Sitting of 22 June 1992

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

    Recession
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the impact of the recession (a) on Wales and (b) on Neath.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): The transformation of the Welsh economy over recent years has left it well placed to weather the effects of the recession. All the indications are that the future prospects for the Welsh economy are very good indeed.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Secretary of State aware that the recession is creating a terrible housing crisis in Wales? People come to my surgeries in tears. One young woman sleeps with her 14-month-old baby on the living room floor of her parents' home because there is nowhere else for her. In another case, two adults, four children and another couple—a total of eight people—live in a three-bedroomed house. Those problems could be solved at a stroke if the Secretary of State would release £500,000 from housing capital receipts funds in Wales and let councils build houses that are so desperately needed. Does the Secretary of State not care about those human tragedies?
    Mr. Hunt: To put the matter in perspective, the number of housing units built in Wales in the past 10 years has risen by 8 per cent., whereas the population has risen by just over 2 per cent. We are putting increased resources into housing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Housing for Wales is now building a record number of homes and the prospects are very good.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the opening by the Cabot factory in Barry of the new silica fume plant, one of the most modern in Europe?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, and I was glad that my hon. Friend could he with me on that important occasion—a £48 million investment, promising a state-of-the-art factory and tremendous prospects for the future. Following that opening, the opening of Revlon at Maesteg last week, and the announcement about Northern Telecom, I am glad to announce today an industrial investment package of £28 million involving the planned creation of more than 814 new jobs. I am delighted to make that announcement, which comes as another tremendous boost for Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that unemployment stands at 124,000 and is rising, and that last year 5,500 manufacturing jobs were lost in Wales? Does not the Chancellor's decision to scrap the National Economic Development Council call into question the whole future of the Secretary of State's planned Welsh economic council? Did the Chancellor consult the right hon. Gentleman before he made his statement?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Our plans for the Welsh economic council continue and we shall shortly issue a consultation paper. On unemploy-ment, the figures for the hon. Gentleman's constituency show that in July 1986, 4,274 people were unemployed; in June 1987, the figure had fallen to 3,689; in April 1992, it had fallen to 2,923; and last month, it fell again to 2,855. The prospects for his constituency and for Wales are very good.
    Mr. Richards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were it not for the Government's policies, the impact of the world recession on Wales would have been far more severe?
    Mr. Hunt: I am delighted that my hon. Friend asks me that question, because we have seen a transformation of Wales in the past 10 years. The offers of regional assistance accepted by employers since 1979 are forecast to save more than 50,000 jobs in Wales and to create more than 100,000 new jobs. The transformation of Wales has secured its future.

    Home Adaptations
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will examine the waiting times for approved home adaptations for the disabled in each local authority in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Local councils must deal with all applications for disabled facilities grants within six months of receiving them.
    Mr. Wardell: As renovation grants and adaptation grants for the disabled are usually mandatory under the Housing Acts, why has the Welsh Office discriminated against disabled people by transferring the funding of those mandatory grants from the special credit allowance to the basic credit allowance? That change of policy has effectively ended the ringfencing of a vulnerable group in society. Does not that mean that elderly and disabled people throughout Wales look forward with trepidation to the implementation of the Community Care Act next year?
    Mr. Jones: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there have been no changes to the regulations; the disabled facilities grants remain mandatory. The policy changes give local councils far more flexibility, which is necessary as they need to consider all the options in order to respond effectively. In the current year we have provided £26.3 million to deal with disabled facilities and other grants, compared with last year's expenditure of a little over £7 million.
    Mr. Wigley: Does not the Minister understand that local authorities in Wales face a crisis which has a knock-on effect for disabled people? Until 31 March, work to renovate houses to an acceptable standard and the installation of disabled facilities was possible in most districts, and the money spent was refunded. Now, as that refunding has come to an end, it is not possible to bring houses for disabled people up to acceptable standards. Disabled people will have to live in dampness and poverty for years to come unless we revert to the original policy.
    Mr. Jones: As I have explained, we have substantially increased the funding for disabled facilities grants to £26.3 million compared with a little over £7 million. We have made a generous increase in allocation of £80 million for all mandatory home renovation grants, bringing the total figure to £143 million.

    Local Government Services
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of county councils in Wales to discuss continuity and quality of local government services in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: On 11 May.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the two prime requirements for quality of services are, first, democratic accountability through the ballot box and, secondly, continuity so that people know where they are? Do the Government intend to introduce legislation before the recess to cancel or delay next year's county council elections or are they to allow the doubt and confusion to continue?
    Mr. Hunt: The question about holding elections has been asked of me by the local authority associations, but it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, not me. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and, more particularly, his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) could give the Labour party's view on holding county council elections next year. It would also be helpful for other parties to do so, as they would aid my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and me in reaching a decision— [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) shouting at me—he is still the young pretender and has not yet taken over from his hon. Friend. I should warn him about what they used to do to young pretenders in medieval times—the same fate may well await him.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: When the Secretary of State met council representatives, was he aware of the importance of the trading standards and consumer protection service as the last line of defence between the public and unscrupulous traders? How does he expect a uniformly high standard of consumer protection to be administered throughout Wales after local government reform?
    Mr. Hunt: I am determined that a high standard should be maintained. I have been greatly assisted in that objective by the fact that we have now been able to establish a number of sub-groups on the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, whose members include representatives of county and district councils, as well as the Welsh Office. I want those sub-groups to work out the best possible way to deliver the services, with the best quality, once we have the new unitary authorities.

    Youth Agency
    Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in establishing a youth agency for Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am pleased to announce that the Wales Youth Agency was established with effect from 1 April this year. The appointment of Mr. Gerald Davies as chairman and Dr. Howard Williamson as vice-chairman was announced on 16 March. Other appointments will be made shortly.
    The agency is the successor body to the Wales youth work partnership. It is funded by the Welsh Office under

    5
    the powers conferred by the Education Act 1944. It is expected to be fully operational by the autumn. Its grant in 1992–93 will be about £360,000.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend assist us with an outline of the functions of this agency and what he sees as its principal purposes?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The agency will have three main functions. The first is to secure an effective partnership between all the agencies involved in youth work. Secondly, it will provide training for youth workers and ensure that they are well informed. Its third function will be to ensure that the aspirations of Welsh youth are expressed, and realised if possible. The ultimate aim of the agency will be to improve the quality of life for our young people.
    Mr. Llew Smith: What proportion of the youths who are now leaving school are finding employment in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: About 61 per cent. of our young people do not leave school and go to work, partly because we encourage them to stay on at school as we want them to receive further education and training. As for those who go on to training, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a significant proportion leave training to go to work in due course.

    Trunk Roads
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money (a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of the Welsh total, will be spent on trunk roads in Dyfed in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Central Government provision for roads and transport in Wales in 1992–93 is £197 million. An analysis by county is not available, as the programme is subject to changing engineering, statutory and financial considerations.
    Provision for 1993–94 and 1994–95 will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that the analysis by Dyfed county council shows that less than 6 per cent. of the capital from the Welsh Office is spent on the 24 per cent. of the road network of Wales that lies within the county? Is he aware that all the local authorities and the members of the task force on whose strategy team the Secretary of State sits identify the fact that west Wales has serious problems with its road communications? Is he further aware that his answer is wholly inadequate, as are the sums allocated to road communications in west Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Although I do not deny the county council's figures, I should point out that they vary from year to year. In 1990–91, about £22.6 million was spent on motorways and trunk roads in Dyfed—12.6 per cent. of the total spent in Wales. I do not know why the county council should complain. There are nine trunk road schemes in the pipeline for Dyfed, costing about £81 million—five of them to be started before 1995 and four before 1998.
    As for expenditure on roads, the hon. Gentleman will know that our expenditure on the M4, in particular on the Baglan-Lonlas section in west Wales, will greatly benefit life there.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on designating new environmentally sensitive areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am pleased to announce the designation of four new ESAs—Radnor and Anglesey by the end of this year, and Preseli and the Clwydian range by the end of next.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be very welcome in Radnor and, I hope, in Ynys Môn, which is represented by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement, when coupled with the common agriculture policy reform package announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, recognises the role of farmers in caring for our countryside? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that adequate funding will be made available to back the ESA scheme so that farmers are encouraged to join it voluntarily?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes. First, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who made strong representations—[Interruption.] I could stop there—on the importance of placing Radnor as a high priority in the designation of new ESAs? I agree that it is important for those from towns and cities, who come to view the beautiful countryside, to recognise that it is mainly due to the farming community that they are able to benefit from it. However, they must also recognise that they must pay. Therefore, I have allocated £2.5 million to cover those agreements in the coming year.
    Mr. Ron Davies: May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, as far as it goes? Now is the time to develop a far more ambitious and comprehensive system of countryside management. May I press him on two points? First, will the rates payable under the four schemes that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today bear at least some resemblance to the scales that applied in 1986? The Secretary of State will know that those scales have not been uprated and that they have been severely eroded by inflation. Secondly, is it not time to recognise that all farmers throughout Wales should be entitled to the payments, because that is one way to prevent the intolerable level of surpluses from increasing and, at the same time, compensating farmers for the losses that they will incur as a result of CAP reform?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman's question contains many important points. I recognise that it is vital to ensure that we have the right level of payments. However, one must view that against the overall level of resources available and I believe that the scale of payments announced today will more than meet the present requirements. It is always important to keep an eye on all the various schemes operating throughout Wales. Tir Cymen, the countryside stewardship scheme, is another important one which is getting under way. National parks also play an important part in our strategy.
    My announcement will mean that 24 per cent. of rural Wales will be covered by the new ESAs, which comes on top of the schemes for the Cambrian mountains and the extension of the scheme for the Lleyn peninsula. We must

    7
    learn the lessons from all that when we decide on which way to proceed. However, I take on board the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Severn Bridge
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the level of tolls on the Severn bridge.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Department has received some 54 letters about the level of tolls as provided for in the Severn Bridges Act 1992.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree with the RAC, which said a few days ago that hundreds of motorists make diversions of up to 60 miles in order to avoid paying the tolls on the Severn bridge? Does he also agree with the RAC that the small commercial vehicles that use the bridge should be placed in a different tolling category? Above all, does he agree that the position on the Severn bridge has become, as the RAC described it, "outrageous"? Is not it time that the Minister personally intervened not just for the sake of those who use the bridge but for the sake of the whole Welsh economy?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of points. On the RAC survey, which suggests that vehicles are being diverted, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the record of the Severn bridge is one of steady growth in traffic. I believe that that growth will continue and that is why we are providing a second Severn bridge. When the hon. Gentleman refers to small vehicles, I presume that means light vans. There was an unintended ambiguity in the Severn Bridges Act 1992, which we have now sought to clarify with the Severn Bridges (Description of Vehicles) Order 1992. There cannot be a change from the provisions of that Act. My feeling is that matters have settled down since the change in the tolling regime at the bridge. We all look forward to the tolling regime providing the new bridge by spring 1996.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does not fixing the level of toll at £2.80 make it more difficult to collect the money? Would not it be better to change £3, with a guarantee that it would be pegged at that level for a considerable time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system of charging the owner of a light van who may be using it for private purposes considerably more than the owner of an ordinary car, which may weigh substantially more, is unjust?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is suggesting going against the provisions of the Severn Bridges Act, which was passed by the House. In that Act, the tolling regime is fully provided for, not only now but for the future, until the new bridge is paid for. It also covers maintenance of the existing bridge, and there can be no change of that Act except by the will of the House.

    Water Quality
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to discuss water quality in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend and his officials regularly have meetings with the chairman and
    8
    officers of the National Rivers Authority to discuss water quality and other matters associated with the discharge of the authority's functions in Wales.
    Dr. Howells: The Minister's constituency shares a river with mine, the River Taff. If he is that confident about the quality of the water in the Taff, which I am not, does he agree that improvements to water quality should be speeded up, that we have treated our rivers for long enough as open sewers and that everyone who dumps effluent in the river, including Welsh Water, should be pursued ruthlessly by the NRA and fined? If he is, as he often says that he is, pleased with the improvement in water quality will he come to my constituency, where I promise that I will have my constituents line the banks of the River Taff to watch him take a running jump into it?
    Mr. Jones: I think that I shall decline the hon. Gentleman's last offer, but I would go along with the general sentiment that he expresses. We all want to see further and continuing improvements. Already, there have been substantial improvements and 94 per cent. of river quality in Wales is at least of a good or fair standard, and that is a net improvement over the last time. I have also noticed that there has been a useful improvement—a significant population of migratory salmon and trout in the Taff—which I should like to see continue.

    Job Initiatives
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he plans to introduce to safeguard jobs in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: My Department and the development agencies have in place a number of successful initiatives to safeguard jobs and create new ones.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State regret the surrendering of the ownership of Inmos from the British to other Governments?
    Mr. Hunt: Discussions are continuing with Inmos and the European Commission and we still hope that they will come to a successful conclusion, so the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise. I hope that he will take time to reflect on the announcements that I have been able to make today, because they have great significance for his area.
    The 13 projects that have been backed by regional selective assistance—RSA—of more than £7 million include a major new project for Flexonics Automotive Ltd. at Crumlin, a new project for Vales Wiper Systems at Ystrad Mynach and another project that is being started by Electronics Manufacture and Test Ltd. at the Llantarnam park industrial estate. All these are good projects and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on them and realise that we are determined to continue to win new investment as well as taking every possible step to safeguarding existing investment.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Roger Evans—[Interruption.] As I have such a choice of Evanses, I call Mr. Jonathan Evans.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am obliged, Madam Speaker. May I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that his announcement about jobs will be widely welcomed in the Principality, if not by the Labour party? In his role of job creation, did he have any part to play in job creation

    9
    for the former Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, who was recently elevated to a position in the other House? As for the safeguarding of jobs, is my right hon. Friend able to offer any advice to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I should make it clear to the Opposition parties that the Evanses reign supreme on the Government Benches.
    I do not want to comment especially on job creation, as I understand that it is a subject which divides one of the Opposition parties. I was personally delighted by the recognition given to the former Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas.
    The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside constantly preaches doom and gloom in the context of the Welsh economy, but the facts speak for themselves. We have had remarkable success. In the 12 months to April 1992, accepted RSA offers have safeguarded 4,868 jobs and created 8,257 new ones.
    Mr. Rowlands: Has the Secretary of State read the recent report of Mid Glamorgan county council, which shows a huge and growing jobs gap in the county? The area might attract 5,000 jobs during the decade, but even an extra 15,000 would only maintain the present high levels of unemployment. There is talk of convergence of the economies of the Twelve, but it seems that we cannot have convergence in the United Kingdom, or even in Wales between mid and south Glamorgan.
    Whatever the achievements that have resulted from the valleys initiative, is it not now time for a major new programme of positive discrimination in favour of valleys development to create a degree of convergence and to make up for the huge jobs gap which has been created and which is growing every day?
    Mr. Hunt: I read the articles in the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I was struck by some of the inconsistencies. For example, it was stated that there had been no inward investment projects in the valleys in the past year, but I know that there have been 20 such projects. I was first told about the report last week when I was in Maesteg opening the new plant for Revlon, which will safeguard 370 jobs and create 188 new ones. The hon. Gentleman will know of the investment by Mayor Sakata and Artec in Merthyr.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need constantly to pay attention to the valleys. That is exactly what my predecessor did in setting up the programme for the valleys. About £800 million will be available over the five years of a programme that has seen the largest land clearance programme in Europe, record levels of investment in factory building, substantial industrial support and urban renewals and many initiatives in training, health care and housing.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What is my right hon. Friend's assessment of the effectiveness of the Welsh Development Agency in bringing new jobs to Wales? If the agency's work is not welcomed by Opposition Members, perhaps it could come to Dorset and do the same wonderful job for my constituents as it has done for the constituencies of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Hunt: The WDA does a remarkably good job in its Conservative form. I strongly support the inward investment work that it is doing. I hope that it will not seek
    10
    to do the same for my hon. Friend's constituents, as that would militate against the impressive work that it is doing in Wales. I am sorry to bring my hon. Friend that sad news.
    Mr. Barry Jones: With the loss of 5,500 manufacturing jobs last year, is it not clear that Wales needs a much stronger regional policy? Will the Secretary of State pledge that, in the review of assisted area status, Wales will not lose out?
    Mr. Hunt: That is not a matter for me, but I am determined to do everything possible to secure the future attractiveness of our country for jobs. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, has he not noticed that whereas unemployment in Wales has always been considerably above the United Kingdom average, last month's figures show that, for the first time in more than 70 years, unemployment in Wales is now below the United Kingdom average? That is a reflection of the transformation that has taken place.

    Green Issues
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who in his Department has been appointed to oversee and develop green issues; how many civil servants have been allocated new or additional responsibilities to deal with the management and development of green issues; and what additional allocation of resources has been made to support programmes related to green issues in his Department.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has assumed personal responsibility for overseeing the Welsh Office's environmental policies and programmes. The Department's wide-ranging respon-sibilities mean that environmental issues impact either directly or indirectly on the workloads of all Welsh Office staff. All are encouraged to take the environment into account in their day-to-day work. Full details of the financial provision in 1992–93 for environmental program-mes are set out in the departmental report published in February.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that, following the Earth summit in Rio, ecological sustainability is now fundamental to all economic policy and that that has implications for economic development in Wales? Does he further recognise that west Wales has considerable potential for green developments, not least in renewable energy? What plans does the hon. Gentleman have for promoting such developments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, I am reading my notes. What plans does the Minister have for promoting such developments and ensuring that when they occur they will not be an almighty rip-off of the Welsh economy? That has happened many times in Welsh economic life, for example, in opencast coal—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is Question Time; he is making a speech. Will he now come directly to his question, as time is passing?
    Mr. Dafis: What plans does the Minister have for developing that green potential—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am much obliged.
    Mr. Jones: I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the successful outcome of the Earth summit in Rio. I assure him that the Welsh Office was fully consulted before and during the conference.
    On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the work of conserving the Welsh environment is well under way. As he will note in the departmental report, the allocation to the environmental services programme is planned to be £194.5 million, an increase of £21.3 million. In addition, the WDA is carrying through its environmental improvement programme, which involves an increase of £15 million. Cadw's programme is up by £4 million and the programme for the Countryside Council for Wales is up by £3 million.

    Health Service
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the reorganisation and development of the health service in Rhondda/Taff-Ely.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: This is principally a matter for Mid Glamorgan health authority at this stage.
    Mr. Rogers: I understand that Mid Glamorgan health authority has submitted proposals for some capital development around Ynysymwm and other parts of the Rhondda-Taff-Ely area. While we are waiting for those major capital developments, the fabric of the existing buildings—especially Llwynpia hospital—is rapidly deteriorating. Will the Minister make available some emergency funds, in response to my letter to him, so that my constituents do not have to wait for medical treatment in the most appalling conditions imaginable?
    Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall respond fully to his letter. In the interim, I remind him that the funding of £244 million for Mid Glamorgan health authority in the current year is an increase of 7.2 per cent. —well above the rate of inflation. I hope that that health authority will continue with the successful increases that it has been delivering in improved health care. I especially note that the number of in-patients treated is up 14 per cent. and the number of day patients is up by 42 per cent.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Wales of the findings of the Committee of Public Accounts on the level of monitoring of the working of the financial regime operated by housing associations under the Housing Act 1988.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Detailed monitoring is undertaken by my Department and Housing for Wales on the basis of appropriate data, including that supplied by the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations.
    Mr. Smith: What advice would the Minister give those of my constituents who live in substandard housing or who are homeless and who, because they receive low wages, do not qualify for a housing association flat?
    Mr. Jones: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we will continue the successful work of the past decade, when the number of housing units increased by more than 8 per cent., while the population of
    12
    Wales rose by only about 2 per cent. Housing for Wales intends to build 4,000 new homes this year, compared with 3,500 last year, which is a good improvement.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the application of the citizens charter principles to British Rail.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): British Rail has set out the application of the citizens charter in its own passengers charter. The charter commits British Rail to giving passengers the safe, high-quality service that they have the right to expect. Passengers now know what are BR's standards, and which standards are being achieved.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Chancellor recall that the citizens charter White Paper published almost one year ago contained a clear pledge to reform conditions of carriage, which were described as heavily criticised and more than 40 years old? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall also the pledge that those simple, easy-to-understand conditions of carriage would be published last November? A seven-month delay in arriving seems rather long, even by British Rail's standards. What redress will the Government offer?
    Mr. Waldegrave: In this matter, it is not entirely British Rail's fault. BR and the Department of Transport have been awaiting the European Commission's work, which appeared to delay matters. My information is that BR will now be able to press on more speedily.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will be pleased that any price increases will be linked to the service provided in future? That is important to those who commute to Reading and just beyond it.
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is a good principle and one which will benefit season ticket holders. The first objective is to ensure that standards that commuters want are met. When they are not, that will be reflected in prices and in compensation to individual holders of season tickets in the preceding year.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy believe that the application of citizens charter principles to British Rail should relate to its commercial aspects, or will an element of service be involved? If the latter, where precisely in British Rail should that element of service be found?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The element of service comes in British Rail's managing its business as effectively as possible. As our railways are presently constituted, the Department of Transport is responsible for negotiating that—and under any future privatisation, the regulator would have that role.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Rail has just put on the market a grade 1 listed building at a price virtually half that which British Rail paid for it? At the same time, BR denies that the blight affecting the properties of constituents of mine who live close to that

    13
    building has anything to do with BR. How does my right hon. Friend see those two conflicting attitudes fitting in with the citizens charter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend will have to await my detailed reply. I do not know the details of the case to which he refers, but I will be happy to pursue it.

    European Research Council
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he will make to the European Research Council during the United Kingdom presidency.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the presidency, we will prepare the ground for the fourth framework programme, which will define Community research in the years ahead while assessing whether any financing problems that remain from the third framework programme need dealing with. I want to see better management and evaluation of EC programmes. I shall be seeing Vice-President Pandolfi in London tomorrow.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that one of the most important steps that the Council could take would be to support the proposed global climate observation system, which would ensure a sound scientific basis for the adoption of environmental policies?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. He will be well aware of the initiative launched in Rio by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this connection, and I shall draw his remarks to the Commissioner's attention tomorrow.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Should we not recommend the ending of all European Community Research funding for fat-cat corporations such as Olivetti, Siemens and Philips. which over the past few years have proved brilliant at lobbying for funding for prestige research products, but less than brilliant when it comes to producing efficient, marketable goods? If they devoted half the effort that they devote to lobbying for protection and research grants to producing such goods, they would be world beaters.
    Mr. Waldegrave: We firmly believe that individual corporations and products should not receive research support, either from the Community or from our own domestic programme. We should use the European programme to support generic science and strategic science, which can have a wide range of applications, but we should not be drawn into individual industrial decisions of the kind that my hon. Friend rightly criticised.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that the science communities—not only in Britain but in France and Germany—want the European framework research programme to be well supported? Does he propose any steps to bring the national peer groups together, so that, with their pooled wisdom, they can help to improve administration standards in Europe?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that there is a role for domestic advice to strengthen the European Community's assessments. At the last Council meeting, I pressed hard for better evaluation of the existing European programmes and received considerable support around the table. We in Britain have a great deal to offer in that direction.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend use the British presidency as an opportunity to keep a beady eye on the expansionist ambitions of President Delors in this regard, as in many others?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, although it should be recognised that Britain receives a good return from European research and development expenditure—a rather better return than under the juste retour formula. None the less, that does not mean that we should not question any unnecessary expansion and ensure that evaluation and assessment of projects are better and tougher than in the past.

    Intestacy
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the effect of intestacy on Duchy properties.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider introducing legislation to alter the intestacy provisions in the Duchy.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The laws on intestacy are no different in the county palatine from those in England and Wales.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not the Duchy of Lancaster running a feudal fiefdom, robbing relatives of their inheritance? Why does not the normal law apply, whereby if someone dies without having made a will, his next of kin, rather than the Queen personally, has a claim to his property? For the sake of natural justice, should not repossessions by ancient statute be stopped immediately—or are we to assume that the Duchy is using its policy to satisfy the monarch's private greed?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was perfectly acceptable and in order, but I must tell him that no personal criticism can be made of and individual except by way of a substantive motion. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the second part of his question?
    Mr. Cohen: My criticism was of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question was perfectly in order, but factually—you, Madam Speaker, are not responsible for that aspect—it was completely haywire. Opposition Members who take their briefing from the Daily Mirror always come a cropper; I have dealt with one or two in the past. The truth is that the law of intestacy is exactly the same in the Duchy of Lancaster as it is everywhere else: there is no difference in the rights of next of kin. The only difference lies in the fact that, instead of all the money going to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it goes to a charitable fund to benefit the people of Lancashire. Some hon. Members may well support that.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy accept that many of us have no wish to join the republican rat pack led by Rupert Murdoch and Andrew Neil, who unfortunately, is a Scotsman? There is growing and genuine concern that although the civil list provides a very generous income and although the monarch is exempt from tax, the estate goes to the Queen personally when people die intestate in the Duchy of Lancaster and have no

    15
    heirs, and not to the Crown, as represented by the Government. Many people believe that that anomaly ought to be dealt with. Will the Chancellor consider introducing legislation to change that procedure, because otherwise it will continue to reflect adversely on the monarch?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I thought at first that the hon. Gentleman, whose question is more accurate, was referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who got it all back to front. At least the hon. Gentleman more or less knows the facts. In the following respect, though, he is wrong. Instead of the money going into the Consolidated Fund for general use by the Government, it goes into a benevolent fund which benefits a range of charities—above all, for example, Salford and Lancaster universities, Blackburn cathedral and Broughton Hall disabled ex-service men's home. There are also very small grants, including that to pay for driving lessons for an 18-year-old suffering from spina bifida and a contribution towards a powered wheelchair for a sufferer from muscular dystrophy in Lancashire. Many of us think that the Duchy, through its benevolent fund, does very good work and that it should receive support in the House.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that not one penny of this money is kept by the Duchy and that it all goes to charitable uses within the Duchy, a fact that all properly informed Lancashire Members have always been well aware of.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I did think that it was somewhat rash of these foreigners to interfere in my hon. Friend's area. I thought that she would dispose of them—as she has done. I would correct her, however, on one small point. Part of the money is spent on the administration of the magistracy. If, however, it were not spent in that way, money would have to come out of the self-same public funds into which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) wants all the funds to go, so that it is an entirely circular argument.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is it not ironic that, whenever we have Scottish questions, Scottish Members such as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) complain about English Members interfering, but now that we are considering Lancashire affairs, the hon. Gentleman is poking his nose into them? Would not the best advice to people in Lancashire who are affected in this way—I speak with no special interest—be to go to see a good lawyer if they have a problem?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's latter point is sound. Previous Scottish invasions got to Derby, but on those occasions they did not try going through Lancashire.

    Academic Research
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what balance he proposes for funding academic research between the research councils and the higher education funding councils.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The Government's White Paper of May 1991 set out a new system for funding higher education, including a new balance of funding for academic research between the research councils and the
    16
    higher education funding councils. My right hon. Friend will be working closely with his colleagues responsible for the higher education funding councils to ensure that this system is managed effectively to promote good research and to obtain the best possible value for the taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister ensure that the Scottish universities receive a fair allocation of funding through their research council? In particular, when allocating funds to the Faraday institutes, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that Scotland gets one this time? In particular, will he look carefully at the excellent scheme put forward for a Faraday institute by Strathclyde university and the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride?
    Mr. Jackson: The allocation of research funds to Scottish universities is a matter for the Scottish higher education funding council. That, in turn, is a matter for the Departments of Education in terms of the overall allocation of funds for universities. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to their attention.
    I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the Faraday institute. This initiative is still in its early days; firm decisions have not been taken. It will be possible to take his point on board.

    Charters
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further areas of Government activity are under consideration to be covered by a charter; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reviewed the coverage of the citizens charter at his seminar last Friday. We have achieved a great deal, but there is much to do. We intend to publish a courts charter later in the year, and a charter for the users of further and higher education—students and employers—early in 1993.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of charters, by the start of the next academic year parents will have access to comparative tables of performance information, which will greatly assist them in choosing schools for their children?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Under the parents charter, parents will receive annual written reports on their child's progress at school, information on arrangements for discussing that and national curriculum and examination results with teachers and comparative information on the examination results and truancy rates of schools in their area. We are encouraging schools voluntarily to publish information on staying-on rates and school-leaver destinations, which will be required from September 1993.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Chancellor express his concern about the regression in achieving the citizens charter targets for those on health waiting lists and for those who have been waiting more than two years? What role will he take in ensuring that the regression that has occurred since the election is put right?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Member doubtless knows, the huge gain in the past year—40,000-plus— dwarves the small set-back last month, which I guess will

    17
    be corrected in the months ahead and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on that.
    Mr. Adley: May I probe my right hon. Friend's terms of reference for the citizens charter? Am I right in thinking that, initially, he is examining the public service provided through public funding of organisations that have a public obligation? 'That being so, does he agree that he has an obligation to examine actions taken by public bodies such as, shall we say, British Rail, whose reorganisation has taken place over many years? Will he therefore consider BR's reorganisation to see whether he believes that it is in accord with the service that he intends the public to be able to enjoy from British Rail?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, although I would extend the point further: whether the service is provided by private or public money, my office has a role. I am interested in the organisation of British Rail if that helps or hinders it in meeting the objectives that it has agreed.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of the citizens charter.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Since the White Paper on the citizens charter was published last July, we have made excellent progress. Nineteen charters have been published, setting out detailed service standards across much of the public sector. We have enacted legislation to bring the powers of regulators up to the levels of the strongest, to give parents more and better information about schools and to give more and better information about the services that councils are providing and at what cost. We have also launched the charter mark scheme. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy referred to the successful seminar that we held at No. 10 Downing street on Friday.
    Mr. Barnes: Are the citizens charters supposed to offer openness and scrutiny, in an era in which more and more is being hidden from hon. Members and in which areas of
    18
    agency agreements can no longer be questioned? In those circumstances, should we not try to achieve consistency and set up a Select Committee to investigate the work of the Duchy, especially on citizens charters, so that the two bits begin to fit with each other—scrutiny under the citizens charter and scrutiny in the House?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member is absolutely right that the citizens charter is all about openness and clarity. Setting clear targets and monitoring performance against them is one of the critical instruments of the citizens charter. The hon. Gentleman's point about the accountability of agencies to the House is slightly misconceived, because the answers given by chief executives are available to hon. Members. There is continuing discussion about how this should be done most effectively. That is not wholly a matter for the Government, because it is also partly a matter for the House authorities, as is the hon. Gentleman's last point about Select Committees.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that the citizens charter is designed to defend the ordinary person against the state or the local authority, or against any of the large organisations that provide services? Is not it a tribute to the citizens charter that the Prime Minister has thought it necessary to set up a special Department to administer the citizens charter to give the ordinary citizen his rights?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The citizens charter is making considerable progress in improving specific commitments to individual people who use services. In British Rail, there is the commitment that 90 per cent. of trains should arrive within 10 minutes of schedule and that 99 per cent. of services should run. For patients, there is the commitment to individual appointment times and maximum waiting times for operations. There is the commitment to a waiting time of 10 minutes in the Employment Service. There is a commitment to a passport waiting time reduction from 24 days to seven days. There is a commitment to timed appointments in the utilities. All those are specific improvements in service which derive from citizens charter initiatives.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Social Security, or from any other Minister, about making a statement on the report by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation on the Maxwell pension funds? The House needs to see the report because, if it reveals spectacular failure in the process of the regulation of the Maxwell pension fund, not only does that suggest that the Financial Services Act 1986 is deeply flawed—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have received no request today by any Minister to make a statement on that issue or on any other issue.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You know that I am not one for causing trouble—not recently, anyway. I should be grateful if you would point out gently to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) that, until such time as there is a change in the constitution of the United Kingdom, it is open to Scottish Members to raise any question at any time.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; and I am sure that he will remember the point in Scottish Question Time.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I will not ask whether you have received a request from a Minister to make a statement, Madam Speaker. In view of what you have just said, clearly you have not.
The Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill is now in Committee. Before it meets again tomorrow, will you consider whether it is possible for you to suspend the sittings of the Committee until a Minister has made a statement in the House about the rumours, about the Government's plans to abort the implementation of community care which was planned for next April? Week by week, rumours are coming out of the specialist press and other media that the Government will abort the plans. We know that in July 1990 they aborted the plans for implementation in 1991—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a speech rather than putting a point of order to me. Any suspension of the Committee is up to the Chairman of the Committee. The matter should not be raised on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few minutes ago, you made a ruling about saying things about the royal family. It seems strange to me that hon. Members can grovel in the House to the royal family, they can praise them up to the hilt, and they can say anything they like about them in the hope that they will get a knighthood or get into the honours list, yet if hon. Members want to speak the truth about the royal family, they are pulled up. Why cannot I demand that the Queen pays taxes? Why?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in making that demand. I repeat that no criticism of
20
a personal nature can be made about any individual other than by way of a substantive motion. That is the statement I made.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You said that you have received no request that a Minister wants to make a statement today. I would much appreciate some guidance. Can you tell us how it would be possible, at the earliest opportunity, to raise the question of police killings and the suspension of talks in South Africa? Slaughter is taking place there. The British Foreign Secretary has said on many occasions that sanctions are no longer necessary. How can we raise the important issue of what is happening in South Africa, the continuing bloodshed and the suspension of talks which will hopefully lead to majority rule? Foreign Office questions will not be—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have some indication of when Foreign Office questions are to be taken. If the hon. Gentleman uses a little ingenuity, he will make use of the time when the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box tomorrow and later in the week to answer questions.
Mr. Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I note your earlier ruling, but surely, after the appalling massacres of black citizens by the South African police, the Government should immediately introduce diplomatic sanctions, including the suspension of South Africa from the Olympic games—
Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order should be for me to deal with and should concern Standing Orders and our procedures. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders or procedures. I cannot respond on matters of policy.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that I misunderstood your ruling in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). You said that one should not criticise any individual other than on a motion. I assume that you meant any individual member of the royal family, not any individual. If I wanted to call Rupert Murdoch a pillock, it might not be pleasant, but it could not possibly be out of order.
Madam Speaker: The question that we were discussing concerned the royal family and the reference was to an individual member of the royal family.
Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you consider the way in which Welsh questions are conducted? A serious problem seems to arise from the fact that, of the 38 Welsh Members of Parliament, only four are from the Conservative party. Out of the 12 Welsh questions that you took today, there were only two opportunities for you to call Labour Members to ask a supplementary question. Will you consider the matter to ascertain whether there can be a fairer representation of Members' views in supplementary questions?
Madam Speaker: I carefully consider questions and how to conduct them before I come into the Chair. I realised on 27 April that I would not make all hon. Members happy all the time.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised his point of order.
Mr. Skinner: The question arises out of—
Madam Speaker: Order. Another hon. Member has a point of order to raise.
Mr. Skinner: I want to know—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has a point of order.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West ( Mr. Banks) and your answer to it, Madam Speaker. You gave a different ruling today from your ruling to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). You said that we could criticise individuals as long as they were not members of the royal family. You have reinterpreted the rule. Where does that ruling come from? Is it merely a convention? If so, surely we can challenge it as being out of date. I remind you that you are supposed to represent Back Benchers' interests, and we should have the right to say what we wish.
Madam Speaker: On a substantive motion, we can say what we like. The hon. Gentleman should refer to "Erskine May", but I cannot remember the page. If he comes to see me, I shall turn it up for him.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order arising from what you said about the royal family, Madam Speaker. This is a fair question. How big is the royal family? How many people are we not allowed to criticise—there is no list in "Erskine May"? Is Fergie still in it? Will Diana be in it in another three months?
Madam Speaker: Order. Like some Ministers, I need notice of that question.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
22
Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend understands well, as we all do, the difficulties for the Chair when there is an imbalance between the parties in the number of Welsh Members. We are worried that, with such an imbalance, most of the Welsh questions on the Order Paper are inevitably tabled by Labour Members. Therefore, if the Opposition choose not to ask a supplementary question and only the Member who has asked the main question asks a supplementary, by practice other Welsh Members are precluded from having an opportunity to ask supplementaries on questions tabled by Conservative Members.
Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman need not be worried because I move as rapidly as possible down the Order Paper in order to reach as many substantive questions as I can.

