoiding it. When I heard many speakers today such as the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose, Lord Geddes and the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, I wondered whether it was necessary for me to speak. However, I decided to do so briefly.
First, what are my qualifications? They go back a long way. Sixty years ago I went out to China with
204
Jean Monnet, the Father of Europe. We had been asked by the Chinese Government to try to advise them on economic development. In those days it was the Soongs and the Kungs who were in charge. We were specifically asked to make concrete recommendations for China in the long ago and difficult days when she was threatened on one side by the Japanese and her economy generally was in a mess. I shall not go into detail on what we achieved, but it is significant that we set up a development corporation with private Chinese banks and the Bank of China, so that the corporation could stand and match western capital in the development of the Chinese infrastructure. It might have been much more successful, but for the pressures from Japan, as many noble Lords will know. All the same, railways and other forms of communication, utilities and so on, were established.
I returned in 1937 for a year, again to try to help the Chinese Government with the development corporation. Then in the late 1950s I was Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, and Hong Kong came within my orbit. I am now 85 and, as noble Lords know, that age is of great importance to the Chinese.
What did I learn in those days long ago? Above all, I learnt admiration and respect for the Chinese. They are talented, hardworking and, I would say, cleverer than the West. If proof is needed, let us look at the economic influence of Hong Kong and its people, at Taiwan and the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Chinese overseas; and what they have helped to create for the economies of the western world.
I learnt about a people whose civilisation goes back thousands of years. They have had a centralised system of government for almost all that time, despite the great handicaps in those days of distance and lack of communications. They welded themselves into a nation. What an unequalled achievement—a quarter of the world's population becoming one nation! In the West we are children in comparison, yet we are often apt to judge China by our standards, our system of democracy which is epitomised today in the slogan, "One man, one vote". The mind boggles at the idea of one man, one vote for over a billion voters. Are we so sure that we know best? Our system of democracy goes back to Greece and its oligarchy or Rome and its empire. But are we certain that that form of developed democracy is right for China, or even for Hong Kong? I am apt to wonder about that.
The western world judges countries in terms of material and economic progress. Some noble Lords will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, refer to that matter today. A little while ago on another occasion the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, also referred to that matter in his maiden speech. Those noble Lords said how standards have risen enormously in China over the past 15 to 20 years. Not only has the economy grown steadily in a way which we in the West should all envy, but also, over a relatively short period of time, the people of China have come to be treated as individuals. They are no longer considered expendable. Is that a triumph for communism? Chinese communism has characteristics all of its own. Chinese communism split from Russian communism about 20

205
years ago and China has gone its own way ever since. That is typical of China. China has its own system —call it what you will—which generally benefits the Chinese people.
Some may say, "What about Tiananmen Square"? That is an horrific story. Sometimes I am haunted by the thought that a good deal of the blame for that incident lay with the western media who encouraged and indeed incited the students to do something which in the event turned out to be tragic and unwise; namely, to challenge the Chinese Government.
Finally, I turn to Hong Kong. In five years Hong Kong will again become a part of China. I say "again become" because 99 years ago we forced a lease of most of the territories which now make up Hong Kong. The two governments have already negotiated a Joint Declaration. In my judgment that is a great start and augurs well for the future. The main task for Mr. Patten—his record gives one every encouragement in the future—is to ensure that the people of China, its officials and government get to know him and respect him. It will not be easy to interpret the Joint Declaration because one is trying to bring back a parent and the child who politically have developed so differently.
However, we must not think in terms of winner and loser but rather of the common ground and purpose which is to achieve something for the benefit not only of the people of Hong Kong but of all China. South China is mentioned in today's Motion. If I may be presumptuous enough to give advice it would generally be for Mr. Patten to make haste slowly and to get to know those members of the Chinese Government and their officials on the basis of friendship, mutual respect and trust. It is no good starting off by trying to hammer away at certain things which the Chinese will not want to have hammered away. If the Chinese like someone and realise that person is trying to help not only the people of Hone Kong but also of China they will listen to him.
Many noble Lords may recall a great friend of mine who, alas, is dead, Sir John Keswick. I mention his name because he was the epitome of one who loved —that is not too strong a word—China and who was immensely respected by the Chinese. They laughed together and he could say things that were difficult for others to say. The Chinese Government and its officials listened to him. They knew that what he was suggesting was to their benefit in the long run. He was their friend and they knew it. I hope Mr. Patten may take that as an example of what is possible on the personal basis of working with the Chinese.
I have deliberately not touched on specific issues that are arising now—for example, the new airport. Newspapers report that the Chinese are interfering in that project. I would only say that I, too, would interfere in a matter of such vast importance for the whole of southern China. There is the matter of the degree of representation that the people of Hong Kong will have. In the end that matter will be solved if both parties recognise that they have a common purpose and that they want to get a right answer. They need a consensus. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord
206
MacLehose, referred to that. The future of Hong Kong and South China poses a great challenge but I believe that the omens are good. Indeed, if I were younger I might ask Mr. Patten if he would allow me to join him in Hong Kong as a personal assistant just as I did with Mr. Monnet 60 years ago. The Chinese are a great people and so are we. Our record together offers great hope for Hong Kong's future.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to ask him whether I am right in thinking that I heard him say that he thought the West was to some extent to blame for the incident at Tiananmen Square in that they encouraged the students to challenge their government. Does the noble Earl also agree that the West were to blame for encouraging President Havel to challenge the Czech Government, or for encouraging Mr. Sakharov to challenge the Russian Government in his day? Does the noble Earl think that it is wrong for people to challenge their governments?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I believe that I have been misunderstood. The point that I was trying to make is that to encourage people to demonstrate and to agitate against a government when that task is really hopeless is not necessarily the wisest way to make progress.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I start by echoing the gratitude which has been expressed by other noble Lords today to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for having initiated this debate. I add my personal thanks to the noble Lord for having included me, together with my noble friend Lord Geddes in a remarkable visit to Hong Kong just before the election. Remarkable because although I have been lucky enough to visit Hong Kong often, I do not think that I have ever followed a programme which enabled me in so short a time to see so many people and to hear so many different views—views which were often conflicting but always stimulating and interesting.
Hong Kong is a difficult place to imagine before one visits it. I am sure that most noble Lords who are here today know Hong Kong quite well. During the next five years it is important that as many parliamentarians as possible obtain first-hand experience of Hong Kong. Given that the Hong Kong Government organise such effective visits, I express the hope that they will, if anything, increase the number of MPs who visit the colony. I hope that they will focus particularly on the large number of new MPs so that those MPs will be able to speak from direct experience of Hong Kong. I should like to add my thanks and tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for all that he has done for Britain as well as for Hong Kong during his period as Governor. The governorship of Hong Kong is one of the great offices under the Crown and the noble Lord has filled it with great distinction. We look forward greatly to him joining us here.
The governorship of Hong Kong is a post which is well worthy of Mr. Patten and I believe that Mr. Patten is well worthy of the post. Chris Patten and I

207
cut our political teeth together nearly a quarter of a century ago in the Conservative Research Department. He is a politician of subtlety, humanity and perhaps above all—and this may not be obvious —of great personal toughness. I doubt very much whether his five years in Hong Kong will be the end of his political career. I have observed that Hong Kong adds to the stature of anyone who spends any length of time there, whether in a government or business role. At the moment I cannot think of anyone who would be better suited to being Foreign Secretary of this country in five years' time.
When one visits Hong Kong and notes the tremendous boom which is taking place one naturally wonders whether it is a bubble which is about to burst. The Hang Seng index is presently at a level of about 5800, within 5 per cent. of its all-time high and nearly 50 per cent. higher than it was before Black Monday of October 1987. The Tokyo market is at a level of 16,400—well below half its all-time high. One asks how real is that astonishing prosperity of Hong Kong. I spent some time trying to find out whether something awful was about to happen and whether a crash was coming. I did not feel that that was the case. I felt that the boom was rooted in real prosperity.
I believe that there are several reasons. Hong Kong has a remarkably high standard of infrastructure in every respect: the standard of communications and of financial services; the MTR (which provides a sad reminder of what every journey on London Underground could be) and the prospect of a new airport. The downtown area of the Central district compares favourably with the finest downtown areas of the great American cities. I only wish that in this country we had architecture as good as that in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's economy is well and truly based on rock. It is a remarkable economy in the sense that only 630,000 people, some 22 per cent. of the total of 2.8 million employed, are employed in manufacturing. Some 650,000 people are employed in trading and retailing, nearly 300,000 in finance and nearly 250,000 in restaurants and hotels. Unemployment is very low by Beveridge standards, being significantly under 2.5 per cent.
The crucial reason why Hong Kong is doing so well economically is that it has discovered something of an El Dorado; namely, a labour force in China which is almost unlimited in size and exceedingly low in cost. Wages in China are between one-sixth and one-eighth of those in Hong Kong. As I shall mention shortly, that has certain dangers. However, it has helped Hong Kong in a number of ways. First, it acts as a form of multiplier for the economy of Hong Kong. Secondly, it has disguised the rather high rate of inflation in Hong Kong. Hong Kong still has double digit inflation. Real wages in most sectors, other than the financial sector which are falling, according to the latest quarterly economic report are rising. However, there is a danger in that local inflation; but for the present it has effectively been disguised by the employment by Hong Kong manufacturers of some 3 million people inside China.
In many ways 1997 has already arrived. To a large
208
extent Hong Kong is already the financial centre of southern China. Some 30 per cent. of all the banknotes issued by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank are currently circulating in southern China. We have heard from a number of noble Lords of the large number of economically productive enterprises in China which are owned by Hong Kong companies.
There is a danger in relation to workers in China employed by Hong Kong companies. Wages are very low. It is difficult to obtain figures, and I stand correction from the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn—who we are delighted to see here today and we wish she were here more often—if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the cost of labour in China to an employer in Hong Kong is approximately 700 Hong Kong dollars a month—which is about £50—of which the worker receives only about half. That is a very low rate of pay. However, given that those people probably would not otherwise be earning anything at all it is not an unreasonable rate of pay.
It is difficult to see what can be done about that, and I did not have the advantage of travelling inside southern China with my noble friend Lord Geddes when he accompanied the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose. However, I was there not so long ago. I am worried about the conditions under which people are employed in China by Hong Kong employers. It is important that there is not, to use the old Marxist term, exploitation of those workers. I do not say that it is a matter of paying them more, but I believe that it is important that they should have decent working conditions. The hours for which they receive that remarkably low wage are long, usually eight hours a day, six days a week—a 48-hour week. That is not, of itself, exploitation but I wish to stress that point of working conditions.
I should like to say something about the current politics in Hong Kong. I am, of course, familiar with the arguments concerning LegCo and democratisation. When, for several years, I wrote articles on the subject for the Economist I was one of those who believed that it was necessary to have an elected legislature to take over from Westminster as the guardian of good behaviour by the Hong Kong Government after 1997. As we all know, Hong Kong has had good and enlightened government, but behind the Hong Kong Government has been Whitehall. Now Peking will take over froth Whitehall. Behind Whitehall there has always been Westminster to ensure that there was no misbehaviour by the Hong Kong Government. Britain's record during ' the 150 years it has run and ruled Hong Kong is one of which we can be extremely proud.
I was very much in favour of a greater degree of elected membership of the legislature for that reason. That has not come about. Reluctantly I recognise that it is now unlikely to do so. Therefore, I agree with other noble Lords that it is probably futile to appeal to China to allow more than the small number of 20 seats out of the total of 60 to b directly elected by 1995. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that it is desirable for that issue t be resolved as soon as possible. There is a commitment. The British Government should consult wit and appeal to the

209
Government of China. However, even if that is unlikely to have any effect we must get that issue out of the way.
Perhaps I may say this to my friends among the United Democrats led by Mr. Martin Lee, whose courage and integrity I salute. I seriously wonder whether it is in the interests of Hong Kong for those who have been elected to the legislature of Hong Kong —a legislature that will have a crucial role in preventing interference with Hong Kong's internal politics by China after 1997—to advocate political change inside China. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke interestingly on the assumptions that we make about democracy. Certainly democracy cannot exist without capitalism. Whether capitalism can exist without democracy is more open to question.
However, I believe that we should judge China less by the system of democracy that may be introduced and more by standards of human behaviour. One of the factors that I find encouraging about Tiananmen is the extraordinary extent to which the Chinese Government appear to regret, one might even say to be ashamed of, what occurred. I do not believe that what occurred in Tiananmen was malevolent by intention. It was unfortunate; it was tragic. People lost their lives in circumstances in which they should not have done. But it is remarkable how China has tried to turn back from that behaviour. I hope that we will now judge China by its behaviour rather than its political system.
Under the 1984 Joint Declaration we have an undertaking for 50 years of capitalism for Hong Kong. If the world continues to change at the rate it has changed in recent years, I believe that well within that period China will have a capitalist system.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks with those of so many noble Lords to my noble friend Lord MacLehose for initiating the debate with, as we could well expect, a speech so full of wisdom.
There is no shortage of problems at home and on our doorstep which regularly engage your Lordships' concern and lead to debate. With daily pressing preoccupations it is not surprising that we tend to be rather less mindful of what is happening a long way away. That is all the more reason to be grateful to my noble friend for having reminded us, with the authority that he possesses, of developments in China and Hong Kong. What happens there may in the long term have an even more fateful influence on our destinies than events nearer home, for in that largest country nearly 1.25 billion people are vigorously refashioning their economy and social system.
By coincidence it is particularly appropriate that we should turn our attention in London this week to matters Chinese. At present, London is the host to State Councillor Mr. Li Guixian, Governor of the People's Bank of China. With a number of his most senior officials he is in London to set up the first branch of the People's Bank outside China. That may be a useful pointer to our friends on the Continent as
210
and when—perhaps I should say nowadays and if—the question of the location of the future European central bank comes on the agenda. The Bank of China, which celebrates this year its 80th anniversary as the premier foreign exchange bank in China, has been in London for 53 years. This week its president, Mr. Wang Deyan, is opening its handsome new offices in the City. It is another occasion to remember our close connections with the People's Republic.
The debate refers in particular to Hong Kong and South China. Given recent developments in the southern parts of China and the now not far off completion of the change in the status of Hong Kong, that is appropriate. However, I wish to say a few words in general about developments in China. I am not what used to be called "an old China hand". I have visited Hong Kong frequently for the past 40 years but my first visit to the People's Republic was in 1977 when I had the honour of leading a group of 20 chairmen and chief executives of leading British companies to China. I did so again the following year. I believe that many noble Lords will agree—as demonstrated by some of the speeches that we have heard already today—that the developments in China in the past 15 years have been absolutely staggering. They continue now at an even faster pace. China today boasts an economic growth rate of which many so-called developed countries in the industrialised West might well be proud. Inflation has not been totally removed by any means, but it has been brought considerably under control. The external financial situation of China is extremely strong with reserves in the Central Bank of probably about 50 billion dollars and which rise steadily week by week.
The recent developments in the financial sphere to which I have given some attention recently are particularly striking. I wish to mention the accelerating issue of shares in enterprises, to which reference has been made today, and the growth of securities trading in particular in the special economic zone of Shenzhen and in Shanghai. The savings rate in China is by any standards extremely high. It is probably about 28 per cent. of GNP. There is a sharply-growing demand for shares to absorb the people's savings. Indicative of that development, and perhaps symbolic in a wider sense, was the queue stretching around a whole city block which I saw in Shanghai a few weeks ago. The queue was not for food or other necessities of life, as might once have been the case, but to a stockbroking office.
The People's Bank of China has taken a special interest in that development. I understand that the number of shares, including the so-called -B" shares which have all the necessary safeguards regarding payment of dividends in foreign currency and repatriation of capital in foreign currency, and which can be dealt in only by non-residents, will grow rapidly in the months to come.
Those financial developments are particularly important. They not only reflect the progress of the real underlying economy, but are themselves a condition for the further advance of the economy. They provide the basis for domestic capital formation and encourage investment from abroad.

211
South China, in particular Shanghai, Guangdong and the special economic zone, have been the main location of those astonishing economic and financial advances. My noble friend in his introductory speech emphasised them. Such advances have a special bearing on Hong Kong, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers already. Much of that economic interpenetration by inward and outward investment between the People's Republic and in particular between the southern part and Hong Kong, which I and many others have always regarded as a beneficent prelude to 1997, has occurred between Hong Kong and those neighbouring areas and will no doubt increase. More generally the progressive liberalisation of the economy of the People's Republic has always seemed to me to be one of the best—perhaps the best —single augury for a smooth transition of Hong Kong in 1997.
There are grounds for believing that the present trends in South China will gradually spread throughout the country and, moreover, that they are irreversible. That at any rate is what the Chinese leaders believe. It does not mean that there will not be ups and downs even if the general trend continues to be upwards. Transformations of such enormous magnitude in a country of China's size and history produce their own social and economic problems and are above all subject to delays in the psychological adjustments that are required. For example, I am sure that the health warning which now attaches to so many advertisements of fund managers that, "shares may go down as well as up" is a warning that the people of China will learn to heed. Those people, many in very important positions, with whom I had the privilege of talking during my visit to Beijing in December and to Shanghai a few weeks ago, are conscious of that aspect. They put their faith in being able to maintain the improvement in living standards which should accompany, and have already done so to a large extent, the structural changes in the economy.
They are also well aware of another fundamentally more important problem which now troubles the countries of the former Soviet Union, and that is how to achieve the delicate balance between the phasing of economic liberalisation and changes in the political and administrative spheres. The faster that the increased emphasis on the market mechanism produces those real improvements in the lives of the masses of the people, which it is supposed to achieve, as against the stresses of a harsher economic climate, the easier it will be to achieve that delicate balance. All that argues against the fashionable doctrine of "shock therapy". That term and concept is often much too light heartedly used by so-called experts from the West who are trying to help the difficult transformation of one-time command economies.
The leaders of China, though proud of what they are achieving, are very conscious of what they lack and what they have to learn. We in the West can in our narrow and wider self interest help with trade, investment and technical advice. Given the catalytic role which Hong Kong is playing, our country, if it follows the wise advice given by my noble friend, can help in particular to benefit China as well as ourselves.
212
It was Napoleon who first spoke of "when China awakes". I am convinced that China is awake. We can help to ensure that she uses her new-found strength not only to her own best advantage but to the benefit of the world as a whole.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, sometimes my friends from Hong Kong, or my lady wife, whose ancestors originate from Fujian Province in mainland China, tell me that if we have the interests of Hong Kong at heart, or have a declared commercial interest in the future of Hong Kong, we must keep our remarks in debates such as this to a minimum. I shall do my best, but having heard the speeches I believe that that is a wrong approach to today's debate.
I cast my mind back 100 years when the agent of the dowager Empress set fire to the warehouses of the companies in which I have a declared interest. That caused many people involved in commerce to leave mainland China and go to the barren rock of Hong Kong. With the seeds of free enterprise they transformed it into the thriving international trading community about which we have spoken today. I wonder whether that analogy can be continued.
I believe that the people of Hong Kong are to be considered as seeds in a seed pod ready to burst forth after 1997 onto mainland China in order to carry the seeds of free enterprise into the cities there. The Hong Kong people who will make the return journey of their ancestors will be able to bring their much-needed and much-admired work ethic and abilities in business management to revitalise the mainland economies. If in spite of the protection of the Basic Law there is a temptation to impose on post-1997 Hong Kong an outdated and elitist bureaucracy I am afraid that the spectres of old Shanghai and old Canton will remind the administration of what can happen to Hong Kong in the forthcoming decades. I do not believe that that will happen and I am optimistic about the business future.
However, there are complications. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, with her deep knowledge of the subject, raised the problem of where politics and business stop and start. Perhaps I may be allowed to make a generalisation, although there are noticeable exceptions. Active politicians make rather poor businessmen and by the same token rich businessmen make rather poor politicians. Although there are exceptions to that rule, it is important that in Hong Kong people follow two different careers—a form of caste system. Those who wish to indulge in politics, with the courage and great activity of someone such as Martin Lee, should do so as politicians and be kept separate from the business community. Those whose business it is to continue their trade and to do their best to adapt to the future of Hong Kong, whatever it may bring to the business world, should keep out of politics.
In that way I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I believe that the business community should try to steer clear of politics and should just get on with the business. There is a great deal to get on with, as