Statutory Instruments, &c
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the draft Vienna Document 1992 (Privileges and (Immunities) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

RATING AND VALUATION
That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Boundary Commissions Bill
  Considered in Committee
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  3.40 pm
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the first clause, I have an announcement to make. There is an addition to the selection of amendments. I have added amendment No. 15 to the end of the provisional selection of amendments.

Clause 1

  REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I should like to raise one point on clause 1. I know that the Committee will want to debate the first amendment on registration in some detail so I shall make this a short point. Perhaps the Home Secretary could tell us how many extra commissioners he expects to be appointed under the Bill's provisions. Who will they be and when does he expect them to be appointed and in a position to start their work?
  The Secretary of State will be aware that on Second Reading it was suggested that commissioners did not sit as often as they might. Given the scope of, for example, clause 3, a great deal of work will have to be carried out between now and the end of 1994. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could tell us briefly when those people are expected to be in post.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The answer to the hon. Gentleman's query is that I do not at present anticipate the appointment of any extra commissioners to deliver the Bill. We believe that the statutory timetable laid down in the Bill can be delivered by the existing commissioners if they are enabled to spend a little more time and have some extra logistical support. That would require about half a million pounds more in public finance each year.
  The likelihood is that some of the commissioners will meet rather more frequently than has been their practice in the past, but at this stage I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to appoint any extra commissioners. If there were a change in the membership of any of the boundary commissions, or if new commissioners were appointed, I expect that there would be discussions to ensure that any commissioners appointed were acceptable to all the relevant political parties that were interested.
  Mr. John Maxton: I gather that the Secretary of State does not appoint the Boundary Commission for Scotland. Will he co-operate with the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that the salaries, pay or fees are equal in Scotland and that there is equality between England and Scotland in that regard? I should not like to see our Scottish lawyers lose out in that matter.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, as Home Secretary, I am responsible only for appointing the Boundary Commissions for Wales and for England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the Boundary Commission for Scotland. I believe that I was correct to say a moment ago that he does not expect to appoint any additional commissioners as a result of the Bill. We have not yet settled the final details of the salaries of commissioners, but I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind. I do not expect that there will be any great regional or national disparity in payments.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State said that he expected there to be some discussion between parties if any additional commissioners were appointed. Will he confirm that that will be so, as I understand that that has happened until now? Will he also confirm that he speaks on behalf of the Government, given that he does not appoint the Scottish commissioners?
  Mr. Clarke: Neither the method of appointment of commissioners nor the practice will be changed. They have hitherto been found satisfactory, whichever party has been in power. I say that on behalf of the whole Government, not simply in respect of the boundary commissions for which I am responsible.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned barristers' fees. I am talking about commissioners. The assistant commissioners tend to be banisters and they are usually appointed inquiry by inquiry. The number appointed varies according to the workload at any given time. The commissioners, who hitherto have been unpaid, will in future be paid as a result of the Bill. I expect—although without commitment, because we have not discussed the point in detail yet—that the payment will be the same for all four boundary commissions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  TIME LIMITS FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS
  Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
  `provided that if the Commission is satisfied that the electorate in any area is to a significant degree different from the population in that area who are qualified to vote then they may delay submitting their report until they are satisfied as to the accuracy of the register.'.
  The amendment would allow the boundary commission to delay submitting its report if it was satisfied that the registers on which its calculations were based were inaccurate.
  The whole system of the boundary commission's work is based on the electoral registers. If they are wrong in a particular area, that clearly throws the boundary commission's calculations. There is considerable concern about the state of the electoral registers in this country, for both parliamentary and local government elections. Section 8(b)(1) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 provides that the boundary commissions must have regard to the electorate, which is defined as

  25
  "the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force on the enumeration date under the Representation of the People Acts for the constituency."
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the accuracy of the present electoral register. We know that it is inaccurate—that has always been the case—and it has been a particular problem in inner city areas, for obvious reasons. The turnover of people tends to be great and people arriving do not fill in the appropriate forms. Indeed, much evidence suggests that many people in different parts of the country simply do not receive the forms. Nor do they have in mind the necessity to get on to the electoral register. Many people assume that they are already on it and do not check to see whether that is so. In the last general election, many of us had the experience of people who thought that they were on the register because they had lived in the area for many years but then found that they were not and were denied the right to vote.
  One of the many effects of the poll tax has been to make the electoral register even more inaccurate. It made breaking the law an acceptable act for many people who would never have contemplated such an act in the past. That is one of the legacies with which we must live for many years to come. Some people believe that the census carried out in 1991 will be inaccurate because people were in a state of mind that did not discourage them either from misrepresenting the position to the enumerator or simply not bothering to fill in the form. Indeed, many people have simply disappeared from the poll tax register or the electoral register and will not feature in the census.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the situation that has developed in my constituency? In the late 1980s and 1990, new properties and housing estates were built and there was a general movement of the population, and a substantial number of people did not have the opportunity to register on the electoral roll. That shows that the register to which the boundary commission refers is totally inadequate and out of date. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) bear in mind that parts of the population will be transferred from one district to another due to the new building works?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which concerns me. If new building does not feature on the electoral register, one wonders at the state of registration of residents in old buildings. One would think that the electoral registration officer would notice substantial new building works and would be put on his or her guard to ensure that residents were placed on the electoral register.
  However, that is not the first time that I have heard of substantial new building work being carried out and residents in occupation before 10 October of the relevant year finding that they were not on the electoral register. That is an example of how we know that the electoral register is inaccurate, yet we still expect the boundary commission to base its entire calculations on that register. That is one reason why the boundary commission should be given the power to delay submitting its report when it is satisfied that the electoral register for a specific district is inaccurate.
  The anomaly arises in some districts where people who are on the poll tax register, having paid their poll tax, do not appear on the electoral register, even though they have
  26
  done everything that the Government said they should. They then have no opportunity to vote in the general election in April. In many cases, the poll tax register is potentially more accurate than the electoral register due to the powers to registration officers.
  In Lothian region, part of which is covered by my constituency, I do not understand why the registration officer, who is responsible for the poll tax and electoral registration, cannot simply compare the two registers and, if they differ, ask why. It seems odd that someone can be on one register but not on the other.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) received written answers that tend to confirm the suggestion that electoral registers are inaccurate. Columns 473 to 480 of 11 February 1992 of Hansard show that, when comparing those on the electoral register and the estimated number of those who should be on it, there is a discrepancy in England and Wales of 1.7 million. Those people do not appear on the electoral register, but should do so.
  When we consider the figures in greater detail, we see that in Birmingham—which we are told may lose one seat as a result of the review process—31,000 people we might expect to be on the register are not. That factor should worry us as it makes a substantial difference for quota purposes when the commission decides whether Birmingham should lose one seat. Newcastle has a deficiency of 10,000. When I looked at the two London boroughs of Richmond and Kingston upon Thames, I found that the figures were 23,000 and 20,000. Under the rules, the boundary commission cannot generally cross London boroughs, so it could be argued that, in that case, the discrepancies would not make any difference. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), is present. He must ponder why, according to that parliamentary answer, 23,000 people who should have been able to vote for him or the other candidates in the general election were not able to do so. That seems to demonstrate that the electoral register for his constituency is seriously inaccurate; and the same applies to many other parts of the country.
  We know that in 1976 the Government thought that the register was 97 per cent. accurate. Yet the Minister of State, on Second Reading, said that it was only 95 per cent. accurate in 1991. I take the figures with a pinch of salt; I do not know how anyone can ever be absolutely sure, given the nature of the statistics.
  The electoral registration officer in my area told me that she was satisfied that the register was 95 per cent. accurate. My observations tend to suggest that that is not true. Ministers accept that the register is becoming more inaccurate, and that should worry us all. It may bring short-term benefit to the Government; but in the long term we should all be concerned that people who should be on the register cannot exercise their right to vote.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: It would be illuminating to hear the Secretary of State's view on the accuracy of these percentages. When I query them in Birmingham, I am told that they are based on dwellings. The problem is that one can never know how many people live behind those front doors and may be eligible.
  Mr. Darling: That is what the poll tax was meant to find out, but we know that it never did reveal how many people lived in a dwelling.
  Some of the figures for London make the same point. The Tower Hamlets electorate rose by 6,000 between 1991 and 1992, but the numbers fell in nearby Hackney by 20,000. The number rose by 5,000 in Croydon, but Hillingdon lost 9,000. That is curious. I do not believe that the population is moving around London in those numbers. The figures suggest either that the electoral registration officers are unable to compile an accurate register or that a growing number of people are removing themselves from the register because they perceive that to be in their short-term interest.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The figures throw up more and more anomalies. For instance, I noticed that the estimated population in my borough in 1990—I refer to people of 18 years of age or over—was 153,600; yet in 1987 158,000 people voted. In 1992, 157,000 voted. Obviously, we believe in voting early and often in Newham, but what is happening in my borough is the very reverse of what my hon. Friend is describing for other London boroughs.
  Mr. Darling: I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.
  We have the figures for Scotland for each constituency, although we do not have them for England and Wales. It is clear that there is a discrepancy between the number of people whom we believe to live in a constituency and the numbers on the register. There are 141,000 missing persons in all, a great many considering the size of the Scottish electorate.
  We now know that the 1976 register was not an entirely satisfactory one on which to base boundaries that did not come into force until 1983. We know that the 1991 register was not accurate even in 1991, so it would be even less accurate in 1992, or, for that matter, in 1995, when, if the Bill is passed, it is likely that the new boundaries will come into force.
  The purpose of the amendment is to allow the boundary commission to delay submitting a report when it believes that its information is inaccurate. By definition, that will allow those who want to make submissions to the commission to submit evidence suggesting that there is under-registration. If the boundary commission is satisfied that there is under-registration, the electoral register notwithstanding, it is desirable that it should be able to base its findings or recommendations on its belief of the population in an existing or potential constituency.
  I understand that it is open to the commission to take into account known planning consents when considering the likely population of a constituency. It should be able to take into consideration under-registration—if that is established. If it does not, it is difficult to see how it can obtemper rule 5 in the 1986 Act—the rule stating that the boundary commission has to try to ensure consistency while allowing it to depart from the quota by 25 per cent. so as to avoid excessive disparities. The question that arises is, disparity from what if the electoral registers are inaccurate? If the object is to produce an accurate register, at least at the start of the life of a constituency—of course, there will be changes later—the Government must recognise that there is no point in proceeding with the Bill if we know that the current registers are inaccurate, in
  28
  some cases extremely so. When we start operating on the new constituencies, we will know that, in many respects, they have been drawn up on false information.
  4 pm
  We know that the number of those eligible to vote in Scotland, England and Wales has increased but that the number on the register has decreased between 1990 and 1991, particularly among first-time voters, and, as I said earlier, that should be of concern to us all. A growing number of young people now believe that there is nothing wrong in failing to temper an injunction to perform their civil duties or in failing to observe the law when it comes to registration and complying with requests to return forms to show that they live at a particular address. The Government may think that there is some advantage to be gained because young people, on the whole, tend not to vote for the Conservative party. However, it cannot be right that a growing number of people believe that they can opt out of civic life.
  I remember canvassing a family in my constituency about a year ago which I knew for a fact consisted of the parents and three young adults—their children. When I spoke to the father, he said that just he and his wife lived there. I asked about the three boys and he replied, "They do not live here, if you know what I mean." The boys did live there, but by not appearing on the register the family saved £400 a head in poll tax for three people, which totalled £1,200—a sum that that family could ill afford to pay. The children were not on the register for either electoral purposes or for the poll tax. That is bad for the country.
  What should be done? In addition to accepting the amendment, I hope that the Home Secretary will accept some other suggestions. The practice of electoral officers when compiling the registers varies in different parts of the country. In addition, some of them check the accuracy of the registers more than others.
  Perhaps, the Government could also pay regard to the small amount that they spend on advertising. For example, in Scotland the boundary commission will start work on a register that will be drawn up in October, but £48,000 only will be spent on advertising. That would preclude any television advertising. In England and Wales, the sum is equally proportionately low. We do not see television advertisements encouraging registration. The House will remember that when many industries were privatised the Government were happy to spend millions of pounds on advertising public assets for sale at knock-down prices. We remember the advertisements on the sale of the gas industry and being told to "Tell Sid". I do not remember that Sid was ever invited to enrol on the electoral register. The Government should pay the same attention and attach the same importance to getting people to register as they apparently did to the sale of public assets to individuals. The Government need to step up their advertising campaign to ensure that people are placed on the register.
  We also need to examine the procedures used when canvasses are carried out. We could learn from some of the methods used in the poll tax legislation, which ensured that people were sent notices reminding them again and again that they should be on the register. When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he issued a press release on 5 June which drew attention to the disparities in electorates and he said that "that cannot be fair". It is not

  29
  particularly fair, but it is even more unfair if comparisons are made from registers that we know to be inaccurate. If that is unfair, will the Home Secretary tell us how he intends to remove such unfairness? What do the Government propose to do about the problem? What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the boundary commission should do about the problem? If he will not accept our amendment, will he say how he expects the commission to pay heed to the fact that, in many cases, the registers on which it bases its calculations are highly inaccurate? We know that the population changes, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that we do not know by how much and to what extent in each constituency.
  I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want to contribute in what I think will be a fairly short debate, so at this stage I shall conclude by urging the Committee to agree to our amendment, which would be an acceptable way of ensuring that, when the boundaries are drawn up, we can be sure that they contain the number of electors that the boundary commission said that they did and on which it based its calculations.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Some of the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) are worth discussing, but the Committee should consider whether they can profitably be used as an excuse for delaying the progress of the Bill. As I understand it, his argument about people who are not on the register might affect 1,000 or 2,000 people in a constituency. In my constituency, where a fair amount of canvassing was carried on during the general election campaign, we did not find all that many people who were not on the register when they should have been. My guess is that some of the changes in the past few years have occurred because people who are entitled to dual registration have decided to maintain registration in one place rather than another. Those things may vary from one constituency to another.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The problem is that there is bad distribution of those who are not on the register. If 1,000 to 2,000 people in each constituency had not registered, that would have no consequence on the redrawing of boundaries because each constituency would be affected in the same way. However, because lack of registration is so badly distributed, it has a serious affect on the distribution of parliamentary seats.
  Mr. Bottomley: That is right, but the purpose of the amendment is to delay the boundary commission report, and I would argue against that. In my constituency of Eltham, there is a proposal to increase the size of a student village from 300 to 2,000 bedrooms, which would have a profound impact on the number of voters. Whether they would all vote Labour or all vote Conservative or, as is more likely, split down the middle is a matter for them. However, that is not a reason for delaying the boundary commission report. It is clear that we want that report to be submitted, considered by the House and brought into effect.
  The point that I want to make goes beyond the amendment, so I shall make it only briefly. If parliamentary constituencies are kept within borough boundaries—that applies most of all in London and other large conurbations—problems arise. The quota for a constituency is supposed to be 65,000, but one borough may contain not enough people to entitle it to have three
  30
  constituencies while the next-door borough, with 1,000 more residents, has enough for three constituencies. The result would be a difference in the size of constituencies in the two boroughs of 27,000 people per constituency. That swamps the considerations being used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central as arguments for delay. I hope that the House rejects the amendment because it will delay matters, but there are serious points outside the Bill.
  The Chairman: Order. Clause 3 covers local government boundaries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not develop this point too far now, because if he does so he will be out of order.
  Mr. Bottomley: I was on my ultimate sentence.
  The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central are worth discussing outside the Bill, because every hon. Member should be keen to ensure that everyone who should be on the electoral register is on it. However, I reject his contention that this is a ground for delay. The Bill is needed because the discrepancies between sizes of constituencies swamp the effect of his argument.
  Mr. Maxton: We have recently been through a general election and, by canvassing in our constituencies, we have an idea of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the register. There are different degrees of accuracy because of, for example, the type of housing or the social mix that is to be found in individual constituencies.
  One evening I was canvassing in my constituency with my wife. We were in a high-rise block of flats, working along each corridor. I rang the doorbell of one flat and heard a man's voice ask me from inside what I wanted. I told him that I was the Labour candidate and that I was looking for his vote. In two words, and without opening the door, he told me exactly what to do. I thanked him politely for his interest and moved on to the next door. The door was then flung open and the man charged out of the flat. I did not see it initially but he had a table lamp in his hand. My wife, who was canvassing along the corridor, was convinced that he intended to use it to smash in my head.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It is called enlightenment.
  Mr. Maxton: It so happened that the man was only about 5 ft 1 in. He decided that discretion was the better part of valour and walked past me. As he did so, he told me—again, in clear and positive language—exactly what I could do with the Labour party, with voting for me and all the rest of it. I then said, "Thank you very much, Sir, but you are not on the register so you cannot vote anyway."
  The man whom I encountered was clearly living in the flat but he was not on the register. The register showed that a single woman lived there. It gave me some pleasure to be able to tell him that he could not vote, but the experience demonstrated the inaccuracy of the register. My canvassers returned on many occasions with the same sort of story. They found that two or three people were living in a flat, yet only one person was registered.
  Registration is not as accurate as it should be, and we must ask ourselves why that is so. One factor in my constituency is redevelopment. Large parts of a housing scheme are being redeveloped—they are being pulled down. The register showed that 200 or 300 people were living in a series of flats, but when we went to them we found that most of the flats were boarded up and hardly

  31
  a soul was living in the development. That is a short-term matter and does not have much to do with the registration officer, who cannot do a great deal about it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, poll tax comes into the issue. It does so for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend said, some people deliberately avoided going on the register on becoming 18 so that they would not have to pay the poll tax. Others removed themselves from the electoral register to avoid paying the poll tax. Removal is more difficult to achieve, but it is possible to do so by moving house, especially by moving within certain areas.
  Secondly, registration for the poll tax has made registration for electoral purposes much more difficult for those who are involved in the process. In the past, when canvassers employed by the registration officer were sent to check the electoral register and to get names on it, there was no great hassle. People were not worried about giving the necessary information to canvassers. With the introduction and implementation of the poll tax, however, many people linked poll tax registration with electoral registration. Many of those who were employed to keep the electoral register up to date found the job extremely difficult. They encountered a great deal of hostility. They were met with abuse on doorsteps. They were told exactly what to do with the registration process.
  It has become more difficult for registration officers to find part-time staff to undertake the job. They may be able to find a sufficient number, but whether those whom they employ now are as good as those who were used in the past is questionable.
  Canvassing is a well-paid job—I do not know the going rate exactly, but I understand that it is possible to earn quite a lot of money in an hour. We all know how many houses we can canvass in an hour and I think that a canvasser is paid about £1 for each house on which he or she calls. We know that we can call on 20, 25 or 30 houses an hour. On that basis, it is a reasonably well-paid job. Increasingly, however, dangers are attached to it. Some members of the public are extremely hostile and the work becomes increasingly difficult.
  I am assured by registration officers in Scotland that their procedure is as foolproof as they can make it. They claim, rightly or wrongly, that they make use of poll tax registers and school leaving information provided by education departments. They also check the housing records of district councils wherever possible. They say that every house receives a visit from a canvasser. I rather doubt that. I am not questioning the quality of the canvassers, but I must question whether every house is visited. If no one is at home on the first call, the canvasser calls a second time. If no one is at home then, a form is put through the door for the person to fill in and send back. That appears to be a good procedure that should work, ensuring that there is a full register in each constituency.
  4.15 pm
  Canvassers may meet hostility on the first visit. Quite often they are middle-aged, middle-class women. I do not want to be unkind about parts of inner-city areas, but if such a lady went to a close in Glasgow—a block of flats in Glasgow terms—she might find a group of youths with cans of beer in their hands sitting at the bottom of the stairs. Indeed. they might be taking other substances.
  32
  There might also be a couple of Alsatian dogs that did not appear to be under anybody's control. That lady might be unlikely to do anything more than the most cursory canvass of that block, and we all understand why.
  Such difficulties inevitably lead to inaccuracies in the figures for the number of visits made. They also lead to an imbalance between middle-class and working-class areas. I hate to use the term "working-class areas" because that implies that those living there are in employment, whereas in fact very many of them are unemployed—often long-term unemployed—and have many problems.
  That canvasser's second visit would probably be similar to the first—and even putting a form through the door would not receive much response. In my area of Hamilton, if someone is not on the register he would return his form, but that is not necessarily the case in other areas. That creates the sort of inaccuracies that concern us.
  Whenever we raised the question of inaccuracies and questioned why people did not register, the Home Secretary said that it was an offence not to register. He is right; it is certainly an offence not to be on the electoral register if one is eligible to be so. Indeed, as part of the procedures for poll tax registration, the Government raised the fine level for non-registration from the minimum to the maximum. I shall be happy to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he will tell me how many prosecutions there have been in England and Wales or Scotland for non-registration for electoral purposes. Quite simply, he cannot give me one example because there have not been any. There is no point in saying that it is an offence not to register—and that thereby the register is improved—if registration officers and the Government are not prepared to use their powers to enforce that. Some registration officers in Scotland tried to bring prosecutions, but procurators fiscal declined to pursue them because of insufficient evidence.
  Mr. Rooker: I used to think that it was an offence not to register, but in the early hours of one July morning a couple of years ago, a Home Office Minister told me, in this Chamber, that was not so. The offence only arises if an individual is asked by a registration officer to register and refuses to do so. If a registration officer does not know of an individual's existence, he or she is not obliged to register. One is not required voluntarily to register and one does not commit an offence by failing to register voluntarily.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. The offence arises only if, having been asked to register, one refuses. If, however, the procedure which I described is followed, in theory at least one has been asked to register. If one fails to return the form, theoretically one could be liable to prosecution. The problem remains that those who want to bring the prosecution must provide proof that the form was delivered. If a form has not been returned, and if the authorities cannot gain access to a house to determine that a form is on the premises and has been torn up and thrown in the bin, it is impossible to obtain such proof.
  The Government ought to do more to ensure accurate registration—particularly at a time when boundaries are being drawn on the basis of an electoral register that many of us believe is not as accurate as it should be.
  Mr. David Winnick: When was the last time that my hon. Friend heard any Minister express

  33
  concern at the Dispatch Box at the absence from the electoral register of the names of individuals who should be on it?
  Mr. Maxton: I cannot recall that ever happening, but perhaps we will hear such an expression of regret from the right hon. and learned Gentleman today.
  People have a democratic right to vote, and they ought to be able to do so. Often, inaccuracies arise by accident. An 18-year-old can grow up to be a 22-year-old without his or her name ever appearing on the electoral register—never having been asked to register. The accuracy of the register is important when boundary commissioners are taking decisions about the number of seats that should exist in particular areas.
  Glasgow may lose more seats than it ought if the register is as inaccurate as I and others believe. The Government should make every effort to ensure that cities such as Glasgow and Birmingham have accurate registers. If there is a genuine fall in population, fair enough; but seats should not be lost because of inaccurate registers.
  Mr. Barnes: According to Glasgow's estimated population for 1990–91, the average electoral register in that city is 2,500 short. That adds up to a serious overall shortfall.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right, and that means that across Glasgow about 30,000 people are not on registers who ought to be on them. That could be the difference between Glasgow having not 11 seats but nine or 10. Those 30,000 people could make all the difference.
  Registration officers spend a lot of money on canvassers, but the Government are not prepared to spend money on television advertising in particular—as they have in respect of a range of other issues—to ensure the accuracy of electoral registers.
  There is a question mark over one or two other points as well. The electoral register must be drawn up in the latter part of the year before that in which the May local elections take place and published in February. The timing may be fair enough as far as canvassing is concerned, but it is less fair on the elector. The draft registers are published at the end of November, after which the elector has only two weeks of some of the year's worst weather in which to check that his name has been included. After that, the register is finalised. I feel that the time of year is wrong and also that a fortnight is not long enough.
  The Government were happy to provide—indeed, they insisted on legislating—for every poll tax payer to receive in the post, as the poll tax register was drawn up, a notice informing him that he had been included on the register and telling him where he could appeal against or alter the registration if he wished to do so. Why cannot the same procedure apply to electoral registration? Why cannot the registration officer, once the draft register has been prepared, send each household—or each individual within a household—notice that the person or persons concerned will appear on the register? The poll tax register included a form to be filled in if there were any new names to be added. Why should not the same be done in this instance? That might not ensure a universal return, but at least people would know whether they were on the register and what to do if they were not.
  The Home Secretary may ask, "What about the cost?" The Government were happy to bear the cost in relation to poll tax registration; in any event, would the cost be so
  34
  enormous? It would be a matter of sending a single letter. There would, of course, be printing and other costs, but in an area such as Strathclyde region the cost would probably be no more than £500,000 if the letter were sent to each individual, and half that if it were sent to each household. Is £250,000 too high a price to pay for ensuring that democratic rights are protected? That is what we are talking about—people's democratic right to take part in the processes of both local and central government and to have their entitlement sustained by a proper electoral registration system.
  I am delighted to support the amendment, and I hope that the Home Secretary will consider my points.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: This debate highlights the narrowness of the issues covered in the Bill. The mischief of an inaccurate and incomplete register does not sit easily with the other mischief that the Bill seeks to address—the distortions that occur when there is too much delay between the boundary commission's reports.
  The amendment is valuable, in that it draws attention to what I believe concerns more electors than perhaps any other single matter. What was said during the general election campaign made that very clear to me. Nothing gave rise to greater anger in my constituency than the complete exclusion from the electoral register of a fairly recently constructed housing estate. Strong representa-tions were made about it. I doubt, however, whether such an issue could usefully be taken into consideration by a boundary commission. It is a local administration issue.
  4.30 pm
  None the less, the Home Secretary has done democracy a great disservice by confining so tightly the long title of the Bill as to make it necessary to link the matter now under consideration with the duties of the boundary commission. It is not appropriate to take such a narrowly partisan view of the reform of our electoral law that it forces the debate into these unnatural channels, which inevitably it has to do if the issue of the inaccuracy of the register is to be raised at all. It would have been more sensible for the Home Secretary to have allowed the debate about the unsatisfactory nature of our electoral law to roam a good deal more freely than appears to be his intention. He may choose to take the opportunity afforded by this debate to answer the questions that have been raised about the unsatisfactory state of the register and not simply to explain to us that it would be inappropriate for the boundary commission to hold up its reports, as proposed in the amendment. He may also choose to explain what he proposes to do to correct the mischief.
  It must be said, even if only en passant, that the message from Christopher Chataway's commission for the Hansard Society—that an electoral commission, with more wide-ranging powers than the boundary commission but to include the powers of the boundary commission —would be a better way to deal both with the question of the timeliness of reports and with the question that is linked with this amendment: the inadequacy of the registration process.
  If the boundary commission were to enjoy the power proposed by the amendment, it is doubtful whether the mischief that it seeks ostensibly to address would be tackled effectively. The speeches that have already been made clearly suggest, both by their examples and by their

  35
  general proposition, that those who are not on the register are not, in many cases, on the register because they do not wish to be on it. We could not sustain for very long the proposition that, because of an extraneous law—the poll tax—a substantial number of people do not wish to be on the electoral register, boundary reviews should be held up.
  With the flux of time and the change in local government finance arrangements, that may prove to be a transient problem. I certainly hope so. I doubt whether we should embrace the amendment and the purposes towards which it is ostensibly directed, though I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for drawing attention to an area of electoral law and electoral administration where speedy intervention by the Government is needed.
  Mr. Winnick: I suggested on Second Reading that it would be preferable to have an overview debate on electoral matters before debating a Bill of this nature. I said, rather briefly, that a number of factors should be debated, especially after a general election, before considering this hastily moved Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has done valuable work in spotlighting, almost from the beginning of the poll tax controversy, the number of people who were likely to be left off the register, and in fact have been. Tribute should be paid to him, because in doing so he has done a service not only to his party but to democracy.
  One of the worrying features is the number of electors who are missing from the register. I do not believe that the Government are genuinely concerned about the problem —I know that this may be dismissed as a cynical view and the Home Secretary is muttering, but I believe that I am accurate—because, in the main, they work on the assumption that if such people were on the register and bothered to vote they would be more likely to vote Labour than Tory. That may be entirely wrong, but that is the assumption in the minds of Ministers.
  From the outset, not only my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East but other Labour Members pointed out that one of the results of the poll tax, which destroyed Mrs. Thatcher, would be that many people would believe that they could avoid paying a tax that they regarded as unjust, penal and could not afford by staying off the electoral register. No matter how often one emphasised the fact that two registers were kept, the end result was what we feared.
  If the Government oppose the amendment—there is little doubt that they will—the boundary commissioners will have no authority to take this important point into consideration. My hon. Friends have already spoken of the many people who are not on the register. Therefore, in carrying out their tasks, the boundary commissioners will make a faulty assessment from faulty figures. That is why I, unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), believe that the amendment is important.
  How can accurate decisions be made about boundary changes if data are far from accurate? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, in a number of constituencies, certainly in inner-city areas, not a few but many people are missing from the register. Inevitably, there have always been some people who should have been on the register but were not, but the situation today is significantly different and far more
  36
  alarming, unless one takes the view that it does not matter —that if people do not want to be on, so be it. That is not my view or that of Labour Members.
  Press reports two or three days after polling day—I know that the Home Secretary will consider this to be another cynical view, but I believe it is accurate—showed that the Government are concerned about getting as much advantage out of boundary changes as possible. Why do we constantly read in the press that the Government are working on the basis that by the time of the next election there will be 10 or 20 seats to their advantage? On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that the Government's optimism may be misplaced. I hope that it is, but that is not their thinking and we would not be debating the Bill now if they were not of that view.
  I emphasise, as I did on Second Reading, that I do not believe that boundary changes should not be made. That would be a nonsensical point of view. I am not of course suggesting that once boundaries have come into being, they should never be reviewed. Of course they should be reviewed on a regular basis; that is right and proper. However, the haste of the Bill and the trailing of it just two or three days after the election on 9 April makes one suspicious about the Government's aims.
  I believe that one of the Government's objectives is the reduction of inner-city constituencies and the creation of newer constituencies elsewhere, which would be to their advantage. One of the most important points in all this is the need for impartiality. In the existing system or in any other electoral system, such as the one favoured by the Liberal Democrats and by some others, there must be a review of boundaries. However, impartiality is also required. If that impartiality is broken down, mainly by the way in which the Government act, there will inevitably be much concern and suspicion, and a rather cynical view of what the Government are concerned about. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said last week, the Government did not consult the Opposition on the Bill, which was previously normal practice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke about the difficulties of getting people on to the register. Why could the Government spend so much money on trying to ensure that people overseas who, in many cases, left the country many years ago and who had no remaining links with Britain were on the electoral register?
  Mr. Maxton: I wonder how much it cost.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend asks how much it cost. One should compare that effort with the lack of concern, attention, advertising and expenditure directed to getting people who actually live in Britain on to the electoral register. People may say that I am being cynical, that I am wrong to accuse the Government of ulterior motives because they are wholly innocent and that this is, yet again, just a cynical Labour view. Inevitably, the question arises why the Government have been so concerned about overseas voters. Is it because they have said to themselves, "How terrible it is that these people who, in many cases, have broken all links with this country, have been away a long time and have no intention of returning are not on the register. It is vital for British democracy that they record their votes in a United Kingdom election"? That could be the Government's view.

  37
  Alternatively, the Government may have worked on the assumption in the previous Parliament that the majority of such people, if they bothered to vote—I do not know how successful the Government were—would vote Tory rather than Labour. If one adopts a more impartial view, the Government should try their utmost to ensure that people living in Britain who are not on the register are brought on to the register.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will refrain for a moment from talking to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I am sure that he is interested in what his colleague is saying and that it is of the greatest national importance.
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): We are discussing the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Winnick: I am glad that the Secretary of State for Education, who has just walked in, is showing such interest in these matters. It is always interesting to see. Perhaps other members of the Cabinet will soon walk in and instead of gossiping—[Interruption.] I am willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes. He continues to make his remarks from a sedentary position. I hope that the Home Secretary can advise me. If the amendment is opposed—[Interruption.] The mutterings of the Secretary of State for Education may be heard by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but I cannot hear them. If he speaks a little louder, I might.
  The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members speaking in Committee should address their remarks to me.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State for Education may wish to address his remarks to you, Mr. Morris. I am sure that that would be of some interest. I am not sure how we shall be able to continue the debate without the presence of the Secretary of State for Education, but we will try our utmost.
  I want to ask the Home Secretary an important question. If constituencies are considered to be too few in number, if the boundary commissioners come to the view that certain constituencies, because of numbers, are to be abolished and if the figures on which the boundary commissioners have worked have not been accurate, especially in inner-city areas where significant numbers of people have been missing, what purpose will be served by making recommendations that are based on faulty data? If the amendment does not meet the Home Secretary's approval, I hope that he will table a Government amendment before the Bill makes further progress to meet the point that I and my hon. Friends are trying to make.
  It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East on Second Reading—he will correct me if I am wrong—that one way to overcome some of the difficulties of getting people on to the electoral register would be to have an electoral number.
  Mr. Barnes: It was not me.
  Mr. Winnick: I stand corrected. The idea was suggested by one of my hon. Friends. I should have thought that, just as one has a national health service number and other numbers, one could have a permanent number once one was eligible to vote. As long as it was clearly understood that people vote once, it would be a possibility. There would not then be the problems, which my hon. Friend the
  38
  Member for Cathcart mentioned, of people being afraid of intimidation or of people staying off the register because of the poll tax. I may be putting forward a suggestion that is not of my making, but I am willing to pick up suggestions of value. The suggestion of an electoral number should not be dismissed out of hand.
  If we are really concerned about the democratic and electoral process and if we want to encourage people to vote, we should be worried by the fact that at least 25 per cent. of the electorate never vote in general elections. I am sure that the Home Secretary agrees that, in local elections, it is sometimes difficult to persuade to vote more than one third of those eligible to vote. That is alarming.
  It is sometimes said that whatever happens in the United States is repeated in this country in due course. I hope that that does not always happen in view of the crime figures. In the 1988 presidential election there fewer than 50 per cent. of the people voted. We do not know what will happen in November this year. It would be alarming if that figure or any figure near it were repeated in the United Kingdom.
  Obviously we want people to vote for our own party, but above all we want people to vote and we want people to engage in the electoral process. In some constituencies and, unfortunately, in some inner-city areas, the number who vote in a general election is less than 60 per cent. or 62 per cent. That too is alarming. There is an under-class who take the least interest in public affairs and who feel very alienated from the electoral process. I cannot go into all the reasons for that because you would soon call me to order if I did, Mr. Morris. The step of being on the register in the first place would be a start in encouraging such people to vote.
  I urgently suggest that the Home Secretary should accept the amendment or that he should table a Government amendment so that when the boundary commissioners decide on their recommendations the House will at least have confidence that those recommendations are based on accurate figures.
  Mr. Barnes: I welcome the fact that the amendment distinguishes between those people qualified to register and vote and those people on the electoral register. There is considerable disparity between the number of people on the register and the number entitled to be there, as many hon. Members have argued.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will accept that, in supporting the amendment, I am not supporting a device to delay implementation of the legislation. I have argued for four years in the House that the poll tax would cause serious problems for electoral registration, and the evidence has proved that to be the case.
  I was not the first Member of Parliament to raise the problem of the poll tax. As far as I can judge from reading Hansard, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) mentioned it in the Committee that dealt with the poll tax legislation.
  Mr. Maxton: I do not wish to question my hon. Friend's historical accuracy, but the Scottish poll tax Bill was pre-1987 and I can assure him that I and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the problem, as did other members of that Committee.
  Mr. Barnes: I am sure that that is the case. I am referring only to legislation affecting England and Wales which was passed during my time in the House.
  I am not even asking for an accurate register; I am asking that the register of people entitled to vote within each area should be as accurate as possible. It would be difficult to get accurate registers before redistribution as so much needs to be done to correct them: we must ensure that people who are on the register but are no longer entitled to be are removed and that other people who are entitled to vote are added. There is no reason why we should not be able to work out as accurately as possible how many people should be on the register.
  Many hon. Members have quoted the latest 1991 statistics. The results are divided into constituencies in Scotland and into district areas in England and Wales. The Minister must tell us why we cannot act on those figures, rather than figures for electoral registration, given the serious problems affecting them.
  I would welcome some statement on Home Office moves to ensure that electoral registration is improved, so that when this legislation affects future boundary reviews an accurate register will be used.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that Ministers had never mentioned the problems affecting electoral registration, but there have been several limited comments on the subject. I shall quote the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd)—when he summed up the debate on Second Reading, saying:
  "Rather more insistently, many Labour Members … complained that the 1991 register, which is the reference point for the English, Scottish and Welsh boundary commissions, is insufficiently accurate to form an acceptable base for redistribution. I have some sympathy with that view. Just as I believe that constituency boundaries should not be allowed to become too out of date, so I believe that registers should be as up to date and as complete as possible."—[Official Report 15 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 742.]
  Mr. Winnick: I heard the Minister say that, but it is the least that he could have said. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the Minister acknowledges the problem, and we shall hear what the Home Secretary has to say about it later, but I am not aware that Ministers ever drew attention to it on their own initiative. The Minister was merely saying the least that could be said in the circumstances, in reply to Opposition Members.
  Mr. Barnes: Even the expression of sympathy with "that view" is important. The logic of having sympathy with it should be that we shall receive some sign of what will be done to correct the manifest abuses in electoral registration. The Minister's statement was welcome, but we must prod the Secretary of State to tell us what the Home Office will do to put registers right.
  Reference has been made to parliamentary answers given by the Scottish Office and the Department of Health to a question about the state of the electoral register. In a sense, every hon. Member represents a sort of rotten borough, because hosts of electors are missing from the register. In areas where Members have healthy majorities, which are far larger than the number of electors missing, it is not a serious matter. However, other Members have narrow majorities—especially Conservatives. The Government hold 22 seats with a majority of 1,000 or less, and in each of those seats well over 1,000 people are missing from the electoral register. If they are missing
  40
  because of the poll tax and are an anti-Tory cohort, those hon. Members might depend on the poll tax to win their seats.
  The written answer providing information on registra-tion in Scotland was given on 6 February 1992 in columns 293 to 296 of Hansard. It shows that there are 140,000 fewer people on the electoral registers than the estimated population taken at mid-1990 figures. The electoral registration figures are for 1991 and voters had to register by October 1990. Those June and October 1990 figures are the latest available. Neither the Scottish Office nor the Home Office will produce later figures because they are waiting to process the census figures and to relate them to electoral figures.
  Unfortunately, everyone is aware that there were problems with the census, which was also affected by the poll tax. Legislation was used to try to inform people that there was no means by which census information could be used for poll tax purposes—whether that was generally believed is another matter.
  The figures for Scotland, produced in the parliamentary answer, are for district council areas and for the 72 parliamentary seats there. In each constituency there is a shortfall in the number of electors compared with the estimated population able to vote. In 14 seats, the discrepancy is more than 2,700 and it rises to almost 5,000 in Strathkelvin and Bearsden. The discrepancies are maldistributed and 76,000—more than half—of the missing electors are in the Strathclyde region, although it does not contain half the electors in Scotland. As I said in an earlier intervention, the position in Glasgow is worrying. In each of the 11 seats, between 2,300 and 2,700 people are missing.
  Unfortunately, the details are not so complete for England and Wales. The figures given on 11 February 1992 in Hansard are for only metropolitan districts and district council areas and are bundled together in shire counties. However, they show that in England 1,750,000 people were missing overall. Within each metropolitan district and shire county there is a shortfall, but it is a maldistributed shortfall.
  5 pm
  In London there are 10 boroughs in which more than 20,000 people were missing off the registers at the time for which the figures were given, even though efforts were made in certain parts of London to improve registration for the general election. However, we do not have comparative population figures for the time of the general election which we can use. The figures for 1991 will be used for the purposes of the Bill. The quota will be worked out on the basis of figures for 21 February 1991.
  We have a problem in working out the quota of seats on the basis of which the various county areas will be divided. In later investigations it might be possible to talk about more recent electoral figures and make improvements so that the details can be adjusted. But the overall quota will be determined on the basis of the 1991 figures.
  The problem is of some importance in Derbyshire where the quota that has been worked out is 10.49 seats. So only a slight adjustment, depending on what happens in the rest of the country, could bring the quota up to 11. However, once the review process has started, it will be too late because the quota will already have been determined, whatever people may argue about the shortfall in their area. The shortfall will help only to determine some detail

  41
  about where the boundaries should be, rather than determining the number of seats that Derbyshire should have.
  In Greater London, 482,000 people are missing from the electoral register. Areas such as Barnet, Camden, Ealing and Westminster all have more than 30,000 people missing. There is a serious maldistribution of the shortfall in England and Wales. In some areas of Wales such as Gwent, there seems to be no serious problem; only about 21,000 people are missing overall. But other areas, such as Greater Manchester, have 104,000 people missing and there is a serious problem.
  We need to ensure that we act on the most accurate figures possible, both to determine the quota and to decide how areas should be divided. That problem must be handled with some urgency because there is some urgency about redistributing the seats. We cannot continue to have unequal electoral districts. Indeed, the Labour movement is greatly attached to equal electoral districts. Equal electoral districts were one of the six points of the charter which our forebears in the Chartist movement proposed —often with much opposition from Tory Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Will he put his comments in the context of paragraph 4(1)(ii) of the schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which deals with the London boundaries? I believe that I am right in saying that a borough with only one Member of Parliament could have an electorate of between 36,000 and 104,000, a borough with two Members of Parliament could have an electorate of between 53,000 and 87,000 and a borough with three Members of Parliament could have an electorate of between 59,000 and 81,000. That elasticity seems rather greater than the discrepancies to which the hon. Gentleman properly refers.
  Mr. Barnes: Of course, there are other issues to be raised than the one which I am addressing. The notion that in some cases it should be possible to cut across London borough boundaries to achieve equal electoral districts is important. Undoubtedly, other hon. Members will make that case. But I am dealing with an overall problem in England, Scotland and Wales. I have not raised the different quota sizes for Scotland, Wales and England. Arguments could be made about that. It could be argued that smaller nations should have extra consideration. But even the quota sizes for Scotland and Wales under the current rules are affected by the general difficulty with electoral registration.
  Mr. Maclennan: Would it be practical and possible to tackle the problems, to which the hon. Gentleman properly draws attention, within a time scale that allows a new electoral register to be drawn up before the anticipated date of the next general election, even if the Government's objections to the manner that the amendment proposes are too strong to allow the Committee to accept the amendment?
  Mr. Barnes: It is possible to move ahead quickly on electoral registration reform. Indeed, I have a private Member's Bill which will come before the House on 12 February to tackle the matter. I have had consulations with the Home Office about it. Even if the Home Office wanted to change some of the details, if it agreed with
  42
  some of the principles behind the Bill, the Bill could be a convenient vehicle for reform. But 12 February is still a long way away.
  Discussions are being held between the political parties, other organisations and the Home Office about what happened at the last general election, including what happened with electoral registration. Investigations have been undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which may allow more modern comparisons to be made. There is no reason why the Government could not take that information into account quickly and introduce the appropriate legislation instead of the measure before us now. The Bill could also be placed on hold until the electoral registration provisions have been corrected.
  If the Government do not offer appropriate legislation and I have to go ahead with my private Member's Bill on 12 February to press the matter, it may still be possible to make adjustments to the Bill which we are considering which would improve the position. One possible adjustment is amendment No. 1. Alternatively, the Home Office could state that it would take into account the estimated population figures or that it would examine the figures closely to discover how accurate they are. It could make use of those more accurate figures and provide estimated population figures for not only Scottish but English and Welsh constituencies so that we could act on them.
  There is no problem with electoral registration figures in Northern Ireland, where the estimated population figures are adhered to. One reason why there is not a problem in Northern Ireland is that the poll tax was never introduced there and did not mess up the register. Northern Ireland still has the problem of countervailing sets of errors in the register which exaggerate the numbers in some places and exclude people elsewhere. That problem has existed for a considerable time. It was referred to in an OPCS report in 1981.
  Let us point out the problem created by the poll tax on the basis of the empirical evidence. On page 2 of Population Trends of summer 1991, the OPCS published a table showing that in 1987 the number of people on the electoral register was 99.2 per cent. of the estimated population. The figures for the years until 1981, plus 1976, were about the same. They sometimes slipped to as low as 98.4 or rose as high as 99.3 per cent., but were usually about 99 per cent. After 1987, the percentage began to drop year by year and, by 1991, it was 96.5—a fall of 2.7 per cent. since 1987.
  Furthermore, the "attainers" group—those registering for the first time—cannot be found on previous registers. Those wishing to duck electoral registration to avoid payment of the poll tax were likely to be younger people. The figure for that category shows a fall of 4.7 per cent. The same does not apply to Northern Ireland, where the figure for that category has been increasing. In England and Scotland, the number registering was never so high compared with the estimated population. The explanation may be that there were more overseas visitors, a factor that must be taken into acount.
  In 1987, the figure was 97.4 per cent., which is similar to the figure for previous years. After 1987, the figure starts to fall until it reaches 95.5 per cent.—the figure mentioned by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. That is a fall of 1.9 per cent. The figure for attainers shows a fall of more than 6 per cent., which shows that a serious problem must be tackled. It is not simply a slight statistical aberration

  43
  but fits in with a host of information from electoral returning officers on how figures should be collected and how those should relate to poll tax registration in different areas. It also relates to the fact that Bills under discussion in the House had begun to interlink the poll tax and the electoral register. For example, a small Bill on Caldy island had only two clauses: one about poll tax registration and the other about electoral registration. That interconnection has always existed.
  The electoral register's problems are not caused entirely by the poll tax. The poll tax has revealed serious difficulties and is itself a problem that needs to be tackled. But other problems are caused by growing numbers of homeless people, who feel that they do not belong to the system, and people who move around in search of employment. The latter are encouraged to get on their bikes to look for employment and, when they do so, they frequently change accommodation and are never firmly placed on a register. All those factors have added to the long backlog of what was already wrong with electoral registration. Those problems have often been hidden from view by other countervailing problems.
  Let us show that we are trying to get the register right and, in the process, press forward to achieve equal electoral districts. Ideally, the right order would be to get the registers right first and then deal with the areas. However, if the Government are not willing to move in that way, they must say what they will do to overcome the current serious problem. They must obtain a decent set of rough and ready figures to show what electoral registration should be, so that the boundaries can fit in with those.
  I hope that, even if we push the matter to a vote and the Government pull out their forces and make us lose, the Minister will promise to act on electoral registration and rectify the mess that existed at the last general election. There was little wonder that the pollsters got it wrong, because pollsters never take account of whether they are investigating the right people. Before the general election, pollsters were investigating those who could be on the electoral register rather than those who were actually on it, which is what gave the different result revealed in the ballot box.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Rooker: The House of Commons does not deal with this important subject often enough. From my experience of the past two or three years, I believe that Home Office Ministers do not take electoral registration or administration matters anywhere near seriously enough to be proactive about them.
  Evidence shows that, by and large, the British do not like registering. It is probably anathema to them in the same way as are identity cards. Press reports in the past couple of weeks show that people in Cornwall do not even like registering the dead, as a result of which Tory Members have been hiring taxis and scurrying around delivering proxy votes for the dead for Tory candidates. That is another twist to the problem of lack of registration. Similar problems occurred at the Plymouth by-election earlier this year. It seems that problems relating to registration in the west country need to be solved.
  44
  I wish to develop some points that I made in the early hours of the morning on 23 July 1990. I do not wish to repeat my speech, but I hope that the Home Secretary will at least say what the Government are doing about the areas where they know defects in electoral registration exist. I remind him that, two years ago, in the July Consolidated Fund debate, I gave examples of those known defects. That was just after the poll tax came into force and just before registration, in September 1990, for the key register of February 1991.
  Senior officials and members of local government do not take electoral registration as seriously as they should. Electoral registration officers are starved of resources, and the "go-getters" in local government are not interested in the matter. As a result, it becomes a backwater. Without electoral registration officers, who are the bedrock of democracy—our democracy and its operation depend on their work—the whole system would be a farce. They do not receive sufficient political backing.
  From Ministers and senior officers in local government downwards, there is an enormous amount of ignorance about the registration process and that should be dealt with. I accept that it is an administrative exercise, but it is also a political exercise. There were fewer electoral registration officers in the quill pen age than there were two years ago. I had the privilege of addressing the last two annual conferences of the electoral registration officers and I know that they are pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House—I once attended the conference with a Conservative Member—take an interest in the mechanics, minutiae and technical aspects of registration.
  Ultimately, however, if a person's name is not on the list, he or she cannot vote. If the name is not on the register, his or her town, ward or constituency may be deprived of proper and fair representation. It matters not whether someone votes; if he or she does not appear on the list of voters, when redistribution takes place a seat may be taken away from the town or borough.
  Home Office research has identified another deficiency. It is a crying shame that the Home Office funds research on the effectiveness or otherwise of registration but never presents the House with proposals to solve the problems. It has issued the odd piece of guidance, but that is not good enough.
  Anyone representing a district in which there are houses in multiple occupation will know that shared letterboxes prove disastrous for electoral registration; both research and practical experience show that. Occupants of dwellings that have been converted into flats and bedsits are more likely to be left off the register than those of other dwellings. Lodgers stand a good chance of being left off the register.
  Several hon. Friends have referred to attainers, people over 16. Without wishing to be disrespectful, may I say that they are ignorant of the fact that even if they are only 16 years eight months this October they should be entered on the register because they will be 18 before February 1994. The average family, with a mother, father and a child who is not yet 18, or even 17, probably will not realise that the youngster's name should be on the list.
  Well-substantiated research has shown that tenants of privately rented accommodation are more likely to be missed off the electoral register than owner-occupiers and local authority tenants. There is plenty of research to show that unemployed members of households are more likely to be missed off the register than people in work.

  45
  We all fight against public apathy. I found that 50 paid-up members of my constituency Labour party were not even on the electoral register two years ago—a not uncommon phenomenon in inner-city constituencies.
  I mentioned that young voters of 18 constituted a category that presented problems, but independent studies funded by the Home Office have shown that up to 30 per cent. of 17 to 19-year-olds are missed off the register. A high proportion of people of 20 to 29 years of age are also easily missed off the register. Those problem sectors mean that the names of about 7 per cent.—at any one time, 2 million people—are missing from the register. That is an enormous number, and we must take action.
  I shall repeat two important issues which I have raised before as no action has been taken on them: we must have political and administration action. I visited Scotland to listen to the assessor—the director of finance—for the Lothian region in the early months of 1988, when the poll tax for England was being debated in the House. I took it upon myself to listen to what the experts in Scotland were saying as legislation was introduced there first. The dual functions of electoral registration officer and assessor are embodied in the same person. It was explained to me that it was the norm in Scotland for the assessor, in his role as electoral registration officer, to contact secondary schools automatically. He did not merely issue a grubby notice to be stuck on the school board to warn 16-year-olds to register but targeted the pupils and obtained dates of birth.
  I see nothing wrong with electoral registration officers being proactive and obtaining dates of birth from schools and local education authorities so that when it is crucial for the names of those young people to appear on the register—as young as 16 years eight months—they receive a personal letter from the electoral registration officer inviting them to register. It should not be left to the young people to register voluntarily.
  Such a system has since been tried in my city, where I explained what was happening in Scotland and said that if it was good enough for Edinburgh it was good enough for Birmingham. The electoral registration officer in Birmingham met with some success and was welcomed by some of the head teachers, but some did not even bother to respond to his inquiry. That matter will be pursued. The electoral registration officers must be proactive and more work must be done. I am talking not about any breach of privacy but about obtaining dates of birth so that people can be warned in time to register.
  We must obtain more information about multiple-occupation dwellings. That information is also needed for other reasons such as public health, housing policy and fire prevention. Details of bed-and-breakfast accommodation can be found from housing benefit records and can be easily obtained by electoral registration officers. That information should be used.
  Hostels and refuges are used mainly, although not entirely, by women and children who have suffered domestic violence. I hope that the Home Secretary is aware of the problem. Under the poll tax legislation, anonymous registration is possible. Most, but not all, victims of domestic violence are female. It is possible for them to be registered anonymously. They pay their poll tax, but their names are not public knowledge so that they cannot be tracked down by a violent spouse, boyfriend or partner. There is no such procedure in the electoral registration legislation.
  46
  I have talked to electoral registration officers who say that they know where the refuges are. Such places do not have boards outside, but the officers know the addresses of the establishments. There should be a way to ensure that those people gaining shelter from violence, whether in local authority or voluntary sector homes—which have led the field in recent years—are not deprived of their right to vote simply because of the fear of having their name on the electoral register. Obviously, they cannot use the location from which they have sought refuge as the local polling station would be known by the violent partner. I know that there would be dangers in anonymous registration, but EROs say that it would be possible to introduce a registration procedure to ensure that people sheltering from violence do not lose their right to vote. There is no such provision under present electoral law.
  People who genuinely have no fixed abode—a fairground worker or a tramp who uses the same ditch on the night of October each year—can register from that locality. The Greenham women were registered from the common. If such people can register, those in refuges should be able to do so. People do not have to live in bricks and mortar to register; they merely have to be in the same place at the same time of year, whether that be a fairground or a ditch. It is important that peripatetic citizens have the right to vote. We should have a mechanism to deal with cardboard city and those sheltering from violence.
  I have said nothing tonight that I did not say two years ago, but the Home Office appeared to take no action following that July 1990 debate—the fact that it took place early in the morning is no excuse.
  There was an action plan. The Minister of State, who wound up the Second Reading debate last week, said a word or two about it. Nevertheless, these are the real reasons why the accuracy of the register is at risk. The poll tax was certainly an added burden. Some people voluntarily absented themselves for all the wrong reasons. My party never encouraged them not to register, but they took themselves off.
  5.30 pm
  The redistribution that has become necessary since 1976 shows that the number of people Registered to vote has increased by a net 2.4 million, but the fact that they all live in the English shires worries me. Those shires will gain 20 seats at the expense of the cities. I know that, for reasons of housing and social policy, the density of population in our cities was always likely to decrease, but it is remarkable that the increase in the shires should be so large—it will result in a considerable redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.
  The recent census was itself affected by the poll tax, but it tells us enough to know that the electoral register is inaccurate to a degree that should concern the commissioners. They ought to be able to take account of those factors.
  Redistribution has to take place and the sooner we all know how seats are to be redistributed, the better. In general terms we know that the register is inaccurate and in detailed terms we know why—yet the Home Office has initiated no programme of action. The former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), now vice-chairman of the Conservative party, has been hovering around the Chamber today. Last year in September, I tried to

  47
  persuade her to place some advertising in respect of absent voters. I said that that could make the Home Office popular—as opposed to drugs, prisons and inner cities. The issue was about democracy and giving people the right to vote, and it could make Home Office Ministers voter-friendly. I saw that I had struck gold with her—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Which is why they moved her.
  Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Lady was standing for a marginal seat, so I knew that I was striking home.
  Although the Minister's face began to glow, the faces of her civil servants fell. I offered her a programme of action; I offered to share a platform with her; I even offered her a quote in a joint press release, showing that this was not a partisan issue. The mechanism whereby we are elected must, after all, be absolutely clean, open and above board. We are the only people who can ensure that it is.
  The civil servants talked of the money that this would cost. It is, after all, only a few thousand pounds—chicken feed. We could lose the required money just adding up the third column of decimal places in the public expenditure accounts. It is nothing compared with the vast sums for which the House of Commons votes.
  It is difficult, therefore, to believe that money is the problem. The problem is the inertia of the Home Office. I hope that this Home Secretary will overcome it. He has all the evidence from the research done by the Home Office, and he has heard or read our speeches today and on Second Reading. I hope to goodness that he will do something. If he does, he will serve democracy, which is ultimately what the Bill is all about.
  Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has spoken of how registration officers in local government are being starved of the resources that would help them go about the important business of keeping the electoral register up to date and ensuring that the names of those entitled to vote are on it.
  I concur with my hon. Friend's view that there is a need for more resources to help these officers carry out their work. We all know that all local authorities, because of capping and other restrictions, have problems employing enough people in their registration offices to carry out the necessary exercise to maintain a full register.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of our anxieties about the limitations placed on people in local government who are trying to carry out this work. The amendment gives the commission additional powers to enable it, if it is not satisfied because the electorate in a given area seems significantly different from its population, to delay submitting its report until it is satisfied with the accuracy of the register. That is an entirely constructive move. Nothing in the amendment is offensive to the work of the boundary commission. Indeed, it strengthens the democracy embodied in the commis-sion's work. We all want to ensure that everyone entitled to register to vote at elections should be included on the register.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: A county may contain 16 or 18 seats and may include urban areas scattered throughout its length in which there is a material fall in the number of those registered. But just as urban areas can be affected by the failure to take account of the true numbers who should be on the register, because of the
  48
  manner of redistribution, the whole county and all the seats in an area will be affected too. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. O'Brien: I intend to inform the House of a situation identical to that described by my hon. Friend. I refer to the county of West Yorkshire, which contains a large number of cities—Bradford, Leeds, Kirklees and Wakefield. There are also rural areas in the county. The population is not centred on any one area; it is spread across the county. The approach of the boundary commission is to take the number of registered in February 1991 and divide it so as to leave just over 90,000 electors per constituency.
  The five metropolitan districts in west Yorkshire have 12 seats, but the boundary commission suggests that, theoretically, it should be entitled to 11.41 constituencies. That suggestion is made on the basis of the figures in the electoral register of February 1991.
  According to the figures, the 23 constituencies in west Yorkshire are made up of an average of 68,540 electors in each constituency. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that 1,000 electors could be missing from each constituency register. That is a conservative estimate, but if we accept it and add that number to the average of 68,540 for each constituency in west Yorkshire, the figures would be in line with the recommendations of the boundary commission. The amendment substantiates the point made by the hon. Member for Eltham and by Labour Members.
  I reiterate that we must be fair and that we must be seen to be so. The boundary commission must also be fair when it submits its report and its proposals, particularly those for west Yorkshire. I do not see how any justification can be made for reducing the number of seats in west Yorkshire when we take into account other events of the past five years, such as the introduction of the poll tax. In that time, the number of people adding their name to the electoral register has reduced significantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said that, five years ago, 99 per cent. of those eligible registered to vote. However, on Second Reading, the Home Secretary accepted that that figure had decreased to 95 per cent. When that decrease in registered voters is taken into account, I see no reason why the 23 seats in west Yorkshire should not be retained. The Home Secretary must take into account the extenuating circumstances of the past five years.
  We must ensure that those who are entitled to vote add their names to the electoral register. It has been suggested that it is important that the report is published speedily —no one wants a delay before the boundary commission's proposals are published. It is important to speed up the process, but if that report is produced earlier than expected, the Home Secretary and Conservative Members should take account of the amendment, as it would help to solve the problems that we have outlined tonight.
  5.45 pm
  The review that we are discussing is based on the electoral register of February 1991. Some counties will be divided by the electoral quota. We have been advised that there will always be discrepancies in the number of electors in various constituencies. For example, the Isle of Wight would equate to 1.4 constituencies according to the figures provided by the boundary commission. However, if

  49
  another constituency were to be created, it would mean that one Member of Parliament represented constituents on the Isle of Wight and on the mainland. For that reason the boundary commission said that an additional constituency would not be permissible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to rural areas where the population is widely scattered. That leads to discrepancies in the number of people on the electoral register for each constituency. If we accept that discrepancies exist, west Yorkshire, which is made up of cities, conurbations and large rural areas, would be justified in retaining its existing number of seats.
  Earlier, I pointed out that, on average, 68,540 voters make up each constituency in west Yorkshire. If we accept those figures and the geographical location of the communities, the boundary commission would be justified in spending some time on its review of the distribution of seats in west Yorkshire. If the boundary commission feels that it needs more time to consider the issues, it should be given it, so that its report is accurate and in the best interests of the people of west Yorkshire. The amendment would provide such accuracy.
  If the Home Secretary is unable to accept the amendment, I hope that he and other Conservative Members will take account of our arguments. Reference has been made in the debate and on Second Reading to constituencies crossing boundaries. Some constituencies cross the boundaries of London boroughs. My constituency, which crosses the boundary between Leeds and Wakefield, is made up of a part of Leeds and a large part of Wakefield. That is necessary to give Leeds and Wakefield their full allocation of seats. In 1987, Leeds had 8.25 constituencies and Wakefield had 3.75 constituencies —12 seats between the two district authorities. On the basis of the February 1991 register, it has been suggested that Leeds is entitled to 7.5 constituencies and Wakefield to 3.5—a total of 11. In that way the boundary commission would reduce the number of seats in west Yorkshire from 23 to 22.
  I hope that I have explained in detail the concerns that I and others in west Yorkshire have about the need for the boundary commission to review the situation before taking a decision to reduce the number of representatives to the House of Commons from west Yorkshire.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in 1979–80, when the boundaries in Yorkshire were dealt with —I declare an interest because I had something to do with them—Leeds was entitled to 7.25 seats and Wakefield to 3.75, with the result that, taking the two metropolitan districts together, there were 11 seats, one across boundaries? The position now is that Leeds should have 7.5 seats, and Wakefield 3.5, so if one adds the two together one still gets the same total—11—and the redistribution should logically take place on that basis.
  Mr. O'Brien: That is exactly what the concern is. The suggested electorate of 90,500 results in a reduction of one in the number of constituencies. Because of the extenuating circumstances such as the rural areas in the county and the fact that there are at least 1,000 people missing off every electoral register—I think that that is an underestimate, and that the figure is nearer 2,500—we have every justification for supporting the amendment.
  50
  The Home Secretary should allow the commission the opportunity to present a factual report. In its press release, the commission said that it considered that time is limited in the present circumstances and that it would have difficulties in presenting its report by 1995. When I intervened in the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading, and pointed out that the boundary commission had said that it would be pressed for time if it had to present the report in 1995 and he is now asking it to report 12 months earlier, the House was told that the commission would be given additional resources to help it to make up the shortfall and to ensure that it could report in 1994. We have heard tonight that only limited resources will be made available.
  We should consider carefully what we have heard from the Home Secretary and what is happening on the ground. We need to ensure that the boundary commission, which will be limited in its resources, can report its findings. I hope that pleas that I have made on behalf of west Yorkshire will persuade the Home Secretary to accept this constructive amendment, which will give the boundary commission additional powers and solve many problems in west Yorkshire.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Like a number of my colleagues, I voted against Second Reading last week, and the debate tonight proves how right we were to do so. We are debating the narrow nature of the Bill. Even if there is accommodation on both sides of the Committee about the progress of the Bill, and even if there is agreement about how we proceed with electoral registration, it will be impossible to make an accurate assessment that will assist local authorities and communities, in this current round of constituency redistribution, to gain access to the commission in a way that will ensure that the final decisions correctly represent the number of people who should be on the register.
  The amendment is about who is eligible as compared with who is on the register. In Greater Manchester, there are about 104,000 potential members of the electoral register who, for various reasons—local circumstances or wider circumstances—are not reflected in the numbers on the register. Yet a document already produced by the boundary commission implies a decrease of two constituencies in the Greater Manchester area, from 30 to 28.
  Therefore, even if, during the progress of the Bill, my hon. Friends or, more importantly, people in the community such as community representatives can find more information to show that a less than accurate view has been taken of the number of electors in the area, that will be insufficient to secure additional seats in the Greater Manchester area. The implied change has already taken place. The theoretical entitlement has already been fixed and two seats will have been taken from the Greater Manchester area.
  At this stage, it is vital that the Bill is held up until the Government give the basic commitment that, in those areas where there is already a declared, or implied, intention to reduce the number of constituencies, there will be a registration census to ensure that the boundary commission does not fix, in advance of its inquiries, the entitlement for a county, whether it is in the London area or a shire area. If entitlement is fixed at the beginning of the boundary commission's proceedings, we can have all the debate that we like in this place about the improvement

  51
  in registration, but the reality will be a reduction in the number of parliamentary seats, despite the clear evidence that the population has not fallen significantly and that a substantial number of people who are entitled to register have not done so for various reasons. That is why the amendment is so important. It will make it clear that, if the boundary commission is to remove seats, it must do so not on the basis of the implied information but on practical information about population trends and those who are entitled to register.
  I have a question for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I hope that now, or later, he will tell me whether the population area referred to in the amendment is that of a particular constituency or that of a particular county. That is vital because, if the amendment is just about the population in an area, that will not resolve the problem that I am raising because the boundary commission will already have fixed the absolute number of seats in any area. Therefore, even if the Government accept the amendment, it would not go far enough in protecting areas such as that which I represent, where there is a significant under-representation, for various reasons, of those entitled to be registered.
  My hon. Friends the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) have spoken about the practical steps that need to be taken to improve electoral registration. That is not new. For a decade or more, hon. Members, both inside and outside the House, have argued for an improvement in both the practicalities of registration and the way in which electoral registration officers are required to carry out the registration procedure. Depending on the constituency or borough in which one lives, one may have an electoral registration officer who makes efforts to canvass for registration. In our area, that does not happen. People are therefore dependent on the importance that a borough places on their right to vote.
  There are widespread discrepancies throughout Britain in the way in which the register is produced. That has to end. There must be a method of enforcing procedures throughout Britain that are consistent between boroughs. There must be a code of conduct also for registration, and the electoral registration officer or the local authority should not be able to put such a document aside. It should set out clearly and specifically the rights of individuals to be registered and the methods that the registration officer has to follow to ensure that the entitlement of registration is upheld. That must apply whether the individual is in a home of multi-occupation, in student lodgings, or in temporary accommodation which is the subject of housing transfer between a local authority and a housing association or of a transfer to an elderly persons' home. If there is a transfer from ownership of a home to another form of home, the right of electoral registration must not be lost. We must ensure continuity of the right to vote.
  The same goes for employment. Why should someone who changes his employment status lose his ability to vote? To use a buzz term, why should not the citizens charter ensure that electoral registration takes place?
  6 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central has not taken the opportunity to respond to the question which I posed, and I do not know whether he will do so.
  52
  The issue to which it relates, however, is important to many of us on the Opposition Benches. Does the amendment, in terms of the review, relate the area of population to the area of a constituency or to the area within a county boundary to which a constituency is attached?
  Is the Home Secretary prepared to provide additional resources, either through the boundary commission or to electoral registration officers in counties where there are large discrepancies between those who are registered and those who are residents, to overcome a problem that could lead to a reduced number of parliamentary seats? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to provide additional resources to enable a census to take place? When the boundary commission comes to consider major conurbations such as Greater Manchester or London, it should be in receipt of up-to-date information about potential electors and those who are actually registered. Without that information the Bill will do no more than enable the Government to put a date in their diary on which they can proceed to push through electoral redistribution for party political reasons. If that happens, no account will be taken of the practical and, more importantly, the political way that we redistribute parliamentary seats.
  We must ensure that votes have equal value wherever they are cast, and that means up-to-date electoral registers. Areas such as Greater Manchester must not lose two constituencies merely because 104,000 potential electors have been left off the register. The loss of those electors threatens one-and-a-half constituencies. The people are living in the area but they are not registered. Why should we lose two seats in Greater Manchester 12 months from now, whether they be held by the Labour, Liberal or Conservative party? The people of Greater Manchester are entitled to 30 parliamentary seats and we must ensure that that entitlement remains.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The House will not be surprised when I say that I support amendment No. 1. I shall be brief because the arguments have been well covered. When the Home Secretary replies to the debate it would be helpful if he were to respond to some of the anxieties that have been expressed. There would be no need for the amendment if we, the Opposition, felt that the Government were taking seriously the discrepancies in the political register—in other words, the many potential electors who are slipping through the democratic net. It is obvious that the Government are not.
  The electoral register, voting methods and the number of people on the register should surely concentrate the minds of all hon. Members. Along with research and secretarial allowances, for example, the electoral register should surely be the second greatest issue for us. Au contraire, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), all those who have contributed to the debate have risen from the Opposition Benches. It could be said, perhaps, that not enough Labour Members have spoken. I cannot understand why consideration of the Bill in Committee, as on Second Reading, has not sufficiently engendered the interest of hon. Members. We are talking about those who put us in the House in the first place. Perhaps there is too much complacency in the House. Perhaps hon. Members are saying, "We are here to decide the issue. As we are here, ergo, the register must be working all right. Why spoil it?