213
was said by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and others. That includes the expansion into mainland China and into South China.
I speak today as an individual and say that I foresee various problems. There are real dangers in the low wage structure of South China. Serious unemployment problems could be created in Hong Kong as the main businesses are moved onto the mainland because of the golden apple of low wages, low cost and high profits which may follow. We should bear in mind that Taiwan and Singapore have opted for high technology as their future. In Hong Kong the emphasis has been on the entrepreneurial middle man and local manufacturers for re-export. Businessmen must look carefully at the future of Hong Kong. Should it concentrate more on high technology in order to obtain investment from high technology industries in Japan, Europe and America or should it consider some other programme? I see that as being the major problem rather than politics. I hope that politics will not become a major part of Hong Kong life. That was never previously the case and that has been the success of Hong Kong.
In addition, I hope that people in companies and in government will begin to pass on to local Hong Kong residents the responsibility for their duties post-1997. I doubt whether the Government in Beijing will read Hansard after 1997. Our views, whatever they may be and whatever may be said in your Lordships' House, will not be read in China nor in Hong Kong. Therefore, it is up to the people of Hong Kong to carry on as best they can within the sphere of the Republic of China.
Responsibility both for business and government should be given as soon as possible to executives of one kind or another and they should begin to fulfil their duties as soon as possible. Certainly there will be a partnership of western businessmen and western technicians. However, we must remember that under the new administration there may be serious language and cultural problems of understanding how the new regime thinks and operates. Only Hong Kong residents who originated from China will be able to help and assist. They will have a real role to play in manoeuvring the money for investment towards the success of Hong Kong and towards the success of China itself. I hope that non-resident people will not try to hold on to their responsibilities right up until the last moment.
I wish the new governor every success in what is a delicate and difficult task. I have no doubt he will fulfil it with extreme skill and wisdom as he has done in the past in his other duties.
5 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join with your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for giving us an opportunity to debate Hong Kong at this particularly appropriate moment. I thank him for setting out so clearly what I might describe, in a purely neutral fashion, as the establishment's attitude to where we stand in that relationship.
214
I also join with other noble Lords in saying how, as always, I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. She speaks with unrivalled authority on Hong Kong and her words must always be taken seriously when she speaks about Hong Kong and its future.
I believe that I am right in saying that with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am the first of your Lordships to speak who is not a businessman with a direct interest in Hong Kong. In my view that interest has led the debate to be curiously unbalanced. We are talking about not only the economic future of Hong Kong but also its political future. It was not until the noble Lords, Lord Roll of Ipsden and Lord Tanlaw, spoke that the political implications of what is going on was stated to be one of the considerations of equal importance to the celebration of the glories of capitalism and the success of Hong Kong; unrivalled, we know, as a centre of free enterprise.
I noted also that there is a desire, which I wholly understand but do not altogether applaud, to try to forget the more unpleasant aspects of the past. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for allowing me to intervene in his speech on that point. However, I noted also that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that he thought that the action in Tiananmen Square was not malevolent. That seems to me to be an extraordinary description of that incident. It was not done in a fit of absence of mind or for any other reason. I should have thought that "malevolent" is the mildest adjective which could be used to describe that major tragedy. Nor do I believe that, if you propose to judge China by its behaviour, it is possible to forget altogether its behaviour in Tibet today. Is that something which is also not malevolent and which the people of Hong Kong need not take into account when they consider their future after sovereignty passes from this country to China? If you lived in Hong Kong and your future was to be under the Chinese Government, those would be matters of legitimate, real and obvious anxiety. When discussing this matter in this House we should certainly address those issues.
Indeed, one reason that the whole matter of Hong Kong makes me, and I think others, uneasy is that we in this country are deciding the future of the inhabitants of Hong Kong and they will have to live with the consequences. That is an uneasy and uncomfortable position in which to be. Had the constitutional arrangements which exist in Hong Kong been different, the view of the inhabitants as to their future would have been of paramount importance. That would have decided the nature of our negotiations, the posture we adopted and what we hoped to achieve; but, as it is, the responsibility for their fate and for their future, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, lies with us. I find that an uncomfortable and uneasy position in which to be.
Unless substantial arguments are produced—and I must confess that I have not yet heard them—the case for the fullest possible consultation with the people of Hong Kong and the case for finding out their wishes by the most democratic means possible, and following

215
those wishes once they have been found out, is very difficult to contest or refute because they, and not we, will be living with those consequences.
That having been said, as has been indicated on a number of occasions in the course of our discussion today, there are, roughly speaking, two courses open to us. The first can be described as "fast forward", which is roughly speaking the course courageously advocated by Martin Lee. The other course, which has been advocated by almost every speaker this afternoon, is to proceed cautiously—and that is the view of the business community—to avoid any unnecessary confrontation with the Chinese Government. That view has been expressed overwhelmingly in the debate today.
I suppose it could be generally agreed, although the order in which things should be done may differ, that we all hope that at the end of the day, when sovereignty is transferred from this country to China, we shall have done all in our power to preserve the prosperity of Hong Kong and to secure the civil rights of its people. It seems to me that the latter has received far less than its due attention in this debate. Such is the difficult and delicate task which falls upon the new governor when he is installed.
As has been said on a number of occasions this afternoon, Hong Kong is a most brilliantly successful model of the market economy and its neighbour on the mainland, Guangdong, is marching in its footsteps and being swept along in its slipstream. Mr. Deng visited that province and said that it was on the right lines. Last year industrial growth increased by 27 per cent. That is an extraordinary achievement which we must all celebrate.
However, what has been happening in the former Soviet empire is not altogether irrelevant to this situation. We have discovered that ex-communist countries lack the institutional, economic and regulatory infrastructure which a market economy requires. Secondly, we have discovered that political reform is far more difficult than we had supposed or foresaw. That is a matter to which I shall return.
While we have given a great deal of advice to central and eastern European countries about privatisation, accounting, property laws and how to set up a banking system, we have given them far less advice on political reform, political structures and how to create civil institutions such as existed in Franco's Spain but did not exist and do not exist in those communist countries and, according to reports, do not exist in communist China.
If you transfer that experience with all the necessary qualifications which are large and considerable, we find that economic reform is taking place in China under an authoritarian government. In my view, that is the way in which economic market reform is generally successfully introduced. As I have said before in this House, it is very difficult to find a case where a democratic government have introduced market reforms successfully because their immediate impacts are unpleasant, as we have seen in central and eastern Europe.
Secondly, we find that some of the deficiencies in the legal and institutional structures which exist in
216
central and eastern Europe exist also in China. In all those respects, Hong Kong provides a model not only of a market economy but also of the legal and regulatory institutions which are required. According to true Hayekian theory, the establishment of market economies in China should lead inevitably to the establishment of democracy. Pray God that is true. Just as Hong Kong provided a model for economic development, so I hope—if the Hayekian theory is true—that it will provide a model for political development.
All I am arguing is that the case for further democracy in Hong Kong rests on the following grounds. First, on the Prime Minister's statement at the Commonwealth Conference in 1991 when he said,
"The bedrock of what we must do must he the general application of democracy and human rights. That means the rights of our citizens to choose freely who governs them".
I believe that that applies. Secondly, that statement was overwhelmingly endorsed in the Hong Kong election by the people who will suffer the consequences of any change in their status. As I said at the beginning, we should respect the views of those who must live with the consequences. Thirdly, if we hope the present regime manned by aged people and inspired by the past is the way to a more democratic society, then Hong Kong may and should be able to provide a political model just as it has provided an economic one.
The debate has been curiously optimistic in its prognostication of the future. The task of the new government will be far more difficult than has been adumbrated today. For example, there is evidence that the authority of the Hong Kong Government is already diminishing as people make plans for what they think will be the future. That must be recognised. I received a communication from a correspondent in Hong Kong regarding the law and order situation there, which has severely deteriorated in the past year. As a consequence, criminals armed with weapons imported from mainland China have been engaged in shoot-outs which have caused great anxiety. As a result of that, the Hong Kong Commissioner of Police visited China and has been in touch with the Public Security Bureau of China.
That is a perfectly sensible thing to do in any ordinary situation. But I understand that the Public Security Bureau of China has an official presence in Hong Kong. I have not given the noble Baroness notice of my question but I should like to know how large that presence is; how many people there are in the Public Security Bureau, and how long they will be there. It is readily understandable in the situation in which Hong Kong finds itself, and given the reputation of the Chinese Government, that the idea that Chinese Government police have a standing in Hong Kong could cause a great deal of anxiety.
I conclude by saying that it is all very well to talk about laying the ghosts of the past, to talk about mutual trust, to say that the Chinese go their own way and that we must understand it. I believe that they should understand that mutual trust is a mutual bargain; that so long as they behave as they behave in Tibet and so long as there is no apology for Tiananmen Square, so will people who are to come

217
under their rule be apprehensive. While we have a responsibility for those people we should exercise it with the greatest care and with some caution.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, like others who have spoken today I should like to start by putting firmly on record our appreciation and respect for the outgoing Governor, Lord Wilson. His has been a distinguished record of public service.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, provides us with an important opportunity to discuss both current events and future developments in Hong Kong and, indeed, China. We are privileged to have the benefit of his experience and insight.
The main issues arising from the impressive speeches in this debate with their wealth of direct experience—not least that of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn—seem to me to centre on Britain's handover of power in Hong Kong to China in 1997, with its attendant problems—not least citizenship, the resolution of the refugee crisis in Hong Kong about which we have heard little this afternoon and the future of relations between the United Kingdom and China.
With regard to citizenship I suggest that history will judge the present diplomatic practitioners severely. Scrutiny will centre on precisely what consular protection without the right of residency in the United Kingdom and without inheritance of that status by children really turns out to be. It will centre also on the fate of those non-Chinese residents in Hong Kong without a passport of any kind after 1997.
Since what I believe can only be described as the stark horror of Tiananmen Square in June 1989, the Chinese Government, regarding Hong Kong as a potential centre of subversion, adopted an increasingly hard line approach to the colony. Consequently, the Chinese have sought to exercise greater control in the running of Hong Kong both before and after the transfer of power. As was suggested by several speakers this afternoon, that was reflected in the Chinese opposition which delayed the new airport project which was only finally agreed in September 1991. The acceptance of the need for that agreement is itself obviously a concession to China and a symbolic extension of China's effective influence over the colony prior to 1997. I quite accept that some noble Lords have argued that that is legitimate, but it is a reality. With that in mind can the noble Baroness reassure the House this evening as regards the rumour that construction is even now being hampered by Chinese delaying tactics. Is it true? If so, what lies behind it? What is its long-term significance? Cannot the construction be accelerated? Are there plans for further discussions with the Chinese Government? If so, how soon?
Despite all the anxiety in regard to the long-term future, there were some good indications that business confidence may at least have partially recovered in the period following the original signing of the airport agreement. Economic ties between Hong Kong and China, as we have been reminded, are certainly at an
218
advanced level. China and Hong Kong are each other's largest trading partners and China accounts for more than 80 per cent. of the colony's re-export trade.
Equally, at least 2 million employees in the southern province of Guangdong alone carry out Hong Kong related work while an estimated 50,000 Hong Kong technical and managerial staff regularly work in China. It is to be hoped that that close economic relationship can translate relatively smoothly into closer political and administrative links.
Reference was made this afternoon to the appointment of the new Governor. Certainly the appointment of Christopher Patten has kept the spotlight on the colony. It is indeed expected to be a highly demanding post. He will have to negotiate both with the Chinese and with the increasingly independent pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong and somehow attempt to reconcile their different demands. It will call for the application of the highest qualities of fairness, objectivity, balance and diplomacy coupled with firmness, of which I believe, like others, Christopher Patten is capable.
In warmly wishing the new Governor well it is perhaps legitimate simply to suggest that he will rapidly need to put his recent combative partisan style of the election period firmly behind him. It is good that Christopher Patten has the direct ear of the Prime Minister. He will rapidly have to demonstrate that his appointment is not just a political consolation prize.
Pressure has been building up in Hong Kong for much greater democracy to be introduced—a development which we on this side of the House support. We recognise that the United Kingdom Government is indeed in a difficult position. While accepting the justice of greater democracy they must endeavour to handle this in a way that does not unnecessarily provoke the Chinese Government. However, Douglas Hurd told the other place recently, during Foreign Office Questions, that that is one of the problems that the Government are actively considering. It will be helpful for us all if the noble Baroness could outline the steps that the Government are taking, or are considering taking, to ensure that democratisation continues after the transfer of power.
The Foreign Secretary also said that on his arrival the Governor will want to consult widely about running the colony, its future and relations with the Chinese. He told the other place that conclusions would not,
"emerge until the autumn at the earliest".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/92; col. 812.]
He stressed that the United Kingdom Government would have to discuss the 1995 Legislative Council elections with the Chinese Government. Can the noble Baroness today clarify when a meeting for that purpose is expected to take place and who is likely to be present? For example, will directly elected representatives be included? The new Governor no doubt will be organising early meetings with the administration and elected officials. We hope that he will also take an early opportunity to meet other representatives from the community groups and from the trades unions.

219
On 12th May of this year Great Britain and Vietnam signed an agreement under which those Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong who have not been given refugee status will be repatriated by force if necessary. Forty thousand people could be affected. In response to a recent oral Question the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that it would take about three years to resolve the crisis. That still raises grave anxiety when the status and treatment of the boat people is compared with that of similar people in parts of Europe, Central America and Africa.
There is an unease about how far any valid objective dividing line really exists between an economic refugee and a political refugee. That is partly why we still favour voluntary repatriation and are unable readily to endorse repatriation by force except in the case of double-backers —that is to say, those who have already been deported from Hong Kong but who return in order to collect the bounty for those going back to Vietnam voluntarily.
The human rights of the boat people must be protected. Therefore, it is essential to be convinced that the screening processes are invariably thorough and just. Can the noble Baroness tell us when these processes were last vigorously reviewed by the United Kingdom Government together with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? The May 1992 agreement envisages increased United Kingdom aid to Vietnam. Can the noble Baroness tell us more about that? Given that it is poverty in Vietnam which has accentuated the boat people crisis, any increase in aid is welcome. Unfortunately, its effectiveness will inevitably be undermined by the United States Government's continuing economic embargo against Vietnam. That still extends to vetoing IMF and World Bank funds scheduled for Vietnam. Relations between the United States and Vietnam have certainly thawed slightly, but can the noble Baroness assure us that the Government will urge the US Government to end their embargo? In our view it is essential to appreciate that it is the parlous economic situation in Vietnam and the part of the international community in prolonging it, which contributes to the boat people tragedy.
Last September the Prime Minister visited China and Hong Kong. At the end of his visit he and the Chinese Prime Minister reaffirmed their commitment to dialogue and co-operation. They expressed confidence that Hong Kong's position as an international finance centre could be preserved after 1997. They welcomed the provision in the Memorandum of Understanding about the airport for meetings of their Foreign Secretaries to take place every six months.
We are all realists. All that is extremely important. But can the noble Baroness give categoric assurances that the United Kingdom Government will continue to raise firmly with the Chinese Government the imperative of respecting human rights and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter has just suggested, the priority to end repression in Tibet? This debate has illustrated that on all sides of this House there is a deep commitment to the economic and social success of
220
China and Hong Kong. Therefore, we all wholeheartedly throw ourselves behind the task of ensuring a smooth and creative transition in 1997 which will prove to be in the long-term interests of both China and Hong Kong.
But our commitment is surely not to some abstract notion of a state, a stock market or an economy as ends in themselves. Our commitment is to people; millions upon millions of individual children, women and men. That commitment can only be fulfilled if the principles of justice and human rights as much as any economic concerns remain firmly on the agenda.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with the greatest interest to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch. As a distinguished former Governor of Hong Kong he understands the territory and its people well. I know that he has their interests at heart. I well remember his first briefing to me on the subject of Hong Kong when he was Governor and I made my very first visit to Hong Kong and China about 12 years ago.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much we have valued his contribution to the work of the Great Britain China Centre over which he has presided for the past six years. I also pay a special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, for her eloquent speech based so informatively on her experience and authority as a senior member of the Executive Council. I am so glad that the noble Baroness's wisdom is going to be made available to the new Governor. I well remember too her valuable advice some 12 years ago when we first met in Hong Kong. Perhaps I may also associate myself and the Government as a whole with the tributes which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and other noble Lords have paid to the present Governor, Lord Wilson, whom we look forward to welcoming in this House next month. He has done an excellent job. He has guided Hong Kong through some testing times. We are most grateful to him and also to Lady Wilson for all that she has done in his support.
I know that this House wants to join with me in wishing Mr. Patten well in his exceedingly demanding job as Governor from 3rd July. As a friend and close colleague, I know that he will bring to that task formidable talents and determination. He will dedicate himself to serving the interests of Hong Kong and all its people. Indeed I know that he also has great interest in China. It was he who signed the first Memorandum of Understanding between this country and China when he held my present post as Minister for Overseas Development.
The result of the general election ensures continuity in the British Government's policy towards Hong Kong. We are determined to fulfil our obligation to administer Hong Kong justly and efficiently until 1997, and to do everything possible to lay secure foundations for preserving Hong Kong's way of life and economic success beyond that date, as provided for in the Joint Declaration. The Government and the

221
new Governor will want to continue to work in co-operation with China in the best interests of Hong Kong.
Democracy has naturally been a frequent theme in this debate and has been mentioned by many of your Lordships. The direct elections to the Hong Kong Legislative Council last September were a substantial step along the democratic path. Her Majesty's Government have two objectives in this matter: to see steady progress towards a greater degree of direct election in Hong Kong, and also to see this progress sustained without interruption after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997.
As the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, has said, there will be many detailed questions to decide about the next LegCo elections in 1995. We shall want to discuss all these matters with China and, whenever possible, to reach agreement, in particular on those issues relevant to convergence with the Basic Law. I noted particularly what the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said about the numbers being democratically elected. I should like to refer your Lordships to what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place on 3rd June when answering a question from the right honourable Gentleman Mr. Timothy Renton. My right honourable friend said:
"On the specific point concerning the 1995 LegCo elections, we have said that we shall be discussing those elections with the Chinese side with the aim of ensuring as much continuity as possible. Decisions on electoral arrangements will need to take account of such discussions; they are, I think, some way of".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/92; col. 812.]
It will be good for us all to remember that there will not be any sudden changes, but there will be much debate and discussion.
As my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter said, we have rightly heard a great deal about business. I am sure that the example that is being set in South China by all those who have invested there and who have given their time and energy is one that many other countries would do well to copy. As so many of your Lordships have spoken today about the enormous dynamism of South China, especially in the Pearl River Delta Region, and about the growing links between Guangdong Province and Hong Kong, it is right for me to spend a few moments on this subject and to try to give the balance to the debate that was requested by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter.
Guangdong Province and the whole of South China has in recent years seen some of the fastest economic growth in the world. That process has continued despite the recession elsewhere. Guangdong Province has been transformed over the past decade, as so many of your Lordships have said. Alone it now accounts for 10 per cent. of China's industrial output, nearly one-fifth of China's exports and around half of the foreign investment in China. However, there are still numerous concerns.
I should like to thank all those among your Lordships who have brought your commercial experience to bear on the judgments that we must make about what is going on in the transformation of
222
China. However, I note with care—as do the Hong Kong Government—the anxiety about inflation that was expressed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I know that the Hong Kong Government are taking steps to tackle inflation and that they will continue to do so.
One of the main things that we must remember is that China's economic reform policies, which have provided the context for the changing performance in South China, can act as an example. China has needed to depend on investment and on the management skills from outside, especially from Hong Kong, which have provided so much of the motor of the new economic development.
Hong Kong will always be a particularly valuable partner for southern China because it has such special skills. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said, it has a well-educated workforce with a high level of English. Hong Kong certainly has a high level of skills and it has developed considerable international contacts and expertise in entrepot trade. That is why it is so well placed to serve as a service centre for the whole South China region and, indeed, well beyond. I hope that British companies will take full advantage of the opportunities presented by these remarkable developments in southern China. I hope also that the press and other commentators on China will pay due credit to the successes that economic reform has produced there.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said that he thought that it was important to keep politics and business separate. I would rue the day that politicians failed to have an understanding of the needs of business whether in China or anywhere else. I believe that what the noble Lord intended us to understand was that politicians should not dabble in business. I am sure that all those of us who have been involved in business —albeit in my case some 18 years ago —have some sympathy with that view. Nevertheless, it is critically important that politicians—whether in Hong Kong, Britain or China—understand properly the need of business to get on with its job. That means having a good degree of contact.
Many of your Lordships have spoken about the airport, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who replied on behalf of the Opposition. I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words about the new airport and to seek to answer some of the questions that have been raised about certain aspects of the project. All sides are agreed that Hong Kong needs a new airport. The existing airport at Kai Tak is already congested and has been for years. Only very minor further expansion—hardly any, I fear—is practicable there. The Kai Tak airport is also in the heart of urban Kowloon, which could so much benefit from having that land area available in the future.
The projects involved in the new airport at Chek Lap Kok are huge, but they are vital if Hong Kong is to sustain and improve its position as a financial and trading centre in the region well into the next century. They will provide not only a new airport but greatly expanded port facilities and much more land to improve the living environment of many people.