  53
  If we bring a few more people on to it, perhaps we shall not be sitting in the Chamber, perhaps the additional electors will vote Tory, Labour, or for another party." I am worried that we are not showing sufficient concern. We, the Opposition, are showing more concern than Conservative Members but we are not showing the degree of concern that we should for something as crucial as the electoral register and the number of people who are on it.
  Mr. Rooker: There is a warning for the future. It is far better and more honourable to show concern now than after one's constituency has been abolished. It is better to discuss the issues now than to moan about democracy after abolition. To complain afterwards will seem, as it will, to reflect a narrow, vested interest. My hon. Friend has made a telling point.
  Mr. Banks: It seems that Newham will lose one seat. So be it; I am not here to argue necessarily that that seat should not be lost. I take my hon. Friend's point of principle. We are talking about the very stuff of democracy. We are not discussing whether X is a Member or Y is not. That is not the issue. Similarly, we are not really discussing whether this is a carve-up in the interests of the Conservative party. It seems to some of us, however, cynical though it might be, that the Tories are interested in rushing the Bill through, not to do something about representational levels in constituencies, but to grab for themselves an extra 20 seats, perhaps, in time for the next general election. Unless we hear something from the Government about the appalling state of the electoral register, especially in city areas, we shall be able to say only that our cynical interpretation of the Government's actions is correct.
  Mr. Barnes: The stuff of democracy that interests most Members includes proportional representation and referendums. There is nothing wrong with that. If those are key issues, however, the correctness of the electoral register must have prominent significance. That must be so if, logically, it is tied to the other two considerations. Let us say that we had a referendum and the result was similar to the Danish one. If our register was 5 per cent. inaccurate, for example—in fact, the inaccuracy is greater than that—the impact on the result of the referendum would be enormously significant.
  Mr. Banks: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's sterling work. He has set an example that the Government should follow. He has used his time in the House to draw attention to something that should be worrying us all. He has support on the Opposition Benches but at times he seems to be ploughing a lone furrow. The private Member's legislation that he seeks to introduce deserves some support from the Government. He is right to say that everything hangs on the register. For the sake of 1,000 voters in 11 constituencies, we would have a hung Parliament. I am not suggesting that we are concerned about the register because, but for the 1,000 voters in those constituencies the Labour party, would be in government and the Conservative party would be in opposition, or that somehow we would all be milling around in the middle of the Chamber. That is not the issue.
  I return to the principal consideration. We should all be concerned about 2 million of our fellow citizens who appear to have dropped through the democratic net. We need to find out where they are. We must ascertain why
  54
  they were not placed on the register and then do our damndest to get them on it. We should sit in the Chamber as Members of a Parliament that is genuinely reflective of the wishes and needs of the people. That brings me to proportional representation, but this is not the time to discuss the matter fully. It is always an attendant factor, however, when we have anything that affects the electoral register.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is right when he argues that we make allowances in the quota for rural areas because they are large geographic areas. Accordingly, we might not go for the quota of about 70,000. If we can make those allowances, why cannot we make similar allowances for deprived inner-city areas? The electorate in my constitu-ency is nearly 47,000, but I put it to the House that my constituents bring me two or three times the weight of problems that come to a Tory Member who, perhaps, has 90,000 on his electoral register.
  The Tory Member will say, "Never mind that. You may have more problems but we are electing a Government." Only if we think about proportional representation can we find some way eventually of balancing out the discrepancies between different cosntituencies. I accept that we should not debate that issue when considering the amendment before us, but I wish to emphasise and underline the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
  Ms. Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the amendment is accepted we would want the commission to examine the procedure that allows a large number of people who have not lived in this country for 20 years to appear on the register? Should not the commission investigate the way that their names were added to the register just before the last general election?
  Mr. Banks: That is a good point. Indeed, after every general election there should he an examination of what happened during it. That should not be restricted to Labour Members wondering why they did not win; it should be an overall investigation. There should he a full discussion in the House so that we can all give evidence of our experiences as canvassers and campaigners in our constituencies. We have genuine information that we want to share in the interests of wider democracy—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr with such effect.
  We need to consider voting habits. The "Panorama" programme to be screened on television tonight apparently will show that a Tory councillor in St. Ives has been signing up poor old biddies—indeed, even the dead —for proxy votes. I know that voting is important, but I did not realise that it was more important than life and death—although it obviously was for that councillor. Such malpractices should be weeded out. If the "Panorama" programme proves to be as juicy as has been trailed, a number of matters will be weeded out—perhaps even the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Who knows?
  Mr. Winnick: That programme is actually to he shown on "Newsnight".
  Mr. Banks: Quite so—and it is another excellent investigative programme.
  We hope that the Government will make an announcement about additional resources. The Secretary

  55
  of State must accept that it is a crazy way to organise matters. Why is not each person given an electoral number that follows him around, rather like his national insurance or national health service numbers? We obviously think it important to have those fixed reference points, but it is no less important to have a fixed reference point for voting. Voting underpins everything that we do in this place.
  We know that the way that electoral registration is operated, especially in inner-city areas, is bad. There is an inaccuracy in our registers of up to 17 per cent. The Secretary of State must know that registration is far more difficult in a mobile area. Communities in inner-city areas, such as London, are more transient than those in more stable communities elsewhere. In boroughs such as Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Haringey and Ealing, the electoral registration officers have to work much harder to get people on to the electoral registers than they do in other areas. We need to equalise not only the voting quota, but the resources available to electoral registration officers throughout the country.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that during my speech I suggested that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) had made that very point. I now realise that, in fact, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who said it. I hope that he realises that when he makes such excellent suggestions they fall on fertile ground, at least among Labour Members.
  Mr. Banks: I am always at my hon. Friend's disposal to give him a few good ideas. He has plenty of his own, but a few of mine might make him an even more formidable parliamentarian.
  There is a degree of dissatisfaction on the Labour Benches, and I suspect that if we scratched the surface we would find a similar feeling on the Conservative Benches, about the way that these matters are organised. If the Government accept the amendment, they will show that they are prepared to do something about registration. If they do not, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us what additional resources he will make available to ensure that the next general election is fought on the maximum possible number of those eligible to vote, and not on an inaccurate register as in 1992.
  Mr. Bermingham: I shall not repeat all that has been said about electoral registration numbers as that matter has been covered in depth, and I agree with all that has been said. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, an important feature of the argument has been overlooked, and that is how we define an area. In electoral terms, are we referring to a shire county and taking that as the skin? Are we talking about a metropolitan district and taking that as the skin? Or are we talking about a London borough and taking that as the skin?
  Mr. Darling: Both.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Bermingham: That leaves me a little confused because one area plus another area equals a third area, so which area do we take?
  Mr. Darling: The intention behind the amendment is that if, when considering the numbers living in a county or a constituency, the commission is satisfied that the register is inaccurate, it may delay the process until it knows exactly how many are in both. It is clear that the same problem arises in both, which is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
  Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that elucidation, which goes to the heart of the matter. Unless it is known what the electorate will be within the largest skin—which will be a county in the forthcoming review—the correct number of seats cannot be worked out. Unless the norm factor—68,000, 69,000 or whatever —can be divided into the totality of the electorate, we cannot work out how many seats the area should have. It might be 10.2 or 10.3—or it may be 10.5, which would mean 11 instead of 10 seats. We cannot work out what the average constituency should be.
  Another feature about the size of the electorate is often overlooked by the commission and should be taken into account in the forthcoming review. In an inner-city area where there is a considerable amount of demolition following compulsory purchase, there will be consequen-ces for the number of electorate who will be in that area when the constituency comes into force. The converse of the coin, which is equally important, is an area where there is continual new build—[Interruption.] I hope that the Home Secretary will interrupt his conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). These points are important to Richmond and to many other areas. If an area has continuing housing redevelopment, it is obvious that there will have been a population movement between the time that the reviews first began —1991—and the time that the recommendations come into operation in about 1995 or 1996. Distortions will be built in to the commission's findings unless it takes those trends into account.
  At the last commission hearings—and I again declare my interest in that matter—it was our experience that the commission did not always take into account the demographic trends, nor the development in some areas and the demolition in others. All those factors can affect the totality of the skin and the number of seats within an area. They can also affect the size of constituencies within a county, where there will be a deviation from the norm if those factors are not taken into account. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that they should be taken into account. Where there is a predictable trend, either because of demolition or because of new build, those trends should be reflected in the way that the skin is constructed so that at the commencement of the next parliamentary round for the new boundaries there is equality of numbers within the county, metropolitan district, borough or whatever.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) were right to say that the key factor is getting the system right and fair so that there is an equalisation of votes. If we use a little common sense—which is not beyond the wit of man—and take into account demographic trends because of demolition and new build, there is some hope that we shall achieve constituencies that are somewhere near the same size, which should be the aim of us all.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is a mistake—although this is almost inevitable on the Floor of the House—to read into an argument a point of view that is too partisan. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) followed the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) in claiming that the red meat of party politics is behind all this. I do not believe that that is true, or that those hon. Gentlemen are necessarily pursuing their party advantage—although they may think that they are—in using the arguments that they do.
  On Second Reading, there was no serious dissent— certainly not between the two Front Benches—from the proposition that the boundary commissioners should proceed promptly, according to a timetable aimed at the end of 1994. That would make it likely that the next general election will be based on up-to-date boundaries.
  No one argues either against the proposition that constituencies should be based as far as possible on equal boundaries. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East invoked the Chartists in support of that principle. We are all Chartists in that respect today.
  There is no party difference between us as to the desirability of people registering to be eligible as electors, and of them casting their votes—if we could persuade them all to do so. I do not recall all the occasions when Ministers of any party allegedly fell short on that proposition. It is the first instinct of parliamentarians to attach particular importance to democratic politics. We should ensure as far as possible that everyone is registered, and encourage all to vote.
  In the last election, I appeared on a programme with representatives of other parties before an audience of young people who had been selected by the researchers precisely because they had said that they did not intend to vote for any party. The hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and myself all said that we would rather those young people voted against our respective parties than take the cynical view that they should not cast their votes at all. My guess is that practically every right hon. and hon. Member would have made the same response.
  We are proposing a fair electoral system based on single member constituencies and on accurate registers that record as many of the electorate as possible. We have already started the process in England without any controversy. There was no protest about the English boundary commission or its timetable. The Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish commissions must start work shortly to meet the timetable on which we have all agreed.
  It is necessary for the English commissioners to base their electoral quotas, as they are, on the 1991 electoral register. The other commissioners will work to the 1992 registers.
  The amendment says that if, on reflection, the commissioners were to discover particular problems with the registers, delay should intervene. The nature of that delay is not clear from the amendment. Is it suggested that the review should be stopped altogether, until we are persuaded that we have a better register? The amendment urges delay, but that would be inconsistent with the Bill.
  Most of the debate centred on the administrative machinery of local government. Without widespread dissent in the past, we have always delivered electoral registers on which to conduct our parliamentary elections. There has been a slight reduction in the proportion of the
  58
  population who, on the best estimates, appear to be registered—but that pre-dates the community charge, which was widely cited as the reason for that reduction.
  In 1991, 95.5 per cent. of the population of England and Wales appeared to be registered, and the figure for Scotland was 96.5 per cent. It appears that there are no figures for Northern Ireland, although one hon. Member gave Northern Ireland top marks for having a high level of registration.
  By any international standards, those percentages reflect a very high level of registration. It is a good record. Anybody—including the electoral registration officer— should be alive to any proposal for improving registration still further. I will touch in a moment on what we should do to support electoral registration officers in their work.
  For a variety of reasons, a proportion of the population does not register. Scarcely an inhabitant of these islands does not know that he or she is entitled to vote in an election. However, a number of potential electors do not vote because they are not interested. We must have an administrative system that gets them on to the register. We are talking only about administrative steps that might improve the system.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what would happen if the Local Government Boundary Commission decided to restore the historic county boundaries after the parliamentary commissioners have made their first report? Would they be able to make an interim report, to take such a restoration into account?
  Mr. Clarke: Clause 3 emphasises that one of the Bill's main aims is to stipulate a cut-off date for local government changes that the boundary commissioners would have to take into account in making their reports. Changes that come into effect before June 1994 will be taken into account by the parliamentary boundary commissioners. In England, that is likely to mean that counties already reviewed will find that the new county boundaries are taken into account. If the Local Government Boundary Commission reviews some counties after that date, it will still be possible at any time for the parliamentary boundary commission to make an interim report—though I imagine that it will concentrate first on publishing its main report.
  Mr. Barnes: I am sorry that the right hon. And learned Gentleman has no figures for Northern Ireland, because I obtained some from the Library. They show that since 1987, Northern Ireland's electoral register has increased by 1.2 per cent. and that registration by attainers—a massive problem in England, Wales and Scotland—has risen 7 per cent. Why is it that between 1987 and 1991 the figures improved in Northern Ireland but collapsed in England, Scotland, and Wales?
  Mr. Clarke: They did not collapse. They fell by a comparatively small percentage. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who has long campaigned that the community charge would have that effect. It may have done in respect of a few people. I do not deny that some people—partly because of all the publicity attached to the community charge—decided not to register because they thought that they would thereby avoid paying the community charge. They were misguided if they believed that, as everyone knows. It was not particularly reputable for such people to

  59
  go to such lengths to avoid paying for their local government services, and to give up their votes. Although I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is sincere, he has never convincingly made the case that the community charge damaged the accuracy of the electoral register.
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will not exchange anecdotal evidence. We are all experienced campaigners, and we have all had anecdotal experiences. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) related quite an amusing anecdote about people who are not on the register. Usually, the basic reason is that they do not realise that, to be on the register, they have to be resident at the address in question on 10 October, or 15 September in Northern Ireland. In any election campaign, one meets a lot of people who are not living at the address at which they ought to have been registered on the date in question.
  Others fail to complete the registration form, or do so frivolously—which is a criminal offence. Most elections produce local newspaper pieces about, for example, a budgerigar that was given the vote because its owner thought that it would be witty to register it. We are dealing with those on the fringes who are not very keen on registering, not necessarily because of the community charge.
  When I am canvassing, I always remind myself—and opinion pollsters would do well to remind themselves—that about one fifth of those who register will not bother to vote in any case. Many will not want to vote, perhaps for religious reasons. We hear counsels of perfection in regard to putting names on to the register, but a sizeable proportion of the population could not care less whether their names are on it. It is our duty as politicians, whatever our party, to seek to overcome that, and to encourage people to register for the sake of democracy—conceding that they can vote for our opponents if they wish to. Given the background of sheer apathy and active refusal, I think that 95.5 per cent. is not a bad score.
  6.30 pm
  Other hon. Members have given examples from their electoral experience. In my constituency, one sector of the population is particularly badly represented on the register: members of the armed forces. Most of the inaccuracies in the register concern the RAF station at Newton, and that is the source of most of the complaints from people who find that they are not entitled to vote. When election day comes, the overall high turnout in Rushcliffe is pulled down because the Newton turnout is low: by that time, most of those who are on the register are serving elsewhere.
  That is a practical difficulty, which can be set against the claims that the names missing from the register are all those of inner-city Labour voters who are avoiding the community charge—people from Hackney and Newham, North-West. We need to tackle the difficulties that face electoral registration officers by ensuring that the names of serious, willing voters—whatever their background—are put on the register. In 1990, only about 65 per cent. of those in the armed forces were registered. Matters have improved, but I urge the military authorities to make greater efforts. Perhaps their new computerised system will make that possible.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The overall figures are pretty impressive. The Home Secretary has urged the military authorities to make a special effort. What similar action is he taking in regard to authorities in difficult areas, and what resources is he providing to ensure that one vote equals one value? Unless he can reassure us, we shall begin to suspect that the Government are concerned about time rather than achieving an accurate register.
  Mr. Clarke: I was coming to that, because I believe that it represents the substance of the debate. Hon. Members have made practical suggestions about possible improve-ments, but, given the discrepancies over figures that have been cited—overall figures, and figures relating to specific parts of the country—only a few of those suggestions are likely to have much impact. Clearly, it is for the Home Office—and, most important, for electoral registration officers in the local areas concerned—to have regard to such matters, and I am sure that they do.
  A typical electoral registration officer—or the best of such officers—goes in for postal and hand deliveries of the forms, and most canvass personally as well. That needs to be supported by publicity campaigns, which have been mentioned already. Such campaigns have always been used to encourage registration. This year, the Home Office proposes to spend £617,000 on them; the Scottish Office will also become involved. Some local authorities have their own campaigns. We shall continue to advertise to encourage eligible people to complete and return their forms. I have my doubts: I believe that the people concerned know perfectly well that they are entitled to vote, and that the forms are being sent out. Nevertheless, reminding them to find out whether they have a form and are registered may jog their consciences.
  We must also continually revise and update our code of practice for electoral registration officers. At present we are doing that, while also producing a series of individual practice notes designed to maximise the efficiency of the process. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who follows such matters closely, is probably one of the few hon. Members who are familiar with the practice notes.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am a little annoyed with the Home Secretary. He had a go at me when I was not in the Chamber, and he had another go at me a moment ago. I can survive that, but, as we are in Committee, I should be grateful if he would allow me to intervene now.
  I realise that the Home Secretary is a great Secretary of State and I am only a grubby oik—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that would go down well. In my speech, however, I was not trying to plead in a partial way for Newham, North-West; I said that I was raising a major issue. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that the Home Office will advertise, pointing out that voting is part of people's duty. There is a penalty for non-registration. Why not copy the television licence advertising, which tells viewers that if they do not fill in a form they will probably have to pay a fine? Will the Home Secretary tell us, statistically rather than anecdotally, how many people have been fined for not filling in a registration form?
  Mr. Clarke: That was dealt with earlier; again, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber. I congratulate him on his first insight, but I cannot congratulate him on his

  61
  second. If he considers that he was not making a partisan speech, and was not suggesting that the Bill was aimed particularly at the Labour vote in Newham, North-West, he must underrate his ability to introduce a partisan fire and fervour to almost every point that he makes.
  We in this country go so far as to operate compulsory registration and rightly—so: no one here would want to go back on that. Hon. Members have already contrasted the position here with that in the United States, where registration is voluntary and the parties must try to enrol specific groups. That is a very poor system, compared with ours. The criminal offence is failure to send back the form, or putting inaccurate information on the form, but as far as I am aware the prosecuting authorities have not considered it sensible to bring any prosecutions on that ground.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West may believe that the way in which to raise the registration figure from 95.5 per cent. to 100 per cent. is to prosecute people who register their budgerigars, but I do not think that that is the most practical approach. More effective measures are contained in the individual practice notes that we have started to produce in recent years. The first two, on performance indicators and publicity, were published in 1989. The third, on the community charge register, was published in 1990, and gave advice on how electoral registration officers should make the most effective use of their statutory right of access to the community charge register at each stage in the compilation of the electoral register. Some electoral registration officers used the community charge register to increase the number of registered electors for electoral purposes.
  The fourth, on the pre-printing of names on the electoral form and the carrying forward of names on the register, was issued in 1991. In the longer term, we have produced a leaflet on electoral registration and the electoral process, aimed at 16 and 17-year-olds. It was distributed to electoral registration officers, and publicised by means of a press advertising campaign aimed at teachers, together with a new leaflet on voting by post or by proxy.
  Hon. Members may claim that even that has not achieved more than a 95.5 per cent. registration, but, in my opinion, the likely practical effect of that list of steps taken by the Home Office in the past two or three years exceeds that of most of the proposals that have been made in the past three hours of debate.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: When my right hon. and learned Friend prepares the next set of practice notes, will he consider the problems that arise when returning officers send out registration forms as early as the end of August, six weeks ahead of registration date? In my view, that leads to more under-registration than almost anything else.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's suggestion and the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Derbyshire, North-East can be taken into account as we put out the practice notes.
  To return to the amendment, we are talking about the means by which we can help good electoral registration officers to improve their performance by getting people on to the electoral register. That is not a matter for the Bill. It will continue to be done, I am sure, in all those local authorities where electoral registration is given the priority
  62
  that it ought to have. The amendment is wide of the point. It caused the hon. Member for Makerfield to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) what it meant—a perfectly sensible question.
  Without being pedantic, there are other questions that one could ask about what exactly the amendment means. Whatever its precise effect may be, the amendment is based on the argument that if the parliamentary boundary commission, which is not responsible for the registration process, is satisfied that there is some inadequacy in the register, delays should then occur. Whether that means that one should stop the redistribution in that part of the country, or that one should wait until someone discovers whether any of these measures can increase registration, is left unsaid. The amendment is impracticable.
  The House agreed on Second Reading that it wants the parliamentary boundary commissions to proceed on the timetable that is expected by most people: that the end of 1994 is reasonable and that the new boundaries should come into effect at the next general election. The amendment is inconsistent with that timetable. We can continue to take on board sensible suggestions about how to improve the registration process and the matters to which the boundary commissions should pay regard at inquiries. The amendment serves no worthwhile purpose. It would cause needless delay. I ask the Committee to reject it.
  Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State has followed a well-established court room technique by rubbishing the amendment. He went so far as not to read it, therefore misquoted what it says and then suggested that the Committee should reject it for that reason. I agree that there is no serious dissent that a review is inevitable, but to claim that my hon. Friends were disingenuous when they said that the Government were seeking party-political advantage is going a bit too far. Does anybody imagine that the Government would have introduced the Bill if they did not smell party-political advantage? It is not right to say that there have been no protests so far. Ever since the poll tax legislation was introduced in Scotland and then in England, people have realised that one inevitable effect would be a reduction in the number of people on the electoral register.
  The amendment is different from the way in which it was represented by the Secretary of State. It proposes that
  "if the Commission is satisfied that the electorate in any area is to a significant degree different from the population in that area who are qualified to vote then they may delay submitting their report until they are satisfied as to the accuracy of the register."
  That means that if the boundary commission believes, on the evidence before it, that there is evidence to suggest that it is working on a false assumption as to the electorate, it is open to it to delay submitting its report until it is satisfied about the accuracy of the figures. That seems to me to make sense and to be absolutely straightforward. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that it will not matter whether the boundary commission is considering the quota for county purposes or the actual numbers within the constituency. The boundary commis-sion can hear evidence and can decide to delay making its final report until it is absolutely sure that it is working on something like an accurate register.

  63
  6.45 pm
  The debate has made it clear that more people are convinced that the registers are inaccurate than those who are convinced that they are accurate. It is time that the Government accepted that in many cases the registers need to be updated and made accurate. It is wrong for the Secretary of State to say that we are dealing with people who are not very keen about registering. In many cases we are dealing with people who are very keen indeed to do so but who, for some reason, have been missed off the electoral register. To say that a lot have been left off for religious reasons seems to me a pretty low reason.
  This is a fundamental, not an administrative, issue. If the boundary commission is working on the wrong figures, it will get everything else wrong. If it does not know how many people live in a county or in a region in Scotland, it cannot get the quota right. If the boundary commission does not know how many people live within one of its proposed constituencies, it follows that the discrepancy will be even greater than it is now.
  A number of reasons have been advanced for this inaccuracy. As has already been said, it has become socially acceptable to avoid registration. I do not believe that it should be acceptable to avoid registration. Some of my hon. Friends drew attention to the discrepancy between the way in which we treat poll tax registration and the way in which we treat electoral registration. When it comes to the poll tax, every effort is made to follow up those who are not on the register. There is a real incentive to register. A penalty will be imposed on those people who are not registered.
  While the onus is on the poll tax payer to prove that he or she ought not to be on the register, the electoral registration officer would have to satisfy the court that he had sent out the form in the first place in order to prove that it had not been returned and that therefore an offence had taken place. All we ask is that exactly the same enthusiasm should be shown in ensuring that people are on the electoral register. If Parliament decides that it should be an offence not to be registered, all reasonable means at our disposal should be used to ensure that the register is accurate and that people who ought to be registered are on the register. It was done for the poll tax; it ought to be done for the electoral register.
  Mr. David Cleland: Although the Secretary of State may be right when he says that there will never be 100 per cent. registration, that is no excuse for not trying to get as full registration as possible. The Secretary of State has acknowledged today that he knows that 4.5 per cent. of the people in England are not registered. When the boundary commission draws up its proposals for constituency boundaries, ought it not to take that figure into account?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I was seeking to make. The boundary commission ought to take into account the fact that it is common ground that overall the electoral register is at least 4 per cent. inaccurate. The Minister who wound up the Second Reading debate said that he sympathised with those who believed that the register is inaccurate.
  The hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Makerfield made the point that when calculating the quota for Glasgow and Manchester it is important to know how many people are on the electoral
  64
  register. The hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that it was simply an administrative matter. Both hon. Members referred to housing estates in their constituencies that had not been included on the electoral register. When deciding whether constituencies are either above or below the quota, every person who is eligible to vote ought to be considered. I would say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, yes, it is possible to tackle the issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) drew my attention to one case where the electoral registration officer in Grampian had written to people with foreign-sounding names to find out whether they ought to be on the register. It is up to him, apparently, to decide whether to do that. I wonder why on earth he is spending so much effort on it. If he has got so much time on his hands, there are other things that both he and other electoral registration officers could be doing to ensure that the registers are accurate.
  We have suggested many things that we believe that the Government ought to do. However, they have been dismissed by the Secretary of State. We suggested that advertising ought to be stepped up, not just to jog people's memories but to remind them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, of the penalties that might be visited upon them if they do not register. If the Government are prepared to spend money on advertising the facility for overseas voting, they ought to spend money on advertisements to encourage people to ensure that their names are on the electoral register. If the Government thought that they could get more Tory voters on to the registers, I am sure that they would spend public money. If there were ever to be a referendum here on Maastricht, or anything else, a good number of Conservative Members would, I believe, want to make sure that the register of electors was up to date.
  We have put forward many suggestions that would make electoral registers more accurate, because it is a fundamental matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West said, some areas may gain seats while others lose them. If we are to embark on that process, it is important to make sure that we have the right figures to start with. It is also important to know on what basis we are doing it. We should not simply hazard a guess.
  I think that we were absolutely right to table the amendment. The Secretary of State's dismissive response showed that the Government are not interested in whether people are registered to vote. For that reason, we shall press the amendment to a Division.
  Mr. Rooker: I want to deal with a couple of points, one of which was not raised in the debate. Only the Home Secretary made international comparisons. He said that our rate of registration—95 per cent.—compared well internationally.
  Our register must be more accurate than most others because it is done from scratch each year for a single-member, first-past-the-post system. In other words, there is more scope for distortion in our allocation of seats than under other European systems. That is not an argument against other electoral systems but a fact.
  Italian electoral registers are compiled at constituency level and are revised annually over three months. Our registers are compiled from scratch at the end of the year.

  65
  In Italy, whatever we might say about its Government, the names of people who do not vote without a justifiable reason are noted for five years on the public record.
  Electoral registers in Switzerland are compiled and revised continually. Our poll tax register, unlike the electoral register, is revised continuously and is bound, therefore, to contain more people. Electors in Switzerland can abstain if they have a justifiable reason, without which they are subject to a small fine.
  Electoral registers in Denmark, the most quoted country in the House in recent weeks, are compiled on the basis of a central register of persons, but it is revised continuously; it is not an annual snapshot. The chances of it being accurate, therefore, are greater than in this country, where voting is not compulsory. Electoral registers in Belgium are continuously kept up to date and voting is compulsory.
  Those are just a few examples of where the mechanism and administration of the system are so different from ours that they make nonsense of the Home Secretary's point that our 95 per cent. registration rate compares well internationally.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that our registers are compiled from scratch every year; they start with the previous year's register. Sometimes, electoral registration officers have to go through the registers removing people whom they kept including but who had moved away. The hon. Gentleman has not produced a figure comparable to my 95 per cent. Although I have no facts to knock him down with about the electoral registration system in the wilds of Apulia being better than Britain's, I am surprised by his glowing description of Italian and Spanish levels of administration of the electoral system. We must try to improve our system, but it is nonsense to say that it compares badly with others.
  Mr. Rooker: I do not accept that. If our electoral system were the bee's knees, it would have been used for the poll tax, which has a continuously rolling register. That is not the electoral registration system that we use.
  I do not accept the Home Secretary's argument, which we first heard during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which established the poll tax. No intellectual argument was advanced for our having two different registers. The electoral register is a snapshot and is set up from scratch because of electoral registration officers' discretion to dead-wood the register. The use of more modern computer practices in recent years has caused massive shifts in the electoral register. It is set up from scratch each year and the Home Secretary cannot gainsay that. He seeks to give the impression that it is a one-off register—that once people sign they remain on it for ever, which is not true.
  Mr. Barnes: The chance to establish a rolling register will present itself on 12 February, when I shall introduce my private Member's Bill, which will tackle the problems that the Home Office is refusing to tackle.
  Mr. Rooker: The Home Secretary read out the practice notes, which are to be applauded and I do so willingly, but the Home Office cannot say what it does to monitor the effect of those notes. There is no systematic means of it discovering whether new notes and ideas work. The
  66
  Government's refusal to monitor the advice that they give leads me to believe that, for party-political reasons, they do not want to know.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 244, Noes 303.

  Division No. 38

  [6.55 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Enright, Derek

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Etherington, William

  Ainger, Nick

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Alton, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foulkes, George

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fraser, John

  Barnes. Harry

  Galbraith, Sam

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gapes, Michael

  Beckett, Margaret

  Garrett, John

  Bell, Stuart

  George, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Berry, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boyes, Roland

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Gunnell, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hain, Peter

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

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, James

  Hoey, Kate

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoff

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hutton, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'Id, H)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Darling, Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

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

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (IsIwyn)

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Leighton, Ron

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  67

  MacDonald, Calum

  Randall, Stuart

  McFall, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  McKelvey, William

  Redmond, Martin

  McLeish, Henry

  Reid, Dr John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  McWilliam, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Madden, Max

  Rooney, Terry

  Mahon, Alice

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marek, Dr John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Milburn, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Trimble, David

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  Murphy, Paul

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wallace, James

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Walley, Joan

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wareing, Robert N

  Olner, William

  Watson, Mike

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Patchett, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wise, Audrey

  Pope, Greg

  Worthington, Tony

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wright, Tony

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prescott, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Eric Illsley.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Booth, Hartley

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Ancram, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Budgen. Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  68

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cran, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

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

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans. David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorst, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Needham, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayes, Jerry

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  69

  Paice, James

  Stern, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Streeter, Gary

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pawsey, James

  Sykes, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Redwood, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Richards, Rod

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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Rt Hor Sir Wyn

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Viggers, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Walden, George

  Sackville, Tom

  Waller, Gary

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Ward, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shersby, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Sims, Roger

  Whittingdale, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Stephen, Michael

  Mr. David Davis.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'words' to end of line and insert '12 years'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. GeoffreyLofthouse): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
  No. 14, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'twelve' and insert 'fifteen'.
  No. 18, in page 2, line 9, at end insert
  'and the addition at the end of that subsection of the words "save that a Boundary Commission shall not submit such a report if less than ten years has elapsed since the date of the last General Election based upon new boundaries.".'.
  No. 19, in page 2, line 9, at end insert
  'and the addition at the end of that subsection of the words "save that where more than two years have elapsed since the first General Election to be held after the eighth year in which a General Election was held on new boundaries, a Boundary Commission shall not submit such a report until another General Election shall have been held.".'.
  Mr. Darling: This group of amendments deals with the aim canvassed for the Bill—the time that should elapse between boundary reviews. The Government propose that a review should take place between eight and 12 years after
  70
  the previous review, whereas at present it takes place between 10 and 15 years. The amendment proposes a fixed review every 12 years.
  Since 1945, an average Parliament has lasted about 3.8 years. The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that boundaries remain in existence for about three Parliaments. That has some importance, as there ought to be a link between Member and constituency. During the past few weeks, discussions have taken place about the appropriate method of electing Members to the House and to other places, and those discussions will continue. I feel strongly that, whatever the system, there ought to be a link between the Member and the constituency. Clearly, if the nature of a constituency changes too often, the link will diminish in importance. If the Government's amendment to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 is carried, in some cases boundaries might remain intact for only two Parliaments, which does not seem to be a very long time.
  It is interesting that there have been wide fluctuations during the history of boundary reviews. When Parliament reviewed the situation in 1944, it decided that a review period of between three to seven years would be appropriate to get rid of the anomalies that had arisen. During the 1950s, when reviews were carried out by the then boundary commission, it was decided that it was not practical to carry out a review in that short time. In 1958, the period was increased to between 10 and 15 years—quite a big jump.
  The Government are proposing a compromise of between eight and 12 years. There is not much difference between three and seven years, if one consider the old upper limit of seven, and the eight-year period, which is the lowest that the Government anticipate.
  When the Minister replies to the debate, it would be interesting if he could let us have the Government's thinking as to why a period of between eight and 12 years is thought appropriate. We all know that the population has changed significantly since 1976 in some areas, but I am not sure that it will continue to change that dramatically. An alternative would be a rolling register as used for the poll tax, with continuing reports instead of the occasional interim report by the boundary commission.
  I wonder whether the Government are contemplating that the boundary commission will prepare several reports during the eight to 12-year programme rather than one report for the whole of the United Kingdom. It has been suggested that, even with the increased resources anticipated by the Bill, the boundary commission will find it difficult to produce a report for the United Kingdom every eight to 12 years. If it has to produce an entire report after eight years, it will require a considerable amount of work, not merely to make the report but to deal with all the local inquiries and to hear the representations required and allowed in the 1986 Act.
  Are the Government considering several reports, perhaps dealing with parliamentary constituency boundaries in the same way that the Government are dealing with local authority reviews in England, where it is envisaged that reports will have five tranches—to use the Government's phrase? The Government could be proposing one report for the United Kingdom every eight to 12 years. If that is the case, I should be interested to know whether they are satisfied that it can be produced.
  Our amendment suggests a fixed term of 12 years, which would have the advantage of reducing the scope for a Government to vary the term to seek political advantage.