223
In September 1991 the Prime Minister signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chinese Premier on the airport. It listed all the core projects. The Chinese undertook to support the projects and to take a positive attitude to funding proposals, including government-guaranteed borrowing by corporations. The Hong Kong Government undertook to build the airport to the maximum extent possible by 30th June 1997. To allay Chinese concerns about the impact on Government finances, the Hong Kong Government undertook to plan their finances with the firm objective of having not less than 25 billion Hong Kong dollars in the reserves on 30th June 1997.
The aim of the Hong Kong Government has not changed: it is to build the airport in the most cost-effective way possible. Detailed cost estimates have now been prepared. There has been some increase in costs over the original estimates for the very reason of inflation that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has mentioned, but rigorous control mechanisms are now in place. A key point is that the cost to the Hong Kong Government has not increased.
We and the Hong Kong Government have been discussing with the Chinese the details of the financial arrangements. It is understandable that the Chinese Government wish to be clear about exactly what is being proposed. There are time constraints. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, Hong Kong needs to be able to proceed with the projects in the summer if there are not to be delays. It is common ground that any problems should be resolved as quickly as possible. Last Friday, while we were in Rio, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed these issues with the Chinese Premier, Mr. Li Peng. They both reaffirmed their commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding. They agreed that further high-level talks should be held, either at ministerial or official level, in order to reach quick agreement on the financial arrangements. The preparations for those are now being made. In view of the critical importance of the new airport, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, refer to the airport as a sure-fire winner. We must ensure that it is so.
Let me reiterate that these are most exciting projects. They will lay a firm foundation for Hong Kong's infrastructure development well into the 21st century. The Government will be very active in ensuring that all goes well.
A number of points were raised during the debate. I shall refer to as many as I can in the time available to me. First, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Geddes, who once again enhanced our debate in what he said, that on the subject of defence lands, negotiations are taking place with the Chinese in the joint liaison group. I am afraid that the details must remain confidential. The Chinese are aware that land is a valuable commodity in Hong Kong and that some of the land previously used for military purposes must be made free for redevelopment. But the talks are going on and we shall not let the matter rest.
224
Towards the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a number of comments, particularly about nationality. I say to him and to the House that we are well aware of the problem that some categories of people do not yet have any certainty about their right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997. The consequence of the lack of clarity as to how China's nationality law will apply from 1997 is clear to us all. We are pressing the Chinese in the general liaison group for early answers so that this uncertainty can be cleared up. We shall also tackle the question of the children born before 1983, which I know is of concern to a number of noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked about the Chinese public security bureau presence in Hong Kong. I understand that this is a very small presence of liaison officials. Their task is to help cut through the red tape on the other side of the border and thus ensure that there is co-operation in solving the recent worrying violent crimes in Hong Kong so that it is as good as it possibly can be. I am sure that in that regard the House would be supportive of this presence. I am told that the presence of this small group of liaison officials has been well received in Hong Kong as seeking to deal with the problem in a sensible way. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, for their assenting nods on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, moved further into the field of the Vietnamese boat people, a matter which concerns us all. Welcome progress is being made regarding the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. The Minister with special responsibility for Hong Kong visited one of the camps during his recent visit to the territory to assess the situation for himself. The flow of migrants arriving in Hong Kong has almost ceased whereas the number of migrants returning voluntarily continues to rise. The second phase of the orderly repatriation programme has been agreed with the Vietnamese Government and I hope that we shall soon see a humane end to this long-standing problem. I can tell the House that, from my discussions with the foreign minister of Vietnam some weeks ago, the aid which we are putting into Vietnam to help with those who return to Vietnam is extremely well appreciated by the Vietnamese Government. The programme for that continues.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also asked when UNHCR last reviewed the system of repatriation. I cannot give him an exact date but I can tell him that from my talks with Mrs. Ogata on Monday in New York there does not seem to be a problem now. I believe that UNHCR has accepted the way in which we are now managing the return of the Vietnamese boat people. I note what the noble Lord said about urging the United States to end its embargo on Vietnam. This country has been seeking to persuade the United States of that for some considerable time.
As your Lordships are well aware, it is now just five years before Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty on 1st July 1997. The Government will be working to ensure that this takes place with minimal disruption to the daily lives of Hong Kong people. "Business as usual" may not sound a very inspiring

225
objective, but in the case of Hong Kong it is likely to be of most benefit to the people most closely concerned. We are indeed concerned with the people of Hong Kong. That is why we, for our part, are not planning any dramatic changes. It is confidence that is needed in Hong Kong. It is an end to uncertainty that is so much sought after.
I believe that Britain's record in Hong Kong is one of which we can be proud. The success story of Hong Kong is due not least to the people of Hong Kong themselves. But Britain has also provided over the past 150 years an administration which has been effective and fair. We have sought very largely to leave the people of Hong Kong free to run their own affairs, and this has been done with remarkable and outstanding success. This is a lesson that I am sure will not be lost on the Chinese, when they resume sovereignty five years hence.
This has been a most interesting and fascinating debate. I end by thanking once again the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, for introducing it today. It has served us extremely well.
5.47 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. It has been a most illuminating debate in terms of the vigour of points of view produced and the variety of sources of knowledge about Hong Kong and China which have been reflected in what has been said. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for the fullness of her reply and its very positive content. I am glad that she covered so satisfactorily the questions asked about the Government's intentions with regard to democracy and the airport. I do not wish to comment on any of the points made by her or by noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers. Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

UNRWA: Work with Palestinian Refugees
5.48 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to call attention to the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Middle East; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this debate is well timed in view of the informal meeting of governments shortly to take place in Amman, Jordan, on 23rd and 24th June. I look forward to listening to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich, all the more so because of his connection with the Third Order of St. Francis, who was in his day a peace-maker in the Middle East.
In January of this year I spent three weeks visiting Syria, Jordan, the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Jerusalem. I had the privilege of meeting the international and locally-recruited staff of UNRWA and of seeing much of their work. The quality and calibre of the staff is most
226
impressive, and I am grateful to them for their hospitality and welcome. Their dedication and commitment, despite many difficulties, deserve high praise.
I became convinced that the humanitarian work of this United Nations agency is quite indispensable. It is likely to be needed for many years, even after the successful establishment of Palestinian self-government. At present, the existence of UNRWA is the one thing that assures displaced and exiled Palestinians that they have not been totally forgotten by the international community. The fruit of its very good educational work over many years is a pool of talent and brain power among the Palestinian people which is second to none in the Middle East. It will be a precious asset for the future peace and prosperity of the whole region.
As your Lordships will know, the agency began its work in the chaos and confusion of 1950. It defined precisely who counts as a refugee: a person qualifies who was a resident of mandated Palestine before 1948, and who lost both his home and his livelihood because of Arab-Israeli hostilities. The children and further descendants of the original refugees are also so entitled.
A year ago, there were over 2.5 million refugees; that is to say, about half the total Palestinian population of the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and also those who live in Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon. Of that 2.5 million, about 35 per cent. live in camps. Such camps were originally tented or hutted. They have long since been transformed into permanent towns and villages. The fact that some two-thirds of the registered refugees live outside camps, integrated into the general population, is a tribute to the work of UNRWA and to the capacity for self-help and mutual help of the Palestinians.
The agency has worked through difficult times: the 1967 war, 1970 in Jordan, the Lebanese civil war, the invasion of the Lebanon in 1982 and the intifada since 1987, combined with the severe impact of the Gulf War. For example, UNRWA's schools in the occupied territories were completely closed for about 10 months in 1988 and 1989. Even today, a few schools are probably still closed in Gaza, while youth centres are not functioning on the West Bank, as I saw with my own eyes. Curfews are still hampering normal work in many parts of the occupied territories.
The three main functions of the agency are primary health care, welfare and relief, together with education and vocational training. Those functions absorb about 80 per cent. of the annual regular budget exceeding 500 million dollars. Public health measures and the immunisation of all children have been so successful that there has been no major outbreak of any communicable disease among the refugees since 1949. Perinatal mortality is commendably low, because of good pre- and post-natal care. Relief food programmes are now normally restricted to some 162,000 special welfare cases.
With the help of voluntary bodies, impressive work is being done for handicapped children and adults. Primary and secondary schools cater for about

227
370,000 children, while there are over 5,000 places in teacher training and vocational centres. Such is the pressure on the available school buildings that they nearly all operate on a two-shift system, with different children and teachers coming in the morning and the afternoon. That is a major feat of organisation and self-discipline. Indeed, it is quite a sight to see the change-over taking place, with one group of children arriving while the other returns home.
"Works" is the fourth word in UNRWA's title. That aspect is likely to grow in importance. Already a much needed new hospital is planned for the Gaza Strip. High unemployment in each of the agency's operating areas makes job creation necessary and urgent. The agency already has a modest revolving fund for starter loans to small businesses. In future, I should like to see the agency developing major public works, in ways reminiscent of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States or the various development agencies in Britain and Europe. New sewers are greatly needed in Gaza, and elsewhere many of the older and more overcrowded camps would benefit from redevelopment.
I turn now to the role of the United Kingdom in these matters. This country has been a member of UNRWA's Advisory Commission since the start. We have been major contributors to the agency's budget which is virtually all provided by voluntary governmental contributions. In 1991, we gave about 10.7 million dollars. We thus come eighth in the list of contributing governments—a reasonable enough position but one, nevertheless, that left us behind smaller countries such as Canada, Sweden and Norway.
I am therefore asking Her Majesty's government to use their utmost efforts to be more generous. In particular, I should like to see specific British donations to UNRWA's capital and special projects, to the emergency measures for the Lebanon and the occupied territories and also, if needed, for the planned Gaza General Hospital. So far as I know, there were no British contributions to those earmarked funds in 1991. Will there be special contributions to those funds in this and in subsequent years?
Such help is very much needed because UNRWA has no regular source of funds for capital work. It is obliged to proceed ad hoc and from hand to mouth. The kind of projects that it is undertaking are not ones for which normal borrowing is likely to be possible. Conceivably, very soft loans might be usable for a part of the necessary capital investment. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain why the agency has been faced with an exceptionally unfavourable operating climate in recent years.
The combined effect of the intifada, the immigration of Soviet Jews into Israel and the Gulf war have all severely prejudiced the Palestinians generally, but especially the refugees. The intifada drew down severe Israeli repression, with curfews, pass laws and all kinds of restrictions. The arrival of large numbers of Jews from Russia meant reduced work opportunities
228
for Palestinians within the state of Israel. The Gulf crisis slashed the remittances of expatriate Palestinians, almost at a stroke.
Over 300,000 Palestinians were obliged to return from the Gulf and from Saudi Arabia. Most of them went to Jordan, but some moved on into the occupied territories. As a result, unemployment rose to about 30 per cent. in Jordan and up to 40 per cent. in the West Bank and Gaza. It has been estimated that there was a loss of remittances of some 310 million dollars per annum. On top of that, the abnormally severe winter of 1991–92 caused losses to Palestinian agriculture of about 20 million dollars, without counting storm damage to houses and other property.
I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to make good all the massive losses that have fallen on the Palestinian economy. Nevertheless, strategic help, over a few years, to UNRWA's capital projects would, I think, provide excellent value for money. For example, the agency considers that it must produce a minimum of 4,000 new houses in the Lebanon and 5,000 in the West Bank and Gaza. That will be social housing for families in urgent need. The cost will be about 9.4 million dollars and it is estimated that the programme would create 450 jobs for one year. Similarly, British contributions to the revolving loan fund would create employment and remove people from the lists for welfare food and relief.
Those are only instances of the ways in which quite modest aid would enable UNRWA to plan its capital works with some confidence over the medium term. In a similar way, modest help to British voluntary bodies working with the Palestinians would make it possible for them to bring forward useful projects. I am thinking of such bodies as Medical Aid for Palestinians, Save the Children Fund and ABCD—an organisation working with handicapped people, especially the many young people who suffered serious injury arising out of the intifada.
I am not simply making a plea for more funding for UNRWA—desirable as that no doubt is—or for the related British voluntary organisations. There is a wider front on which the Government can be helpful, and I am sure that they will. As I have mentioned, we are members of the agency's advisory commission, which I understand functions as its governing body. Political support there, and also in the European Community, in the Commonwealth and in the wider circles of the United Nations, could produce invaluable results. I trust that such action will be an important item during the forthcoming British presidency of the European Community. Wider support for UNRWA can be considered a confidence-building measure in the current Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I say that because the activities of the agency overlap both major strands of the current peace negotiations. I am convinced that it is greatly in the interests of the whole of the rest of the world that the peace negotiations should reach successful conclusions. UNRWA has a part to play in the resolution of the Palestinian question.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising this matter and for introducing it in a speech which gave us a recent first-hand feel for the problems facing UNRWA at the moment. I am very glad to join him in paying tribute to an organisation which 43 years ago I played a very minor part in founding. The truth is that few of us at that time would have thought it conceivable that UNRWA could still be in existence in the 1990s. It is a measure of the failure of the United Nations to get a political settlement of this problem which would allow the refugees to live in freedom and in decent conditions.
As the noble Lord said, UNRWA now faces much bigger and more difficult responsibilities than it did in the old days. At the beginning, there were only 750,000 refugees. Today, as he said, there are more than 2.5 million, and the number is growing by 3 per cent. a year owing to one of the highest birth rates in the world. In addition, there are at least 250,000 refugees from Kuwait and other Arab countries.
There has also been a great increase in the harassment of UNRWA by the Israeli authorities. I quote from the Commissioner-General's last report:
"Area staff members were frequently arrested and detained, often without charge or trial, and two were deported from the Gaza Strip to south Lebanon. Violation of UN RWA premises by the Israeli security forces and misuse of those premises by certain local elements both remained serious problems."
The report continues,
"The treatment of staff members in detention continued to cause concern to the Agency. Staff members were subjected to beatings and various other forms of physical abuse, in particular during interrogation".
In these circumstances, I consider that the achievements of UNRWA have been remarkable and should be warmly praised. UNRWA has provided in fair measure, education, health services, social services and general assistance to the Palestinians in more than 600 schools, in more than 100 health centres and in many other establishments. UNRWA has not only saved Palestinian lives, it has done much to save Palestinian nationhood and Palestinian culture.
However, the organisation now faces a very critical situation. There is a huge birthrate and the casualties of the intifada have placed a tremendous strain on its health services. Its provision of education is subject to the traumatic upsets when the Israelis from time to time close 'schools and universities. Those who have ever visited an UNRWA school will have seen immediately the desperate desire of Palestinian children for education. It is heartbreaking to think of the permanent damage done to their education and their careers by the closure of the schools and universities.
Perhaps the most critical problem facing UNRWA at the moment is the provision of food, especially in Gaza. Many scores of thousands of heads of Palestinian families have been deprived of any chance of earning a living. In spite of the job creation efforts of UNRWA, there is no work for them in Gaza; they are denied travel permits; they are denied work permits; they are often confined to their homes by long and strict curfews; and they simply cannot buy
230
food for their families and for themselves. That applies not only to refugees but to other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA is thus compelled to step in.
The Israelis still tax Palestinians in Gaza but they do not provide either the food, the health services, the education or the social services which taxpayers are normally entitled to expect. It is a strange situation when an occupying power takes measures which deprive the occupied people of food and then leaves it to the charity of the outside world, through UNRWA, to save them from starvation.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I should like the Minister to tell us more about the contribution that Britain makes. We are, after all, especially responsible here not only because we failed to safeguard the rights of the Palestinians as we promised in the Balfour Declaration, but because we took the initiative in starting the organisation; and because we have provided, in John Reddaway and Bernard Mills and others, some of the best administrators that UNRWA has had.
The noble Lord said that he thought that we were eighth in the world in the table of contributions. I make it seventh, after reading the latest UNRWA report. But I agree with him, that that is not very grand. In the old days we were second—second to the Americans. I ask the noble Baroness when she comes to reply to explain whether perhaps we have made further contributions, not recorded; and if not, what future contributions are we going to make to assist UNRWA in its very heavy new tasks and responsibilities, and to contribute to the capital works about which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke. Perhaps more important: what more are the Government doing to obtain the implementation of the Security Council resolutions on Palestine and the implementation of the Geneva Conventions? What more are the Government doing so that this illegal and brutal occupation can be brought to an end?
Personally, I was not greatly reassured by the answers we heard in the House this afternoon. The fact is that Israel, like other countries should not merely be encouraged to observe Security Council resolutions, in the last resort it must be required to observe Security Council resolutions. I hope that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she can reassure the House that that is also the view of the British Government.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, first, perhaps I may express my gratitude to Members of the House for the warmth of their welcome when I was introduced at the beginning of the year. I am deeply conscious of the honour of being a Member of the House, and, in so far as my diary and other commitments allow, I hope to take a full and proper part in its affairs.
I was initially hesitant in proposing to make my maiden speech during this debate, but it is a subject which is close to my heart and one in which I have a certain amount of experience. I am, among other things, co-chairman of the dialogue that is continuing

231
between the Anglican Communion worldwide and the members of the Oriental orthodox churches —the Copts, the Ethiopians, Syrians and Armenians who form some of the indigenous churches in the region.
I am the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich which is in the county of Suffolk. I am responsible for almost the whole of the county apart from one small corner which is the responsibility of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. The county of Suffolk and the refugee problem would appear to be far away from each other, although Suffolk's coastline has been crossed on a number of occasions in the past. The Vikings caused a major refugee problem, and the Huguenots arrived as refugees from religious persecution. Conversely of course the Pilgrim Fathers later left us.
The difference between those earlier movements of people and those to which we give our attention this afternoon, and other more recent refugee crises, is that in the earlier cases the people were, on the whole, rapidly absorbed into the culture into which they moved. They quickly lost their identity. That is not true of the Palestinians who, 40 years and more after the camps were set up, remain there and in far greater numbers. That is a political matter, and the solution must be a political one. My prayers, thoughts and good wishes are with the Israeli Government—the present one and whoever will be in power after next week's Israeli elections—and all those involved in the peace process.
My emphasis this afternoon will be on the human element of the problem. In my album at home I have a photograph of a scene which, on the face of it, looks beautiful. It is a picture of a large lake, at the far end of which is a collection of dwellings which look romantic. They are reflected, as is the sun, in the surface of the water. That photograph was taken in the Gaza refugee camp of Jabalia. Its peace and tranquillity are an illusion. The houses at the far end of the lake are a hugger-mugger of small dwellings crowded closely together. They are made of breeze block, corrugated iron and whatever else is available. There are alleyways between the houses and water supplies and sewage are a permanent problem. The lake is not a lake. It is a cesspool with all the incipient and permanent dangers of an epidemic.
That there has been no major epidemic in the 40 years of the Palestinian refugee camps is due to two things. First, it is due to UNRWA's massive policy of immunisation and healthcare for which it deserves a great deal of praise. The second reason lies with the Palestinian people themselves—their care, cooperation, dignity and personality. If we were to enter one of the houses, we should find ourselves in a house with one or two rooms with three or four generations living together. We should be welcomed with dignity, courtesy and pride. We would notice that the floor was swept and clean; that the beds were piled in a corner during the day, with perhaps a picture on the wall and a stick or two of furniture for daytime use.
If we were to see the children going to school we should see them in crisp clean uniforms. If we were to visit one of the work centres in the settlement, we should see the Palestinian women working diligently
232
at their sewing machines, and producing excellent craftsmanship. I have some stoles in my Bishop's chapel which I use for celebration of the Holy Communion. They were made by Palestinian women. They are beautifully executed by caring women of intelligence. I confess to my own prejudice the surprise I felt when I first met Palestinian women and men who were graduates with better degrees than I have ever been able to acquire and who were far removed from that straight-out-of-the-desert image that Yasser Arafat manages to present to us.
I am sure that your Lordships will allow me to mention the presence of the Christian Church in that area. I do not suggest that relief should go to Christians rather than to Moslems or members of any other faith, community or none; but their presence is significant although it be I per cent. only. They are members of the churches that I have already mentioned plus the orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and others. They are most obvious at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where their cooperation is rather forced. Out in the fields, as members of the Middle Eastern Council of Churches, their co-operation is evident. They are working with UNRWA in the relief work.
We are talking about people of diligence and dignity. They are in need. UNRWA's work is important to them. I am delighted to know that the British Government are among the major contributors to that work. Long may that continue until that illusive but inevitable result is discovered: peace and security for all in the region.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his moving maiden speech. I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing from him again. I am pleased that he is joining those of us who take an interest in affairs outside this country. I do not have a first-hand knowledge of his diocese, but I believe that it is beautiful. I have a second-hand knowledge of it which was acquired from sitting in committee upstairs on the Felixstowe Docks and Harbour Bill. That was the parliamentary equivalent of "The Mousetrap". At least I have a fairly good working knowledge of the communications, trade, and so forth, of his area. We welcome him to our counsels and look forward to hearing from him again.
On these occasions, it is customary to thank the mover of the Motion; but on this occasion, my thanks will be best described as tepid, because I have mentioned previously in your Lordships' House what seems to me to be an almost obsessional interest in Arab/Israeli affairs. Indeed, if we spent as much time on other world problems as we do on this small part of the world, the House would have to sit 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, to clear the backlog of debates. At this time when peace negotiations are in progress and we have the unprecedented situation of the two sides talking to each other and meeting, I feel that if we do not say too much about it. that would probably be helpful.