  71
  As became clear during debate on amendment No. 1, it has been suggested that that is what the Government plan to do. If a fixed term were chosen, the Government would not be able to advance or delay it, although they could invite the House to vote down the report, which is also an option at present.
  7.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It is up to the boundary commission to decide when it produces a report, within the window of years allowed by the law. It is not up to the Government to decide when it should do so.
  Mr. Darling: I appreciate that, but the Government are the architect and sponsor of the Bill and I therefore wonder if they have any idea of what they want.
  For example, the English boundary commission could produce one report for England within eight years, or it might decide that it could not do so, and produce two reports for a group of counties instead, thus carrying out a rolling programme. In time, all the counties would be reviewed every eight to 12 years, but not all at the same time.
  If the Minister is making inquiries, could he tell me whether the piecemeal approach would be possible under the Bill as drafted? If not, I should like to know about it, because it has been suggested that it may be a tall order to expect an entire review every eight years. Perhaps the commission will decide to carry out a review every 12 years, which is the upper end of the scale, in which case it will be doing what many people think it ought to have done within the 10 to 15-year period allowed at present.
  It is probably common ground that the present situation is not entirely satisfactory. One of the principal problems is that the boundary commission started work in 1976, but an election was not fought on those boundaries until about seven years later. When it was fought, the boundaries were seven years out of date. The April 1992 election was fought on boundaries that are about 15 years out of date.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know why the Government chose a period of eight to 12 years. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs last considered the matter, it thought that the lower period in force during the 1940s and 1950s was far too short. It recognised some of the difficulties with a long period and came down against a fixed term of 12 years because that circumscribed room for manoeuvre. I am not sure that the Committee was right, because if there is an injunction requiring the production of a report within any fixed period, the commission has to be tied to it, especially if it is to produce one report. Clearly, if it is going to produce a rolling programme, the flexibility to do so within a four-year period allows it to do that. There is something to be said for having a fixed term, so that we know where we are and when the report will be produced and we can proceed on that basis.
  I do not wish to say much more on the subject. I am not sure how much interest hon. Members have in the time allowed. I think that there is far more interest in some of the other difficulties with which we have dealt and in those
  72
  with which we shall deal later. However, there are several questions for the Government to answer and part of the purpose of the amendment is to explore them.
  Mr. Maclennan: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 18 and 19 tabled in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government's purpose in changing the frequency of reviews from 10 to 15-year intervals to eight to 12-year intervals may mean that some constituencies will exist for only two Parliaments before new constituencies are formed. More frequent changes to the constituency that a Member of Parliament represents could have the not altogether desirable effect of undermining the development of a long-term relationship between a Member of Parliament and all the parts of a constituency.
  A degree of stability of parliamentary constituency boundaries is desirable, even though it is obviously sensible to move towards more frequent changes than take place at present. However, if the Bill is enacted as drafted, every second Parliament some Members of Parliament may be uncertain about the boundaries that they will face at the forthcoming general election. I doubt whether that is altogether good for representation; certainly, it would not be good for the democratic process where it involves the party organisations preparing to offer a choice at each general election.
  Amendment No. 18 aims to ensure that no review can be implemented within 10 years of the date of the last general election to be based on new boundaries. Ideally, I should have preferred a differently worded amendment which would enable enactment to take place at a time that was separate from the date of the report. However, I understand that such an amendment would have offended against the long title of the Bill, so I have drafted the amendment to tackle the problem in a different way and to prevent the boundary commission from reporting if the consequence of doing so is to produce a review in fewer than 10 years. The Government are probably right to argue that infrequent reviews lead to wide discrepancies in electorates. However, stability should also be recognised as a desirable end.
  Amendment No. 19 addresses another problem: reviews that are completed just before a general election and implemented almost immediately after. Changes which were finalised only late in 1982 were implemented in the 1983 general election. That is an example of the mischief with which the amendment seeks to deal. If we leave the Bill as it is, the future shape of some constituencies could be known for less than a year before a general election. That would also be detrimental to effective representation and democratic choice.
  I propose that we consider basing the Bill on the principle that the commission should complete a review within two years of a general election. Assuming that a Parliament lasts for four or five years—of course, that is a little longer than the average—that would allow local parties and Members of Parliament to prepare for the new boundaries. Although both my amendments inevitably refer to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 rather than the Bill, I hope that they are clear and acceptable to the Government.
  Mr. David Trimble: I wish to refer to amendment No. 14, tabled in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The points have largely been

  73
  made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is a question of finding the right period. Indeed, the Secretary of State spoke in those terms. Obviously, the objective of moving forward what has just been referred to as the "window" within which the boundary commission has to report from between 10 and 15 years to between eight and 12 years is to allow more frequent changes to boundaries. I agree that more frequent changes are not necessarily a good thing. There is a need for a degree of stability in constituency boundaries. It is desirable to allow a degree of identity to grow up within a constituency, especially if it operates on a single-Member basis.
  We boast about the link that is supposed to exist between a Member of Parliament and a constituency. If the boundaries are changed too rapidly and fundament-ally, that link is destroyed. It takes some time for the link to develop. If there have been major changes, it usually takes one or two elections before people become completely familiar with the new boundaries. The Government's objective seems to be that boundaries should change after every second election. That would mean that people would never become familiar with the boundaries. It is desirable to allow a little more time between changes. We have tabled our amendment to increase the window from eight to 15 years in an effort to give the boundary commission more time, largely in the hope that that will result in greater stability. I find amendments Nos. 2 and 18 equally acceptable and I would support them if there were a Division.
  When boundaries change, a certain degree of change has to take place within constituency associations. That may not be a great problem for Members of Parliament from Great Britain because the local government units under which they operate are more sensible. Unfortunately, the legislation in Northern Ireland is such that we regularly find that when constituencies change we have to break up branches and re-form them. I hope that we shall tackle that problem when we discuss another amendment tabled in my name, which seeks to allow us to operate on more sensible local government boundaries for the purposes of the Bill. The objective of amendment No. 14 is to create a little more stability.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I should like to deal with each amendment in turn, but before doing so I shall answer several of the questions that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) asked. If I understood his questions correctly, I can cover them quickly. There will be four boundary commission reports—one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There will not be one report for the whole of the United Kingdom. That stems from the legislative arrangements in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
  Mr. Darling: The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there will be one report for each country at the same time so that all the reports are with the relevant Secretary of State at the end of 1994. It is the Government's intention that the new boundaries will be in operation before the next election. That is the point that I made. But I asked whether it would be open to the commission to produce a report every two or three years on a rolling basis for England, which is much bigger than the other countries.
  Mr. Lloyd: I was coming to that point. No, it will not be possible. Under the 1986 Act, there must be a report for the whole of England. The final report cannot be produced piecemeal, although, of course, the provisional recommen-dations are produced piecemeal.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central also asked why we had chosen 12 years. The best that I can do is to refer him back to what I said in reply to the Second Reading debate. We have chosen 12 years because 15 years has allowed too great a disparity between electorates as a result of population movements in that period. The size of constituencies ranges from 42,000 electors to more than 90,000 in England, from 32,000 to 70,000 in Wales, and from 23,000 to 78,000 in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman might question whether 12 years is short enough when population movements are so substantial, but we have picked 12 years as the period which gives the continuity of constituency boundaries and Members' relations with them to which several hon. Members referred.
  Indeed, we have adopted the period suggested to the Select Committee by the deputy chairman of the English boundary commission some time ago. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said, amendment No. 2 requires the commission to submit its report on the twelfth anniversary of the previous report. I accept that that proposal has some attractions. It would ensure that reports were not so frequent as the new minimum period of eight years would make technically possible, and it would avoid the possibility of upheavals in constituency boundaries more than once a decade. In some ways, it would also be convenient for everyone to know in advance when D day had to be.
  7.30 pm
  However seductive the idea, alas I fear that such a fixed date would present some real problems for the commissions. They would feel obliged to start their work just as early as they would with the eight to 12 years rule because they would never be able to tell in advance how long they might be held up by local inquiries or judicial challenge, let alone the exigencies of their own work. The open and responsive rules that the commissions must follow mean that completion dates do not finally lie in their hands, nor can they be accurately predicted.
  Indeed, a look back to the timing of previous commission inquiries and reports shows that they have usually slipped back towards the latter end of their reporting window. There is no reason to think that that would change in the future. Indeed, quite the contrary, because that built-in uncertainty in their timetable is why the commissions have always been given a period of years in which they are required to submit their reports. It gives the commissions the elbow room which experience shows that they need.
  The major effect of amendment No. 2 would be to make it inevitable that the commissions would have to sit on their report for a period before presenting it. If the review had gone smoothly, that might be a year or two. If a general election were called during that time, it would have to be fought on old boundaries—out-of-date boundaries based on out-of-date registers—when more up-to-date proposals were available. That would defeat the central purpose of the Bill: to secure as up-to-date boundaries, based on the latest electoral registers, as reasonably practicable. For that reason, I ask the House to reject amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Darling: The Minister said that for each country there could be only one report under the parent Act of 1986. May I draw his attention to section 2(1) of that Act, which provides:
  "For the purpose of the continuous review of the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections, there shall … be four … Commissions".
  Section 3(1) says:
  "Each Boundary Commission shall … submit to the Secretary of State reports"
  —in the plural—
  "with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom"
  —and goes on to say what those should contain. Subsection (2) also refers to reports in the plural. Given the language used, how can the Minister be so certain that the commissions cannot produce a multiple number of reports? Whether that is desirable is another matter. Have I missed a provision that would require the commissions to produce just one report for the whole of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Lloyd: We have both missed that provision and I shall not find it in the few seconds available to me. However, where the Act refers to parts of the United Kingdom it means England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and not parts of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. As usual, the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I shall try to supply him with the exact reference, or references, in the Act before the end of the evening.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) urged on me amendment No. 14. The amendment would change the cycle of eight to 12 years to eight to 15 years. I do not know whether that is what the hon. Gentleman intended, but, if so, I must discourage him. I have some sympathy with his motive of allowing more time between reviews to place more emphasis on the continuity of connections between a Member of Parliament and his constituency and between constituency associations and their constituencies than on equal numbers. But the period of eight to 15 years that he proposes is considerably less satisfactory than the present range of 10 to 15 years.
  Obviously, the commissions need elbow room for unexpected delays, complications and the unpredictable. The time-consuming process of local inquiries and possible court proceedings mean that a range of time must be allowed, but to expand that period from the current five years to seven years, rather than reduce it to four years as the Bill proposes, is to move in the wrong direction. It would increase uncertainty about when the next reorganisation would be introduced. I agree that frequent reorganisations would be unwelcome.
  However, the amendment would also give an undesirable latitude to when the commissions' reports should be ready. The commissions may feel obliged to make judgments on whether it would be politic to complete their reports, thus being drawn into political controversy. For that reason, and because the amendment flies directly in the face of the intention of the Bill to ensure that the commissions' work is speeded up, I ask the Committee to join me in rejecting amendment No. 15.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) tabled amendments Nos. 18 and 19. As always, I listened to him carefully but especially so this time as the wording of his amendments, particularly amendment No. 19, was as complex and testing as if it had
  76
  been drawn up by a talented and experienced Government draftsman. He explained that he wanted to protect the practice of more frequent reviews but, within that, the continuity of relationships within constituencies and between a constituency and its Member of Parliament. He also wanted to avoid changes just before a general election, but, on a quick reading of his amendments, I am not sure whether he would necessarily succeed in doing that.
  I have some sympathy with the idea that there must be at least two general elections between a review and much sympathy also with the belief that there is value in continuity in the relationships between a Member of Parliament and his constituents. However, all commis-sions seem to report nearer to the end rather than the beginning of the time allowed, so some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns would, in practice, be answered by the commissions' behaviour, the timetable that they set themselves, and the time taken by the inquiries that they hear after receiving objections.
  However, I have more substantial reasons for saying that I cannot accept the amendments. Amendment No. 18 would seek to ensure that no report could be made sooner than 10 years after the date of the first general election held on the existing boundaries. Depending on the timing of the report in relation to that first general election, that could mean that no new report would be submitted for up to 14 years. The fact that that could happen was shown when the boundary commission reported in 1969 with recommenda-tions based on 1965 registers, but the first election under its proposals did not take place until February 1974. If the amendment had been in place then, the next proposals would have had to wait until 1984–19 years after the base date of the previous review.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also proposed an amendment with the same objective. However, it, too, could delay reports for up to 14 years and possibly a little longer. I have some sympathy with what he is trying to achieve. A balance must be drawn between equality of electors in constituencies where there are rapid movements in population. and continuity between Members of Parliament and their constituents and within constituencies. I believe that we have drawn the line in the right place. In so far as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland seeks to ensure that change is not disturbingly frequent, I agree with him, but believe that the exigencies of the process will ensure that.
  My basic objection to his amendments is that they could lead to gaps and would frequently lead to gaps that were close to the present ones, which it is the Bill's intention to close. We would be back where we are now, with periods that are too long. For that reason, I invite the Committee to reject those amendments.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving some thought to my amendments. I was also pleased to hear that he accepts the underlying intention of amendment No. 18—that there should be a gap of two Parliaments before change is implemented. I find it difficult to believe that it is beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to achieve the objective that he and I apparently share. If my amendment is defectively drafted, I take full responsibility as I drafted it. However, the Minister's response to that amendment is somewhat encouraging and I ask him at least to consider, between now and Report

  77
  stage, whether it might he possible to meet our common aim of not allowing the electoral boundary map to be redrawn within a period of two Parliaments.
  The purpose of amendment No. 19 was certainly not to protract the process in the manner adumbrated by the Minister. He is doubtless right in saying that it could have that effect. I readily acknowledge that part of the reason for that is the tightness of the Bill's drafting, which has made it impossible to do what I believe would be more sensible: require the Government to lay an Order in Council implementing the boundary commission's recommendation close to the date on which it is finalised. Had it been possible to do that, we could have avoided the difficulties to which he rightly drew attention.
  Does the hon. Gentleman share the view that it is undesirable to produce a boundary change flat up against a general election, and that it is better for democracy and stability for those who organise elections—the political parties, all of which are equally affected—to have some time in which to operate within the new boundaries before the election date is decided?
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that it is more convenient for political parties to have a longer period in which to organise matters. However, I am not so sure that it is necessarily greatly in the interests of the electorate or the working of parliamentary democracy, although there are arguments both ways. If one of the amendments were adjusted—as presently drafted it would not succeed—it could ensure that there was no election within two years of a boundary commission report being produced. However, one must bear in mind—it certainly weighs heavily with the Government—that to put on ice the proposals for more up-to-date boundaries while an election is fought on older, more out-of-date boundaries is not necessarily in the interests of parliamentary democracy and the smooth running of the system.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me nicely to reconsider and I shall not refuse. Although I have some sympathy with his desire for continuity, I suspect that it would be impossible to devise a way of ensuring that continuity without allowing for the period between reviews coming into effect to be drawn out to much the same length as at present. I think that he encountered that difficulty in his amendments. I shall reconsider the matter, but I am not optimistic of finding a solution that satisfies both of us.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Darling: I was hoping that, by now, the Minister might have received the advice that I was seeking. While he was speaking, I thought that he received a piece of paper containing that advice. If that is not so, perhaps we shall have to wait.
  Section 3 of the 1986 Act states:
  "Each Boundary Commission shall … submit, to the Secretary of State reports"—
  plural—
  "with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom".
  That means that each boundary commission will produce reports in respect of that part of the United Kingdom for which it is responsible and seems to suggest that they can produce multiple reports. If I have missed something, perhaps the Minister will intervene.
  Mr. Lloyd: There was something that I missed—the arrival of a piece of paper while I was talking. If I can read
  78
  the handwriting, I believe that it states that section 3(2) of the Act refers to a period of 10 to 15 years from the last report. Under section 3(1), each boundary commission has to submit a single report on its last periodic review. If the hon. Gentleman will wait until later in the debate, I shall check those references myself. I said that he might have the answer before the end of the evening. The night is still young and I still hope that I can oblige him. He can refer to the reference while listening to other hon. Members speak, as will I.
  Mr. Darling: Subject to any ruling by you, Mr. Morris, or whoever occupies the Chair for the debate on the next group of amendments, I think that the matter might still be in order then as it relates to reports.
  Subsection (2) appears to refer to reports produced in accordance with subsection (1), which does not rule out multiple reports. It states that each commission may produce reports—plural—with respect to that part of the United Kingdom for which it is responsible. Subsection (2) merely states that the commissions must report between 10 to 15 years after they last did so. That could be taken to imply that there will be only one report, but the Minister should consider that aspect.
  If there is to be a possibility of reports being produced every eight years, at some stage in the future the boundary commission may say that it cannot possibly deal with the matter for the whole of England and would prefer to produce a series of reports. Such an approach has been heralded by the local government attitude and is expressly taken into account when dealing with clause 3.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised the issue—as I did —of the frequency with which reports should be considered. Like him, and possibly the Minister—I may be stretching a point there—I think that there is something to be said for allowing constituencies to last more than two elections.
  If there is to be a regular review, I assume that there will not be dramatic changes such as we might see in the reports that we shall consider in two years' time, although it is conceivable that there will be. In my constituency the last time around—it was not my constituency then—a large community was transferred from it into another constituency, and a correspondingly large community was transferred into it. Clearly, there is something to be said for fostering the links between a Member and a constituency—hence there is something to be said for leaving a constituency intact for some time.
  Large rural constituencies are different. I am not sure that the boundary of Caithness and Sutherland has changed in recent memory—it has merely encompassed the two counties. But in urban constituencies such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and myself there is a measure of community feeling and people need to identify with their Member of Parliament. That is difficult enough given the natural movement of people, but eight years is also a rather short period.
  The Minister did not hold out much of change. He could more bluntly have said that there was no hope at all, but he was being nice to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and said that he would think again—before rejecting the idea on Report or Third Reading.
  I am prepared to accept that my suggestion of fixed terms of 12 years is not without its defects, but my purpose

  79
  was to ensure that as long as we have single-Member constituencies and set great store by the link between a Member and a constituency, a decent period is needed before they are changed.
  The Minister complained legitimately that constituen-cies based on electorates that no longer exist undermine the whole concept, but the problem that we face arose 10 or 15 years ago when the boundary commission considered boundaries on the basis of the electorate in 1976 and the relevant constituencies did not come into force until seven years later, in 1983. So they were seven years out of date when the first election based on them was fought. The 1976 electorate was in turn based on registration in October 1975. We need to shorten the period between the start of the process and the making of the boundary commission's report. That would deal with many of the Minister's objections.
  There is much to be said for dealing with each country as a single unit in boundary reviews. There is a danger in picking and choosing, selecting parts of the country which may be advantageous. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Conservative Home Secretary would consider it right to review the parts of the country that he thought could disadvantage his oppenents, leaving alone the areas where he considered his strength lay. There is some suggestion that that is precisely what the Secretary of State for the Environment is up to.
  Whatever advice the Minister receives, I hope that he will reconsider the possibility of amending the Bill. A period of eight years represents a problem even worse than might be supposed, because half way through a second Parliament a Member might have to transfer his attention to constituents he hoped to have and away from those he already had. It is already not uncommon for Members to start canvassing people whom they know will enter their constituency, in anticipation of a review—
  Mr. Lloyd rose—
  Mr. Darling: I am about to say something that may stop the Minister wanting to intervene. These matters have been canvassed at some length. I readily accept that this was a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN REPORTS
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 17, leave out 'subsection' and insert `subsections'.
  The Chairman: With this we may also take the following: Amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 29 to 31
  Government amendment No. 11.
  Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 31, at end insert
  `provided that such boundaries are specified in any Act passed on or before that date whether or not that Act (or any part of it) is in force on that date'.
  Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 31, at end insert
  80
  `provided that the Boundary Commission may not publish recommendations which take account both of boundaries which are in operation and of boundaries which are not in operation at the time of publication'.
  Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 38, leave out
  `the Boundary Commission for Wales"
  and insert 'a Boundary Commission'.
  Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
  Mr. Lloyd: You kindly said, Mr. Morris, that I might discuss in more detail the answer to the question asked me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on an earlier group of amendments. His question concerned the possibility of partial reviews of parts of the United Kingdom. I was about to intervene at the end of his speech, but I rise now to clear up the matter.
  The 1986 Act, of which I am sure everyone has a copy, states in section 3(1):
  "Each Boundary Commission … shall, in accordance with subsection (2) below, submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom"—
  in other words, to the whole of England, the whole of Wales, the whole of Scotland, or the whole of Northern Ireland, Subsection (2) in turn states:
  "Reports under subsection (1) above shall be submitted by a Boundary Commission not less than 10 or more than 15 years from the date of the submission of their last report under that subsection."
  Taking the two elements together, it is clear that the boundary commission for each part of the United Kingdom must submit reports to the Secretary of State within the 10 to 15 year window, and those reports must relate to the whole of its part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Darling: I do not want to labour the point, but the Act does not speak of submitting a report to the Secretary of State. It speaks of "reports"—in the plural—which implies that it would be open to a commission to produce several reports on a part of the United Kingdom. The only qualification in subsection (2) regards the period in which the commission must submit the reports. This Act was considered by the House in 1986, within recent memory, and there must have been some reason for the use of the plural.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not remember attending the debate, and if I did, I did not pay close attention. The Act is grammatically correct. The boundary commission remains in existence and is on its fourth review, so "reports" refer to there being at least one report every 10 to 15 years. That is the reason; it has nothing to do with breaking up the reports into sections dealing with parts of one of the nations that make up the United Kingdom.
  If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wants to say more about this later or to see me privately I am willing to talk to him.
  The hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading that he and his colleagues would table amendments to clause 3, and so they have. I said then that I thought the Opposition might be interpreting the effect of clause 3 too widely and I undertook to look again at its wording to check its clarity and scope. I have done that in the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has arrived at the magic moment. They are designed to show more clearly and to obtain with greater precision what was intended in the original wording.
  I hope that I can speedily pass over amendments Nos. 10 and 12 which are technical and consequential to

  81
  Government amendments Nos. 11 and 13. I hope that Government amendment No. 11 makes it clear that the parliamentary boundary commission may take into account in its provisional recommendations only the boundaries currently in force or prospective new boundaries—save in one instance which I shall come to later—which have already been specified in an Act, a statutory instrument, a statutory rule or measure of a Northern Ireland Assembly, but are not yet in force.
  There is thus no question of pre-empting Parliament, the local government boundary commissions or the Local Government Commission. The provision is intended to give the boundary commission a degree of flexibility that will enable it to produce, conveniently for itself and everyone else, the most up-to-date boundaries. With reviews of local government boundaries around the country at different stages at any one time, it is sensible to let the boundary commission make its provisional recommendations with such prospective changes in mind.
  The parliamentary boundary commission makes a series of provisional county recommendations over a number of years. It must then bring them together to make a single final recommendation to the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in which it must have regard to the appropriate boundaries in force on 1 June 1994.
  In 1992 and 1993, it would surely be unreasonable to prevent the boundary commission from taking into account, in its provisional recommendations, boundaries which it knew that Parliament had approved for 1 April 1993 or 1 April 1994. It would mean that it would have to present revised proposals later, which would increase its work. It would also oblige those making representations upon it to do so in terms of boundaries which those petitioners knew were about to be superseded. That would happen if our amendment were not accepted, and it would certainly be so if the House were to accept amendment No. 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central and his colleagues.
  8 pm
  By contrast, amendment No. 4, also tabled by the hon. Member and his colleagues, would achieve a similar effect to Government amendment No. 11, except that it would confine flexibility to boundaries that are adjusted by Act of Parliament only, and not by statutory instrument, which is the normal procedure in England. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will drop amendment No. 4 and accept that Government amendment No. 11 would achieve more completely what I believe that he intends to achieve with amendment No. 4. I also hope that he decides that my clarification meets the worries that persuaded him to table amendment No. 9 and that he will accept that, during the course of the general review, it will certainly be possible and right to have some provisional recommenda-tions made on boundaries that are in force at the time and on some that will be prospective. It would cause great difficulty if that were not to be the case.
  Of course, the final proposals must relate to boundaries that are in force, except in the one instance to which I alluded in clause 3(3). The special exception in that subsection relates specifically to Wales because the review of local government structure in Wales is well advanced. Proposals were set out in a consultative document issued in the spring of last year, and a White Paper is due this autumn, with the intended changes recommended therein
  82
  coming to Parliament in a Bill which should be on the statute book before June 1994. It would obviously be of great convenience to the Welsh boundary commission, to Welsh local government and to the electors of Wales if the parliamentary boundary commission were obliged to have regard to the boundaries in that Act even though they were not yet in force. If that were not permissible there must, at the very least, be an interim review and there could be local and parliamentary elections with the boundaries of constituencies of local authorities not matching as well as they might before such a review took place. For that reason, clause 3(3) makes an exception of Wales and requires the Welsh boundary commission to have regard to boundaries incorporated in an Act on the statute book by 1 June 1994, but not yet in force.
  Amendment No. 13 adds to that by making it clear that, in any provisional recommendations that the Welsh boundary commission may make, it is able to take account of any new boundaries included in a Bill that has had a Second Reading in the House. Of course, there is an element of risk. If the Bill does not go through the House or become an Act by 1 June 1994, the boundary commission for Wales would have to revise its proposals to accommodate them to the boundaries then in force rather than to those that are intended. As I said, there is a risk either way. However, Wales is sufficiently far down the track of reform for the risk of not taking into account the changes made in a Bill that has received a Second Reading and of having therefore to revise proposals in the second half of 1994 to be substantially greater than taking them into account and then having to backtrack because the Bill has missed the deadline and failed to become an Act by 1 June 1994.
  I have some sympathy with amendment No. 7, which makes the exception apply throughout the United Kingdom, hut, on the argument of balance of risk, I advise the Committee to reject it. Proposals for structural reform are nowhere else as far advanced as they are in Wales. In England, a rolling programme will be put into effect by statutory instrument and not by Act of Parliament. In Scotland, the Government are proposing a further consultation stage. What is helpful for Wales and would reduce uncertainty there would import unwelcome uncertainty elsewhere in the United Kingdom, where local government structural reform is less well advanced.
  Mr. Maclennan: I understand the Minister's reasoning in respect of Wales. However, is not the consequence for Scotland of his not accepting amendment No. 7 a serious alteration in the balance of criteria, which will be considered by the boundary commission for Scotland if the Bill is enacted? As the law stands, under the 1986 Act, the boundary commission is required to give greater weight to local government boundaries in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the boundaries to be considered in Scotland are not up to date—that is what the Minister appears to be saying—we will find that the boundary commission in Scotland will give greater weight to other criteria. Therefore, it will alter the balance of substantive law and not simply accelerate the process.
  Mr. Lloyd: The parliamentary boundary commission in Scotland will have to take into account the boundaries that are operational on 1 June 1994. The local government boundary reviews for Scotland are on track to be in place well before that date. Therefore, the normal local

  83
  government boundary review will inform the final report of the parliamentary boundary commission in Scotland. It is possible that two issues are being confused. The structural review and possible change of local government in Scotland, on which a first consultation paper has been issued and for which another is due, is a separate matter.
  It would be difficult for boundary commissions in places where the proposals for the structural reform of local government are not so well advanced as they are in Wales to assess, until the last minute, what proposals they would take into account. They would be far less certain as to what those proposals would be until the final stage and they would not be sure that they would be on the statute book by 1 June 1994.
  As I said, there is a risk for Wales, but there is a far greater risk for other areas of the United Kingdom. What is helpful for Wales, in which structural reform is far advanced, would be unhelpful for other parts of the United Kingdom and, certainly, for the boundary commission, which would have to judge whether the proposals that had been mooted were likely to get on to the statute book. It would then have to decide whether to keep its review going until close to the deadline at the end of 1994 or whether it should properly ignore the proposals because it felt that they would not come into force. The most sensible and helpful thing is to say to the rest of the United Kingdom that the boundaries will be in place and operational by June 1994 with the exception of those in Wales, quite simply because the process is further advanced there. I am talking about the review of local government structure, not the normal local government boundary commissions, which will make their conclusions well in time to enable the parliamentary boundary commissions in all parts of the United Kingdom to take them into account before that cut-off date of 1 June 1994.
  Mr. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the local government review structure in Scotland is likely to be in place by 1 June 1994?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I am saying that it may well not be. Unlike Wales, it is not so far advanced. As I understand it, a consultation document was issued last year and another is due out later this year but in Wales what is now due is the White Paper following the period of consultation, which has now ended. Therefore, it is possible to write into the Bill that which enables the Welsh boundary commission, without much risk, to take the conclusions into account. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, with structural reform of local government in England and Scotland not so far down the track, there could be an uncertainty that would be extremely awkward for the boundary commissions to manage.
  Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he recognise that the consequence of the policy behind what he has just said is that for Scottish parliamentary constituencies, following the next report of the boundary commission and the proposed restructuring of Scottish local government, which is apparently to be subsequent to it, there will be a departure from the rubric of the 1986 Act, which is that the boundary commission shall have regard to the local government boundaries. As
  84
  a result of this process of acceleration, in Scotland, local government boundaries and parliamentary boundaries will not coincide.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is the exception for Wales that is out of line with previous practice. The actual boundaries operational in 1994 will be those that, in Scotland and England, must be taken into account by the parliamentary boundary commissions when making their proposals. There will be no discrepancy. If, afterwards, there is an Act of parliamentary measure in England that changes the structure of local government, there would then have to be, as there is when local government boundaries are changed, an interim review by the parliamentary boundary commission. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that what the Bill proposes would put local authorities out of line with the boundaries proposed by the Scottish parliamentary boundary commission.
  The requirement of the 1986 Act, which applies to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom, is that the commission must take account of the boundaries. It has traditionally been the boundaries that exist. For the convenience of Wales, which is so far advanced, an exception is being made to allow the boundary commission to take into account that which is encapsulated within an Act of Parliament that is due to come into force. It is possible to do this for Wales because it is sufficiently far advanced for there to be a reasonable certainty that that Act will be available in time to be taken conveniently into account. In Scotland and England that is more problematical.
  Mr. Maclennan: There is not a factual misunderstand-ing between us. It is a question of judgment as to whether it is appropriate that the boundary commission for Scotland should be basing its accelerated work under the provisions of the Bill on boundary commissions for local government that will be rendered historical by the Government's future restructuring of local government. The practical consequences of that will be that the parliamentary boundaries will not, for the duration of the period that follows the report and the implementation of the boundary commission's recommendations, coincide with local government boundaries in Scotland, whatever may be the position in Wales.
  Mr. Lloyd: They will be when the parliamentary boundary commission reports. I believe that the local government boundary commission for Scotland is due to report later this year, so there will be a connection between the local government boundaries and the proposals for the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. It may be that measures passing through the House a year, two or three years afterwards will alter local government boundaries in Scotland but it is up to the House, at a future date, to decide on proposals that have not yet been made. If that change comes about, the normal operation will happen, and there will be an interim review to adjust parliamentary and local government boundaries as has been done before. That is the fairest, most open and most convenient way to proceed.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Darling: As the Minister said at the outset, we tabled amendments to qualify clause 3 because we had reservations about it. I am glad that the Minister has also tabled amendments, which have met some if not all of our objections.
  Our amendment No. 3 would have the effect of removing the provision allowing the boundary commis-sion to choose to base its recommendations on boundaries that did not exist nor were in operation. Amendment No. 4 presents the alternative approach of qualifying the clause so as to ensure that the boundary commission could consider only those boundary changes that were enshrined in an Act. I take the Minister's point that amendment No. 11 goes much wider than that, and has met the point of amendment No. 4. Perhaps I should say for the benefit of those who read reports of our proceedings that I welcome Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11, although, for technical reasons and so as to deal with other points in the group of amendments, we may have to divide the Committee against them. The amendments that the Government have tabled will improve clause 3.
  The Minister has distinguished between the work of the local authority boundary commission and local govern-ment structure. He is right to do so in part, except that, once Parliament has determined the local authority structure, it will be necessary for the local authority boundary commissions to redistribute boundaries within those structures. There comes a point, if Parliament has decided what is to be encompassed within a county or a region, at which that may have an influence on the shape of a constituency or constituencies that the parliamentary boundary commission is considering.
  I make that point because, in England, where the local authority structure is being dealt with in groups—or tranches, as the Secretary of State for the Environment calls them—there will be a point at which those boundaries will have a bearing on constituencies. I am sure that the Government know that full well, and that is why the Secretary of State for the Environment picked the groups that he did. They do not seem to be to go naturally together. He said in his statement that he had picked them partly because of their proven unpopularity, which is another way of saying because they consistently returned councils of a political complexion different from the Government and for that reason he wished Sir John Banham to get to grips with them at an earlier stage than the councils which have followed the Government's instructions over the past few years and which are to be left until later on.
  It would be out of order for me to canvass the Secretary of State's views on these matters—we can only guess what he had in mind. However, we can have a pretty good guess knowing this Government and knowing that they would not have introduced the Bill at all had they not smelt political advantage. One can have a pretty good guess that the intention is to benefit the Government by nodding and winking to the boundary commission, or nudging it in the right direction.
  I am sure that clause 3 has been framed so as to allow the commission to pick and choose—in other words, to take account of new boundaries in some areas and old boundaries in others. Amendment No. 9 would deal with that. Had the clause been allowed to pass unchallenged, the commission could have had regard to new boundaries
  86
  that did not exist in the sense that they did not appear in any Act or other measure and were simply twinkles in Sir John Banham's eye, or perhaps the Government's eye. That would have been most unfortunate and an extremely bad precedent. Government amendment No. 11 has qualified the matter.
  In England, five groups or tranches of counties are being examined. The Minister heard the debate that began this afternoon's proceedings, which focused on clause 2 and registration, and will realise that the counties that are examined in England will be crucial in determining the commission's work. It is not so much registration of timing that will have an impact on the political complexion of constituencies but the boundaries that the commission uses. That is why boundaries are so important, and that is one reason why the Secretary of State for the Environment has dealt with these matters in such an odd way. It is also the reason why the Government introduced clause 3. There is an awareness that opportunities may arise that will allow the commission, while following impartially the guidelines, to make recommendations that the Government think might favour them.
  I remember in "Yes, Minister" instructions being given to impartial bodies. It was said by Sir Humphrey that all that was necessary to remain impartial was for the Government to lay down the railway lines and to put the railway engine at one end of the system, and the engine would end up precisely where the Government wanted. At the same time the Government would be completely impartial, having had no regard to any political considerations. Clause 3 smacks of that practice. That is why we have sought to qualify it—successfully, I think —by ensuring that the commission can take account only of those matters that Parliament has already approved. We wish also to ensure that there can be no picking and choosing within any one area.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is what the Bill would do with the amendments that I have proposed. With the exception of Wales, the final report of the commissions to the Secretaries of State can take into account only boundaries that are operational. In provisional reports they may take into account boundaries which are not operational but which have been included in legislation or which have passed through the House of Commons in the form of a statutory instrument. Therefore, the commission cannot pick or choose, and the Government cannot direct it to do so. It is clear that the commission can use only boundaries that are operational by the cut-off date, which is June 1994. There is no choice for either the commission or the Government.
  Mr. Darling: That is precisely the point. If we take the first tranche of counties that are being considered by the Banham report, we understand from the statement made on 3 June 1992 that it is hoped that the first report will be in place by 1 June 1994. Students of boundary commission procedures know that Avon, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Cleveland, Durham, Derbyshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, north Yorkshire and the Isle of Wight are all likely to feature in the review because they raise interesting propositions. If 1 June 1994 is the cut-off date, the Government know that the recommendations that relate to that group of counties will be enacted in some form even if they are not in operation. That causes us some concern.