233
The problem of refugees in the world is quite appalling for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. However, I believe we do a disservice if we concentrate too much on one particular aspect. In replying to the previous debate, the Minister mentioned Mrs. Ogata who recently took up her duties. She is faced with about 17 million refugees on her books, and it is disappointing to realise that with the end of the Cold War we have situations creating conflict and refugee problems on a scale we have not been used to for a long time. There is also friction: the developed nations are at odds with the third world. Some of the speeches at Rio accused us of entering a neo-colonialist phase and patronising them.
We face many problems, and your Lordships' House should concentrate on them rather than returning again and again to the comparatively small part of the world under discussion today.
The position is serious with this growth in the number of refugees. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned the severe impact of the Gulf war. I obtained from the Library the UN Chronicle, dated September 1991. The headline of an article in it states:
"The Gulf: 5 million and counting.
"It has been termed the 'fastest growing refugee situation in modern history' … it does not take a historian to see that the present crisis in the Gulf region has produced an unprecedented human exodus".
We are familiar with the situation, but it was not caused by the Israelis. Iraq attacked and entered Kuwait, generating an enormous problem. I do not recall any recent debates in this House on the plight of millions of people who, almost overnight, became refugees, living in appalling conditions. I very much fear that some Palestinian refugees in the camps are kept there for cosmetic reasons, as visual aids, in order to try to impress the world with the alleged intransigence of Israel in doing nothing about them. I am sure that it would have been possible for conditions to have been improved. The Arab states, with their enormous oil revenues, need not have stood aside. One cannot help feeling that the refugees have been kept in these conditions for a purpose: to blacken the Israeli Government.
I have spoken previously in the House about conditions in the Sudan. Repression is appalling in southern Sudan where the population is largely Christian or Animist. I invite the right reverend Prelate who spoke earlier to join me on future occasions in pressing the case for our Christian brothers and sisters in the Sudan who are suffering oppression by the Moslem north. Reinforcing the point I make about the cosmetic nature of some of the actions, I see an article in the publication, the Mideast Mirror for 20th May 1992. It states:
"Sudanese donation for Gaza.
"Sudan is donating 5,000 tons of foodstuffs to inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, Sudanese military ruler … al-Bashir [announced].
"He called on all Arabs and Moslems to help their 'Palestinian brethren,' and said Khartoum sought to set an example despite its own economic hardships".
"Economic hardships" is an understatement for conditions in the southern part of Sudan among the Christian population who suffer the most extreme
234
privations of famine and disease. Yet this gesture was made. The food should go to people in al-Bashir's own country who are literally starving to death because of conditions there.
The whole subject of refugees should be considered by your Lordships in a wider context. We should realise that the world is moving on, and we are now presented with problems in countries where we never thought they would arise. We know of the problems in eastern Europe, the disgraceful fighting in Yugoslavia where again there is repression on a religious basis. All this requires urgent attention.
I do not believe that we should flatter ourselves that the world is hanging on every word that is said in your Lordships' House; but we have some influence. People in eminent positions read our debates, particularly when they are germane to their own countries. Thus we must widen our perspective, allow the Arab/Israeli peace talks to continue with as little interference from elsewhere as possible. We must hope that they reach a successful conclusion. We should widen our vision and move away from the narrow, almost tunnel vision about a small area of the Middle East and consider the enormous problems. If they are not resolved, they will soon lead to insupportable conditions for virtually the whole human race.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I congratulate the maiden speaker and hope that, with his breadth of vision and experience in the Middle East, he will contribute not only to regional debates but to debates on world affairs. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his positive and upbeat contribution earlier when he asked for confidence-building measures in the Middle East.
Naturally, this debate is set in a more minor key. In some ways, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that it is perhaps untimely because we shall soon know the result of the general election in Israel. That will seriously affect the pace and depth of the autonomy talks which are at the centre of the Arab-Israeli negotiations.
In another way, it is appropriate to appraise not only the working record of UNRWA, but its whole ethos and philosophy. Its operations in the Middle East are as old as the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is more than ever appropriate because it can be seen against the sombre backcloth of the escalating ethnic hatreds, not only in the Middle East but also in areas which lie within two hours' flying time of London and less than an hour from Athens and Trieste.
The reason I can only give one or two cheers for the United Nations relief organisation in the Middle East —and I have seen the selfless work of many of its officials at first hand during at least 20 visits to camps in Gaza and the West Bank in over 40 years—is that the whole message, purpose and ethos of the organisation is to cater for a displaced people in transit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we want to see the Palestinian Arabs settled. I agree that it must happen as soon as possible and that 42 years is a very long time. I do not agree with him on his one-sided recital of grievances against Israel or

235
on the chronology of who did what, when it happened and how peace might have been restored or a settlement arrived at. I go beyond what he said. I believe that the Palestinian people are not only the most advanced, best educated and potentially the most effective component of the Arab family of nations but, second to none, they have been misled, badly deceived and betrayed by irresponsible leaders and callous neighbours.
The enormity of the injustice to the Palestinians —I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will agree at least with this formula—is at least partly the fault of the mighty Arab world which in the course of two world wars has graduated from Turkish vassalage to a family of 23 sovereign nations. It has not offered to settle at least a portion of the total number of Palestinian refugees within its borders. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked Her Majesty's Government what action they and the European Community are taking to help build confidence among the parties, the most important and the most convincing decision could be for a number of Arab countries to turn at least one part of the refugee population into citizens.
Of course it is to be hoped that the current negotiations will lead to a self-governing Arab polity in the West Bank and will one day eventually lead to an Arab independent country that would combine the present Hashemite Kingdom and those parts of the West Bank and Gaza that would be conceded by Israel as part of a territorial compromise. But it is a myth to think that those territories will absorb the entire Arab/Palestinian diaspora. A great and mighty nation like Germany has solemnly renounced its claims to the lands beyond the River Oder or the Sudetenland as a result of its defeat in war. Is it really illogical and not understandable that a state in Israel's position that has been four times attacked by its neighbours—and has thrown them back—should wish to secure its borders not only by contractual arrangements but also by defence motivated territorial adjustments?
UNRWA has always stood out against anything that smacks of permanence. Time and again successive Israeli governments have offered to rehouse refugees in permanent homes in Gaza but those governments have been rejected. The other day a distinguished Jordanian politician said, not without a tone of dignity and pride, that refugee encampments in Jordan were not as a matter of principle allowed permanent roofing in order to demonstrate that the encampments were not permanent.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the school system. I concede that that system has involved an enormous task undertaken by some wonderful people. However, I must say in the same breath that there have been many incidents which indicate that the schooling, supervised by UNRWA, does not discourage militancy or the advocacy of violence and terror.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis and Jews abroad stand for a lasting peace and at least one-half of the Israeli electorate and possibly more also stand for a lasting peace. At least one-half of world Jewry and possibly more would opt for a generous compromise. However, there must be a sense of
236
proportion and an active will on the part of the Arab world—one would hope that it would be massively supported by the international community—to make it clear that if such a compromise is to be reached the permanent settlement of a large number of homeless Palestinians, not only in Jordan and the West Bank but elsewhere in the Arab world, must be an instant high priority. If this cannot be done, the danger to peace is great indeed and the current peace conference between Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis and the Arab world will be just one more frame in the endless slide show of false dawns.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to follow the tone of either of the previous two speeches. I prefer to follow the tone of the right reverend Prelate whom I congratulate on his maiden speech although it is not proper for subsequent speakers so to do. Nevertheless I shall do so. That is perhaps a Whip's privilege although I am not certain about that. I was interested to hear the right reverend Prelate's remarks about Vikings because I believe that somewhere inside me there is a Viking gene or two. It is possible that my ancestors passed through part of the right reverend Prelate's diocese on the way to the better parts of the country in the North-West of England.
We are pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is in her place today. She has had an immensely tiring week. The other day she was in Rio and then in New York. She was in Hong Kong earlier this afternoon and now she is in the Middle East. She deserves congratulations on being present to listen to our debate today.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is to be congratulated on placing this Motion on the Order Paper, I support the excellent work of UNRWA. believe that pretty well everyone who has visited the West Bank and Gaza will have seen the enormous courage and patience of the UNRWA workers and the strain which they have to put up with when doing their remarkably good work. As has been indicated already, the scale of the problems is huge. At the moment UNRWA's special hardship programme for the West Bank and Gaza is assisting something like 18,000 families who do not have a male adult who is medically fit to work. One-quarter of those people are living in dilapidated, unhygienic housing and many other houses are badly in need of repair. It is estimated that something like 5,000 homes need replacement or innovation in the next few years.
A housing rehabilitation programme has been started thanks to the work of UNRWA and basic decisions on the scale and nature of the rebuilding are being determined by local Palestinian architects and engineers. That is a further indication of the skills which exist in that area. This aid is not patronising aid. It is intended to bring forth the skills of the people and to enable them to assist themselves in improving their standard of living.
Small-scale contractors are engaged by the agency, and such a course offers a considerable alleviation of the unemployment situation. The noble Lord, Lord

237
Hylton, referred to that situation. The families themselves are expected to carry out minor repairs and to get help from their neighbours and the local community, but with technical assistance from UNRWA. That again is a valuable use of the funds which pass through that admirable organisation.
A similar programme is required for the Lebanon. As we know, the political situation there is stabilising but nevertheless there is an enormous amount of dereliction left behind. Large numbers of refugees are returning to homes that have been destroyed both by Arabs and by Israelis. Here the organisation offers cement and cash to the level of something like 50 per cent. of the cost of restoration. This is assisted do-it-yourself and that is by far the most admirable way of producing the right results. As has been said, there is always a lack of cash. Donations to the West Bank and Gaza have been received since 1989 totalling 2 million dollars from Kuwait, Italy, the European Community and the US. However, when all that money is spent, less than 13 per cent. of the needs will have been dealt with.
The Commissioner-General of UNRWA wrote to governments at the back end of last year seeking extra financial support for the project in the Lebanon. He asked for 3 million dollars in 1992. I understand that so far no money has been forthcoming. In the same letter Mr. Turkmen drew attention to the 7,000 additional pupils who are registered in UNRWA schools in Jordan. Those additional pupils have arisen directly as a result of the Gulf war. A further 1,300 extra children are registered in Gaza. We have discussed the Gulf war and its results before. I have described the real hardships that are being felt in spite of our supposed great victory over Saddam Hussein. I refer to the people who are washed up on the beach as a result of the steamroller having gone through—now there is a wonderful mixed metaphor!
Is there no way in which the Government can contribute more money for those special requirements? No one denies that the Government are paying their fair share, and they are to be congratulated on doing so. We all know that the ODA has an enormous number of commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, is right to point to places such as the Sudan and to recognise that there are many demands on our foreign aid which are perhaps greater and more pressing than those of Gaza and the West Bank. However, there is a specific and well-organised scheme which will help a significant number of people and I beg the Government to consider emergency funding and to see whether there is some way of meeting that demand.
The situation is not improving. We have considerable sympathy when we read of Israeli citizens being murdered in the Gaza Strip. We also have sympathy with the people in the refugee camps when they are attacked by settlers. An unfortunate incident occurred recently when one of the UNRWA food distribution centres was attacked by 15 young vandals who broke into the refrigerators, knocked holes in the tins of oil and mixed the oil with the flour which was in store. It is sad that money which has been donated
238
by governments, agencies and ordinary people to provide help and food should be treated in that way, but I suppose that that is one of the natural consequences of the lack of success in the peace process so far. Again, I echo what the last few speakers have said. At the end of the day it is important to ensure that the peace process continues to a successful conclusion.
I should like to say a word or two about the situation in Kuwait. The position of Palestinians in Kuwait is particularly serious because many of them are virtually stateless. Prior to the Iraqi invasions there were something like 400,000 Palestinians in Kuwait and it is thought that about 200,000 left during the occupation. By the end of 1991 between 50,000 and 60,000 were thought to remain. Those who remain are having a particularly difficult time. Many are people whose families came from Gaza in the days of the old mandate many years ago. They do not have Israeli documents. In fact, they do not have any documents. There are also some people with Egyptian documents which they received when they lived in the Gaza Strip but which are no longer acceptable and on which they are no longer permitted to return to Israel.
I have written to Mr. Turkmen, the Commissioner-General today, in my role of Chairman of the Middle East Committee of the Refugee Council saying that we are particularly concerned about the impact of the deadline which expired on 31st May for Palestinians and other non-Kuwaitis to obtain residents' permits, although we understand that that has been extended to 31st July for families with children and for teachers. However, the position of Palestinians who do not receive permits is still unclear, particularly in the case of those who hold only Egyptian travel documents. We understand that the Government of Kuwait have given an undertaking that they will not deport stateless persons to any country where they would be at risk. However, there have been persistent reports that pressure has been brought on some Palestinians to leave even though they have not been formally issued with deportation orders. I should like to ask the Government what they know of the position at the moment and what steps they are taking to put pressure on the Kuwaiti Government to ease the situation of those poor people.
We are aware that UNRWA's mandate is limited to registered refugees although it does, both in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories, extend those services to non-registered Palestinians and therefore plays a role in protecting Palestinians as a whole.
We hope that UNRWA is able to send a further mission to Kuwait to discuss those urgent issues. I hope that the Government, both directly and through their presidency of the European Community in the coming six months, will be able to use their influence to assist in resolving some of the difficulties which exist in Kuwait and which in due time will flow back into Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
This is a matter of considerable concern. It may concern a small area but, as the right reverend Prelate properly said, we are talking about people and in particular about people who are in great need. I know that the Government are sympathetic and I hope that

239
when she replies the noble Baroness will be able to give some help and some answers to some of the questions that have been raised this afternoon.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I believe that a tribute is due to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for putting the Motion to the House today. In my first year in this House I have come to recognise his very distinguished contribution to humanitarian concerns across the world and in the United Kingdom itself. We know that that is no passing interest but something which is very deep in his commitment to politics. The value of the debate this evening, although brief, has spoken for itself. I am sure that all of us, in thinking about the work of UNRWA, would also want to remember the work of the other voluntary agencies operating in that area.
My noble friend Lord Cocks made the point, which he has made before, about not overdoing our interest in the Middle East at the expense of other parts of the world. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point because the refugee crisis internationally, as the noble Baroness knows better than most, is appalling. In considering this issue and the courageous and committed work of those involved we would do well to spare some time remembering those grappling with challenges which are at least as great in other parts of the world.
In addition, we should all like to join in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. I, too, have had the privilege of visiting the places he described. Listening to his graphic account, and the simple way in which he put it, certainly brought home to me vividly the experiences I have had in the past. People in his diocese are very fortunate to have a leader who can speak to them in those terms.
Estimating the size of the Palestinian population outside Palestine is difficult as those in the diaspora travel on documents issued by their host countries. In 1989, as has been suggested, it was estimated that just under 5 million Palestinians were living in different countries around the world and that too many had been refugees for 40 years.
UNRWA is responsible for providing education, health and relief services to Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Not all Palestinians who live in those areas are registered with UNRWA, but in the Near East, as has been suggested, some 2.2 million Palestinian refugees are so registered. I believe that to obtain a sense of the measure of the work which confronts UNRWA it is necessary to look at the geo-political context.
The 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are probably in by far the worst conditions. Two-thirds are considered by the Lebanese Government to be refugees who lost their homes in 1948. They are allowed minimum rights such as identity cards and travel documents which declare them to be stateless. The other one-third have no rights at all. In a country where the economy is in ruins Palestinian refugees have no rights to work outside the camps and are
240
effectively cooped up in squalid ghettos on the edges of the main cities. The drastic drop in remittances from relatives in the Gulf, formerly an important means of survival, has meant increasing destitution for those people. That is a matter to which, in effect, my noble friend Lord Cocks referred.
By comparison, Syria has allowed its 300,000 Palestinians comparative freedom. They have identity cards, which give them the right of residence, and travel documents. They have been allowed to form their own regimen and are able to work outside their camps including work in posts in the Civil Service.
More than half of Jordan's population is made up of Palestinians from Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Jordanian Government are understandably ambivalent about the Palestinian population. UNRWA estimates that there are 1 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, but the Jordanian Government give an estimate of half that number. That government allow all Palestinians, except those who come from Gaza, Jordanian passports identifying them as Palestinians. However, the situation of Palestinians of Gaza origin in Jordan remains an unsolved problem which means that they cannot travel. Legally, Gaza falls under Egyptian jurisdiction which is why Jordan takes that position. There is a high degree of integration of Palestinians within the Jordanian state but also a high level of control. The 11 camps remain extremely unattractive places in which to live with poor standards of housing, sewage and other basic services.
That then is just a glimpse of the magnitude of the ongoing humanitarian challenge facing UNRWA. On top of what I have described there is, in addition, the exposed position of the Palestinians under acute pressure in Kuwait, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred. UNRWA is anxious to shoulder its protection responsibility for them as rapidly as possible and deserves all the support that can be mustered to enable it to do so—not least the dispatch of a monitoring delegation at the earliest possible date. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us today what the United Kingdom Government plan to do to help in that respect.
Funding for UNRWA's regular programme is relatively secure. But funding is badly needed for three special aspects of its work. The first is the emergency budget which covers the refugee affairs programme the only UN international mechanism to monitor Israeli practice and to watch over the well-being of the Palestinian refugees in the Occupied Territories. The second is the special development projects which are important as assistance to Palestinians in building up their own structures in preparation for autonomy and statehood. The third special need is in the Occupied Territories where there is the additional burden for UNRWA and the Palestinian refugees brought about by the elimination of remittances from Palestinians working in Kuwait, the imposed reduction of job opportunities in Israel and, most recently, the partial closing of Gaza.
I understand that the United Kingdom Government do not support the first two special needs. That seems to me very sad. I hope that the