  87
  If amendment No. 9 is not accepted—this goes to picking and choosing—there is a possibility that the commission, in any one of its reports, will pick boundaries that existed, or exist at present, as well as those that are likely to exist, or will exist because of legislation that has been passed but is not in operation. If I am wrong about that, it will not be necessary to proceed with the amendment. It seems, however, that it might be open to the commission to do that—to pick and choose—in its report. England will be dealt with in local government terms in five separate local government reports, which means that it might be possible for the commission to pick and choose, especially at points where a new set of boundaries cross or converge upon an existing set of boundaries.
  It is interesting that the Government have tabled an amendment that tends to suggest that their timetable has slipped. Perhaps we have a rare insight into the way that the Government's business managers operate. It seems that they take the view that only the Second Reading of the proposals for Wales is under way. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) wishes to speak about that and the Welsh interest generally. Clause 3(3) seems to have much to commend it when we consider Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom, and our proposals would have had the same effect.
  The logic that suggests to the Government that subsection (3) has merit applies also to Scotland's position. I appreciate that Wales is ahead of Scotland in these terms. Indeed, it could be said that in Scotland these matters are not even off the ground yet. The Government decided in the best tradition of government that something had to be done. To their surprise, they discovered that many who they thought were opposed to the present structure were prepared to say that there was something to commend it. Alternatively, there were those who said there was much to be said for not dismantling it merely for the sake of change. I am one of those who take the view that there might be something to be said for local government reform in Scotland, but experience tells me that any change is costly and disruptive.
  Our regional system of government gives us 12 directorates in different areas. To create 20 or 30 local authority structures suggests that there will be a degree of replication. Be that as it may, in Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the local authority structure and local authority boundaries, which are the building blocks for the Scottish boundary commission, are related. If there are to be major structural changes, it follows that there will be major changes to local authority boundaries, which in turn will affect the parliamentary constituencies.
  It could be that the position in Scotland is such that there would be no chance of changing anything within the country. The Government have realised that the next review might come and go before there is anything to show in Scotland. It could be that that is why no attempt has been made to qualify the position in Scotland.
  The approach that the Government have taken to Wales has something to commend it when we consider Scotland. First, if there are to be no local government structural changes in Scotland, we should be told. Secondly, the parliamentary constituencies should relate
  88
  to the present structure. It is a shame that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), appears to be in the Chamber to take notes rather than to speak. Perhaps he could throw some light on the remarks of the Minister of State, Home Office. I remember that in a previous incarnation the Minister of State was challenged to name any one of Scotland's regions and failed to do so.
  Mr. Maxton: The worst feature of the Scottish local government review is that, unlike the English review, it will be done entirely at the whim of Ministers. That is the worst possible thing for Scottish local government.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Darling: Government whims have a great deal to do with all local government reform. All Governments tend to implement changes that benefit their political party, and that is regrettable. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), has been running up and down Scotland promising every village and parish that it will get its own local government structure if that is what it wants—and especially if it creates a little blue enclave in parts of Scotland. It would be unfortunate if our parliamentary boundaries were based on the same piecemeal and ill-thought-out approach. However, nothing in the Scottish Office surprises us. Part of the Tory revival in Scotland happened because of boundary changes. I certainly cannot think of any other way that the Government can make substantial progress in Scotland.
  As I said, there is an important point in clause 3 because local authority boundaries are the cornerstone of parliamentary boundary reviews. Therefore, what happened to the structure of local authority boundaries is crucial. Another important point is the question of local links, where usually local authority boundaries and divisions are taken into account. However, last time around in my constituency, the residents' parking areas were considered to be of paramount importance. It is the first time that I have known community ties to be circumscribed with yellow lines, whether double or single.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have qualified clause 3, although there are other aspects of it that cause us great concern, not least our suspicion that the Government hope to take the opportunity to lay down track lines for the boundary commission to run along, which will be to the Government's political advantage. We remain deeply sceptical about clause 3, but we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Listening to the debate, I was struck by what heavy weather the Opposition have been making of the Government's sensible amendment and the original proposals. Any proposals from a parliamentary boundary commission must, of necessity, be introduced throughout the country at the same time. If local government boundaries are not to be introduced at the same time, it is right that there should be a cut-off point —the point at which a snapshot is taken and from which the parliamentary boundary commission can work. There is nothing new in that. In the reorganisation of the early 1970s, it was common for local government boundaries to be changed in different parts of the country in response to

  89
  local circumstances. The parliamentary boundary commission never found it difficult to take into account those that had already reached the statute book and to ignore those still in the pipeline.
  I see some Labour Members here who represent areas where there were changes during that time. I shall give the example of the city of Northampton. A moment ago, Mr. Lofthouse, your colleague in arms, Mr. Morris, was in the Chair. He came to the House to represent the constituency of Northampton, South when the parliamentary boundary commission created two seats out of the expanded county borough of Northampton. A number of villages on the outskirts were taken into the county borough, which affected the way in which parliamentary constituency boundaries were later drawn. However, that change did not happen within an overall restructuring of local government; it was an extension of the county borough of Northampton.
  Sometimes, a local government structure was completely changed. I recall the creation of the county borough of Teesside in the late 1960s. It comprised part of the old county of Durham—the Stockton-on-Tees area—and part of the north Yorkshire area around Middlesbrough and out to Redcar and the county borough of Middlesbrough itself. In a sense, that was done on an ad hoc basis, because the creation of that county borough was not part of any overall restructuring of local government—it was the response of the local government boundary commission to the individual circumstances of the area. In due course, the parliamentary constituencies were realigned so that they followed the county borough boundaries.
  Sometimes, such individual consideration makes precious little difference to the numbers involved. In my constituency some time ago, 60 electors in the Little Heath area of the parish of Potten End were transferred from the parish of Northchurch. The parliamentary boundaries were realigned, as is possible under the present arrangements, without waiting for the boundary commis-sion's full report. Surely no Labour Member could dispute the fact that if the discrepancies between new local authority areas are minor and involve only a few hundred or a few thousand people, there is a perfectly adequate method for bringing those into line later.
  Mr. Maxton: That has happened in my area and it is a double process: first, there is the local government change of moving a piece of land from one district council to another; then the parliamentary seats are reorganised. However, to do that in Scotland without an independent commission and without any idea of what the reforms will be is quite ludicrous. I recall that the hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that set up the English local government reform. He promised me that if there were not an independent commission in Scotland, he would raise objections with his Ministers.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is a little different from mine, but lie was correct to say that minor changes occur in Scotland just as they occur in England and Wales—and I suppose, although I do not know, in Northern Ireland. I assume that hon. Members are concerned that changes in the pattern of local government will lead to major differences between the building blocks currently used to make up constituencies. That is why I said that such changes were a common feature of
  90
  parliamentary redistributions in the 1950s and 1960s—a period when there was a rolling rather than a total programme of local government reform.
  Many people found themselves in one local authority area but excluded from the parliamentary constituency because the realignment had not happened. That was quite common with the county boroughs. In those days, it was a rule of thumb of the parliamentary boundary commission that where a county borough was involved, it did not cross its border into the neighbouring county. Of course, there were exceptions to that rule. In recent years, the town of Reading has always had some of its wards outside the Reading constituency. Now, some rural wards are included in it.
  In its practical operation, the boundary commission must have regard to changes in local government boundaries that have already come into operation. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister is right to draw the line in the Bill and to say that any changes must have gone through the House and have statutory backing, whether or not those authorities have appointed their new chief executives or held their elections.
  The Labour amendment has two disadvantages: first, there would be guesswork about what might happen to local government: and, secondly, the whole process might be delayed to ensure that everything came into line. That could lead to all kinds of injustices. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was present when I spoke on Second Reading, when I illustrated the system's unfairness by referring to the city of Glasgow, which is over-represented in United Kingdom terms and even in Scottish terms. It would be wrong for people to have a vote that was worth less in an expanding area such as Grampian than in a declining area such as the city of Glasgow. Judging from the remarks of other Labour Members on Second Reading, the view that injustices must be rectified is widely held among Opposition Members.
  There can be no question of the Opposition arguing that redistribution in Scotland should be delayed until after local government reorganisation has taken place.
  Mr. Maxton: The danger is that the boundary commission will do its work and devise draft constituen-cies prior to final local government reform and that those boundaries, drawn up for parliamentary purposes, would affect local government reorganisation. That could occur if certain things happened around the periphery of Glasgow—if, for example, one parliamentary seat encompassed parts of Glasgow, whereas other parts currently within Glasgow went outside the city's boundaries. The temptation would be to include in the new local government area that part of Glasgow that fell into the parliamentary constituency, even if that were against the wishes of local people.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is being highly suppositious.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman spell that?
  Mr. Jones: I could certainly spell it for the benefit of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) —although I see that you, Mr. Lofthouse, are aware of the spelling.

  91
  The hon. Member for Cathcart is concerned not about the work of the parliamentary boundary commission but about Scottish local government reorganisation. That argument will stand or fall on its own merits. In due course, at the next redistribution, the commission will adjust the boundaries so that they came into line with the new local government units in Scotland.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: It will not be necessary to wait until the new round of parliamentary boundary commission reports. There will have to be an interim review—as there always is when local government changes that ought to be taken into account occur between boundary reviews.
  Mr. Jones: I addressed that point earlier, when I said that minor discrepancies could be dealt with by an interim review without difficulty. It would not be so easy to deal with major discrepancies.
  When local government was reorganised in 1973–74, a large number of constituencies found that parts of their area fell in one county or another, crossed districts or crossed regional boundaries in Scotland. The practice was to leave such discrepancies alone until the next parliamentary redistribution. A perfectly adequate mechanism exists for adjusting parliamentary boundaries to deal with minor discrepancies. Major discrepancies would have to wait for—and would certainly influence —the next round.
  The situation in Wales is different, because it is much further down the line. Where the boundary commission can reasonably expect progress before it has to report, it ought to draw boundaries on that basis. That is happening with the English redistribution at this very moment. Work has started on those counties whose external boundaries have, under the present local government system, already been fixed. The commission is coming to the end of its work in those counties where the local government boundary commission has not yet finished its work.
  I represent a Hertfordshire constituency that is right at the end of the line in terms of the boundary commission, because there is uncertainty about the boundary between Hertfordshire and Greater London. Although only a few thousand electors will be affected, the commission— perfectly reasonably—thought fit to wait until that matter is resolved, if that can be done in time, before specifying the internal boundaries.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there not a fundamental difference between boundaries in England which have been fixed and agreed and those in Wales which are no more than Government proposals, and which may have been agreed on Second Reading? What is the hon. Gentleman's view of the constitutional propriety of proceeding with that which is no more than the first stage of the passage of legislation through the House?
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Jones: The situation is the same as with a proposed statutory instrument for altering the boundaries of an English county, when the boundary commission might say, "We know that this work is proceeding and will wait until the boundaries are specified before we produce our proposals for that particular area." I see no difference between that and the Welsh situation.
  92
  The snapshot approach is the right one. It allows boundary changes to be taken into account as and when they occur and of necessity it introduces a cut-off date; otherwise the entire process might be delayed. We all agree that should not happen because of the injustices that might arise. I commend the Government's proposals and the amendment to the Committee.
  Mr. Alun Michael: I want to comment on amendment No. 13 in view of the contributions made by Government Members who, on the tenuous basis that they have Welsh surnames, profess to have a degree of expertise in Welsh politics. The Secretary of State for Wales would have been wise to be present. As one can hold that office these days without representing a Welsh constituency, perhaps the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and the Minister of State, Home Office are vying for the job of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman should take care.
  I ask the Government to withdraw amendment No. 13 with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The amendment refers specifically to Wales, as the Minister made clear. It presumes on the existence of Sir Humphrey's railway track. It is constitutionally improper, presumptuous in regard to Parliament and foolish in common sense terms —and it is appropriately numbered.
  The amendment's very existence shows that the Secretary of State for Wales has been denied time in this Session for a Bill to reorganise Welsh local government. The Minister of State said that the Bill was unlikely to be on the statute book until June 1994, which is a very different timetable from that given to us in Wales.
  Amendment No. 13 seeks to add the words:
  "a boundary which has not yet come into operation on a particular date and which, apart from this subsection, would not be regarded as prospective on that date shall be so regarded if it is specified in a Bill which, on or before that date, has been read a second time by the House of Commons".
  The Bill says that parliamentary boundaries must take into account local government boundaries following local government reorganisation in Wales. That new local authority boundaries should be taken into account even if they have not yet been established is reasonable, provided that Parliament has spoken. The boundaries would be set out in an Act of Parliament and would receive Royal Assent. At that stage the future of local government would be clear.
  The amendment introduces a much more outrageous proposition—that the boundaries contained in a Bill that has not reached the statute book should be taken into consideration. That is unreasonable, because Parliament would not have spoken—and the basis of reorganisation may change considerably.
  On the last group of amendments, the Minister stressed that he was not presuming on decisions to be made subsequently by Parliament. When we consider the implications, it becomes clear that amendment No. 13 contains an outrageous proposition. It would lead to the deciding of constituency boundaries on the assumption that there would be no chnge in the forthcoming Bill to reorganise local government in Wales between Second Reading and Royal Assent.
  That may be the Government's aspiration, but to assume that there will be no change shows contempt and disregard for the democratic processes of the House. It is a very uncertain basis for decision-making. It is possible,

  93
  for instance, that the Government will fall and the reorganisation Bill will never become law. In that event, if the amendment were passed, the details contained in a piece of failed legislation would have to be treated as though they reflected reality. That is manifest nonsense. It is also constitutionally improper and borders on the unconstitutional.
  Such a proposal is presumptuous in terms of the procedures of the House. After Second Reading come the Committee and Report stages, Third Reading, all the stages in the House of Lords and consideration of Lords amendments. It is insulting to both Houses to assume that they will make not the slightest change in the boundaries during those stages.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely the proposal is not only presumptuous but arrogant. How can hon. Members be persuaded to sit on a Committee when they have been told in advance that the result will be the same whatever they say or do? Is that not a perfect example of the Government's arrogance in power?
  Mr. Michael: Indeed it is. It may be the basis on which some Conservative Members sit on Committees; certainly, they seem at present to be remarkably silent on important issues contained in Bills.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend has made a good point. During the passage of a Bill to reform local government in Scotland, introduced in 1972, major amendments relating to the structure of Scottish local government were accepted. The region of Fife was created from previous divisions; areas such as Eastwood, Bearsden, Bishopbriggs and Clydebank, which under the original proposals were to be part of Glasgow district council, were taken out of Glasgow and new district councils were formed. Surely we are entitled to expect the same consideration from any Government when a Bill of this nature is going through Parliament.
  Mr. Michael: I entirely agree. Even in the Government's terms, Second Reading—the stage at which we are supposed to take account of the boundaries in this instance—relates only to the principle of a Bill, not to its detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed out, it is arrogant of the Government to assume that no changes will be made.
  The Minister said that Wales was further down the road of local government reorganisation than Scotland or England. I suspect that he has not seen the map published by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the dotted lines all over it which indicate uncertainty about the boundaries and a willingness for considerable further discussion. The Minister is less well-informed about Wales than he usually manages to be. There has been no satisfactory discussion about the functions and powers of local authorities, for instance. To anyone who cares about local government—as my hon. Friends and I do—the whole position appears unclear and uncertain.
  Mr. Anderson: The point was made earlier that at least a Scottish Office Minister was present, even if he was present only to take a note. Is it not rather puzzling that no Welsh Office Minister is present, even to take a note?
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend's timing is impeccable. Welsh Members with an interest in the matter are present, including the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. It
  94
  would have been a little more sensible, for the Minister's own sake, for a Welsh Office Minister to move the Government amendment. In defending the clause and other Government amendments, he has completely destroyed the case for amendment No. 13. He must have felt very embarrassed about having to move the amendment and to speak in terms that were clearly inconsistent with everything that he had said about other aspects of the clause. There must be opportunities to improve the legislation during its passage, possibly in an entirely non-partisan fashion. That is very important, when a measure as important as a Bill to reform local government in Wales is going through the House.
  The amendment is a sign of the Government's desperation. In recent weeks, we have tried to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales to come clean about the timetable for the reorganisation of Welsh local govern-ment. It is not as clear and simple as the Minister suggested in his introduction. Questions have been answered with prevarication, or—in this afternoon's Welsh questions, for instance—with patronising knockabout. The amendment, however, tells us the truth. The fact is that the Cabinet and the Government's business managers have denied the Secretary of State for Wales time for his local government Bill. He originally promised us a White Paper in the autumn and legislation during the current Session. Tonight the Minister said clearly and without prevarica-tion, as he confirmed our suspicion that such a timetable could not be met, that it was unlikely that the Welsh local government reorganisation Bill would be in place even as late as June 1994.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman consults Hansard—and if, as I believe, my memory of what I said is correct—he will find that I was talking about Scotland and explaining why the same arrangements could not be made in Scotland and in Wales. What I said about Wales—the hon. Gentleman repeated it tonight—was that it was well down the track and that a White Paper was projected for the autumn. When the measures will be presented in the form of a Bill and how, when or if it will be on the statute book will depend on decisions made by the House, but the opportunity will certainly come much earlier than in the case of Scotland. In deference to Scotland, and to ensure that all is understood and taken into account, a second round of consultation is planned by Scottish Office Ministers.
  Mr. Michael: The Minister manages, with a straight face, to make a brave attempt to defend the indefensible. He did make the comments about Scotland to which he referred, but at a different point he justified Government amendment No. 13, on the ground that the Welsh legislation might well not be in place by June 1994. Were that not the case, there would be no justification for the amendment. The Minister is plainly very confused about the timetable for Wales.
  The legislation has wider implications, with which we cannot deal tonight. Local government members and officers need to know where they are; they do not know where they are with the timetable in its current state. We need continuity and quality of services, but that will be put at risk by this kind of doubt. The Local Government Act 1972 requires elections in May 1993, and primary legislation is required to cancel or delay them. Clearly, legislation must at least be introduced before the summer

  95
  recess for a range of practical reasons, if those elections are not to go ahead next year. It would be greatly to the convenience of local authorities in Wales if the amendment were agreed to, says the Minister. It would be greatly to the convenience of everyone in Wales to know exactly what the Government are up to—when the local government measure is to be introduced and when the measure to delay or cancel the elections is to be introduced, if that is what is going to happen.
  The democratic processes of selection, the fact that returning officers need to prepare for elections and the fact that members and officers need to plan ahead—all this is uncertain because of the timetable that has been let out of the bag today by the Minister. It must be very embarrassing for the Secretary of State for Wales to be in this position, but it is a major headache for many people and organisations throughout Wales, not least those engaged in local government.
  The amendment seeks to cover up the embarrassment of the Secretary of State for Wales. That is no good reason for such an extraordinary piece of drafting which makes nonsense of and shows great disrespect for the parliamentary process. I invite the Minister to show respect for the House and to withdraw amendment No. 13.
  9 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Government have clearly run into a problem. The dilemma is that they want to press ahead as speedily as they can with boundary revisions because they have made a neat calculation that it would be in their interests to do so and to get the boundary changes in force by the time of the next election. They are not, however, in any way balancing that wish with an effort to ensure that the legislation is as accurate as possible. Their wish to expedite the process has run into difficulties. It conflicts with the fact that the local government boundary revision is taking place and that the building blocks upon which the commissioners will make up their minds are changing. The dilemma that faces the Government is that this is a moving target.
  I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 13, since much of what I should otherwise have said has already been covered extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The amendment tells us that the Government's timetable for Welsh local government reorganisation has slipped. The Government had thought that the Bill would have completed all its parliamentary stages by the time the boundary commissioners reached their conclusions. It also tells us something about the clout, or lack of it, of the Secretary of State in the Cabinet. The Welsh Office plea to have this matter expedited has obviously not been heard by the Secretary of State's Cabinet colleagues.
  It is not unknown for local government and parliamentary boundaries to be different. It is a little inconvenient, but it is no great tragedy. In my county, West Glamorgan, the one seat of Gower straddles both the Lliw valley district council and Swansea city council. It is less convenient, but it happens. Any changes that may come into being as a result of the recommendations arising from local government reform can be taken into account, if they are not major recommendations, in interim reviews.
  96
  We are therefore bound to ask, why the hurry? Why expedite this in Wales? As amendment No. 13 suggests, a Second Reading debate should be taken as the starting point for the local government commissioners.
  The Minister has said that there is an element of risk. I made the point in an intervention that the constitutional priority that the Government seem to be ready to overlook means that, in effect, the Government are saying that the local government commissioners can go ahead confidently on the basis that what the Government have proposed, by way of a Bill whose Second Reading has been agreed in principle, will be what will emerge at the end of the parliamentary process. There can be no other conclusion.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: There can be another conclusion, if anybody with any common sense reads the Bill, as amended. The boundary commission for Wales can produce provisional recommendations based on that which is contained in the Second Reading debate. The real risk to which I referred is that there may be changes to the Bill as it goes through the House. The boundary commission for Wales would then have to revise its recommendations. Only the boundaries that are legislated for in the Bill when it has become an Act can be used as a basis for its final recommendations to the Secretary of State. They will form the boundaries of the new constituencies. That is exactly what the Bill says, with the amendments. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That is because he has not followed the argument. I accept that it is difficult to follow a Bill and the amendments that have been made to it and to get both perfectly clear, but I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman looks quietly and carefully at the amendments he will find that what I have just said is correct.
  Mr. Anderson: Despite all the Minister's talk of risk and comparative risk, his message to the commissioners is, "You can act on the supposition that what is contained in the Bill as agreed on Second Reading will be the ultimate result." That is the reason for the difference between Wales and England, but it is hardly an encouragement for hon. Members to serve on a Committee.
  Recommendations on boundaries are questions of judgment and are not likely to be matters of partisan conflict. For example, Labour-controlled West Glamorgan county council is making its own recommen-dations, Labour-controlled Swansea city council is making other recommendations and Labour-controlled Lliw valley district council is making yet others. Port Talbot district council, which includes Aberavon, and Neath district council, which are both Labour controlled, are making other recommendations. Non-partisan judgment is being pre-empted by what the Government are suggesting.
  It is unconstitutional to prepare on that basis—the arrogance of power, as I have called it. I argue that there is no great problem in Wales. We do not have great disparities in electorates, which may be a problem elsewhere, nor are there great movements of people as there are between the inner cities of London and other great cities and the suburbs. That is not a problem which might impel the Government to accept an argument for expediting consideration.
  About 20 unitary authorities, rather less than the 38 seats in Wales, are likely to emerge from the Secretary of State's suggestion. On the basis of logic, therefore, it is

  97
  unlikely that there will be much overlap or difference between parliamentary constituencies and the lower number—almost half as many—of unitary authorities that will emerge.
  Wales should be treated on a par with the rest of Britain. There is no great hurry in respect of Wales. Indeed, on the contrary, there should be time for reflection and for avoiding the unconstitutional haste that the Government are accepting in amendment No. 13.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not detain the Committee long. A number of my colleagues have been slightly suspicious of the Government's timing. That being so, I must be deeply suspicious, because the Government have managed to get this group of amendments to coincide with a well-attended meeting—and not the first one, I might add—of my constituents who are deeply angry about the way in which the boundary commission is proposing to transfer them to Brent, another Labour-controlled authority.
  I want to focus my comments briefly on the sense of community and the link between the Member of Parliament, the local authority and citizens in the area. That has been causing me some concern, because an increasing number of people have been saying to me that they feel that the sense of community has been overridden. I fear that the way in which the Government have approached the Bill, and indeed the timing of its Committee stage, suggests that they have given too little thought to the sense of community and all that goes with it.
  The issue is fairly clear. I shall quote briefly from the Department of the Environment's guidelines to the Local Government Commission for England and shall urge the Government to take them on board in the longer-term changes that they are suggesting, which will not help with the link between Members and councils. The Department says:
  "Local authorities should be based on communities. The Commission should assess the extent and strength of local people's loyalties and identities, and their interests. It will use its own judgment as to the best method for making this assessment, but should bear in mind that research has shown that people's sense of identity with the community is often intuitive."
  That is an important and strong point, on which I agree 100 per cent. with the Department of the Environment.
  The Department then says:
  "The Commission should take account of people's expressed preferences … The Commission may also wish to use statistical information about the pattern of people's lives within the area under review. It may wish to look at patterns of employment, shopping and travel … The Commission should base its recommendations on communities … The Commission should take account of the strength of identity associated with each level of community."
  In paragraph 11, the Department says:
  "All functions"—
  in a local authority—
  "should be exercised in a way that is responsive to the needs and wishes of local people, and, particularly in the case of strategic functions, is in the wider public interest. The Commission should look at the exercise of functions from the point of view of the citizen, not the providing authority. It should look for a structure to achieve the most effective and convenient exercise of functions to fit in with community identities and which is in the interests of local people."
  Complaints have been expressed strongly in the case of both the Edward Woods area which, it is proposed, should go to Kensington—that has not come about yet—and the
  98
  College Park area, about which there is a meeting tonight in my constituency, which will go to Brent. The argument is neither about different services in different areas nor, I emphasise, about different political control. I do not take the view that one should never cross local borough boundaries in London because I believe that we are getting to the stage where that might be necessary. I hope I can take the Minister with me in saying that that should be a measure of last resort because the sense of community is more important. We should go for that in the first instance.
  I bring to the Minister's attention what the boundary commission itself recommends. To return to the railway analogy, the issue goes off the rails at this point. If we continue down this road, we shall go off the rails with the identity of interest of Members of Parliament. The commission recommended that College Park should go to Brent despite the wishes of the community.
  The commission says:
  "Nearly all respondents claimed to identify strongly with Hammersmith and Fulham, and to have a few connections with areas north of the Harrow Road."
  The commission gives examples of that. It then says:
  "We acknowledge the strength of local residents' opposition to our draft proposal; approximately 50 per cent. of residents signed the petition opposing our draft proposal, and Hammersmith Council's survey apapeared to show a similarly high proportion of households to be against major change. We accepted that College Park was unusually self-contained for an inner London community, and that it could be said to have a distinct identity."
  I emphasise that point to the Minister.
  A number of hon. Members have referred this afternoon to the difference between inner-city areas and other areas in terms of the rapid turnover of population. There is a rapid turnover of population in areas such as mine. However, it is also true—we ignore this point at our peril—that a core component of the local community stay within the area for most of their lives. They have a history going back not just over one generation, but over many. To override them is not in the interests of good local government or in the interests of keeping well the link between the Member of Parliament and the constituency, unless we believe that it is desirable to cross borough boundaries when deciding the parliamentary constituency.
  9.15 pm
  It is interesting that the boundary commission justifies its actions by referring to simple geographical barriers, such as the Harrow road which is the main factor dividing College Park from Brent. The commission says that it is not of major importance and could be crossed.
  The report continues:
  "In reviewing our draft proposal, we were conscious of the points raised … in particular, we bore in mind that the wishes of the people are only one of the factors which we must consider."
  I take issue with that. I accept that the wishes of the people are only one factor, but I do not accept that they are minor. The report continues:
  "We acknowledged the strength of feeling expressed by the considerable number of College Park residents who made their views known to us, but we had also to consider the pattern of community life and the effective operation of local authority services."
  I understand that there could be a cost factor if we were discussing the large constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but we are talking about transferring an area half a mile down the road, or perhaps a mile at most, from the rest of the constituency. I have run around the periphery of my

  99
  constituency several times and I can do it in about two hours, but that is not true of many constituencies. I do not want us to lose sight of the fact that communities matter, and I hope that the Government will not do so.
  The report continues:
  "Notwithstanding the views of local residents, we concluded that College Park has natural affinities with Brent."
  The commission concludes that, but no one else does, and it continues:
  "We realise that most local authorities are resourceful in overcoming problems",
  and it states that it is perfectly possible to do so. It then refers to geographical divisions such as the Grand Union canal. Most of my constituents do not have to worry about crossing the canal because several bridges cross it, and it is therefore not difficult.
  There is real anger about the College Park proposal. The last meeting to discuss the proposals before they became a recommendation was attended by between 150 and 200 of the 700 residents, and I am missing a meeting tonight. They were massively opposed and no one spoke in favour. I attended a similar meeting about the proposal for the Edward Woods estate and surrounding areas. Again, no one spoke in favour, and the other local authorities are not in favour.
  What on earth are we doing considering amendments that the Government say must be made to ensure that the link between local authorities and the constituencies of Members of Parliament remains when all the evidence shows that the boundary commission is making decisions for geographical reasons rather than on the basis of the essence of community, which is what we should consider?
  I accept that the commission should have the power to override arguments about political expediency. I want the boundary commission to be independent. If I thought that the Conservative party was fighting to get these parts of my constituency, I might be suspicious, but it is not. The proposal is apolitical in that respect.
  Community and a sense of it should be our highest priority, especially in inner city areas where the community is already fractured. We fracture it further at our peril. If a community wants to stay in a local authority and a constituency, that wish should be given a high rating, and should be overruled only in exceptional circumstances, not as the norm.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I was alarmed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) refer to running around his constituency. If I were to do the same, there would be a by-election before I had got 100 yards.
  Mr. Maxton: What about swimming?
  Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know how I would get on if I tried to swim to the Bass Rock. I think we will pass over that.
  The Government have concocted a number of dog's breakfasts and the Bill is certainly one. I do not doubt that they will go ahead with it—they always do—but I shall make a few comments so that I shall be able to say, "I told you so."
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend has done that a few times too.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, I have, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and especially on the subject of the poll tax.
  100
  I was intrigued to read reports in the Scottish press late last week that no less a person than Professor Ross Harper had been designated as the Conservative party action man on boundaries—a sort of gerrymandering officer. We shall be watching him. I hope that truly independent boundary commissioners will not let him get away with anything like that.
  I recognise the importance of much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said about strengthening community loyalties. The song in Musselburgh in my constituency is
  "Musselburgh was a burgh when Edinburgh was nane, and Mussleburgh will be a burgh when Edinburgh's gane."
  So if anyone suggests lumping Musselburgh with Edinburgh he will be in trouble.
  I shall now speak to the amendment, Mr. Lofthouse. I have the honour to represent the constituency of East Lothian, which is happily coterminous with East Lothian district council. Since the last major local government review, everyone has known where the boundaries of East Lothian are. Indeed, no less a person than the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is a citizen of East Lothian. He should know all about East Lothian. Everyone knows where the boundaries are except the Post Office, which still uses the old county areas as postal addresses in some areas, just for the sake of confusion.
  The boundaries are largely a straightforward matter. Everyone understands what the district is, who the Member of Parliament is, what the constituency is and what the local authority is. But it was not always thus. When I was first elected to Parliament in 1978 I was elected to the former constituency of Berwick and East Lothian. It was a truly historic constituency. It was first constituted in 1908 from two former counties. I make that point because it is relevant to the position that we are working ourselves into.
  The former constituency of Berwick and East Lothian outlived the 1974 local government boundary review. So the constituency for which I was elected included parts of two regional council areas and no fewer than four district council areas. I had to deal with six local authorities, six chief executives, and six sets of local government officers. As other public authorities often conduct their administra-tion on the basis of local authority areas, I also had to deal with two health boards, and two separate offices of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of Employment and so on.
  The arrangement in my former constituency was fairly chaotic for my office but it was also confusing for many of my constituents. Ideally, indeed necessarily, local authority boundaries should be related to the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies. It is nonsense when the Government are embarking on a major review of the structure of local government in Scotland for them to move ahead of that to create new parliamentary constituencies. We shall go back to the same confusion into which I was elected with bits of local authority areas in old parliamentary constituencies. The Government tell us that they intend to make major changes to local authority areas.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who said that

  101
  he did not want any arrangements to be made for Wales that would bring the new local authorities in Wales in line with the new parliamentary constituencies as early as possible. The remarks of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are diametrically opposed to those which we heard a few minutes ago from the Opposition Front Bench in respect of Wales.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I cannot speak for Wales but I think my hon. Friend is about to.
  Mr. Michael: I am happy to do so. The Minister makes another attempt to get himself out of the mess that he has dug himself into during the day. I am happy for the new local government boundaries in Wales to be taken into account as quickly as possible. Indeed, I made that clear in my speech. That is what the Bill would do as it was originally drafted. If the amendment were accepted things would not be done as quickly as possible. The commission would be instructed to run around doing things on the basis of speculation which would be disrespectful to the House and constitutionally dubious. I do not believe that there is any difference between my hon. Friend and me, however much the Minister suggests that there is.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am relieved to hear that and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
  I conclude my remarks because my message is straightforward and simple. There should be some sensible correlation between parliamentary and local authority boundaries.
  The Government say that they will embark on a major restructuring of local government in Scotland. It is probably right that they should do so because the two-tier local government structure has not been a success. People do not understand it and it does not work well. There is certainly a case for a single tier local authority system and I should be inclined to support such a principle, although I am always deeply suspicious of the detail of schemes that the Government introduce.
  Although the structure of local government in Scotland should be reviewed, it would be absurd to construct a whole new set of parliamentary boundaries in Scotland on the basis of existing local government boundaries if, just one or two years after that, a whole new network of local authority boundaries were superimposed on those new parliamentary constituency boundaries. I have suffered from that problem in the past and seen the confusion that it causes, not only for Members of Parliament but, more importantly, for the people whom we represent. It can give rise to chaos and I fear that the Government are drifting into that again. They should not do so.
  Mr. Barnes: Government amendment No. 13 is a constitutional insult. The Government should not deal with the Bill as though it were an Act of Parliament. I do not know what precedents exist for that. I assume that they are bad precedents and I doubt whether many precedents deal with constitutional matters.
  I wish to support amendment No. 3. A reform of local government boundaries should not take place alongside a reform of parliamentary boundaries because the paramet-ers within which the commissioners are supposed to act, as provided in the Bill, place them in an invidious position.
  102
  Considerations about changes in local government areas are affected by considerations for parliamentary boundaries, and vice-versa.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I wonder which review he will cancel: the review of local government boundaries; the review of local government structure; or the parliamentary boundary commission review. If we cannot run any of those in parallel, something must give. Which one would the hon. Gentleman dispense with?
  Mr. Barnes: I shall leave the problem of which problem to sort out first with the Minister. It would be possible to go ahead with parliamentary boundary reviews relating to existing local government structures while, at the same time, engaging in discussions about local government structures to come into place later. Obviously, the two will then be out of line but later, when a further parliamentary boundaries review takes place, the position will be adjusted according to local government boundaries. That is one way in which the problem could be tackled but one set of commissioners should not have to consult another set of commissioners about what is taking place.
  Mr. Lloyd: They do not.
  Mr. Barnes: Policy guidance documents issued by the Department of the Environment say that, for the purposes of local government boundaries reviews, a number of people must be consulted. Many of the areas in which interest should be taken are reasonable, and the document says that particular account should be taken of the views of Members of Parliament. But among the people to be consulted, the document also lists the parliamentary boundary commission. That shows at least one way round the problem—in altering local government boundaries, consultations must take place with the parliamentary boundary commission.
  That seems to be fraught with danger, and nowhere more so than in Derbyshire. We have often heard Conservative Members refer to David Bookbinder as a demon. Now that he has been replaced as leader, presumably Martin Doughty's name will be used instead. Martin Doughty responded to the local government boundary changes suggested for Derbyshire, which is included in the first tranche of local government authorities. The alterations to Derbyshire's local government boundaries will be taken into account when considering parliamentary boundaries. Derbyshire is not down to be considered for early parliamentary boundary changes, and is likely to be in the last tranche to be reviewed, so new arrangements will have to be made.
  On page 76 of County News, 14 June 1992, Martin Doughty states:
  "Eight of the ten authorities chosen for immediate scrutiny by the Government were either set up following the 1974 local government reorganisation, or border onto those councils.
  The exceptions are the Isle of Wight which has two small districts within the county boundary, and Derbyshire which at this stage seems to stand alone".
  We are told that the Derbyshire review has to take place because of concern about the county and its boundaries. Those worries had been mainly expressed by Conservative Members from Derbyshire. Pressure has been applied by the politics of Conservatism in Derbyshire to ensure that that county is included in the first tranche. That should not be a reason for including Derbyshire in the review of local

  103
  government at the initial stage when the parliamentary boundary review and consideration of parliamentary seats are included in the arrangements.
  There is a considerable danger in a county such as Derbyshire being put forward for the local government review and the parliamentary boundary review. It may be that the parliamentary review will be limited to the current boundaries of Derbyshire and split that county into a number of regions, but it is possible for the local government commissioner to ask the Minister for other districts to be considered and added to the review. We would then have a problem, as some authorities in Derbyshire might begin to shrink, while others expanded. Even if that does not happen, we should not allow the Minister even to consider it. That should be set out clearly in legislation.
  It should be clearly set out in legislation that boundaries constitute one parliamentary sphere and local authorities another, and the two should not be cross-referenced or alterations made to the political map that help certain groups close to the Government. The Minister should seriously consider amendment No. 3, which begins to resolve some of those problems. He should carefully respond, particularly in relation to whether clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: I shall try to keep my remarks brief—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should never tempt me into making long speeches—they might get one.
  I apologise for missing the Minister's earlier remarks, but ! want to speak entirely about Scotland this evening. Unlike in England and Wales, no independent commission is looking into local government reform and reorganisa-tion in Scotland. That is entirely at the whim of Ministers, who make proposals and then push through legislation. That can never be right. Even at this late stage, an independent commission should he set up.
  Let us examine the time scale for local government reform and its relationship to the parliamentary boundary commission. It appears that in September this year there will be a White Paper with Government proposals on Scottish local government. I am told that it will contain a series of proposals, offering choices and even various maps. We do not know if that is true, but certainly there will be no legislation this Session. It will be November 1993, the Queen's Speech, before we even know what the final proposals are. The legislation will then go through the House of Commons. The regional elections planned for May 1994 will be cancelled and the regions will be allowed to continue until the legislation becomes an Act and the new structure is put in place for May 1996. The boundary commission might therefore report in 1994 with no idea of what the new local government structure in Scotland will be. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has come out with some very odd and vague ideas, concentrating on only one aspect—Eastwood district council should remain in existence and hell-mend the other authorities in Scotland. On the other hand, the commission might not do its job and might allow the local government boundary reforms to take place and then set up new parliamentry boundaries related to the new local government structure.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, the latter is the best way of
  104
  approaching the matter. It ensures the continuing links between Members of Parliament and local government areas, so that they will not find themselves representing various parts of various local authorities. Ideally, they will represent only one—
  Mr. Home Robertson: Or two.
  Mr. Maxton: Two would be fine, if there is a two-tier structure, but we should not have to represent a mass of local authorities.
  Is it impossible for the boundary commission to wait for the new local government structure in Scotland to be in place? No. I accept that the boundary commission can only begin its work; it cannot finalise it on the basis of the first draft of the first Bill to come before the House, in November 1993. Presumably, that legislation will complete all its stages by June 1994. By then, it may have been changed and the commission will have to take account of the changes. Last time we effected a major local government reform in this place—not that I was here—the legislation was changed significantly as it went through this place and the other place.
  In June 1994, the boundary commission would have to lay out its draft boundaries for the parliamentary seats in Scotland. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with the final drafting and submissions not being ready until February or March 1995. After all, we have just had a general election, in April. This place works on a five-year lifespan. Therefore, at least constitutionally, the next general election will take place in April, or even May, 1997. That is when the parliamentary boundaries need to be in place unless we witness another occasion when a Prime Minister believes that he can rig the election by calling it when it suits his purpose rather than that of anyone else.
  The fact is that, in constitutional theory, the next election will take place in April 1997. Why all the rush and hurry about getting the boundaries in place before then? Even if the Government decided on a four-year term rather than a five-year one, my time scale would still allow time for the boundaries to be in place by April 1996. We would then have the new parliamentary and local government boundaries in place at the same time. That is the sensible way forward and I hope that the Minister will take heed of it.
  Mr. Maclennan: The different treatments given to Wales and Scotland by the Bill are understandable in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales has made his intentions clear. However, it is unsatisfactory that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sat through the debate and kept the intentions of the Scottish Office entirely covert.
  The Bill would affect Scotland, England and Wales differently. It would be reasonable to expect the Under-Secretary to explain precisely how the Bill is intended to operate in Scotland. Under the 1986 Act, Scotland is not in the same position as England and Wales. Schedule 2(4) to the Act clearly sets out that Scotland is to be treated differently and that the boundary commission in Scotland is required to have regard to local government boundaries. If the Bill becomes law and the Government amendments are accepted, the boundary commission in Scotland will have no option but to act on existing local government boundaries and to produce a report which, if the Government's intentions as expressed by the Scottish