241
noble Baroness will indicate a change of policy in that respect. It would be good to hear exactly what support has been provided for the third special need.
Perhaps may be more specific. In November last UNRWA made a special appeal for support for work beyond its normal responsibilities and budget in 1992. That was for some 14 million dollars for refugee affairs officers, expanded health services and food distribution in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories, a situation aggravated by the intifada and the Israeli counter measures; for about 2 million dollars for additional school facilities in Gaza for 1,300 pupils who returned with their families from the Gulf; and for about 4 million dollars for additional schools, classrooms, teachers, health facilities, relief and social services in Jordan where the economy, stretched to the limit by the Gulf war, could not cope with the influx of 300,000 people from Kuwait and other Gulf countries—that point was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Cocks; by last November 7,000 additional pupils had been registered in UNRWA schools.
UNRWA also appealed for about 3 million dollars in 1992 towards an eventual total of 11.7 million dollars for housing, schools, and other infrastructure to alleviate the acute hardship of the poorest displaced Palestinian refugees within the boundaries of existing refugee camps in Lebanon, which had been severely damaged during 15 years of civil war.
I am disturbed to learn that in April of this year UNRWA had to renew its requests of last November. In response to that 23 million dollars special appeal last November, only 6.4 million dollars had been received or pledged. In fact, only the additional measures for Gaza had been fully funded. In the meantime, an already bad situation had deteriorated. The unusually harsh winter throughout the region had caused damage to UNRWA schools, clinics and other facilities. Many homes in the refugee camps had become uninhabitable. The general socio-economic conditions in the West Bank had become worse, the economy of Jordan had yet to recover, and Lebanon had yet to see a measurable improvement in its economic situation.
I suggest that those factors amount to a major human catastrophe and that there is no room for complacency. The Government will be guaranteed full-hearted support from this side of the House if they respond on the scale required.
Funding for UNRWA is a serious issue, but so too is its role in protection. On 20th December 1991 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 681 calling on Israel to recognise the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Territories. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised that point. I believe that it is important for us to hear what the Government have done to further that resolution and to know the latest situation.
To be realistic, the likelihood of an independent Palestinian state within the foreseeable future, despite the peace process, is very low. Most Palestinians in the Occupied Territories would probably settle for a federation between Israel, Jordan and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But I suspect
242
that the most they can hope for out of the present negotiations is some form of control over health, education and welfare, the precise sectors within UNRWA's mandate. If there were a peace agreement with Israel, large sections of Palestinian refugees in Syria and Jordan would probably nevertheless wish to stay where they are. Should they remain it seems probable that UNRWA will hand over responsibility for their health, education and welfare to the host governments as an interim measure pending their full integration into those two countries. However, the situation in Lebanon will be problematic because of the reluctance of the Lebanese to integrate any Palestinians.
In that respect, we must remember that UN Resolution 194 of 1949 recognises the right of all Palestinians who left in 1948—not just refugees in camps—to return to their homes. UNRWA's task was to minister to those who lost their homes until they could return or receive compensation.
The issue for UNRWA in the Occupied Territories is how to prepare for increasing Palestinian control by moving from being just a service provider to a development role in which the refugees have increasing control over their own affairs. That is a task in which both local and foreign NGOs are co-operating, especially in the fields of income generation and disability.
For Palestinian refugees UNRWA remains a symbol of the unsolved problem of Palestine: the right of return and the temporary nature of the camps. Any suggestion that it should wind down its role or even become less relief oriented and more development oriented has always been greeted with dismay by many refugees who fear some deal behind their backs. It is not an easy situation for UNRWA. However, if there is a demonstrable and clear international spirit of intent to reach a solution to the problem of Palestine, the task of UNRWA to hand over its responsibilities will be very much easier. What is clear is that as long as that spirit of intent is not evident the camps will remain a source of major social and political discontent. Without UNRWA the Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian and Israeli Governments would have a much bigger problem on their hands.
I therefore suggest that for the time being the UK should throw its weight fully behind UNRWA, perhaps even considering a support role for it in the peace negotiations. The Government should at the same time keep at the head of their foreign policy action list a just solution to the problem of Palestine. With the end of the bipolar age they should consider advocating an enhanced role for the European Community in the peace process. That is a matter to which Ministers might turn their attention during the forthcoming United Kingdom presidency.
7 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for initiating the debate. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich on an outstanding maiden speech which I heard while standing in the margins. I must apologise to him and

243
to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for not being in my place during their speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, kindly said in some personal remarks addressed to me, the last few days have been a little hectic. My absence from the Chamber for some nine minutes was therefore necessary.
The debate is most important. UNRWA is not widely and well known yet it is vital and critical to the Palestinians. It is awkward to talk about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees by its initials but it is a good deal shorter. I am indeed impressed and pleased to find the depth of your Lordships' knowledge on this vital issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has pursued with considerable dedication his interests in this part of the world and in many others, in particular his concern for refugees. The enormous humanitarian problems go back over many generations. The size and nature of the problem of refugees in the Middle East and our involvement with the region during many years has meant that we are full supporters of the vital work which UNRWA has undertaken since its inception some 42 years ago.
There have been many comments about our contributions to UNRWA. During the past five years they have exceeded £30 million, which is a substantial sum for an organisation dealing with a relatively small but nevertheless vitally important part of the world. We are consistently in the top six donor countries. Indeed, we have recently been fifth and not seventh or eighth as we have heard tonight. That does not mean that we should not be looking at the future needs of UNRWA, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said.
The British Government support UNRWA politically as well as financially. That is an important point, in particular when one considers the complexity of the refugee problems and the fact that there are 60 million refugees worldwide, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. We are also extremely well aware of the difficult conditions under which UNRWA must work. There are many unwarranted intrusions into its legitimate efforts to assist refugees. It is to UNRWA's great credit that it has been able to do so much. However, so much more needs to be done because today there are many more Palestinians in need.
I pay great tribute to the dedicated staff of UNRWA, to their hard work and to their inventiveness in dealing with the many different problems which beset them. The organisation has achieved good results in education, which is taking some 46.5 per cent. of its overall budget; in health, which takes between 18 and 20 per cent. of its regular budget; and in its relief work, which takes some 12 per cent. more. The organisation provides many emergency services. It gives a service operationally to many of the smaller enterprises within its scope. It is interesting to note how well UNRWA has helped local people to develop during the years. In other words, it has helped people to help themselves, and in that it is most certainly to be further encouraged, as in so much of its other work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me some specific questions of which he kindly gave advance
244
notice. He asked in particular about UNRWA's capital budget and its spending on special projects. We have indicated to UNRWA that we shall consider modest project requests, although we have given our main support to the general fund and to funding ongoing activities. We have done that because without such assurance UNRWA would have been unable to plan ahead. I am always prepared, as I hope your Lordships know, to look at the applicability of our funds to see whether they can be even better targeted and used.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the extraordinary measures for Lebanon and the occupied territories and about the expanded programme of assistance. Several noble Lords asked similar questions. It is true that we have not contributed to those items. They have been funded by extra-budgetary contributions. It is because we felt that it was wise to keep UNRWA's general fund topped up that we have not so far contributed to them. I shall return to that issue later.
I was asked about the Gaza General Hospital. Britain has not contributed directly to that hospital. However, the Government have made a contribution via our share of the European Community support for the hospital. The EC is the major donor to the project. If time allows I shall return to that matter later. Through the European Community we have supported all the programmes that I have mentioned: the capital and special projects, the EM LOT, the expanded programme of assistance and the Gaza General Hospital.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, further asked whether we would give political support to UNRWA in its advisory committee, in the EC forum and in the UN forum. The answer is that we already do so and we certainly intend to continue to do so in order to help UNRWA to fulfil its mandate. We view that as a most important role in helping the people in the area not only now but until peace is truly established. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that that support will continue.
The substantial contributions which we have made via the European Community were some 44 million ecu during the previous calendar year, 1991. The UK's share of that amounted to about £6 million. Of that, £3 million was given particularly to assist those returning from Iraq and Kuwait as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Our normal contribution to the EC programme is about £3 million. In addition we contributed some £6 million directly to UNRWA during the previous financial year. We expect to match that figure this year.
During the debate many issues have arisen on which I should love to spend considerable time. However, it would be wrong to prevent others speaking in a later debate. I wish to mention the fact that UNRWA is funded almost entirely from voluntary contributions. That matter is much forgotten and underlines again the reason why we contribute to the core fund. There is no automatic UN funding of UNRWA: it is funded on a voluntary basis. It has been able to do work in areas where it would have been very difficult for non-governmental

245
organisations to be active without its support. Therefore, it is an enabler for other forms of assistance. That is one of the other reasons why I am so supportive of it.
Although UNRWA is frequently harassed—it sometimes has violence committed against it—it goes on. It is interesting that UNRWA scarcely merits a line in the international press when similar behaviour in other places often merits a large headline. We are dealing with a group of people who are trying to help not only as regards education and health but also in many other ways. They seek to give some training and an institutional base—although not of a permanent kind because it is in refugee camps—to people who are extremely badly affected.
We gather that there are now more than 2.5 million Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA, which is a few more than the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. However, there are major implications of the refugee numbers in those camps for they have a population growth rate of just over 3 per cent. per annum. The implications of that are clearly well known to this House from the debates and questions which I have sought to answer over recent weeks.
We know too that UNRWA would like to see more self-help within the area. I hope very much that the peace process on which we are engaged will be successful. I support fully the view expressed by a number of noble Lords in this debate that the key to resolving the difficult problems which UNRWA faces day to day is to tackle the political dispute. That is why we give our full backing to the present peace process. We believe that it offers a unique opportunity for achieving a comprehensive and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute.
I believe that it is not for those outside the region to dictate the terms of such a settlement, which to be effective must be freely negotiated and accepted among the parties involved. That is why we urge the leaders of all the parties to seize that opportunity for peace. It will only be with the competion of that peace process that UNRWA will be able to have formed a basis for the self-governing Palestinian authorities which will be created as a result of it. Certainly, we shall look to the future to discuss with UNRWA and with what we hope will be the incipient nongovernmental organisations among the Palestinians as to how donors can best aid in the future. There is no doubt that there are problems for those who wish to work in those areas because the instability of the political situation has made it extremely difficult for non-governmental organisations to implement the projects.
I refer here to the recent closure of the Gaza Strip, the imposition of the curfew and the closing of Bir Zeit University. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the impact of the Israeli actions on the economy of the Gaza Strip. We have been extremely conscious of that and our Consul-General from Jerusalem visited the Gaza Strip yesterday. He was able to confirm at first hand that the Israeli restrictions on movement have drastically reduced the number of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip who are still able to work in
246
Israel. Of the 30,000 or so who normally work in Israel, there are now only 2,000 to 3,000 at most who are able to do so.
With that information, we have taken up that matter with the Israeli authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked me to do. We have asked them to abide by their responsibilities under the 4th Geneva Convention to remove those restrictions, which will add in ruinous terms to the falling economy of the Gaza Strip, on its inhabitants. As one who travelled to Jordan in September 1990 as refugees fled from Iraq and Kuwait back to Palestine, I can tell the House that those people in the Gaza Strip need no more hazards. They have been bashed once, twice and more times over. Therefore, we must put considerable emphasis on the peace process and a resolution of the problems of those in the camps in the area.
Many of those people returned to Palestine, having lost their homes and savings overnight as a result of the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait. By their work in Israel they had just started to rebuild their lives in a small way. If they are now denied the opportunity to work, their hopes will be dashed for a second time in a drastic way. I believe too that it will give UNRWA a bigger problem than ever before in seeking to help those people to help themselves, because once their confidence is destroyed it is very difficult to build it up again.
We have heard from your Lordships this evening the effect of the numbers on schools that UNRWA has run for so long. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, that those schools have been run with relatively few problems. We must consider that 7,000 returning children were added to the UNRWA schools in Jordan last year and 1,300 in Gaza. We know what the pressures are and we know all about the double banking in those schools; indeed sometimes it is triple banking, with three shifts per day being used in some schools, just as there are in Ethiopia. The children sit in overcrowded classrooms and are handicapped by insufficient resources. That in itself breeds the kind of instability about which the noble Lord was worried. Therefore, we must keep a balance between what it is possible for UNRWA to do with the resources it has and the lack of total freedom of activity from which it suffers in trying to do its work.
As the House will have realised, I keep in fairly close contact with what is going on in that region. Indeed, I was pleased to meet the new Commissioner General for a wide-ranging discussion in March when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsored him on a visit to the UK. My officials have even more contact than I have, but I am delighted with the way in which Mr. Ilker Türkmen has taken up his post. As a former Turkish Foreign Minister and Turkish Ambassador to France, he is a very wise and worldly person. I think that UNRWA is extremely fortunate to have him.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long but I believe that any further support that we can give to UNRWA is important. That is why we support a programme which UNICEF is seeking to carry out in support of UNRWA. It is a programme covering the

247
period 1992 to 1994 for Palestinian women and children in the Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. I mention that because much anxiety has been expressed this evening about the Lebanon. The programme is estimated to cost more than 6,450,000 dollars over three years. It will cover many aspects of health care, including immunisation, nutrition, maternal health care, the rational use of drugs, water supply and sanitation, with an emphasis on training and institutional development. We expect that the programme will be discussed and agreed by the executive board of UNICEF meeting now in New York.
There are other programmes. For instance, UNDP is providing further assistance to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza areas. That is augmented by cost sharing from other donors. In 1991 the total expenditure was estimated at some 11 million dollars. It concentrates on income generation and on social sectors such as health and education, as well as on infrastructure work on water supplies, sewage disposal and energy. Your Lordships can therefore see that a great deal is happening. European Community aid to the Occupied Territories goes in two ways—through UNRWA and through the financing of development projects, particularly through the co-financing of the non-governmental organisations, which do such superb work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will see from my remarks that we give support in many different ways. SPOT funds and DRU funds have gone to Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), Save the Children and Action Around Bethlehem for Children with Disabilities, which is the ABCD mentioned by the noble Lord. All those and many others—Oxfam, the Order of St. John and Co-operation for Development have received help from us to help those people who are in such difficulty.
We shall continue to do our best to help, but the best help will he a successful conclusion of the peace process. That is why, having accepted Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 as the basis for negotiations, we hope that the efforts, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to bring about a peace will succeed. There have been five rounds so far of bilaterals, and the five multilateral working groups met last in May. We believe that they should all meet again in the autumn, and the United Kingdom Government will be doing their best to support the peace efforts and bring them to a successful conclusion.
I have sought to answer most of the points raised during this interesting debate. I look forward to the day when UNRWA as an organisation no longer needs to exist—when the peoples of the Middle East can co-exist in peace and harmony. The events of the past year have given some grounds for hope that the goal may be achievable, but there is a long way to go. A great deal of patience is needed. Until then, UNRWA's important work must and will go on and the United Kingdom Government intend for our part to go on encouraging and supporting its vital tasks.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank most warmly all those who have taken part in this short debate. It is typical of your Lordships' House that one raises a subject and the next speaker turns out to have been partially responsible for the creation of the organisation that we are discussing. I was delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich drew our attention to the fact that Palestinian culture is alive and well, despite all the difficulties it has had to cope with. They both quite rightly mentioned the continuance of traditional Palestinian welcome and hospitality to strangers. I thought that was well put.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, seemed to be slightly inclined to say that it may have been better not to have had the debate. Perhaps I can remind him that on several occasions your Lordships House has successfully debated the Kurdish situation —a little further north in the Middle East. With that thought in mind, perhaps I can express my own admiration for what the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister managed to bring about in creating the safe havens in Kurdistan which have now been confirmed, and their value proved by the holding of democratic elections in that part of the world.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, regarding Palestinians becoming citizens of other countries was well answered by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Great honour is due to Jordan in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, gave us (as I was confident that she would) a most helpful and sympathetic response. I was encouraged to hear what she said about not only the Government's political support for UNRWA but also the fact that they are considering helping with current and future capital budgets.
I was glad to hear also about our contributions via the European Community and welcome what the noble Baroness said regarding our part in backing up the total Middle East peace process. I was delighted to note what she said about UNICEF, UNDP and British Aid to NGOs. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Education in Schools
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any evidence of the extent to which the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, relating to religious education in schools, are being fulfilled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask this Question, and warmly thank all noble Lords who have agreed to speak on a topic which I believe to be of fundamental importance. In opening the debate, it may be helpful

249
for me to put the Question in context by summarising the background to the legislation to which it refers and identifying some subsequent developments.
Your Lordships may recall that in February 1988 a debate in the House identified, a number of anxieties related to religious education—perhaps I may hereafter use the abbreviation "RE". I shall not repeat the detailed evidence. It is contained in Hansard of 26th February 1988. However, I shall highlight the main issues.
First, there was evidence of widespread ignorance among many children of basic knowledge of the Christian faith. Many surveys and media reports indicated just how ignorant many British school children were of the essentials of the Christian faith, which is our spiritual heritage. Secondly, there was evidence that many schools were flouting the provisions of the 1944 Education Act relating to the teaching of RE. The booklet, The Crisis in RE, by two teachers from Newcastle—John Burn and Colin Hart —gave statistical data on schools and LEAs which were failing to provide any RE at all.
Thirdly, there was evidence that in many schools, even where RE was being taught, it was being taught in ways which caused anxiety for a number of reasons. In some schools it was being used for partisan political indoctrination. In some it was being taught in a thematic multi-faith approach which adopted certain themes taking them out of context in ways which trivialised the complexities and coherence of major religions and did justice to none.
Finally, in a small but serious number of cases, RE was being used to introduce children to the occult, as indicated by a letter written by seven ILEA RE advisers to all head teachers in London schools warning them of the psychologically damaging effects of teaching about the occult.
Your Lordships may recall that it was later in 1988 that the Education Reform Bill came from another place with RE firmly established as a subject primus inter pares in the basic curriculum. However, there was no reference to the content of RE. In view of the anxieties previously identified, many noble Lords wished to ensure that young people learnt at least the essential elements of the Christian faith as part of our spiritual heritage and as a basis for understanding its contribution to our country's history, culture and social institutions.
Therefore in the early debates on this topic amendments which were essentially probing amendments were proposed which attempted to ensure the teaching of Christianity in RE while at the same time and for the first time specifying the rights of other faith communities to have provisions for RE which would respect the distinctiveness and coherence of their own faiths.
Support for the amendments was forthcoming from all sides of your Lordships' House and from those representing different faith communities. For example, not only was there strong support from many of your Lordships who were Christians, but also the then Chief Rabbi Lord Jacobovits spoke eloquently in support of those early amendments. Support was also
250
expressed outside your Lordships' House by members of the Moslem community. These supporters shared the same anxieties, especially over the developments in RE of that thematic, multi-faith approach, which they saw as trivialising their faiths in ways which might undermine all faith. For example, the Chief Rabbi criticised what he described as a "fruit cocktail" of world religions. The Imam of a major mosque led his people in prayer that the name of Christ should once again be revered in Britain's schools.
After these worries had been identified, the then Bishop of London, Dr. Leonard, undertook to propose amendments which would reflect the complexities of these issues. Now, nearly four years on, it is important to assess the extent to which the requirements of those amendments are being met; what has been achieved and what problems have been encountered.
Perhaps I may begin with developments which I believe are positive—that is to say, the effects of the Act on LEAs, curricular, resources, teachers and on test cases. First, it is good to note that a number of LEAs have produced new documents on teaching RE which actually specify teaching Christianity as well as other faiths. That may sound a rather strangely minimal achievement; but it is, in the state of things, a significant achievement. Examples include the Surrey handbook for RE and the Cornwall agreed syllabus.
Secondly, there have been developments in approaches to the curriculum which challenge the thematic, multi-faith or mish-mash approach. For example, the 1990 Newcastle agreed syllabus condemns this thematic approach as "educationally unsound" and because
"such syncretism is offensive to most religious groups".
The Schools Examinations and Assessment Council draft criteria for GCSE religious studies have completely dropped the thematic approach.
It is important to emphasise that these criticisms of the thematic multi-faith approach do not imply an attempt to hinder teaching about different faiths, but they stress that it should be done in ways which maintain the integrity of each faith. One of the problems which was predictable was the serious shortage of qualified teachers and resources. However, since the Act there has been an explosion of new resource books for RE with teaching material reflecting the spirit of the Act. At a more informal level there has been a proliferation of local resource groups to help hard-pressed teachers and to provide input for schools. These include groups with catchy acronyms such as CATS (Christians and Tyneside Schools); CIDS (Christians in Derbyshire Schools); CIBS (Christians in Birmingham Schools) and, perhaps not very felicitiously, CADS (Christians and Devonshire Schools). In many places, church leaders are being asked to visit schools who had never before been invited to cross their thresholds. Within weeks of the passage of the Act, an Anglican vicar told me how, for the first time in the ministry in that parish, he had been invited into the local comprehensive school. And that story is being repeated up and down the country with leaders of different faith communities.
Another beneficial result of the Act has been its influence on teachers. Previously, in many schools, RE had been an undervalued subject, sometimes explicitly denigrated. One LEA multi-cultural adviser described how heads of some schools imposed teaching RE as a punishment on their least-liked staff. He commented that some of these teachers went into classes using four-letter words and teaching in ways which did less than justice to the subject. That adviser was not a Christian, but belonged to another faith. Yet he found it offensive to hear the name of Christ profaned.
Now RE has a recognised place and many teachers describe a return of confidence. Also, whereas previously in some schools the teaching of Christianity was not allowed, its place in the curriculum is now more readily assured. The Act has challenged head teachers who had allowed RE to disappear completely from the timetable.
Finally, on the positive side, there have been test cases which have upheld the spirit of the Act. For example, in Newcastle, in 1990, parents and teachers were disturbed by the proposed RE syllabus as it contained very little Christian teaching. Only two modules out of 24 contained reference to the Christian faith. They were also worried by what they saw as unhelpful approaches blurring distinctions between faiths. They therefore mobilised pressure, with a petition to the mayor, and the syllabus was changed to bring it more in line with the Act.
Nearby, in Gateshead, the RE adviser proposed a syllabus which required pupils to design their own religion; to rewrite the Ten Commandments; to celebrate Buddhist festivals at the age of five and to study feminist interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount. Under the provisions of the Act, the syllabus conference rejected these proposals which have since been rewritten several times.
It is too early to identify the effects of changes in the law on pupils. Suffice it to say that there is still evidence of widespread ignorance about the essentials of the Christian faith among young adults who passed through the education system under the old dispensation. In 1991 a MORI survey found that for the 18–24 age group, 57 per cent. could not say what happened on Good Friday and 62 per cent. could not identify Pontius Pilate, although, according to another MORI poll in 1989, between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the population regarded themselves as Christians; with only 3 per cent. adhering to other faiths and 4 per cent. identified as atheists.
I now wish briefly to identify four problem areas: resources and competition for scarce resources; experiences of other faith communities; attempts to undermine the spirit of the Act and the onus of responsibility laid on parents. First, the requirements to teach RE have increased competition for scarce resources; financially; in terms of teachers' time, energy and expertise; and in competition on the timetable for the demanding range of subjects to be covered in the national curriculum.
It may be some of these problems which lie behind some disturbing aspects of the Senior Chief Inspector for Schools report for 1991. For example, it was reported that RE was taught superficially in many
252
primary schools and in some not taught explicitly. For 14 to 16 year-old pupils in secondary schools the entitlement to RE was often not being met. Only one in three of the schools inspected timetabled RE under its own name at Key Stage 4.
Secondly, one of the objectives in the formulation of the amendments was the protection of the rights of non-Christian faith communities. That is why the earlier versions of the amendments specified their rights to RE in accordance with their own religious traditions. However, some faith communities have experienced difficulties. For example, representations on behalf of the Muslim Education Co-ordinating Council indicate problems in obtaining information and even in obtaining the annual SACRE reports. Mr. Mustafa, speaking on their behalf, also comments on the unhelpful response encountered from many secular-orientated LEAs and from some school governors. In view of these difficulties, Mr. Mustafa, speaking for the MECC, advocates a monitoring department within the DoE.
Another problem has been a number of systematic attempts by representatives of the RE establishment to interpret the Act in favour of the thematic multi-faith approach which the amendments were designed to discourage. For example, Professor John Hull of Birmingham University has written two booklets entitled The Act Unpacked and Mishmash, which run counter to the intentions and spirit of the debates underpinning the provisions, endorsing instead the previous multi-faith approaches. I quote from the British Journal of Religious Education, Autumn 1989:
"A careful reading of Hansard makes clear that some of these people in the House of Lords did indeed think that they were changing RE practice rather than confirming it".
If that were the case, many of the hours spent by your Lordships in proposing the amendments were wasted. But, happily, there have been real changes, as outlined in my earlier words. However, a battle is now being waged in the educational world and those who initiated the kinds of developments which originally caused anxieties to your Lordships are still proposing their viewpoint. Hence there is a need for evaluation of these developments.
Finally, there is the problem as regards the onus placed on parents. My noble friend Lord Elton (who regrets that he is unable to be here tonight) wrote to my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State in February of this year to draw his attention to the agreed syllabus for RE for Oldham. In doing so, he referred to a letter from the DES to all chief education officers, setting out criteria for compliance of agreed syllabuses with Section 8(3) of the Act. It required the syllabuses to give sufficient guidance to readers and thus to teachers as to what Christian traditions, learning, teachings and festivals would be taught and as to what elements of the other faiths that are represented in Great Britain would be taught. Far from specifying these, the Oldham syllabus makes a virtue of specifying none, as can be seen from pages 12 and 34.
As your Lordships who were present on 13th February may recollect, my noble friend Lord Elton was told by my noble friend Lady Denton that his

253
complaint was insufficient for the syllabus to be reviewed. She said that it was up to the parents in Oldham to complain. However, that puts an intolerable burden on parents. It is often difficult for them to ascertain what has happened. Even if they are unhappy, it is often invidious for them to have to complain as their children may suffer repercussions if they do so. I know because I did complain—and my children suffered. There are not many parents who are either in the same position as or who are as brave and determined as Mrs. Bell of Ealing who ran the whole gamut of the complaints procedures at great personal cost. And why should parents have to pay such a high price for the law to be fulfilled? Surely, there should be some onus on LEAs to fulfil the requirements of the law, and on the Government to ensure that they do so.
In conclusion, I know that there are many people of different faiths and convictions up and down the country who are deeply worried about these issues. Many were heartened by the commitment of my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State for Education to the need to ensure that education must be based on spiritual and moral values. A sound understanding of our spiritual heritage is a prerequisite for such an education. Unless we give our young people this, we are betraying our most fundamental responsibility to them. I fear that we have already betrayed many of them. However, I also believe that much has been accomplished since the passage of the 1988 Act towards remedying this deplorable situation. There is, however, still much to be done and many anxieties remain. It is in the light of those anxieties and the lack of readily available information that I put this Question to the Government and eagerly await the reply of my noble friend Lady Blatch.
7.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should first like to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for tabling this Unstarred Question on this highly important matter. I congratulate her also on introducing it in such a sensitive and clear fashion. I should also like to offer an apology on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who is the chairman of the General Synod Board of Education and successor in that post to the former Bishop of London, Dr. Graham Leonard. The right reverend Prelate has to be present at a residential meeting of the House of Bishops this week. Although he cannot take responsibility for my words, I have consulted him and his advisers in preparation for this debate.
The Education Reform Act 1988 required the teaching of religious education in all schools as part of the basic curriculum although not as part of the national curriculum. The curriculum content is determined locally. Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education—SACREs—became mandatory in each authority, having the responsibility for advising the authorities on matters relating to religious education. A substantial number of the places on the SACREs were given to the Church of
254
England, which is one of the four groups represented on them. The Church of England therefore has a responsibility for the performance of the SACREs. The provisions of the Act laid obligations on local authorities and schools, as well as providing opportunities. As I understand it, the purpose of this Question is to discover the extent to which those obligations are being met.
I should like to make three general points first before coming to my more specific points. My first general point is that there is no division of understanding on this matter between Christians and those of other faiths. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for making that point so clearly. There is much evidence that those of other faiths wish for educational institutions that are aware of the religious dimension to life and which are prepared to provide religious teaching. Members of other faiths sometimes deliberately choose such schools because they seek those features.
There is no intention in the Education Reform Act to promote division between those of different faiths. Indeed, the debates in your Lordships' House have made particular reference to the tolerance, understanding and respect that is due from members of one faith to members of another. The responsibilities of the churches, perhaps of the Church of England especially because it is the national church, include not only ensuring that RE is a subject on the timetable which is given adequate time and resources and proper treatment, but also expressing a concern for the integrity of the faith of those who are not Christians and for the teaching of their traditions with accuracy and sensitivity.
Secondly, educational method in my view—and I speak with some experience of teaching at university level—requires that religious studies as a subject pays attention to the coherence of each faith. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has also made this point. She referred to a member of what I call broadly the "Birmingham group". I should like to refer to another member of that group, Professor John Hick, who is an influential name in this field. His thesis that all religions circle around the one reality of God seems to some of us inadequate to an understanding of the religions of the world, not least because it is now generally agreed that there is no common core to all religious teaching and practice. Each religious tradition stands on its own as a way of interpreting human life and human behaviour in the light of a reality that is beyond the observable world.
However, the language, concepts and teachings of the religious traditions differ profoundly. This is clearly an academic discussion but it has repercussions upon our debate tonight. I am glad that that understanding was the one that prevailed in your Lordships' discussions on the legislation. It is clear once again that for a variety of religious traditions there is a need to stand together in this understanding. I accept that it is easier to teach abstract and conceptual thought at the university or secondary level than at the primary level. I have no experience of primary teaching, but it seems to me that we must now accept that as a general principle.

255
Thirdly, religious education is not to be confused with religious instruction and nurture. The task of the school is not the same as the task of church, synagogue, mosque, temple or gurudwara. In my view, the school's task is to make youngsters aware of the religious dimension to life and to give them a knowledge of the basic teachings of their own traditions and of a limited number of others. Perhaps I may suggest that two traditions are as much as most youngsters can cope with. I look with some dismay at the Bradford syllabus which seems to require the teaching of six traditions, all to be given equal time. I cannot believe that youngsters can absorb that amount.
I believe that schools have the task of presenting religion as a living option. I remember going to my professor when I was teaching at Manchester University and saying that I intended returning to parochial work in the Church of England. He was astonished that anyone could take seriously religious commitment as formative of belief and behaviour today. It is the task of particular religious traditions to nurture people, young and old, in faith. It is the task of schools to present religion as a way of life in today's world, consonant with the other subjects and activities that are part of a school's existence. The tasks of schools and religious institutions should not be confused.
The Education Reform Act has given opportunities to schools, local authorities, churches and other religious bodies. I know that in some cases those opportunities have been taken, but in other cases they have not. In my own diocese three appointments in religious education have been made at diocesan level as a response to the Act. That has happened at a time of recession when posts are under great scrutiny. The first task of those who hold the appointments is to assist church-aided schools, but they are also available as a resource for governors and staff at county schools. They provide a small, experienced group for membership of SACREs. Again, in my own diocese, the authority in Leeds has produced a new syllabus. For that purpose it seconded an experienced woman teacher who happened also to be the chairman of my readers hoard. Some regions have had similar experiences, but the experience of yet other regions is quite different.
The question that remains is: how far are the syllabuses in accord with the spirit of the Act? As we are discovering, some syllabuses are apparently not in accord with it. Another question is: how far are schools accepting the responsibilities that have been laid on them by the Act? The answer to that question is clearly mixed.
The 1992 report of the National Curriculum Council analysed the submissions from 93 of the SACREs. It makes one ask what was happening in the 27 SACREs that did not submit reports. Of the 93 which submitted a report 40 have produced or are producing new agreed syllabi. But the report indicates that some schools were not meeting the statutory requirement to provide RE for all pupils. That is particularly true in the primary schools and is borne out by anecdotal evidence. One of my clergy was
256
telling me yesterday that he is frequently at his local county primary school, asking the head what proportion of time and what amount of resources is allocated to RE. He does not receive satisfactory answers. Directors of education are recommending that 5 per cent. of teaching time should now be given to the subject. That contrasts with some 2.5 per cent. in 1988 in secondary schools and 3 per cent. in 1984.
I should like to draw attention to a number of specific concerns. The first is the shortage of RE teachers. Perhaps of particular concern in this area is the large number of teachers—nearly 7,000—who have post A-level RE qualifications but who are no longer teaching the subject. Those of us who are in and out of schools know of the shortage of teachers in this field. Why are so many teachers who are qualified no longer teaching the subject? Have they been moved to the teaching of other subjects? It will be difficult to recover their experience for RE teaching, and yet it is equally difficult to encourage fresh teachers to enter this field.
The department suggests that there is no shortage of such teachers. It does so on the grounds that advertised posts are being filled. But the question remains: what about those schools which are not advertising posts and which are not teaching the subject properly? Does not shortage of teachers remain one of the great obstacles to the fulfilment of the aims of the Act?
I believe that the changes in the funding of schools and the redeployment of advisory teams bode ill for the future of RE. The support for teachers at all levels will tend to disappear and it will be left to individual schools to seek help where they can. There is a fragmentation of support at a time when coherence is needed. That is especially so for RE as in many schools it is regarded as a subject of less importance than other subjects. The Church has a major input here through the work of the education advisers, but clearly they cannot take the place of local authority advisers and undertake the work which was formerly undertaken by local authority employees.
I believe that the weakening of local education authorities will not help the work of SACREs because SACREs are advisory to these bodies and rely on them for funding. It is through the LEA that in practice SACREs have the ability to reach all schools systematically. They do not approach schools individually but through the LEA. The fragmentation of the schools inspectorate will make it more difficult to have an in-depth understanding of the state of RE, although it is true that, because of the existence of SACREs, RE may be less badly affected than some other subjects. It might be appropriate to require schools which are not satisfactorily assessed on RE at their three-yearly inspections to submit a timetabled plan for improvement.
Finally, among these specific matters, I believe I am right in saying that the National Curriculum Council now has a professional officer dealing with RE. We may hope that it will offer more direct guidelines on RE and especially on the part that RE can play in integrated courses. The National Curriculum Council could helpfully add to its existing publications a

257
document which lays out clearly the significance of RE in the basic curriculum and the importance of the spiritual, moral and cultural attitudes within the schools as a whole. I have already referred to the importance of that.
The uneven response to the requirements of the Act for the teaching of RE is a cause for concern. I believe there to have been an improvement since the Act became law, but clearly there is room for further improvement. Any information that the Government have on this matter will clearly be a stimulus to further work, and I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to give us some sense of satisfaction for work achieved but also encouragement for work still to be done.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in common with all those who have spoken or who are going to speak I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for giving us the opportunity to assess the consequences of the legislation we passed four years ago with such high hopes. I have nostalgic memories of that passage of arms. I note that one of my speeches was timed at seven minutes past six o'clock in the morning, a rare occasion of an all night sitting. I remember beginning,
"comes the dawn … and with it the dawn chorus [of amendments]".—[Official Report, 28/6/88; col. 1533.]
We had high hopes. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said:
"What has been achieved is historic. There is now explicit recognition on the face of the Bill of the expectations that religious education and worship should, in the main, be Christian".—[Official Report, 7/7/88; col. 434.]
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that:
"an effort which started as a Christian denominational effort has finished up as an inter-faith effort to secure the individuality and respect of all religions".—[Official Report, 7/7/88; col. 436.]
The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said that the Bill would be the best thing this government had done and one of the best things any government had ever done in this century. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London called it a truly historic new Bill.
There was a note of warning from the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. Describing his past experiences as Secretary of State, he said:
"I was shocked—indeed, horrified—to discover that the majority of teachers were opposed to the teaching of religion in schools. I found whole schools where not a single teacher was prepared to teach religion".—[Official Report, 7/7/88; col. 439.]
He then said—I paraphrase slightly—that we cannot work out a formula that will have any effect on the life of our children unless we have teachers who are willing, able and prepared to teach this subject.
Where can we find them other than through the Church—the Church militant; militant to perpetuate the faith and morals that the Christian religion has established in past ages and so secure their transmission to the future. This matter is, from the administrative point of view, in the hands of local government, with central government interfering only minimally.
Local government is a device for exercising delegated authority on local matters where local
258
knowledge is critical. The alternative would be some kind of command structure where orders came from the top in total ignorance of what was going on at the bottom. In so far as local government discharges its remit well, it is to be praised. However, in the national party political sense, it is largely bogus. What power in any kind of national controversy has local government over national matters such as foreign policy? One cannot have a local government foreign policy. One cannot have local government running defence, the management of the economy, and so on. It has absolutely no power over any of these matters which are so frequently debated on party political lines. But its political and ideological ambience is a wonderful substrate in which maggots can burrow holes to increase their sense of self importance—outdated petty Fabian secularists, and the like. Religious education is one of its prime targets. I shall not pursue the subject in detail, because I am sure that other speakers know much more about it than I do. If noble Lords need convincing, they need only listen to other speakers. The point I wish to emphasise is the need for the established Churches—I say that in the plural meaning Anglican, Roman Catholic, Non-Conformist, Baptists, and so on—to undo the work of the maggots, to conceive a plan for doing so and then summon the will to go in and fight the good fight.
People's religion is, for the most part, learnt at their mother's or grandmother's knee. They very rarely change their basic faith. If parents are secularists, or indifferent to any religion whatever, their children are unlikely to acquire any deep feelings on the subject. But it is deep feeling that we need for the sake of ourselves, our children and society. We must live in the decent sort of ambience which only religion can provide. That is why I turn to my own faith, personified tonight by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, to take command and to organise the battle in which I and others like myself can serve as foot soldiers. Debates in Parliament will never be transferred into action without external leadership, and only the Church can provide that in this case.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to my noble friend Lady Cox on the way in which she introduced the debate. With the immense amount of work that she has undertaken in the Far East and south of the Soviet empire, it is amazing that she finds time to come back to talk to us. I should also like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon on the very constructive way that he dealt with the subject. He made suggestions to which I hope my noble friend will respond seriously.
I should like to concentrate on the need to speed up the implementation of religious teaching in our schools. When I first came into Parliament I recall that Rab Butler was still very proud of the coalition government Education Act of 1944 which he led through and which provided for the teaching of education in our schools. He always described it as his finest hour. Indeed, I remember him speaking in this House right at the end of his life and saying that it was

259
the most memorable thing that he had done. Quite rightly, that Act was refreshed, brought forward and modernised in the Education Reform Act of 1988.
It is appropriate that four years later we should begin to see what is happening as a result of what we did at that time. Sadly, the Government's faith in LEAs (of which there are 117) does not seem to me and to many others to have been fulfilled as they had hoped. Our grandchildren (of which we have 13) are bright, active—sometimes too active—healthy, intelligent and often very lovable but their religious education seems to me to be fragmented, sometimes muddled and all too often neglected. I read a recent survey which I found to be alarming. It showed that over half the people in the 18 to 24 age bracket had no idea why we celebrate Good Friday. Moreover, it also revealed that nearly two-thirds in the same age group had no idea who Pontius Pilate was.
Four years is a long time. I believe that we should from time to time, and from now on, refresh our knowledge of what is happening. I gain my information from the director of the Christian Institute, Colin Hart. He succeeded, with valiant dedication to the subject, in finding only 15 LEAs out of the 117 that have actually brought forward a new syllabus which incorporates religious teaching. Why are some of them so abjectly slow in bringing it forward? I am afraid that I have to say that the majority of LEAs give the highest priority to politics. That is certainly so when elections are coming about. Some of their political affiliations are very Left of centre. There are many others which give absolutely negative priority to religious teaching. That is no way to attract the best teachers to a subject.
An extreme example was the work of ILEA during its existence, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—if I may have her attention for a moment —was the deputy education officer. Therefore she was very much involved in what it was doing. Many people are still abiding by the syllabuses which were worked out under that very Left-wing organisation. For example, there are 12 inner-London boroughs. Of those, only Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea have brought forward a revised syllabus which includes the recommendations in the 1988 Act. All the rest are still clinging to a now very old system devised by the very Left of centre. In fact, from the information that I have read, the National Union of Teachers was so far to the Left that even the communists did not have the chance of being elected. It was the Trotskyists and people even further to the Left who were dominating all the offices in that body.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as a former officer of the ILEA I object to that suggestion; I am not a Trotskyist and I am not a communist. It is patent nonsense to suggest that the officers of the Inner London Education Authority had any of those political persuasions.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if the noble Baroness reads in Hansard what I said, she will see that not for a moment did I suggest that she was. The information came out at the time when the National Union of
260
Teachers was led by the far Left. I hope that it has put matters right since. It is a very powerful body. Clearly ILEA was much in sympathy with a great deal of that. The noble Baroness happened to be the appointed education officer of ILEA. I found the information in Dod; I am not inventing it. I can give her pamphlets and other information which she may care to read. However, I am sorry that I cannot accept her correction. I am sure that she had some responsibility in the area.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said, LEAs are responsible for many of the appointments. The SACREs have to report through the LEAs. They make the appointment of religious advisers. Some of those religious advisers are good. Indeed, I know of one in the Birmingham area who is quite exceptional. He has been backed up by the LEA in the area. It has supplied him with resources worth £50,000 to help him carry out the obligations under the Act. That is a good sign. However, some of the religious advisers do not suffer from an excess of enthusiasm for the teaching of Christianity. I rather wish they did, because that is their task.
Lack of qualified teachers is one of the excuses that has been given. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made that point. But what has happened to the nearly 7,000 fully qualified teachers? The answer is that there is no enthusiasm and not much chance of promotion up the religious ladder. Therefore, they have moved on to other areas. I am afraid that that again reflects the lack of enthusiasm for the teaching of religion. However, I still think—and I am sure my noble friend will agree—that there are many people, especially among parents, who are very well qualified to teach young children. I hope that the Church, local authorities and head teachers will make use of them and not feel that this is in competition. The aim is to carry out what is the law now. Assistance can come from all sorts of people and particularly of course from local vicars.
I have been talking to a friend who works in Kensington and Chelsea as a councillor and also as a school governor. He says that it was a sad occasion a year or two ago when he visited one of the primary schools during instruction on prayer to find that little children were being told to put their hands together and think of nice things. That was all the instruction they were given. I am glad to say that since that time a padre has come in from the local church and the children are now indoctrinated in the beliefs of Christ and the singing of "Onward Christian Soldiers", which I am sure they will sing with vigour and enthusiasm. So this can be put right. I believe that too many excuses are made and perhaps accepted for not putting it right.
On 13th February I raised the matter with the department and many others joined in. The department's response was, "This is the job of parents". I cannot believe that that advice could come from any parent who has tried to send a child to a local school. To blow the whistle when one's children are doing exams which are being marked—and so much now is determined by the opinion of the school and not by independent examiners—raises the danger