  105
  Office are clear, will be overtaken by structural changes as soon as they are implemented by the House. Therefore, Scottish local government and parliamentary boundaries, which should coincide or at least bear some relationship to each other, will probably be completely different. That is not satisfactory. It is up to the Under-Secretary to explain when he intends to bring forward the structural proposals for change so that we can consider them before the Bill leaves the House and assess whether a measure such as that proposed for Wales would be appropriate for Scotland. However, in Scotland, we have no proposals to consider.
  Although the procedure for Wales is unusual, it relates to the facts as they were spelt out by the Ministers responsible for Wales. The proposal is understandable, if novel, but the great cloud of unknowing in respect of what will happen in Scotland is unacceptable. We do not know whether the work of the boundary commission in Scotland will be accelerated, which many people would accept, or whether the boundary commission's recommendations will diverge from any that may have to be considered later in this Parliament.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I have noted what most hon. Members have said. Some of their points have been lost in the obscurity of my handwriting, so I shall start with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I should like him to confirm whether he made this following point, because it is less logical than most of his points. He appeared to want the boundary commission to ignore some changes that Parliament will have willed in local government boundaries and that will already be in operation when it makes its report. Is that so? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am glad that, at least to that extent, he agrees with the Government that, if there are local government changes in operation by the time that the parliamentary boundary commissions have to make their final report, they should take those into account in their reports.
  The hon. Gentleman then queried the opportunities for provisional recommendations to be taken into account before the boundaries are in operation. That will be legitimate only—except in the case of Wales—if they have been legislated for. They will not be acceptable in arty final report unless they are in operation. Throughout the debate, many hon. Members have talked as if the final report could be based on recommendations that appeared only in a Bill that had had Second Reading when it can only be for recommendations that have had statutory form through becoming an Act. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wishes to intervene, I would be happy to give way to him.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Darling: I bet the Minister would—it was painfully obvious that he was taken by surprise when he was called to speak. I will give him this opportunity to wake up. My point was that it is conceivable, especially in England because of the way in which the Government are going about local authority changes, that there could be areas in which there were new boundaries in operation, or at least enacted and capable of being in operation, and others where they were not. I was concerned that, in such an area, the boundary commission might make recommendations that were partly based on new boundaries and partly on
  106
  old boundaries. I would not urge the boundary commission to ignore a new local authority area. However, I am concerned about the mixture.
  Mr. Lloyd: With the rolling programme in which sectors of the country are taken as they will be in the local government review, that must inevitably be so if those reviews roll across the date of 1 June 1994, which is the cut-off point for the convenience of the boundary commission so that it knows what it has to take into account and what it does not have to take into account. If we accepted the hon. Gentleman's amendment, the boundary commission would be in great confusion as to what it should be taking into account. Inevitably there will be a mixture.
  The hon. Gentleman also assumes that the revised local government structure will, somehow, produce more favourable circumstances, and therefore constituency changes, for the Conservative party than existing local government boundaries. I do not know how he can assert that, as he does not know what the local government commissions will be recommending. He cannot possibly make that prediction, and I suspect that he has no principled objection to the arrangements being made and does not know how they will end up but finds it a little easier to fill in his time by spraying around assertions that he cannot sustain.
  Like others, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the timing of local government restructuring in Scotland. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State has said that there will be a further consultation stage in Scotland this autumn. This will probably give some idea of how the Government will implement their manifesto commitment. The Secretary of State has not given any idea of timing. The current thinking is that there will be a Bill in the 1993–94 Session and that Royal Assent may be given in the summer of 1994. Elections for the new authorities could take place in the spring of 1995, with the new authorities coming into effect in April 1996—well after the parliamentary boundary commission will have been obliged to report.
  Mr. Maxton: Did the hon. Gentleman say that there could be elections in 1995? The legislation is unlikely to be through this place much before October or November of 1994.
  Mr. Lloyd: There may be a need to elect a shadow authority to take over from the existing authority for a period. If the new structure comes into effect in 1996, which is quite possible, I think that even the hon. Gentleman would accept that that will be well after the commission has to report. It would be extremely difficult for the commission to take the new local government boundaries into account two years after it had to report.
  Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister confirming that the regional elections of May 1994 will be cancelled? That would appear to be the implication of what he is saying.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may draw what inferences he thinks logical from what I say. These are matters for the Secretary of State for Scotland and I shall not trespass too far on matters that he will be making clearer in his consultation document later this year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), in an interesting and well-informed speech, rightly said that local government boundaries need to be

  107
  known before they can be taken into account by boundary commissions. That is the basic common sense that underlies this measure, but it was not adopted by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The hon. Gentleman invited me to withdraw amendment No. 13, which he described as improper and presump-tuous. In fact, it is entirely sensible and practicable.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth professed to be outraged. That was either because he had not followed the debate—he certainly had not followed clearly what is in the Bill or in the amendments—or, more likely, because he felt that he needed to generate some strong emotion to compensate for the lethargic Opposition Members sitting behind him, as well as empty Benches, while he was speaking.
  There is no question of the Government taking Parliament for granted. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was wheeled on to make the bluster that I have described. He will know that the plan is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will produce a White Paper in the autumn, which will set out the reform that is planned and the timetable.
  Mr. Michael: If there was a need to wake anyone, it was the Minister. Very few Conservative Members were sitting behind him whereas the Opposition had the presence of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). My hon. Friends on the Opposition Back Benches have given their Front-Bench colleagues lively support. The Minister has suggested that we are divided against one another when we are not. The reality is that he is divided against himself on amendment No. 13. We say that the Bill should not proceed on the detail of a piece of proposed legislation that has not passed through the House. We certainly should not ask the Boundary Commission for Wales to do so. It is as simple as that. The Minister seems not to understand that.
  Mr. Lloyd: When the hon. Gentleman was speaking I could see behind him rather better than he could. I shall return to the argument that he has reiterated when I direct my remarks to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who made the same point. He, too, let his imagination run riot while his common sense took a back seat.
  The only assumption that lies behind the Bill is that the Government will introduce a Welsh local government Bill sufficiently early for Parliament to determine its fate well before the Boundary Commission for Wales has prepared its final recommendations, which must depend on what an Act states rather than on what is contained in the Bill. If changes are made to the Bill, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Boundary Commision for Wales will have to take them into account when it makes its final recommendations.
  Should the Bill be defeated, the commission will have to operate on the basis of current boundaries. Parliament is not being taken for granted. Instead, there is an opportunity for the Boundary Commission for Wales to take into account the sort of structure that is proposed in the Bill in the full knowledge that it will have to revise its thinking if the Bill is amended before its reaches the statute book.
  108
  I was glad that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) approved of the guidelines for the local government boundary commission. He said that, in London, the time had come to cross the borough boundaries. In fact, there is a principle that there should be constituencies of more or less equal size. I understood from what he said that he accepted that as a general principle, while emphasising that that does not always fit easily with respecting local government and other boundaries and social links. That tension will always be there and the boundary commission must balance that. No doubt its members will read the report of this debate and note the remarks that the hon. Gentleman and others made about the position in London. There is sufficient guidance for the boundary commission in schedule 2 of the 1986 Act—
  Mr. Soley: Will the Minister go a little further and tell the boundary commission that greater priority should be given to the sense of community? That is especially true if it is thinking of crossing borough boundaries. The sense of community, especially in inner-city areas, must be maintained; it must not be subservient to the geographical lines, which often appear to override the sense of community.
  Mr. Lloyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and no doubt the commission will note his views. It would be wrong of me to give additional guidance to the commission on how to interpret its responsibilities. Its guidance is contained in the schedule to the 1986 Act, and it is for the boundary commission, not me, to construe that.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) recommended that we do exactly what we are planning to do in Scotland, which is not to make changes until the local government boundaries are either in statute form or in place. That is why the arrangements in the Bill for Scotland differ from those for Wales. I am sure that that makes complete sense. It is for the convenience of the boundary commissions and for the more accurate delineation of the constituency boundaries along the lines of those that are about to come into existence or that have already done so.
  I ask the Committee to support the amendment and to reject the Opposition amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 29 to 31.—[Mr. Darling.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 249, Noes 298.

  Division No. 39]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Berry, Roger

  Alton, David

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blair, Tony

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Boyes, Roland

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Battle, John

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

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beckett, Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Bell, Stuart

  Caborn, Richard

  109

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Hutton, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Illsley, Eric

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ingram, Adam

  Cann, James

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'Id, H)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jamieson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Janner, Greville

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Cousins, Jim

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

  Cryer, Bob

  Khabra, Piara

  Cummings, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Leighton, Ron

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davidson, Ian

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

  Denham, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dewar, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobson, Frank

  McCartney, Ian

  Dowd, Jim

  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

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Mandelson, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Derek (B 'p Auckland)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Fraser, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Martlew, Eric

  Galloway, George

  Maxton, John

  Gapes, Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Milburn, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, William

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoon, Geoff

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L.

  110

  Pope, Greg

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Gavin

  Prescott, John

  Straw, Jack

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Radice, Giles

  Trimble, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Raynsford, Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Redmond, Martin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Reid, Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walley, Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rogers, Allan

  Watson, Mike

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Short, Clare

  Wray, Jimmy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Tony

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Spellar, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cash, William

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clappison, James

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ancram, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Ashby, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Congdon, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Y/yre For'st)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Bates, Michael

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Devlin, Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Booth, Hartley

  Dicks, Terry

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowis, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Dunn, Bob

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eggar, Tim

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Elletson, Harold

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Butler, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Butterfill, John

  Faber, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  111

  Forman, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marlow, Tony

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Mates, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorst, John

  Milligan, Stephen

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Norris, Steve

  Harris, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Page, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Horam, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Redwood, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sims, Roger

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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knox, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  112

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stephen, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Streeter, Gary

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sumberg, David

  Watts, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wells, Bowen

  Sykes, John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thomason, Roy

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Willetts, David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tracey, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Trend, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Walden, George

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 2 to 16.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.

  COMPANIES
  That the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1196), dated 19th May 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Housing (Percentage of Approved Expense for Repairs Grants) (Lead Plumbing and Radon Gas Works) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft British Gas pic. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft British Telecommunications pic. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  AIR TRANSPORT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8051/91, relating to competition in the air transport sector, 8090/91, relating to an Agreement between the Community and the Kingdoms of Norway and Sweden on civil aviation, and 8270/91, relating to establishment of a single Community market in air transport; welcomes their general thrust, noting that the promotion of a liberal air transport market in Europe and the removal of artificial restrictions imposed by central government on the freedom of enterprise has been the United Kingdom's policy objective for several years; and supports the Government in seeking to establish as liberal a regime as possible in Europe, while providing safeguards to protect consumers and carriers from the effect of exploitation or predatory practices.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Human Rights (Brazil)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the problem of human rights abuses in Brazil. I particularly want to draw the House's attention to the problem of the street killings of Brazilian children and the selling of other children into sex slavery.
  I am pleased to see that a number of other hon. Members are in their places who I know hope to speak in the debate. I should especially like to thank the hon. Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who, with me, have formed the all-party group to fight for the rights of Brazilian street children. They hope to be able to speak.
  In the past months, in conjunction with the Jubilee campaign, we have endeavoured to raise the plight of the children who have been dying by their thousands in Brazil. I thank the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is in his place to answer the debate, for the personal interest that he has taken, and in so doing I link officials in his Department who were good enough to arrange the visit of Paulo Melo—a deputy in Rio who was a street child—to London in May, when he met the hon. Members for South Dorset and for Edinburgh, South and briefed us on the position first-hand.
  I should like to thank the Prime Minister for taking time during his visit to the Rio summit to visit Sao Martinho—a Catholic home run for Brazilian street children—for taking the trouble to make representations to the Brazilian Government and for taking time to see Paulo Melo.
  The purpose of the debate is to underline the widespread all-party concern about the killings and the sending of young children into sex slavery. I hope that the debate will encourage the Government to persist in their efforts to bring the killings to an end.
  What are the facts? It is estimated that about 7 million homeless children live on the streets of Brazil. There are thought to be a further 10 million children on the streets who are not technically homeless. They are the victims of disease, hunger, drugs, vice and violence. They are preyed upon by criminals, the police and gunmen hired by local business men to clean up the neighbourhoods. In Rio alone, there are some 800,000 street children, of whom 20,000 have no homes. The rest have either run away or have been forced into begging or selling by their families. Many come from dispossessed peasant families who have lost their land and have moved to the sprawling favellas that surround the city. Church leaders estimate that in the past three years alone 5,000 poor children have been murdered in Brazil.
  In his meeting with the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South and for South Dorset and myself, Paulo Melo produced official figures confirming more than 300 killings of children in Rio in the past year alone, with another 10,000 suffering from the effects of violence. Last week, an independent research group in Rio, the Centre for the Mobilisation of Marginalised Populations, put the number of adolescents and children murdered in the state of Rio in the past year at the even higher figure of 700.

  115
  In addition to the killings, the Anti-Slavery International group made a submission to the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights in May this year. It highlighted the trafficking of young women and children into sex slavery and prostitution. State deputy Joao Batista repeatedly raised the issue. For his pains, he was shot dead in 1988. Paulo Melo told us how he had been forced personally to finance the publication of his parliamentary commission's report because the authorities disapproved of its contents. He also said that he had been threatened by a senior judge when he gave support to a grieving family who were seeking justice.
  The complicity of the police, of the judiciary and of the highest reaches of Brazilian society has meant that the killings have continued and that the murders have gone on with impunity. Paulo Melo showed us in this building photographs of some of the children who had been butchered and dumped like vermin on the streets. The newspaper reports he gave us have a chilling familiarity, daily cataloguing the deaths of little children. Usually a child's body is found with several knife wounds or bullet holes. Torture is followed by a final, fatal wound to the head. Some children simply disappear. The allegation has also been made to me that in some cases the youngsters who have disappeared have been used as spare parts in expensive organ transplant operations in the United States and in Europe.
  In addition to all those abuses of human rights, Brazil faces endemic, grinding poverty. It has a colossal foreign debt of $114 billion. Despite having ample means with which to feed its 144 million people, the world's eighth largest economy is unable to do so because it is also the most indebted. The result is that in some areas, 200 of every 1,000 children born may die in infancy. Last year, 350,000 children died of preventable diseases and one third of Brazilian children suffer from malnutrition.
  What are we to do in the face of all that? First, the Government must continue to use every possible diplomatic and economic measure against Brazil until it brings to justice the perpetrators of the violence. Secondly, we should link our aid to measures that will create a more just society. Thirdly, we should demand to know what has happened to the children who were swept off the streets in preparation for the Rio summit. Fourthly, we should support practically places such as Sao Martinho, which feeds 200 children daily. It is desperate for food and resources. The Prime Minister himself visited it during his recent stay and it was previously visited by the Princess of Wales. Fifthly, we should ask our officials in Brazil—I hope that the Minister will be able to give this undertaking tonight—to monitor and to continue to investigate the allegations concerning racketeering in human organs for transplant, the selling of children into sex slavery and the complicity of the authorities in the murders of children.
  Men such as Paulo Melo run huge personal risks in exposing those acts of barbarism and cruelty. By supporting him, Parliament will act true to the spirit of William Wilberforce, our greatest ever champion of human rights. He once said:
  "It is a barbarous policy which confronts the troubles of a turbulent land by the extermination of its own inhabitants. This is the calm, not of order, but of inaction; it is not tranquillity, but the stillness of death."
  So it is in Brazil today.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: People may wonder why Members of Parliament become especially passionately involved in a particular cause. My eyes were opened to the issue because an individual constituent was brought face to face with the problems, which is often the reason why Members of Parliament become involved.
  Bruce Harris is the South American director of Casa Alianza, or the convent house. He is a constituent of mine who lived in Wareham and now works in South America. He made a plea for help to me because he was being shot at in Guatemala simply for trying to bring to the public's attention the sort of problems that we have also witnessed in Brazil and other countries.
  The House can do a great deal to urge the Government to talk to their counterparts in Latin America. The spotlight has already been switched on. The Government should keep it focused on the problem until it is tackled properly by the people on the ground. There is no question but that all the people of Brazil will need to concentrate their minds and efforts to make their Government work towards solving the problems.
  I pay tribute to the Minister, whom I know has visited various Governments and discussed the problem. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister. When he attended the conference in Brazil a fortnight ago one of his main acts was to show that street children are of great concern to this country. We do not want to be over-critical this evening. We want to offer the hand of friendship to the people of Brazil and to their Government. We are trying to help them and this evening's spotlight will help to illuminate the problem.
  My colleagues, who started the all-party street children group, will continue to work until we feel that the problem has been properly tackled.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As we all know, the Earth summit has moved on from Rio, but visitors to it, including the Prime Minister, and the world press saw a great deal and focused attention on the plight of the street children there.
  As many of the world's wealthy countries gathered there was genuine shock at the plight of street children, which has been highlighted in the excellent report from the Jubilee campaign on street children in Brazil and Guatemala. I believe that its campaign to protect children's rights did a great deal to ensure that street children were not subject to wholesale clearances and slaughter when the summit took place, although I accept what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said about the unanswered questions. I pay tribute to him for his work and for securing this Adjournment debate. As he rightly said, it is a question not merely of murder but of sex slavery.
  I pay tribute to Mr. Wilfred Wong of Frederick street in London for his efforts to draw the matter to my attention and to that of other members of my party. The concern showed by the Government is greatly appreciated. The Brazilian Government must take action to stop child poverty, child prostitution and killings, to bring traffickers and murderers to justice, and to provide proper accommodation and education for those children.

  117
  The western banks and financiers must relieve the crushing burden of debt. We will welcome the Minister's comments on those issues and his support in progressing the matter to end human misery on a massive scale.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) who has done a great service to the House in raising a matter that we must all be troubled about.
  I have been to South America. I attended the world conference of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, about 19 months ago in Quito, Ecuador. Although that is not Brazil, I saw street children. I saw the extraordinary contrast between Members of Parliament from all over the world, attending a conference with all the razzmatazz, and staying in a wonderful hotel provided with every conceivable comfort, and the children who were sleeping on the pavement outside that hotel all night.
  When we went out by bus we had police protection from the children. When we went out to various engagements and occasions at night and we returned to the hotel at midnight, hundreds of children surrounded the coaches asking for anything that we could provide for them.
  Brazil is a relatively prosperous country compared with some of the other South American countries. But I want to make it plain to the House that the problem of street children goes right across South America. It is the result of over-population. The national and local governments cannot fulfil the housing and economic needs of large families. Most of the street children come from excessively large families. The parents can no longer care for the young so the children are pushed out on to the street, where they form their own street gangs. It is extremely difficult for those young people ever to have normal lives again. They protect, feed and help each other but it is not surprising that in Sao Paulo in Brazil four fifths of today's prison population comprises former street children. It is an epidemic problem.
  At the Quito conference I found it disturbing that, although I and the British delegation raised the problem of street children, the South American countries did not want to discuss the matter. One country said that the problem was being dealt with and hostels were being built. But none of the countries was comfortable discussing or seeking to deal with the problem of street children.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has undertaken an important task in asking the British Government what they can do about street children. It is a hideous, bizarre and horrific problem. I suggest that the British Government have to decide whether they can take a position. I do riot believe that they can do much on their own. I understand that the British Government gives £1.4 million in support to Brazil. Together the European Community countries give £47 million to Brazil. The institution of the EC gives £1.4 million. Altogether, Britain, the EC countries and the EC give almost £50 million to Brazil.
  I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), here tonight. I know that he is interested in the matter and will be anxious to do what he can. I would have thought that it would do a great deal of good if that £50 million were directed to the
  118
  Brazilian Government on the condition that they did something about the problem and came back to the EC with practical proposals.
  The problem of street children is a problem of over-population and large families. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether grants could be made to help the International Planned Parenthood Federation to do its splendid work. That would do a great deal to help street children in the years to come.
  10.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Its importance has been underlined by the number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), has also remained here specifically to listen to the debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently visited Brazil. That visit drew attention to not only Latin America and the environment but the problem of street children. My right hon. Friend reported to the House on 15 June on his visit to Rio. A passage in that report contained information about his discussions with President Collor about street children. I shall return to that later in my remarks. We are all very much aware of, and distressed by, the human rights situation in Brazil, which the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House this evening.
  The plight of street children is particularly tragic. Human rights abuses are always a matter for concern, particularly when children are the target. We hope that the attention which the Earth summit has brought to their existence will serve to act as a catalyst to action to improve their situation.
  To pick up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams, Ministers of the EC and the Rio group, which includes Brazil, agreed at their meeting in Santiago on 29 May, which I attended, to pay special regard to the needs of children. But we should not overlook the efforts which President Collor and his administration have begun to make—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset.
  The Brazilian Government adopted the Statute of the Child in 1990. A parliamentary commission into the assassination of street children has been set up and its report recently adopted. While confirming the gravity of the problem, it has made a number of practical recommendations, for example, on the carrying of firearms by security firms.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said in the House on 2 June, the Prime Minister, who visited a refuge for street children in Rio, raised the subject with President Collor and expressed readiness to continue to help. As President Collor told the Prime Minister, the federal Government are pressing those states most affected to take steps to defend children against abuse.
  Hon. Members will be interested to know that municipalities now do not get Government help unless

  119
  they have a programme in place for street children. The Attorney-General is taking steps to correct the position where members of the military and the military police cannot be tried by civil courts, and is seeking to punish those responsible for deaths. The private sector is also helping. A number of companies in Brazil have adopted street children's centres. All that gives us some modest reason for hope for the future as far as these children are concerned.
  However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said, the phenomenon of abandoned children is not confined to Rio de Janeiro. It is acute in other parts of Brazil but also prevalent in many other countries, not just in Latin America. It stems principally from poverty and lack of education.
  We are discussing with the Brazilian authorities a number of urban health care projects, and we are assisting the non-governmental organizations—the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Oxfam—in their work in that area. Child Hope UK has just received some £100,000, and Flowers of Tomorrow £20,000 during Baroness Chalker's recent visit to Rio de Janeiro.
  As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill is well aware, we invited Dr. Paulo Melo, the President of the Rio state commission on the extermination of street children, to come to the United Kingdom in May as a guest of Government to discuss the problem. He has a number of interesting ideas in mind—for example, the expansion of professionally staffed legal centres which make it possible for people to lodge complaints against the police in an effective way. My officials and I shall keep in touch with him to help where we can. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, Dr. Melo—a former street child—said that the United Kingdom has done more to help than any other nation. I recognise that, given the scale of the problem, that should not and will not make us complacent. But in view of Dr. Melo's standing in his subject, we can take some satisfaction from it.
  We cannot bring about change single-handed and it is the Brazilian authorities that have the first responsibility. UNICEF is already working with the Brazilian authorities, assisting with police training. We have impressed upon the Brazilians the need to control child abuse. Some of the problem stems from the fact that children under 18 cannot be held responsible for criminal acts under the law, so very young children are often encouraged by their elders to embark on a life of criminal
  120
  violence. I visited street children in Guatemala and can say that not all street children are young innocents. But the problem is that the fear that they instil in the public ensures that punishment falls on innocent and guilty alike —and often very terrible indeed it is.
  It will take time to eradicate ill-treatment by vigilante groups, but I believe that a start is being made. The Brazilians themselves and the Brazilian Government are those we must look to for prime action, although we shall continue to encourage and support them. We are well aware that street children are not the only problem. The fate of young girls recruited as domestic staff in the mining camps is also beginning to cause serious concern. That problem will be even more difficult to control because abuse tends to take place in districts far removed from the rule of law. Once again, the solution is education and training which would allow those girls to earn a proper living. Their plight is a familiar phenomenon of under-development. We have just heard of similar problems in Mozambique. I hope, as I am sure do other hon. Members, that the Rio debate on sustainable development will lead, in time, to conditions in which the pressures that create the problems of street children and rural exploitation begin to fade.
  Abuse of human rights is, alas, widespread, and I hope that the House will allow me to mention rural workers, whose problems we have not either forgotten or ignored. After the interest created by the Chico Mendes trial, we have continued to monitor the position closely, particularly the annulment of the sentence of one of the accused, Darly Alves da Silva, who is due to be re-tried. We are in close touch with the Rubber Tappers Union and the Amazon workers centre on that. We have also arranged with the procurator general to be present at other impending, but less publicised trials, wherever possible.
  I have listened with care to the views of hon. Members tonight and I share their concerns. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made those concerns known at the highest level in Brazil. We are doing what we can, but there is no simple or quick solution to the problem. The answer lies in tackling the problems of poverty and poor education. We will continue to encourage the Brazilian authorities and work with them and the admirable NGOs to help to find a solution to the terrible problems that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill brought to our attention tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Animals (Illegal Imports)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many illegally imported animals have been discovered by customs officers at each passenger terminal at Heathrow Airport in each of the past five years.

  Sir John Cope
  The discovery of illegally imported animals in the passenger terminals at Heathrow airport by customs officers is a rare occurrence because the airlines report illegally landed animals direct to Customs and to the Corporation of London's animal quarantine station before they are allowed to leave the aircraft. They are then taken direct to the animal quarantine station.

  The numbers of animals landed illegally were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1991

  160

  11992

  83

  1 To 17 June.

  Records do not distinguish between terminals arid are not available for earlier years. Only one of the animals concerned was discovered by Customs officers in a terminal.

  Income Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue forgone in each category of allowances and reliefs, including MIRAS, to income tax in each of the last four years; and if he will estimate the regional distribution of the forgone revenue.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available United Kingdom estimates for the last four years are provided in the 1990 and 1991 editions of "Inland Revenue Statistics" and in appendix D of the Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement (Cm 1920). The corresponding information for regions is not available.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend performance-related pay in the civil service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are already doing so. For most civil servants, a limited form of performance-related pay has been in place for some years. However, last year as part of our citizens charter programme the Chancellor made a statement to Parliament in which he announced the Government's intention to negotiate changes to the long-term civil service pay agreements to introduce, among other things, very substantial extensions of the existing performance pay arrangements.
  2
  Since then, a good deal of progress has been made in negotiating new schemes for virtually all civil servants, which will mean major changes for the ways in which they are paid. Any increase within a pay scale will have to be earned through performance, and better performers will earn greater increases. Pay increments will no longer be automatic. Every civil servant will have an element of his pay each year linked to his performance.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) industrial and (b) non-industrial civil servants were employed in (i) April 1979 and (ii) April 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures for 1 April 1992 are not yet available; they will be announced in Parliament within the next few weeks.

  There were 166,460 industrial civil servants and 565,815 non-industrial civil servants at 1 April 1979; and 63,168 and 498,735 respectively at 1 October 1991.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants were employed on the most recent date for which this information is available; and how many were employed on the same date in 1982 and 1987.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There were 561,903 civil servants at 1 October 1991, the latest published figures; 655,043 at 1 October 1982 and 585,155 at 1 October 1987.

  Landowners, Cumbria
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many landowners and estates in Cumbria have benefited under the tax procedures by which tax liability is reduced on the condition that there is an undertaking to manage and protect the land from development and allow reasonable public access.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are six cases in Cumbria where conditional exemption from inheritance tax and capital transfer tax has been granted to land and buildings in return for undertakings to maintain and preserve the property and provide reasonable public access to it.

  Land Access, Scotland
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the counties or regions in Scotland in which he has granted exemptions from(a) inheritance tax or (b) capital transfer tax for the granting of access to land for each year since 1983; if he will give the amount and the numbers granted in each county; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There have been 26 designations of land in Scotland for exemption from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax. In addition, there have been 37 designations of historic buildings in Scotland, some of which will have extended to surrounding land. Some designations of historic buildings have been for the purposes of the tax exemptions for maintenance funds rather than for exemption of the buildings themselves.

  A detailed breakdown by county or region is not readily available.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Sir John Cope
  It is Treasury policy to recover or recycle products containing such substances where possible.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989; 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Sir John Cope
  The amount of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased over the period specified has been significantly less than one tonne, as is the current stock of such chemicals. No ozone-depleting chemicals are on order.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal protocol and HCFC.

  Sir John Cope
  In line with both Government and EC policy, Treasury procurement is based on best value for money and objective non-discriminatory criteria.

  Within these parameters, it is Treasury policy not to purchase, wherever possible, any substances containing CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform or halons. This includes equipment and packaging where such substances have been used in manufacture. Where this is not possible, we expect suppliers to take all reasonable steps to comply speedily with the Montreal protocol.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to April 1992 the information on net earnings provided in his reply of 10 February 1987 to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington),Official Report, columns 177–78.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates of the level of earnings for the top 5 per cent. of earners are not published. The information in the table is based on estimates of these levels derived from distributions of earnings published in the relevant new earnings survey. Information for April 1992 is not yet available. Earnings levels are for men or women as appropriate paid at adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowance.

  Earnings after Income tax, national insurance contributions1 and child benefit, April 1991

  £ per week

  Single man

  445.90

  Married man

  459.10

  Married man with two children under 11

  476.60

  Single women

  289.80

  1 At the contracted-in rate.

  4
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1992–93 the information on real net earnings provided in his reply of 10 April 1986 to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field),Official Report, columns 193–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for 1992–93 are as follows:

  Income tax and income tax + NIC1 as percentage of gross earnings Multiples of average earnings2

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single

  Tax

  17.1

  19.7

  26.2

  34.5

  37.2

  Tax + NIC

  24.5

  27.7

  30.9

  36.4

  38.2

  Married

  Tax

  13.6

  17.4

  24.3

  33.7

  36.9

  Tax + NIC

  21.0

  25.3

  29.0

  35.6

  37.8

  Changes in real net earnings after income tax and NIC (1956–57 = 100) Multiples of average earnings

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single

  179.6

  182.7

  191.0

  220.7

  283.9

  Married

  177.1

  176.8

  189.1

  217.4

  279.4

  1 At the contracted-in rate.

  2 Full time adult males (all occupations).

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1992 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his reply of 21 October 1986 to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher),Official Report, columns 807–8.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates of the annual change in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances and thresholds announced in the 1992 Budget are in the table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1992–93 levels by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

  For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the income base of 1992–93. In practice, retention of the regime indexed as appropriate for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1992–93 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in1992–93 £

  Total reduction £ million

  Average reduction £ per annum

  Under 5,000

  500

  150

  5,000 to 10,000

  32,000

  400

  10,000 to 15,000

  4,500

  730

  15,000 to 20,000

  4,300

  1,060

  20,000 to 30,000

  5,000

  1,590

  30,000 to 50,000

  3,600

  2,960

  Over 50,000

  10,300

  21,000

  Total

  31,400

  1,200

  1 Individuals liable to income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Faversham may expect an answer to his written question number 192 of 8 June concerning stamp duty.
  5
  Mr. Nelson
  I replied to my hon. Friend's question on 18 June 1992,Official Report, column 628.

  EC Budget
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net contribution or the net receipt of each member state to or from the EC in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and if he will express these totals also as a sum per head of population in each member state.

  Sir John Cope
  The European Commission does not publish information on member states' net balances in respect of the EC budget. The latest information available is contained in the European Court of Auditors' report for 1990; this gives information on member states' gross contributions and some 85 per cent. of budgetary receipts, with administration and research the main items of expenditure excluded. Using this incomplete information, the following table gives member states' net contributions (+) or net receipts (-) for 1990, both in absolute terms and per head of population:

  mecu1

  ecu1 per head

  Belgium2

  +774

  +77

  Denmark

  -422

  -83

  Germany

  +5,550

  +88

  Greece

  -2,470

  -245

  Spain

  -1,711

  -44

  France

  +1,805

  +32

  Ireland

  -1,892

  -541

  Italy

  +417

  +7

  Luxembourg2

  +60

  +150

  Netherlands

  -368

  -25

  Portugal

  -601

  -64

  United Kingdom

  +3,387

  +59

  1 At current prices and exchange rates.

  2 Although the table shows Belgium and Luxembourg as net contributors in each year, they are not likely to have been when administrative receipts excluded from the Court of Auditors' report are taken into account.

  Source: Member states' contributions and receipts—Court of Auditors Report; Population—Eurostat

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

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 June 1992, col. 357]: I regret that one of the figures in the tables was incorrect. The answer should have read as follows:

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

  Standard rate of motor mileage allowances

  Cars with engine capacity:

  Up to 1500cc Pence

  1501cc-2000cc Pence

  Over 2000cc Pence

  From 1 April 1992

  Up to 5,000 miles

  35.7

  40

  43

  Over 7,000 miles

  17

  21

  27

  6

  Subsistence allowances

  Day subsistence allowance (with effect from 1 August 1991)

  Subsistence clas-sification All classes £

  More than 5 hours

  3–90

  More than 10 hours

  8–60

  Night subsistence allowance (with effect from 1 August 1991)

  1 £

  2 £

  3 £

  Inner London

  98.70

  68.50

  61.30

  Elsewhere

  85.85

  63.15

  48.85

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

  Subsistence classification

  1 and 2 £

  3 £

  Married officer:

  Inner London

  31.80

  25.60

  Elsewhere

  29.90

  23.80

  Single officer:

  Inner London

  22.80

  22.80

  Elsewhere

  21.00

  21.00

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

  Cars with engine capacity

  1001cc-1500cc Pence

  1501cc-2000cc Pence

  Over 2000cc Pence

  From 1 April 1992

  Up to 4,000 miles

  30

  38

  51

  Over 4,000 miles

  17

  21

  27

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that are able to perform major medical operations on inmates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are modern fully equipped surgical units situated at Parkhurst and Liverpool prisons: the latter is closed temporarily to facilitate the installation of integral sanitation. Operations are performed by surgeons from the NHS, but where major surgery or highly specialist equipment is required, the patient is transferred to an outside hospital.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the procedures that are followed by his Department when payment has to be paid to a hospital for giving medical treatment to prison inmates and who is responsible for such payment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No costs to the prison service arise for treatment or other care which is provided to prisoners in
  7
  national health service facilities. The costs involved are ordinarily a matter for the prisoner's district health authority of origin.

  Personal Correspondence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions personal correspondence in the possession of persons applying for temporary visitors' visas on arrival in the United Kingdom has been copied in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available.

  Electorates
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, on the assumption of an unchanged number of parliamentary constituencies for England,(a) the 1992 electoral quota and (b) the entitlement of each county and London borough.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The 1992 electoral quota for England is 69,534. The entitlement of each county and London borough is given in the table.