261
of repercussions against the children, who may also have younger brothers and sisters following on in the same school. Why should parents risk the future of their children? It is not the task of parents, gutsy as they may be. My noble friend mentioned the school parent governor, Mrs. Bell. In that case she stuck to her guns, and goodness knows what it cost her in time and money to go on. But it still took two years for the local education authority to take any notice of what she was saying; and within that two years the DES actually delayed matters by a further year. Gutsy she was; but we cannot always rely on gutsy parent governors of that sort.
We must ask the Minister—who has reserve powers, and has always had reserve powers—to use those reserve powers when clearly procrastination is becoming almost a profession in too many areas. The department should ask the new inspectorate to provide regular progress reports on what is happening in the production of new syllabuses. It is unsatisfactory that after four years only 15 LEAs out of 117 have brought forward a new syllabus, although we were told by the right reverend Prelate that a further 40 were being considered. I am glad that they are being considered, but I hope that that action can be speeded up.
There must be an education Bill coming along. There always is. So I ask my noble friend seriously to consider writing into the Bill that there should be positive progress in the introduction of new curricula to match the national curriculum and that progress reports should be provided to Parliament so that we know that some progress is being made. I say most earnestly that we are failing to do what Parliament intended should be done. People are purposefully breaking the law. We must ask for progress reports, and I think we should build into some future Act a timetable which would show what progress ought to be made. Then we can try to get the moral and spiritual teaching back into our schools which we all so earnestly want.
8.13 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this debate. I should certainly like to echo what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has just said to the effect that regular reports should be submitted to my noble friend the Minister from the inspectors about how the provisions of the 1988 Act are being implemented.
I firmly believe that religious education should be determined and a syllabus prepared at LEA level. The LEA can then take account of local situations. On the other hand, this gives the LEA a great responsibility. I particularly want to talk about its responsibility in fulfilling Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Under that provision the RE syllabus should,
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".
A MORI poll in 1991 stated that 84.5 per cent. of the nation had a form of allegiance to the Christian
262
faith. That is a very high proportion. I believe that all polls and surveys over the past five years have shown that between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the population would lay claim to some form of Christian faith. I am not saying—unfortunately, for the right reverend Prelate—that that proportion of the nation goes to the Church of England or even all the other Christian churches put together, but they would claim to be Christian in a sense. We need to compare the figure of 84.5 per cent. with the representatives of other faiths. The MORI poll found that the aggregate of Moslem, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist was less than 3 per cent. That is the discrepancy about which we are talking.
For the sake of argument, if I was living in, say, Saudi Arabia, a Moslem country, and my children were being educated in that country, I would expect them to be taught the facts of the Moslem faith at school. I would think it a very good thing for them to learn that. The right reverend Prelate brought out the fact that the teaching of the Christian faith by representatives of the other faiths is welcome, and I would welcome the converse in the other situation. I would not welcome it if the Moslems were proselytizing my Christian children. Again, the right reverend Prelate brought out the fact that religious education in no sense does that and never should. It is teaching the facts about the Christian faith.
Section 8(3) of the Act states that the religious education should,
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions are in the main Christian".
It does not say simply that the syllabus should provide teaching that is in the main Christian. That is an important difference. If it was the latter, then it would simply mean that the teaching should be, say, over 50 per cent. Christian. Law cases have held that the words "mainly", "in the main" or whatever mean more than 50 per cent. But that is not what the Act states. The Act states that it should "reflect" the fact that in the main the tradition in England is Christian. As I see it, that means that the amount of teaching should reflect the proportion of the population, so that, say, 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the teaching should be Christian. That is the view of the Department of Education and Science in its guidance letter of 1991 which has already been referred to. It states:
"The fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian would in most cases be properly reflected by devoting most attention to Christianity".
The Cornwall syllabus states:
"Christianity is the religion to be studied in the greater detail … Christianity will occupy the largest amount of time".
It is equally important that the remaining 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the time spent on religious education should cover other religions. Again, I should like to endorse what has already been said by some noble Lords who quoted the advice of the Church of England General Synod Board of Education. It stated:
"Experience has shown that two, or at the very most three, religious systems can be studied at any worthwhile depth within the constraints of the normal time provision for RE, even at its most generous".

263
I believe that that is good advice. To try to study six separate religions would be self-defeating.
The local LEA seems to be admirably placed to decide which other religions are most appropriate in the local situation in the light of who are the residents. Some LEAs would no doubt emphasise the Moslem faith, others much more the Jewish faith, and so on, as may he most appropriate. I hope that the LEAs are doing that effectively.
It is up to the general public to ensure that the syllabus is within the law. Several of your Lordships commented upon the difficulties that parents face. The Ealing case was quoted. It took two years for the chain of events to be completed and for the Department of Education properly to answer the complaint. It is up to the parents to go through the complaints procedure: to the school, the LEA and finally the DoE. I suggest for the consideration of the right reverend Prelate that Church education advisers could help, bearing in mind the large role in education played by the Church of England.
Those people who are interested in ensuring that the law is being properly fulfilled by the LEA could play a role. That does not detract in any way from what I said at the outset —that I hope that my noble friend the Minister will obtain regular reports from HMI on how Section 8(3) is being fulfilled.
I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lady Cox for missing her opening remarks. It was due to the speed at which the earlier debates went through. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the extent to which she is satisfied that the LEA syllabuses and practice devote most of their attention to Christianity.
8.22 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I join with noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Not for the first time, she has put the House in her debt. Her service to our country is notable, and her service to the House, as I have found during the nine years that I have been here, is exceptional. I consider it a great privilege to join in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said that four years is a long time. There are two periods in one's life when four years is exceptionally long. It is long when one reaches my age, when one looks forward with trepidation; and when one is very young, four years is very long. But four years has elapsed in the life of a generation, and it is right and proper that the High Court of Parliament should pause and, in the calm and quiet of your Lordships' House ask itself, "Have our wishes, as expressed four years ago in both Houses, been fulfilled"?
A welcome interest in education literature has been shown by publishers so that head teachers today (four years on) have a far greater variety of literature to help them with scripture lessons. In many parts of the country religious education teachers have assumed a higher profile during the past four years. Even local standing advisory councils on religious education have given evidence that in some parts of the country religious education is taking on a new life.
264
Those advisory bodies are of great significance. They are not unimportant. They advise the LEA on school worship and on the implementation of the agreed religious education syllabus. A weakness that has become apparent is that those advisory councils depend upon the LEA for their appointment and funding. The Church of England and teachers are represented, but it is possible for the local authority to have a majority of members and end up advising itself. That majority can smother the voices of the independent members.
There is much to be said for the DoE reconsidering giving greater independence to the standing advisory councils to ensure that the local authorities cannot smother them by having an overwhelming majority of members on them. The decision becomes a political not a religious one. I understand that religious education advisers often have their eyes on the attitude of their employers (the local authority) rather than Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act, a point already referred to by noble Lords. HMIs need to be more active to ensure that religious education syllabuses conform to the wishes of Parliament as expressed in the 1988 Act.
Religious education is not less important than the teaching of maths, geography, French or any other subject. To people who support the idea that our children have the right to know about their heritage, religious education is of the utmost significance. I was greatly encouraged by the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday when he said that where local authorities fail in their duties the Government will intervene. He was talking about the inner cities. The Opposition asked where the money was to come from. The Government also have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities fulfil their duties with regard to the teaching of religious education in our schools.
In 1991, as has been said, the Chief Inspector of Schools expressed his anxiety about the inadequacy of religious education in our primary schools. As several noble Lords have said, he referred to the fact that only one secondary school in three had religious education in the timetable. Are there any statistics indicating that there has been a change in those figures since the passing of the Act? Will the Minister also tell us what action her department has taken in connection with teacher training colleges since the passing of the Act? Has a circular been issued to teacher training colleges reminding them of the need to pay special attention to preparing teachers to teach religious education adequately?
If the department has not sent out a circular, will it consider doing so? Teacher training establishments are of the first importance in this regard. Secularists who do not want religious instruction given have not been slow in using the multi-faith argument to undermine all religious faiths. But Christian education is a solemn obligation. I respect the diligence with which both the Moslems and the Jewish people recognise the importance of training their young in the tenets of their faith. If we go to a Moslem country, we do not find the people apologising for putting their own faith forward in the schools.

265
We are a Christian land; it is our heritage. I believe that we have a responsibility to see that tomorrow's world in these islands enjoys the same heritage that we ourselves received. We owe it to our children and I believe that we owe it to our Lord.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me saying a personal word. It was because of my Christian faith that I joined the Labour Party. I grew up a Christian Socialist and I have never made any bones about it to anyone. It has helped to shape the community where I grew up and I hope and pray that the Labour Benches will encourage the teaching of religion, of the Christian faith, of Christian knowledge in our schools. It is an essential part which has shaped the movement and the view of those on the Labour Benches. Morgan Phillips was right when he said that the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than to Marxism. That is why I could not bear it when I saw solid blocks of teachers who were unsympathetic—to put it kindly —to the teaching of any faith. I was a teacher; it is part of my life. I taught for nearly 14 years before I came to Parliament—to the other place. I know that I am in debt to my Christian teachers. I was a scripture teacher and I have tried to pass that teaching on to the generation that I was allowed to influence.
I have one further question for the Minister. Will the Department of Education and Science ensure that the same public access is given to meetings of standing advisory councils on religious education as is given to committees of local authorities? Many of these advisory councils work in complete secrecy. Their members are sworn to secrecy. Her Majesty's Government are the ultimate guardians of our Christian heritage. My noble friend Lord Halsbury indicated to me during the debate that he thought it was a good idea that when parents wished to object, they should speak to their priests who would speak to the bishop who would speak to the Minister. I advise them also to speak to their MP and councillor and to make sure that when elections take place people are elected who are sympathetic to the rights of parents who wish their children to have Christian instruction.
I am sorry that my voice does not improve, although I go on hoping. I conclude by saying that I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the subject to which I hope we shall return time and again. I know the Secretary of State for Education and Science, John Patten, and I believe that he will keep a careful eye on the subject. I am satisfied that religious education has a friend in high places and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will ensure that her colleague, the Minister, will receive the message that we trust that he will ensure that the inspectors of schools who report to him will treat the matter with urgency.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for raising this important, indeed vital, subject. I use the word "vital" advisedly because the whole future spiritual dimensions of our children's lives are being considered. What is taught now to our children is what they will carry forward throughout their lives. Ultimately it will
266
carry on to their children. We are discussing the spiritual future of our nation. It is not something to be thrown away wantonly, ill-advisedly or without due consideration of all that it has meant for Great Britain.
My noble friend Lord Brentford is more up to date than I am with his 1991 MORI poll. However, according to a MORI poll held in February/March 1989, 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the population regard themselves as Christians, even if they are not regular church attenders. Four per cent. are atheists and fewer than 3 per cent. are of non-Christian faiths. Even allowing for our current disbelief in poll findings, they are never more than about 10 per cent. out in their swing. While that could diminish the figure for atheists and non-Christian faiths to an even smaller percentage, it could never raise them to anything other than a small overall minority. We remain, as we have been since the days of Saint Augustine, angels, or at least a Christian country.
This Christian tradition and majority must therefore be represented by a lion's share of any religious education taught in our schools. There are mice and rats gnawing away at the poor lion's share; some of them and their machinations have been exposed by my noble friend Lady Cox. There is the Ealing syllabus, bravely and successfully challenged by the gallant Mrs. Denise Bell, an elected parent-governor. In it there was no requirement to teach any specific aspects of Christianity. The Oldham, Bolton and Newham syllabi, published subsequently, ran it close. There is the Newcastle syllabus, written by the council's religious education adviser, in which parents discovered to their horror that only one-twelfth of the religious education made any specific reference to the Christian faith. As a result, 1,300 residents petitioned the Lord Mayor for changes to be made.
There is the Gateshead syllabus, encouraging pupils to design their own religion and to rewrite the Ten Commandments. Later it had to be rewritten and modified several times. Having passed the. Education Reform Act 1988, with its provisions for religious education in schools, we must see that the Act is not abused.
Yesterday I took a party of Indian ladies round our House. We toured the Peers' Lobby, the Chamber, the Prince's Chamber and went into the Royal Gallery and the Robing Room. There they were much impressed with the large paintings representing the virtues of the knights of King Arthur's Round Table: generosity, hospitality and mercy, never to be against ladies (that is one I like almost the best), courtesy and, dominating them all, religion, with Sir Galahad and his company beholding a vision of the Holy Grail. Let us all keep that vision in our hearts and try to pass it on to those who will be the future, and one day the past, of our country.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, last week your Lordships were determined to protect the position of the arts in our schools. Your Lordships also raised questions about aspects of the national curriculum

267
orders for science which touch on teaching about the HIV/AIDS virus to children aged 11 to 14. In both those important debates your Lordships were concerned with spiritual and moral values. It is therefore not only logical but also of the greatest importance that the subject of religious education should be raised today.
Like everyone else who is speaking in this debate today, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating the debate this evening, for it strikes at the very heart of education in our schools. When one reads the 1988 Education Reform Act it all seems so cut and dried and so clear. Religious education is required in the basic curriculum and every pupil shall attend an act of collective worship every day.
There are naturally exceptions. I have never known a school rule to which there is not an exception. However, those exceptions and special requirements are clearly listed and supplementary and consequential provisions are set out. If only it were in practice as simple as it seems on the printed page. Religious education lessons are likely to be scheduled once or at most twice a week. I have just been working out—I only hope my mathematics is up to it—that 5 per cent. of 35 teaching periods per week equals 1.75 lessons per week.
It is written into the Education Reform Act that the provision shall be broadly Christian in character. However, in such a limited time allowance one can only hope to teach factual Bible stories, both Old and New Testament, and present the historical background of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and heritage of this country. That is at least something. I remember well a father of one of my pupils at St. Paul's once said to me very firmly that as a committed atheist he insisted that I teach and read the Bible—in the Authorised Version, of course—to his daughter.
But even in the case of factual lessons one needs an able, well-trained, committed teacher who can catch the interest of the class if the pupils are to learn what is being taught. The question of daily collective worship is much more difficult. The purpose of the assembly, whether in a large or a small group, is surely to provide a forum for listening to the opinions of others in the hope that the children and teenagers in that assembly will start thinking for themselves about questions of right and wrong, the question of whether there is a God and even why it is wrong to steal or to tell lies. From that there could eventually grow a desire to know more about faith and religion.
The best school assemblies are a corporate experience, a shared activity, or even passivity involving the pupils just sitting quietly. I know how much even singing a hymn can help to create a positive atmosphere. That is a lesson the Salvation Army taught us long ago. Sometimes, something that is said or something that is read will spark a flicker of interest which just could lead to a basic form of ethical inquiry and then to that religious dimension of which the right reverend Prelate spoke so eloquently.
However, it seems to me that it is simply not possible for government to legislate or prescribe for effective religious education or collective worship. I do not believe that it is for schools to proselytize. I believe
268
that is the role of families and churches. However, schools can inform and can make children aware of that religious dimension. It is the quality and commitment of the teachers—how I wish more of them were like the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy—and of the people around them at school that will bring the children and the teenagers to an understanding of that religious dimension, whether it is Christian, Jewish or Moslem.
It is not what teachers say that counts; it is how they behave to each other and to their pupils. In my view, truly valuable and effective religious education is implicit rather than explicit. In fact, it need not be limited to RE lessons and assemblies at all. I quote one short sentence from a book entitled The Vision of Glory, by John Stewart Collis, in which he states:
"Physics is not supposed to be a religious or a poetic study. I cannot share this view, and I confess that ever since I looked into the subject hardly a day has passed that I have not increasingly marvelled at the masonry of creation and the mystery of design".
I conclude by making three suggestions. The Education Reform Act places a duty on every local education authority to constitute a standing advisory council on education. Could this be given extra support from Her Majesty's Government and from our Christian Churches working with representatives from other religions and faiths? Faith is the operative word. Let us encourage faith, but I have to say it is not necessarily going to be in a Christian God.
Recently I heard of an interesting experiment—a theologian in residence. Every year the former Dean of Liverpool cathedral, Edward Patey, spends a week at St. Swithun's School, Winchester—whose headmistress, I believe was brought up as a Methodist. Of course, careful preparation is made in advance. He attends various lessons taken by teachers who volunteer to have him in their class. From that stems some fascinating discussions about nuclear fusion, the big bang in physics, genetic engineering, embryo research in biology, environmental issues in chemistry, capital markets in economics, as well as the more obvious subjects in English, history and geography. Clearly, those discussions are given a real Christian dimension. I suggest that Christian Churches and religious communities might offer a theologian-in residence programme to schools in their local areas. It would be interesting and it could be productive.
I come now to my third and final suggestion. The delivery of religious education rests ultimately and inevitably with the head teacher. Could we please have more INSET (in-service training for teachers) courses and seminars and support services for those key people so that they may ensure in their schools not only the basic bones of the national curriculum but also the religious dimension which we surely all want for our children?
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as several speakers have already said, the Education Reform Act 1988 made it clear that any new agreed syllabus of religious education should reflect the fact that religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian while taking account of the teaching and practices of

269
the other principal religions represented in this country. It also restates that religious education should be part of the basic curriculum, reinforcing the 1944 Act in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, indicated anxiety that the law is not being adhered to. Other speakers have also questioned whether the Act is being implemented fast enough. Clearly it is important that educational legislation should not be ignored. Moreover, high quality teaching is as important in the area of religious education as in any other subject on the curriculum.
However, what is certainly not clear to me is just what evidence there is as to whether or not the provisions are being fulfilled. Earlier this year the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, asked a question about Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act and what progress had been made in implementing it. At that time the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, stated that only two formal complaints had been made. It would be interesting and helpful to know from the Minister whether there have been any further formal complaints since then. If not, I do not believe that it would be unduly complacent to interpret that to mean that on the whole the Act is being applied, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, and that the system is working at least adequately. It is certainly an area in which there would be many complaints if that were not the case.
Moreover, the National Curriculum Council has a responsibility for overseeing the development of religious education. In a recent report published in April this year its chairman stated:
"I have been impressed by the extent of curriculum development in RE since 1988 and recognise the hard work that LEAs, officers, teachers and the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) members have contributed to this".
Most LEAs have been anxious to implement the Act. There is certainly no reluctance on their part to do so, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, implied earlier, although I have to say that in some cases they have been hampered by resource problems, which I shall return to later.
Yet at the same time Her Majesty's Inspectorate has indicated some anxiety about the teaching of religious education in Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's report on the year 1990–91. He suggested that in primary schools religious education was being taught superficially in many schools, and that in some others it was not taught explicitly. He suggested that at the secondary stage the entitlement of some pupils to religious education was not being met and that that was particularly true in Key Stage 4 where it was often included as part of a combined course with elements of personal and social education rather than timetabled under its own name. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether or not the Government have responded to that report. It would also he helpful to know how any formal complaints about the agreed syllabus have been dealt with.
Although the National Curriculum Council has produced a framework for the teaching of RE, which was published in 1991, Her Majesty's Inspectorate has
270
not published a booklet on RE in the curriculum matters series. It is rumoured that a draft was prepared soon after the introduction of the 1988 Act but that has not appeared. Undoubtedly, a document of that kind would be helpful and I wonder whether the Minister can say why it was not published and whether it could now be made available.
There is, it seems, a rather mixed picture in relation to the evidence. What does seem to be clear, however, is that there is a shortage of qualified teachers for RE as well as insufficient advisers in the local education authorities. The standing advisory councils on religious education themselves have apparently been somewhat short of funds. Few have received a budget to help them plan ahead. That is a reflection of the problems many local authorities now face in providing sufficient funds for many of the activities for which they are responsible.
It is not just the LEAs and the schools which are complaining about teacher shortages. The Church of England has pointed out that while there are more than enough qualified teachers in Church of England schools, many county schools are unable to fill their vacancies for religious education teachers. I was interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate said earlier on the matter. The Church has also complained about the lack of funding for in-service training and education—a point which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. Can the Minister say whether she accepts the Church's view that there is inadequate funding for in-service education and training? If so, could she consider an increase in funds in the GEST programme in order to support curriculum development in this area and to improve teachers' knowledge and skills?
In relation to the monitoring of religious education, the Minister herself told the House on a previous occasion that that is a task for the inspectorate. Several noble Lords endorsed that view this evening. It is not clear whether Her Majesty's Inspectorate will have a role in directly inspecting school religious education under the Education (Schools) Act 1992. But what is clear is that the privatisation of the local authority inspectorate services will not assist with the development of religious education because of the loss of the RE inspectorate and advisory staff as a resource for the whole local education authority.
Well planned religious education can play an important part in the moral and religious development of young people. It is also the case, as the chairman of the National Curriculum Council put it recently, that spiritual development,
"is not confined to children from religious backgrounds but is something fundamental to the human condition, with relationships, the universal search for individual identity, for a meaning in life, and values by which to live".
As the right reverend Prelate has already said, it is also important that religious education should provide both knowledge and understanding of the other major faiths in Britain as well as giving a significant place to Christianity.
However, there are approximately 3 million people of other faiths and it is important that we encourage tolerance in all our young people. That tolerance should also be extended to people who are humanists

271
and who do not have any particular religious faith. I regret the rather unpleasant gibe about Fabian secularists made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I thought that it was a little unworthy of him, if I may say so. However, I thought that it was not as unworthy as the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about the Inner London Education Authority. I have to remind him that while he may not have liked the agreed syllabus of the ILEA—and he is entitled to his views about that and I respect them —that syllabus was produced by the ILEA's Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education whose members included many representatives of the Church as well as teachers of religious education. The syllabus was not produced by officers of the ILEA nor by the National Union of Teachers. I therefore hope that he will reconsider the remarks that he made earlier.
Good religious education in schools should neither undermine pupils' faiths nor, as a number of speakers have said, proselytize. It should make it possible for those of no faith to reach a mature understanding of religious ideas. The National Curriculum Council has found that most agreed syllabuses define two broad areas of attainment in religious education: first, that pupils should understand the teaching and practices of Christianity and other world religions; and that they should be encouraged to develop their own beliefs and values.
I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate that religious education should not be confused with religious instruction and nurture. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, confused those aspects once or twice. It is the task of schools to provide religious education. It is the task of the Churches and other religious institutions to provide religious instruction.
I refer again to the attainment targets that have been indicated by the National Curriculum Council. They seem to me to be eminently sensible and feasible. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, it also seems sensible that the agreed syllabus should be able to reflect local differences. That is what the individual SACREs are able to do.
As a non-expert in the teaching of the subject, I do not presume to prescribe what the syllabus should cover or how it should be taught. Moreover, I believe that it would be dangerous for lay members of your Lordships' House to attempt to do so. It is a matter for the SACREs and for the specialist inspectorate then to monitor. The main cause for worry is not that the Act is being ignored or that the letter of the law is not being fulfilled but that the quality of religious education may not be as high as it should be, notably because of the lack of trained teachers in that subject and because of insufficient in-service training.
9.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the measures introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988 provide a clear indication of the importance that the Government attach to religious education in schools. I freely acknowledge the contribution of my noble friend Lady Cox, who, with myself, my noble friend Lord
272
Tonypandy and others who have spoken in the debate, burnt much midnight oil in fighting for the Education Act that we have on the statute book today. Other noble Lords were also part of that gathering of people who made it a better Act.
The Act describes religious education as part of the basic curriculum for all pupils. In the basic curriculum it stands alongside the subjects of the national curriculum and we have made it clear that religious education has equal status with those subjects. This reflects the importance that we attach to the role of schools in children's spiritual and moral development.
Unlike the subjects of the national curriculum, religious education is not subject to nationally prescribed attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements. Responsibility for the detailed structure, content and teaching of religious education remains, as it always has been, with local bodies. This recognises the fact that if religious education is to meet the needs of pupils effectively it must take into account the views and beliefs of the local community in both its content and delivery.
The Education Reform Act says nothing new about religious education in aided schools—that is, denominational schools—which is generally provided in accordance with a trust deed. In county schools, however, religious education is provided in accordance with a locally agreed syllabus.
Before 1988 there was very little in the law about the nature and content of such syllabuses, save the requirement that they should not be distinctive of any denomination. The Education Reform Act, however, makes an important stipulation about the content of new agreed syllabuses—that is, those adopted after September 1988. That stipulation is that such syllabuses must:
"reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".
It is worth noting that there is no requirement for local authorities to review their agreed syllabuses. I suspect that that is giving rise to some of the anxieties that have been voiced during the debate today.
I am aware that some noble Lords have reservations about the latitude which that form of words may allow local education authorities in determining the content of syllabuses. There will always be room for interpretation within the law. There may also be room for interpretation within an agreed syllabus. Teachers, head teachers and school governors have a central role in ensuring that the religious education which is provided is appropriate to the requirements to fulfil the moral and spiritual dimension of a child's education.
Christianity should lie at the heart of religious education. As was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, it is central to our cultural heritage. It is vital that children growing up in this country develop a knowledge of the Christian heritage which has had and continues to have such an impact on our society and values.
That is not to undermine the importance of children developing an understanding of other faiths and the beliefs of others in the community. That is

273
why the law requires that, in addition to learning about Christianity, the curriculum should also take account of the needs and aspirations of the many people within this country who hold different religious beliefs. Without that requirement parents from other faiths would have little option but to withdraw their children from religious education entirely. That could only weaken the school community and would not help to promote tolerance and mutual understanding. Nor does the law advocate the "fruit cocktail" approach to religion. My noble friend Lady Cox talked of the purity of each religion within the teaching of religious education.
The needs of other faith groups are, I believe, adequately met in the existing arrangements. My noble friend Lady Cox referred to difficulties encountered by the MECC in obtaining information on SACREs' activities. Each SACRE is required to provide and publish an annual report on its activities. They are asked to send a copy of that report to the NCC. It publishes an analysis of the reports which is freely available and can be readily obtained from the NCC. If any group or individual has further difficulty in obtaining a SACRE's annual report from the SACRE or LEA I should be interested to know and I shall do all that I can to ensure that that blockage is unblocked.
While we are aware that many local education authorities have revised their agreed syllabuses to take account of the new requirements of the Education Reform Act, the law does not require authorities to review their existing syllabuses and I cannot insist that they should. The law does not allow for that. The impetus must come locally. I should mention here that local Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education, or SACREs, are a key element in this process.
The Education Reform Act requires local authorities to set up such councils, and in turn the Act provides that the councils should have the right to require a review of the agreed syllabus. Their membership includes representatives from the established Church, other churches and faith groups, the local education authority and teacher trade unions. The National Curriculum Council's 1992 analysis of SACRE reports reveals that during 1991 standing advisory councils' agendas have been dominated by the revision and implementation of agreed syllabuses. That signals a concentration of curriculum development in religious education unparalleled since 1944. Despite all that, we know from the NCC's analysis that only just over one third of local education authorities have already or are in the course of producing new agreed syllabuses.
Perhaps I may appeal to the right reverend Prelate and say that I hope that the established Church and others will continue to press for further positive change in religious education and will listen to worries expressed by parents and governors about agreed syllabuses. SACREs have a major role in ensuring that religious education is appropriate and lawful and that it enhances the spiritual well-being of our young people.
274
I understand, however, the anxiety about those local authorities which have chosen not to review their agreed syllabuses in the light of the new requirements of the Act. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to monitor the extent to which syllabuses have been revised and, if necessary, will take further action to encourage all LEAs to review their syllabuses.
These new syllabuses must of course comply with the new requirements introduced by the Education Reform Act. If they do not the responsible local education authorities lay themselves open to the possibility of a formal complaint under the new complaints procedures also introduced by the 1988 Act.
Those complaints procedures are designed to allow parents, and others, to raise objections about the curriculum in schools, including religious education. Complaints must first be heard at the local level. That is right, given that responsibility lies at that level. Such local action has already proved successful, as my noble friend Lady Cox has indicated. Beyond the local level, there is a further possibility for action. If those complaining are not satisfied by the school or local authority's response, the complaint may be referred to the Secretary of State.
At this point I should say to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have spoken that I take very seriously the points they have made about the sense of intimidation and the strength of character required by a parent to challenge the system. I shall think further about the points made on that issue.
Since the Act we have received only two formal complaints about religious education syllabuses, and that number has not increased. Because of what I have heard about the difficulty of making complaints, I understand that that does not mean that there is not more dissatisfaction in the community about religious education. The two complaints concerned the local agreed syllabuses for Ealing and Newham local education authorities. In both cases, the authorities are making arrangements to revise their agreed syllabuses in the light of our advice. That is evidence of the positive value of the complaints procedures.
In the course of considering these complaints, the Government took legal advice as to the interpretation which a court would be likely to take about the nature of an agreed syllabus which would comply with the law. That advice has been made available to all local education authorities. It is proof that we will take action to encourage and assist local authorities in fulfilling their responsibilities.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Cox about the difficulties which parents may face in pursuing complaints and the single-mindedness which parents must show in pressing for action. I should remind noble Lords that others may make complaints, and pursue them, on behalf of parents, or simply from their own interest. I am aware that some bodies—for example, Christians and Tyneside Schools and the Parental Alliance for Choice in Education—have been active in supporting parents in making complaints. I encourage any person who is unsure or anxious about the religious education provided in a school to seek

275
assurances from the school and local authority, and to pursue a formal complaint if they are dissatisfied with the response. Perhaps I may add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said. I am sure that the established Church would assist any parent who felt intimidated by the process of making a formal complaint.
Aside from formal complaints, the Government also monitor the situation directly. When HMI reports on schools, it considers all aspects of the curriculum including religious education, and if it is not satisfied, it draws that to the attention of the governors and local authority. In most cases that is sufficient to put the matter right; but, if necessary, the department takes up the case formally. Noble Lords will be aware that as a result of amendments laid in this House, the new arrangements for school inspection contained in the Education (Schools) Act 1992 will ensure that those inspections pay attention to moral and spiritual aspects of the curriculum. I believe that that requirement, the fact that many more inspections will be carried out under the new arrangements and that the reports will be published locally, will increase pressure on schools and authorities to take their responsibilities for religious education seriously. Parents will also have better information to judge whether they are satisfied with the religious education provided for their child.
I should also like to mention the work undertaken by the National Curriculum Council. The council is the Government's main source of advice on the curriculum, and is active in supporting religious education. We expect the council to continue to monitor religious education in the curriculum, and to issue guidance as necessary. Apart from the annual analysis of SACRE reports, the National Curriculum Council has, for example, published advice for those local education authorities and agreed syllabus conferences wishing to draw up a curriculum framework along national curriculum lines. The NCC also proposes to undertake an analysis of agreed syllabuses locally to see whether there is further guidance which it can offer.
The NCC's chairman, David Pascall, in a brilliant speech recently to the Religious Education Council for England and Wales, encapsulated the Government's view, referring to the invaluable contribution religious education makes to pupils' education. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. Mr. Pascall went on to emphasise the local responsibility for ensuring that religious education is taught, and taught well. However, the NCC intends to review the extent to which spiritual and moral values can be developed through the national curriculum, religious education, and otherwise, in schools. That is a most helpful development.
My noble friend Lady Cox mentioned competition for resources with other subjects. The NCC has a general duty to consider the manageability and possible overload of the curriculum. As part of its work, it will take into account the need for schools to balance the requirements of all subjects in the curriculum to ensure that none are overlooked. In particular, the NCC is planning guidance on planning
276
the whole curriculum including religious education at upper primary levels. The House will also be aware of the steps which the Government have taken to increase flexibility in the curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds which will help to ensure that adequate time is available for the study of religious education for this age group.
I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that the allocation of financial resources is a matter for local decision and will welcome the Government's efforts to ensure that such decisions are taken at the school level. The combined effect of more frequent inspection and local resourcing will enable schools to react quickly where they need to improve their religious education. The Government provide specific grant support to schools and authorities for the in-service training of teachers. Again, the way in which these resources are used is a matter for local decision, but where religious education needs to be improved, schools should consider it just as seriously as they consider any other national curriculum subject.
I am also aware that many organisations are providing materials for use in teaching religious education, and that such resources increasingly take account of the requirements of the Education Reform Act. That is a further positive sign. I hope that bodies developing those resources will ensure that their existence is widely known to SACREs and teachers.
The new provisions in the Education Reform Act relating to religious education are already capturing the imagination of the local bodies. I believe that we can look forward to a period of vigorous activity in the religious education field. Through the Education Reform Act we have defined new requirements for the content of religious education in schools; clearly defined responsibility for these matters at the local level, and I have referred to various ways in which the review of agreed syllabuses is being encouraged. We are also ready to take action where necessary through guidance to local bodies to assist them in their vital task of developing religious education for children in our schools. In particular, we plan to issue a revised circular on religious education and collective worship in due course once complaints cases at present under consideration have been determined, and to take account of recent legislation.
Perhaps I can touch briefly on a number of points made in the debate. Reference was made by my noble friend Lady Cox to the Oldham complaint raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. The question is not one concerning the sufficiency of the complaint. The Secretary of State is actually barred by law from considering a complaint before it has gone through the local complaints procedures. However, I will look into what my noble friend said with regard to helping parents who are worried and daunted by the process to enable them to make their complaints.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to the Bradford syllabus. If the Bradford syllabus is as he described then it does not reflect that Christianity should be given greater prominence and I shall certainly look into it. However, perhaps I can appeal to the right reverend Prelate, his colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford and the

277
established members of the SACRE for Bradford to put pressure on the local authorities to get the syllabus right.
Reference was made to the shortage of RE teachers. The right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords mentioned the point and it is important. I know that there are various reasons for it, not least of which is the depressing number of teachers who feel themselves unable to teach this subject to their pupils.
The right reverend Prelate made an important point concerning the vigorous follow-up to the local authorities not responding to the National Curriculum Council's questionnaire, and he cited certain local authorities. Where there is no advertising for religious education teachers the schools fall short of what should be being taught. I believe that that situation is serious and again it must be looked into.
I was asked about a timetable plan to follow up an adverse inspection. I can say that that is absolutely in hand as a result of the 1992 Inspection Act. If a school receives an adverse report it will be required by law to produce an action plan and that will he shared with the parents and governors of the school.
With regard to the effect of intended legislation on the organisation of schools on local bodies for religious education and collective worship, I can assure the House that we are giving careful consideration to those changes which may be needed to be made in the arrangements for the standing advisory councils. That was a point made by a number of people including my noble friend Lady Brigstocke.
I was asked about the inspection arrangements and the marginalising of religious education. The governing body of the school will be required to produce an action plan setting out what action it intends to take in the light of any inspection. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred, as I have just done, to teachers not willing to teach RE. Since the 1944 Act teachers have had the right not to teach RE on the ground of conscience. I share the anxiety of noble Lords in this matter. It is a depressing fact that so many teachers are not prepared to teach the subject.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was worried about the role for ministers and parents. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for his support concerning the role of those outside the schools. That is a helpful source of advice for the schools. I believe that he also referred to the reserve powers which the Secretary of State has to expedite complaints. The Secretary of State has general powers to investigate whether a local authority is acting unreasonably, but at the same time authorities have a duty to investigate in full all complaints made to them. There is absolutely no excuse for procrastination in any case where an authority was beyond doubt delaying a complaint unnecessarily. The Government would take that very seriously; but we must allow time for the complaint to be dealt with at the local level.
My noble friend Lord Brentford was anxious about the proportion of time to be spent on Christianity and other religions. The general guidance given by the department is necessarily susceptible to a variety of
278
interpretations including the needs of the local community. Therefore, it is not possible to lay down nationally a precise proportion of teaching time which should be devoted except that it should mainly reflect Christianity. The fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian would in most cases be properly reflected by devoting most attention to Christian traditions. According to our legal advice, that is the criteria against which an agreed syllabus would be judged.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, referred to teacher training. The current circular referring to the initial training of teachers requires all primary teacher training courses to include training in the teaching of religious education. I believe that the point he was proffering to me was whether we could re-emphasise that point. I shall take back his message that he would like a further circular to be sent out on this matter.
I have dealt with the points raised by the noble Baroness concerning reports from the HMI. I believe that I was pressed, again by the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, about public access to SACRE meetings. I shall take that point back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Its reports are published annually. I believe that more people should avail themselves of them. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke asked whether the SACREs could have more support. I am not sure that it is a question of more support. We need to be very much more vigilant about the people we put on these bodies. The local authorities and the established Church need to be more vigilant as to whom they put on those bodies. The trade unions which represent teachers also need to care about that matter. It is for those bodies to take their work seriously. I do not believe it is a question of support but of the people there being cognizant of the Act and making sure that what work they produce is consistent with it.
The idea of a theologian in residence is a message for the right reverend Prelate. It is a very good idea. A question was raised about in-service training. I shall take all these ideas back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked why we did not publish an HMI report on religious education. There are no plans at the present time for a separate publication on religious education in the HMI series Aspects of Primary Education.
Religious education is covered in the HMI's first report on the implementation of curricula requirements of the Education Reform Act. I have referred the' House to the work which is going on in the National Curriculum Council which I believe will more than compensate for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked: where is the evidence that things are going wrong? She has heard a number of noble Lords tonight expressing anxiety. I have no doubt that if we pressed my noble friend Lady Cox she could keep us here a very long time evidencing her case. Perhaps I may also say that my noble friend Lady Cox was also extremely positive about the good things that were going on in the field of religious education. I suspect that she spent more than a good half of her speech making that point. However, she

279
went on to say that more needs to be done. Again, it is worth noting that about two thirds of local education authorities have not updated their agreed syllabuses. I believe that it is incumbent upon us all to put pressure on them to do just that.
Like other noble Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was anxious about resources. In addition to the Government providing specific support for training for the basic curriculum, which includes religious education—this is aside from national curriculum subjects—through the grants for educational support and training, which includes support for the new and continuing appointment of advisory teachers and for non-teaching staff, in the current year the expenditure support from GEST is in the order of £54 million on those categories.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also mentioned the organisation of the teaching of RE. It is for individual schools to decide whether RE is
280
taught as a free-standing subject, as part of the humanities or as personal or social education. That is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the local education authority and the school. However, religious education sometimes becomes rather lost when taught in that way. It is not recognisable as a subject in itself. That causes some anxiety, especially for the parent who may wish to withdraw a child from such teaching. If RE is unrecognisable as a subject, it is difficult to know what would be lost by withdrawing a child from that education.
In conclusion, I assure the House that the Government are committed to the place of Christianity in religious education. We shall continue to emphasise that commitment wherever appropriate, while recognising the needs of others.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  ARSONISTS: SENTENCES
  ARSONISTS: SENTENCES
  PRISONERS: PAYMENTS SCHEME
  PRISONERS: PAYMENTS SCHEME
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  MAXWELL COMPANIES: PENSIONS
  MAXWELL COMPANIES: PENSIONS
  DANGEROUS SEA CARGOES: EC DIRECTIVE PROPOSAL
  DANGEROUS SEA CARGOES: EC DIRECTIVE PROPOSAL
  MILK MARKETING BOARDS: FUTURE STATUS
  MILK MARKETING BOARDS: FUTURE STATUS