  1992 Electorate

  Entitlement

  A. London boroughs

  City of London1

  3,862

  10.06

  Barking and Dagenham

  111,231

  1.60

  Barnet

  211,617

  3.04

  Bexley

  168,328

  2.42

  Brent

  169,035

  2.43

  Bromley

  230,088

  3.31

  Camden

  122,855

  1.77

  Croydon

  244,184

  3.51

  Ealing

  189,481

  2.73

  Enfield

  196,309

  2.82

  Greenwich

  157,276

  2.26

  Hackney

  113,120

  1.63

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  100,125

  1.44

  Haringey

  142,479

  2.05

  Harrow

  145,619

  2.09

  Havering

  180,826

  2.60

  Hillingdon

  171,812

  2.47

  Hounslow

  153,538

  2.21

  Islington

  112,247

  1.61

  Kensington and Chelsea

  84,700

  1.22

  Kingston upon Thames

  94,233

  1.36

  Lambeth

  172,136

  2.48

  Lewisham

  174,655

  2.51

  Merton

  126,737

  1.82

  Newham

  158,379

  2.28

  Redbridge

  171,964

  2.47

  Richmond upon Thames

  116,935

  1.68

  Southwark

  174,317

  2.51

  Sutton

  127,251

  1.83

  Tower Hamlets

  113,129

  1.63

  Waltham Forest

  163,252

  2.35

  Wandsworth

  199,397

  2.87

  Westminster

  109,738

  1.58

  1 The whole of the City of London shall be included within a constituency, the name of which shall refer to the City of London.

  1992 electorate

  Entitlement

  B. Counties

  Metropolitan

  Greater Manchester

  1,917,869

  27.58

  Merseyside

  1,088,179

  15.65

  South Yorkshire

  1,013,132

  14.57

  Tyne and Wear

  875,162

  12.59

  West Midlands

  1,978,106

  28.45

  West Yorkshire

  1,578,994

  22.71

  8

  1992 electorate

  Entitlement

  Non-metropolitan

  Avon

  729,224

  10.49

  Bedfordshire

  391,555

  5.63

  Berkshire

  554,630

  7.98

  Buckinghamshire

  478,462

  6.88

  Cambridgeshire

  496,704

  7.14

  Cheshire

  742,426

  10.68

  Cleveland

  418,538

  6.02

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  370,241

  5.32

  Cumbria

  385,240

  5.54

  Derbyshire

  727,515

  10.46

  Devon

  795,793

  11.44

  Dorset

  525,714

  7.56

  Durham

  472,574

  6.80

  East Sussex

  549,501

  7.90

  Essex

  1,187,127

  17.07

  Gloucestershire

  416,339

  5.99

  Hampshire

  1,198,864

  17.24

  Hereford and Worcester

  530,098

  7.62

  Hertfordshire

  746,267

  10.73

  Humberside

  674,380

  9.70

  Isle of Wight

  101,442

  1.46

  Kent

  1,159,379

  16.67

  Lancashire

  1,077,486

  15.50

  Leicestershire

  675,422

  9.71

  Lincolnshire

  463,245

  6.66

  Norfolk

  593,291

  8.53

  Northamptonshire

  440,144

  6.33

  Northumberland

  239,896

  3.45

  North Yorkshire

  560,706

  8.06

  Nottinghamshire

  786,385

  11.31

  Oxfordshire

  422,930

  6.08

  Shropshire

  316,882

  4.56

  Somerset

  368,134

  5.29

  Staffordshire

  809,921

  11.65

  Suffolk

  483,323

  6.95

  Surrey

  784,235

  11.28

  Warwickshire

  378,414

  5.44

  West Sussex

  558,975

  8.04

  Wiltshire

  434,182

  6.24

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that do not have a full-time probation officer working within the prison.

  Mr. Jack
  Only one. Her Majesty's prison Haslar has a part-time main grade probation officer working one and a half days per week.

  Phone Cards
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that allow inmates to use phone cards.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In keeping with the commitment given in the prison service's White Paper, provision for cardphones for inmates' use is being made in all establishments in England and Wales. Within the rolling programme of installation scheduled for completion by the end of July 1992, cardphones are operational in the establishments listed below;

  Her Majesty's prison service establishments with cardphones for the use of prisoners

  Acklington

  Aldington

  Ashwell

  Askham Grange

  Blantyre House

  9

  Brockhill

  Camp Hill

  Castington

  Channings Wood

  Cookham Wood

  Deerbolt

  Dover

  Drake Hall

  East Sutton Park

  Eastwood Park

  Erlestoke

  Everthorpe

  Featherstone

  Feltham

  Ford

  Glen Parva

  Gloucester

  Guys Marsh

  Haslar

  Hatfield

  Haverigg

  Hewell Grange

  Highpoint

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  Hollway

  Huntercombe and Finnamore Wood Camp

  Kingston

  Kirkham

  Kirklevington Grange

  Lancaster

  Latchmere House

  Lewes

  Leyhill

  Lindholme

  Littlehey

  Morton Hall

  The Mount

  New Hall

  Northallerton

  Northeye

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Onley

  Oxford

  Pucklechurch

  Ranby

  Risley

  Rochester

  Rudgate

  Send

  Shepton Mallet

  Spring Hill

  Stafford

  Standford Hill

  Stocken

  Stoke Heath

  Styal

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  Swansea

  Thorn Cross

  Thorp Arch

  Usk/Prescoed

  The Verne

  Wayland

  Wellingborough

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Whatton

  Winchester

  The Wolds

  Wymott

  Traffic Wardens, Waltham Forest
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic wardens are employed within the London borough of Waltham Forest; and by how much this figure will increase after the introduction of red routes.
  10
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a total of 63 traffic wardens operate in the area covering the London borough of Waltham Forest as well as parts of the London boroughs of Epping and Redbridge. No decision has been made about increasing the figure after the introduction of red routes.

  Juveniles
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by local authority the number of cases where juveniles were remanded by an application for an unruly certificate which local authorities were responsible for making in the periods of 1 July to 30 December 1990 and 1 January to 30 March 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not recorded centrally. The only information available relates to Juveniles initially received on remand into prison service establishments. These statistics are published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 2.7 of the Volume for 1990, Cm 1800), a copy of which is in the Library.

  An unruliness certificate is required for such juveniles received as untried and for some of those received as convicted unsentenced; it is not required for those committed in custody to the Crown court for sentence under section 37 of the Magistrates Courts Act. Information by area is not available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles were remanded in prison department custody between 1 July and 30 December 1990 and 1 January to 30 March 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between 1 July and 31 December 1990, 496 juveniles were initially received into prison service establishments in England and Wales as untried prisoners and a further 38 juveniles were initially received as convicted unsentenced. Comparable provisional figures for the period 1 July to 31 December 1991 are 469 initially received as untried and 21 initially received as convicted unsentenced. Data for 1 January to 30 March 1992 are not yet available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentenced 15-year-olds were in prison service custody on the most recent convenient date; in which establishments they were held; and which of these establishments also accommodate(a) young adults and (b) adults.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information is given in the table.

  Sentenced 15-year-olds held in prison service establishments on 31 December 1991

  Establishment

  Number held

  Male remand centres Glen Parva1

  1

  Male juvenile young offender institutions2

  Feltham3

  12

  Kirklevington

  22

  Onley3

  20

  Werrington3

  14

  Female closed young offender institutions

  New Hall4

  1

  11

  Establishment

  Number held

  Total

  70

  1 Also accommodates young adults.

  2Juvenile young offender institutions also hold young offenders who have reached their seventeenth birthday and are awaiting transfer to another young offender institution.

  3There are also other units at these sites which hold young adults.

  4Also accommodates young adults. There is also an adult prison on the same site.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily population of remanded 15 and 16-year-old juveniles in the periods between 1 July and 30 December 1990 and 1 January and 30 March 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average daily population of juveniles is not readily available but between 31 July and 31 December 1990 the average end of month population of 15 and 16-year-old remand prisoners was 60 untried and 15 convicted unsentenced. Data for 1 January to 30 March 1992 are not yet available. Figures for 30 September and 31 December and for the same dates in 1991 are shown in the table.

  Population of unsentenced 15 and 16-year-olds in prison service establishments in England and Wales by type of prisoner.

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  1990

  30 September

  59

  17

  31 December

  44

  12

  1991

  30 September

  50

  18

  31 December

  47

  12

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made on the effect of the current levels of juveniles remanded to prison department custody on the efficacy of the interim proposals announced for introduction from 1 October; and what consideration he has given to abolishing remands to prison department custody or continuing with the current arrangements.

  Mr. Jack
  The substantial decline in the number of 15 and 16-year-olds remanded to prison service establishments in recent years indicates that courts are committed to avoiding prison remands wherever possible. Courts' confidence in this approach will be strengthened by their new powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to attach conditions and requirements when remanding juveniles to local authority accommodation. The Governmnent remains fully committed to abolishing prison remands for 15 and 16-year-olds as soon as the availability of alternative accommodation makes that possible. We will monitor closely the extent to which prison remands continue to be used under the new procedures.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to set up the working party which will examine ways of protecting the police and other members of the emergency services from assault.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The first meeting of the working party on the physical protection of the police is expected to take place in the near future.

  Shop-lifting
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the use of police cautions with regard to alleged shop-lifting offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My Department has not conducted any study of cautioning specifically for shop-lifting. But we expect to begin a research study later this year which will assess the response to Home Office circular 59/90, which aimed to promote good practice and consistency of decisions in the use of cautions.

  Short Changing
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in each year, since 1987 in England and Wales, of retail staff accused of short-changing customers.

  Mr. Jack
  We cannot identify from the information held centrally the number of cases of theft in these specific circumstances.

  Escaped Prisoners
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped from prison escort in each of the last five years; and how many of those prisoners remain at large.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of prisoners who escape from escort has been recorded centrally only since 20 June 1988. Records prior to that date were maintained in a different format and cannot be provided for less than a complete calendar year without disproportionate effort, and for that reason a time scale slightly longer than five years has been taken.

  The number of prisoners escaping from prison escort from 1 January 1987 to 15 June 1992 were as follows:

  Prisoners

  1 January 1987 to 31 December 1987

  65

  1 January 1988 to 31 December 1988

  64

  1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989

  78

  1 January 1990 to 31 December 1990

  100

  1 January 1991 to 31 December 1991

  116

  1 January 1992 to 15 June 1992

  51

  Recapture details have been recorded centrally only since 20 June 1988. However the records make no distinction between recaptured prisoners who escaped from escort, and those who escaped from penal establishments and may omit information about escaped prisoners who are subsequently remanded in custody for new offences. To cross-reference incidents of recapture with individual escapers could only be achieved by a manual search, at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have escaped from prison in 1992; and from which prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 1 January 1992 to 15 June 1992 there were 76 escape incidents from penal establishments; 133 prisoners escaped.

  Most of these escapes were from low security category C prisons. The numbers of escapers form a very small proportion of those in custody.
  13
  The escapes were from the following penal establishments:

  Prison establishment

  Date

  Number of prisoners escaped

  Lindholme

  8 January 1992

  3

  Haverigg

  10 January 1992

  1

  Dover

  11 January 1992

  1

  Pentonville

  16 January 1992

  1

  Gloucester

  18 January 1992

  2

  Risley

  24 January 1992

  2

  Aldington

  25 January 1992

  1

  Feltham

  28 January 1992

  2

  Feltham

  1 February 1992

  1

  Downview

  2 February 1992

  2

  Ranby

  2 February 1992

  2

  Portland

  10 February 1992

  3

  Channings Wood

  11 February 1992

  2

  Ashwell

  15 February 1992

  1

  Hindley

  13 February 1992

  1

  Send

  17 February 1992

  2

  Ranby

  20 February 1992

  1

  Portland

  21 February 1992

  1

  New Hall

  12 February 1992

  1

  New Hall

  21 February 1992

  2

  Glen Parva

  22 February 1992

  4

  Ranby

  26 February 1992

  1

  Dover

  27 February 1992

  2

  Belmarsh

  27 February 1992

  1

  Feltham

  28 February 1992

  2

  Sudbury/Foston Hall

  2 March 1992

  1

  Haslar

  7 March 1992

  1

  Lindholme

  9 March 1992

  1

  Haverigg

  9 March 1992

  2

  Stocken

  7 March 1992

  2

  Camp Hill

  11 March 1992

  3

  Kirklevington

  15 March 1992

  1

  Norwich

  17 March 1992

  1

  Maidstone

  16 March 1992

  2

  Wellingborough

  21 March 1992

  2

  Cardiff

  21 March 1992

  1

  Norwich

  24 March 1992

  2

  Frankland

  1 April 1992

  1

  Feltham

  1 April 1992

  4

  Acklington

  3 April 1992

  1

  Winchester

  7 April 1992

  1

  Highpoint

  8 April 1992

  4

  Channings Wood

  13 April 1992

  1

  Lindholme

  20 April 1992

  1

  Wellingborough

  17 April 1992

  1

  Aldington

  20 April 1992

  1

  Dover

  17 April 1992

  1

  Feltham

  21 April 1992

  5

  Aldington

  21 April 1992

  1

  Featherstone

  24 April 1992

  1

  Wandsworth

  27 April 1992

  1

  Featherstone

  29 April 1992

  2

  Wellingborough

  4 May 1992

  1

  Holloway

  30 April 1992

  1

  Littlehey

  6 May 1992

  1

  Gloucester

  7 May 1992

  1

  New Hall

  11 May 1992

  3

  Erlestoke

  12 May 1992

  1

  Winchester

  17 May 1992

  2

  The Mount

  16 May 1992

  1

  The Verne

  18 May 1992

  2

  Portland

  20 May 1992

  1

  Lindholme

  21 May 1992

  1

  Stocken

  16 May 1992

  1

  Glen Parva

  23 May 1992

  3

  Gloucester

  25 May 1992

  6

  Blantyre House

  25 May 1992

  2

  Acklington

  28 May 1992

  1

  Highpoint

  6 June 1992

  3

  The Verne

  6 June 1992

  2

  Holloway

  8 June 1992

  1

  14

  Prison establishment

  Date

  Number of prisoners escaped

  The Verne

  11 June 1992

  2

  Swaleside

  12 June 1992

  1

  Holloway

  15 June 1992

  1

  Werrington House

  15 June 1992

  7

  Brinsford

  15 June 1992

  1

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the escapes and attempted escapes by prisoners from escorts in 1992; and if he will provide details.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 1 January 1992 to 15 June 1992 there were 44 escape incidents while prisoners were being escorted outside penal establishments. In those 44 incidents 51 prisoners escaped.

  From 1 January 1992 to 15 June 1992 there were 16 attempted escape incidents while prisoners were being escorted outside penal establishments. Twenty five prisoners were involved in these attempted escapes. Further information is provided in the tables.

  Escapes from escort

  Prison establishment

  Date

  Number of prisoners escaped

  Winchester

  8 January 1992

  1

  Leeds

  15 January 1992

  1

  Cardiff

  3 January 1992

  1

  Belmarsh

  16 January 1992

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  16 January 1992

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  21 January 1992

  1

  Liverpool

  21 January 1992

  6

  Risley

  24 January 1992

  1

  Hindley

  29 January 1992

  1

  Long Lartin

  2 March 1992

  1

  Stafford

  4 February 1992

  1

  Full Sutton

  4 February 1992

  1

  Low Newton

  6 February 1992

  1

  Leicester

  17 February 1992

  1

  Holloway

  19 February 1992

  1

  Chelmsford

  20 February 1992

  1

  Norwich

  27 February 1992

  1

  Castington

  27 February 1992

  1

  Wymott

  4 February 1992

  1

  Norwich

  4 March 1992

  1

  Durham

  6 March 1992

  2

  Hollesley Bay

  9 March 1992

  1

  Brixton

  11 March 1992

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  11 March 1992

  1

  Maidstone

  18 March 1992

  1

  Durham

  18 March 1992

  1

  Exeter

  18 March 1992

  1

  Low Newton

  21 March 1992

  1

  Wymott

  27 March 1992

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  28 March 1992

  1

  Risley

  8 April 1992

  1

  Risley

  10 April 1992

  1

  Feltham

  16 April 1992

  1

  Pentonville

  22 April 1992

  1

  Thorp Arch

  27 April 1992

  1

  Low Newton

  27 April 1992

  1

  Channings Wood

  30 April 1992

  1

  Garth

  16 May 1992

  1

  Acklington

  20 May 1992

  1

  Glen Parva

  20 May 1992

  1

  Dartmoor

  21 May 1992

  2

  Moorland

  28 May 1992

  1

  Bullingdon

  5 June 1992

  1

  Liverpool

  17 June 1992

  1

  15

  Prison establishment

  Date

  Number of attempted escapers

  Holloway

  13 January 1992

  1

  Holloway

  16 January 1992

  1

  Brinsford

  21 January 1992

  1

  Garth

  22 January 1992

  1

  Chelmsford

  14 February 1992

  1

  Glen Parva

  19 March 1992

  6

  Garth

  20 March 1992

  1

  Brixton

  30 March 1992

  3

  Acklington

  3 April 1992

  1

  Brinsford

  1 April 1992

  2

  Acklington

  3 April 1992

  1

  Swaleside

  13 May 1992

  1

  Pentonville

  24 May 1992

  1

  Stoke Heath

  28 May 1992

  2

  Grendon

  4 June 1992

  1

  Swansea

  5 June 1992

  1

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have not returned to work following maternity leave in each of the last five years; and what has been the cost to his Department of prison officers not returning to work following maternity leave.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  According to centrally available information, none. Information relating to the years 1988–89 is not readily available.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for providing child care facilities for prison workers.

  Number of prison staff injured during attempted/escapes from escort

  Escape from Escort

  Incident Attempted Escape from Escort

  Total

  20 June 1988 to 31 December 1988

  21

  14

  35

  1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989

  19

  5

  24

  1 January 1990 to 31 December 1990

  19

  20

  39

  1 January 1991 to 31 December 1991

  40

  19

  59

  1 January 1992 to 15 June 1992

  10

  10

  20

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers are from ethnic minorities; and in what establishments they work.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 18 June 1992, the total number of Prison Service grades who had volunteered their ethnic origin as other than white was 96. A breakdown, by establishment, is as follows:

  Number

  HMP Belmarsh

  2

  HMP Birmingham

  6

  HMP Blundeston

  1

  HMP Brixton

  5

  HMP Bullingdon

  2

  HMP Camp Hill

  2

  HMP Chelmsford

  2

  HMP Coldingley

  1

  HMP Downview

  1

  HMP Elmley

  7

  HMP Garth

  1

  HMP Gartree

  1

  HMP Haverigg Camp

  2

  16
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A nursery was opened at Her Majesty's prison Holloway in May 1991; other prison service establishments who have shown an intererst in providing child care facilities are receiving encouragement and guidance. General guidance on the provision of child care facilities, drawing on the experience of Holloway and other departmental nurseries, is being prepared and will be circulated to all establishments, later this year.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what prison establishments have received extra staff since 1 April in accordance with the Fresh Start framework agreement and as a result of the further two-hour reduction in the working week of prison officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All the prison officers necessary to implement the final stage of the framework agreement were posted before April 1992. Allocations to establishments were made on the basis of their relative needs and their contributions to the Fresh Start efficiency improvements.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have been assaulted whilst performing escort duties in each of the last five years, including 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The numbers of prison staff assaulted while performing escort duties are not recorded centrally. However, the following table shows the numbers of prison staff reported as having been injured during the course of incidents of prisoners escaping from escort or attempting to escape from escort. Records prior to 20 June 1988 are not available.

  Number

  HMP Hindley

  1

  HMP Holloway

  3

  HMP Holme House

  1

  HMP Hull

  1

  HMP Leeds

  1

  HMP Leicester

  1

  HMP Lewes

  1

  HMP Lindholme

  1

  HMP Littlehey

  2

  HMP Liverpool

  1

  HMP Long Lartin

  1

  HMP Manchester

  1

  HMP Moorland

  1

  HMP Nottingham

  1

  HMP Parkhurst

  1

  HMP Pentonville

  8

  HMP Shrewsbury

  1

  HMP Stocken

  1

  HMP Swaleside

  1

  HMP Wandsworth

  7

  HMP Wayland

  1

  HMP Wellingborough

  1

  HMP Whitemoor

  3

  17

  Number

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  HMP and RC Cardiff

  2

  HMP and RC Exeter

  1

  HMP and RC Winchester

  1

  HMP and YOI Styal

  1

  HMRC Brockhill

  1

  HMYOI Bullwood Hall

  1

  HMYOI Eastwood Park

  1

  HMYOI Northallerton

  2

  HMYOI Swinfen Hall

  2

  HMYOI The Mount

  1

  HMYOI and RC Brinsford

  2

  HMYOI and RC Feltham

  3

  HMYOI and RC Glen Parva

  2

  However, these figures are based on a voluntary survey of ethnic origin to which only 32 per cent, of prison officer grades responded. A further survey is being carried out.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have been assaulted in 1992; and at which prisons these assaults took place.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 1 January 1992 to 15 June 1992 there were 319 incidents recorded of assaults on prison staff. This figure is for all prison staff grade 1 to 8.

  The figure is for all recorded assaults on staff and includes assaults incurred by staff whilst on duty within and outside penal establishments. Assaults are recorded as either major or minor incidents. Major assaults are those assaults where the matter has been reported to the police, while minor assaults are those which are not reported to the police. The total figure comprises 273 minor assaults and 46 major assaults.

  The recorded assault incidents were at the following penal establishments.

  Major assaults on staff

  Establishment

  Number of assaults

  Aldington

  1

  Bedford

  1

  Belmarsh

  2

  Blundeston

  1

  Brinsford

  3

  Bristol

  1

  Brixton

  1

  Cardiff

  2

  Castington

  2

  Chelmsford

  2

  Coldingley

  2

  Cookham Wood

  1

  Elmley

  1

  Frankland

  1

  Full Sutton

  2

  Garth

  1

  Hindley

  1

  Hoolesley Bay

  1

  Holloway

  2

  Lewes

  1

  Lindholme

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  Maidstone

  1

  Pentonville

  2

  Preston

  1

  Pucklechurch

  1

  Reading

  1

  Risley

  1

  Rochester

  1

  Shepton Mallet

  1

  Stafford

  1

  Styal

  1

  Swansea

  2

  18

  Establishment

  Number of assaults

  Winchester

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  Minor assaults on staff

  Establishment

  Number of assaults

  Acklington

  1

  Albany

  2

  Aylesbury

  8

  Bedford

  2

  Belmarsh

  8

  Birmingham

  6

  Blundeston

  1

  Brinsford

  1

  Bristol

  1

  Brixton

  7

  Bullwood Hall

  4

  Camp Hill

  1

  Canterbury

  4

  Cardiff

  3

  Chelmsford

  3

  Coldingley

  4

  Dartmoor

  3

  Dover

  1

  Durham

  1

  Everthorpe

  3

  Exeter

  1

  Featherstone

  3

  Frankland

  8

  Full Sutton

  11

  Gloucester

  1

  Gartree

  1

  Glen Parva

  5

  Garth

  6

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  4

  Highpoint

  4

  Hindley

  2

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  1

  Holloway

  8

  Leeds

  5

  Lindholme

  1

  Littlehey

  1

  Liverpool

  3

  Long Lartin

  2

  Low Newton

  5

  Maidstone

  1

  Manchester

  6

  Moorland

  1

  The Mount

  4

  Norwich

  6

  Nottingham

  3

  Onley

  1

  Parkhurst

  1

  Pentonville

  3

  Portland

  1

  Preston

  1

  Risley

  9

  Rochester

  30

  Shepton Mallet

  2

  Stafford

  5

  Stocken

  3

  Stoke Heath

  7

  Swaleside

  13

  Wakefield

  1

  Wandsworth

  2

  Wayland

  2

  Winchester

  4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  29

  Wymott

  2

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the targeted staffing level and the actual staffing level at each prison establishment.
  19
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prison officers there are; and in what establishments they work.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is as follows:

  Establishment

  Total

  Acklington

  1

  Albany

  6

  Aldington

  1

  Askham Grange

  32

  Aylesbury

  8

  Bedford

  8

  Belmarsh

  59

  Birmingham

  21

  Blundeston

  2

  Brinsford

  29

  Bristol

  11

  Brixton

  34

  Brockhill

  2

  Bullingdon

  30

  Bullwood Hall

  72

  Camp Hill

  9

  Canterbury

  10

  Cardiff

  5

  Castington

  4

  Channings Wood

  4

  Chelmsford

  13

  Coldingley

  7

  Cookham Wood

  47

  Dartmoor

  11

  Deerbolt

  5

  Dorchester

  4

  Downview

  8

  Drake Hall

  53

  Durham

  45

  East Sutton Park

  18

  Eastwood park

  5

  Elmley

  24

  Erlestoke House

  2

  Everthorpe

  2

  Exeter

  7

  Featherstone

  1

  Feltham

  15

  Ford

  1

  Frankland

  18

  Full Sutton

  28

  Garth

  20

  Gartree

  11

  Glen Parva

  9

  Gloucester

  6

  Grendon

  10

  Guys Marsh

  2

  Hatfield

  1

  Haverigg

  1

  Hewell Grange

  2

  Highdown

  1

  Highpoint

  5

  Hindley

  9

  Hollesley Bay

  4

  Holloway

  252

  Holme House

  21

  Hull

  8

  Huntercombe

  7

  Kingston

  2

  Kirlevington

  2

  Leeds

  17

  Leicester

  6

  Lewes

  14

  Leyhill

  2

  Lincoln

  11

  20

  Establishment

  Total

  Lindholme

  3

  Littlehey

  5

  Liverpool

  16

  Long Lartin

  11

  Low Newton

  27

  Maidstone

  7

  Manchester

  9

  Moorland

  29

  Mount

  11

  New Hall

  74

  North Sea Camp

  3

  Northallerton

  5

  Norwich

  12

  Nottingham

  3

  Onley

  10

  Parkhurst

  10

  Pentonville

  18

  Portland

  2

  Preston

  9

  PSITG

  2

  Pucklechurch

  46

  Reading

  6

  Risley

  87

  Rochester

  12

  Send

  2

  Shepton Mallet

  1

  Shrewsbury

  8

  Stafford

  12

  Standford Hill

  1

  PSC Newbold Revel

  1

  PSC Wakefield

  3

  Stocken

  6

  Stoke Heath

  2

  Styal

  90

  Swaleside

  20

  Swansea

  3

  Swinfen Hall

  3

  Thorn Cross

  1

  Usk

  3

  Wakefield

  15

  Wandsworth

  19

  Wayland

  10

  Wellingborough

  7

  Wetherby

  3

  Whatton

  2

  Whitemoor

  49

  Winchester

  7

  Woodhill

  9

  Wormwood Scrubs

  26

  Wymott

  3

  Total

  1,803

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has given today to a similar question.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his
  21
  Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods man-ufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances, controlled by the Montreal protocol, and HCFCs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are currently reviewing our policy on these matters and I will write to the hon. Member when this work has been completed.

  Prison Meals
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost of providing inmates with meals at each prison establishment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, the average weekly cost of providing meals for inmates was as follows:

  Establishment

  Cost

  Acklington

  12.53

  Albany

  17.25

  Aldington

  15.77

  Ashwell

  15.38

  Askham Grange

  17.21

  Aylesbury

  18.12

  Bedford

  16.35

  Birmingham

  9.80

  Blantyre House

  27.22

  Blundeston

  15.86

  Bristol

  16.06

  Brixton

  9.71

  Brockhill

  10.97

  Bullwood Hall

  26.99

  Camp Hill

  13.70

  Campsfield House

  61.17

  Canterbury

  12.26

  Cardiff

  13.45

  Castington

  13.84

  Channings Wood

  11.97

  Chelmsford

  13.78

  Coldingley

  14.79

  Cookham Wood

  18.68

  Dartmoor

  13.68

  Deerbolt

  10.77

  Dorchester

  16.36

  Dover

  12.99

  Downview

  30.42

  Drake Hall

  20.02

  Durham

  10.96

  East Sutton Park

  28.55

  Eastwood Park

  19.87

  Erlestoke

  14.43

  Everthorpe

  13.78

  Exeter

  14.04

  Featherstone

  12.59

  Feltham

  16.71

  Ford

  12.58

  Frankland

  15.65

  Full Sutton

  14.76

  Garth

  15.13

  Gartree

  18.44

  Glen Parva

  12.09

  Gloucester

  13.92

  Grendon

  16.10

  Guys Marsh

  20.37

  22

  Establishment

  Cost

  Haslar

  17.37

  Hatfield

  12.89

  Haverigg

  13.82

  Hewell Grange

  20.90

  High Point

  13.31

  Hindley

  13.12

  Hollesley Bay

  27.82

  Holloway

  12.62

  Hull

  11.58

  Huntercombe

  18.53

  Kingston

  13.26

  Kirkham

  17.48

  Kirklevington

  22.98

  Lancaster

  14.37

  Latchmere House

  14.20

  Leeds

  10.77

  Leicester

  15.47

  Lewes

  13.31

  Leyhill

  16.81

  Lincoln

  11.16

  Lindholme

  23.80

  Littlehey

  11.68

  Liverpool

  14.07

  Long Lartin

  17.82

  Lowdham Grange

  184.16

  Low Newton

  16.38

  Maidstone

  11.56

  Manchester

  34.54

  Morton Hall

  14.50

  Mount

  57.54

  New Hall

  17.38

  Northallerton

  16.10

  North Eye

  15.70

  North Sea Camp

  13.99

  Norwich

  18.54

  Nottingham

  15.53

  Onley

  10.88

  Oxford

  18.20

  Parkhurst

  18.52

  Pentonville

  14.56

  Portland

  14.51

  Preston

  12.58

  Pucklechurch

  19.83

  Ranby

  14.09

  Reading

  14.89

  Risley

  15.57

  Rochester

  15.66

  Rudgate

  15.44

  Send

  22.46

  Shepton Mallet

  15.45

  Shrewsbury

  45.65

  Stafford

  11.41

  Standford Hill

  18.63

  Stocken

  12.53

  Stoke Heath

  14.23

  Styal

  16.00

  Sudbury

  12.91

  Swaleside

  11.72

  Swansea

  16.18

  Swinfen Hall

  16.77

  Thorn Cross

  19.56

  Thorp Arch

  14.35

  Usk

  17.49

  Verne

  12.61

  Wakefield

  13.79

  Wandsworth

  10.76

  Wayland

  13.43

  Wellingborough

  22.30

  Werrington

  15.23

  Wetherby

  17.88

  Whatton

  13.18

  Winchester

  13.80

  Wormwood Scrubs

  16.16

  Wymott

  12.86

  Victim Support
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to provide additional revenue support to local victim support groups to assist in financing expenses for voluntary, unpaid helpers.

  Mr. Jack
  Home Office funding for local victim support schemes, provided by means of a grant to the national organisation, Victim Support, rose by 28 per cent. to £6.9 million between 1991–92 and 1992–93. It is set to rise a further 15 per cent. to £7.9 million next year. Within broad parameters agreed with the Home Office the allocation of those funds to individual schemes is a matter for Victim Support.

  Wolds Private Prison
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the code of minimum standards that is applied to the Wolds private prison via the contract specification documents differing from the standards in the state prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  One of the objectives of the policy of contracting out the management of prisons is to secure better value for money. The specifications drawn up for Wolds remand prison and Blakenhurst prison therefore deliberately seek high standards of performance by contractors. These standards are also in line with the direction in which the rest of the prison service is heading.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incident at the Wolds prison on 4 June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On the evening of 4 June a prisoner at Wolds remand prison was assaulted by other prisoners and sustained minor injuries. He was seen by medical staff. The police were called in, but they have been unable to pursue their inquiries because the prisoner is not willing to be interviewed.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department last reviewed the proposal to change the drug classification category of anabolic steroids to make possession of such substances without prescription a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 June 1992]: Anabolic steroids are prescription-only medicines in the United Kingdom. Under the Medicines Act 1968 it is an offence to sell steroids or to possess them for the purpose of sale, without a licence.

  Under the provisions of section 45(8) of the Act, a person found guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £2,000; and on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

  Last year, the Government asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the relevant trade and professional bodies for their views on the question of bringing anabolic steroids under the Misuse of Drugs Act
  24
  1971 which allows strict controls to be imposed on dangerous and harmful drugs. The view at that time of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the other bodies consulted was that there was not a sufficiently strong case for bringing steroids within the controls of the 1971 Act.

  However, we decided that further action on steroids was necessary. We brought forward a package of measures targeted particularly at the young and designed to tackle misuses in a number of ways, including additional research into the extent of steroid misuse; further research to improve the testing and detection methods used in sporting circles; an enhanced educational effort aimed mainly at schools and competitions; increased action against those who advertise steroids without a licence in contravention of the Medicines Act 1968.

  We intend, subject to a suitable legislative opportunity, to change the law to make it an offence to supply anabolic steroids to minors.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Public Record Office as an agency; and whether the cost was borne by the parent department or the new agency.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of the launch of the Public Record Office as an agency was borne by the Public Record Office, and related questions are the responsibility of the Agency's chief executive, Mrs. Sarah Tyacke, to whom I have referred this question for reply. She will write to the hon. Member and copies of her reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the maximum salary payable, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the contract, of the chief executive of the Public Record Office.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The current maximum salary payable to the chief executive of the Public Record Office, including a performance-related element, is £57,500. The contract is for three years, 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995. It is renewable.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Public Record Office; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This is a personal matter for the chief executive. I have drawn the question to her attention and have invited her to write to the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Tibet
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when British diplomats last visited Lhasa; what was their itinerary; and if he will make a statement.
  25
  Mr. Goodlad
  Two British diplomats, including a first secretary from our embassy in Peking, visited Tibet between 16 and 25 May. They visited Lhasa and Shigatze. They carried out a programme of calls on the local authorities, focusing on human rights, consular matters and economic development.

  EC Commission
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many hours a week are worked by(a) the European Commission staff and (b) Commissioners; and how many days a year are on average lost to illness linked to overwork by (a) Commission staff and (b) Commissioners.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I am informed by the Commission that its staff work 37½ statutory hours per week, and that statutory hours for Commissioners are not specified.

  Staff absences are a matter for the Commission. Statistics are not available on days lost to illness linked to overwork.

  Disarmament
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 15 June,Official Report, column 352, from where the United Kingdom and EC working papers to the UN Disarmament Commission, A/CN. 10/172 and A/CN. 10/165 respectively, to which he makes reference, are available; and if he will arrange for copies to be made available in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are making arrangements for copies of these papers to be placed in the Library.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of United Nation's Security Council resolutions relating to Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are seeking the implementation in full of all Security Council resolutions on Yugoslavia. Resolution 752 of 15 May 1992 demanded, inter alia, a ceasefire in Bosnia-Herzegovina and an end to interference in that state by the Yugoslav people's army (JNA) and Croatian army. Resolution 757 of 30 May imposed wide-ranging sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro as a way of bringing pressure on them to comply with resolution 752. Resolution 757 has been implemented in the United Kingdom and its dependent territories by five Orders in Council. We fully support the efforts of the United Nations to implement resolution 758 of 8 June which aims to secure Sarajevo airport in order to deliver humanitarian assistance.

  European Parliament, Salaries
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will set out in £ sterling the current salary and allowances, distinguishing office costs, travel and subsistence, for a British Member of the European Parliament.
  26
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  British Members of the European Parliament receive the same salary as that paid to Members of the House of Commons, i.e. £30,854 per year. The allowance figures were set out in the Lord President's answer to a written question from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes),Official Report, 17 February 1992, column 30.

  Albania
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British diplomatic representation in Tirana.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have decided to send a member of the Diplomatic Service to open an office in Tirana for the duration of the British Presidency of the European Community. The French Government have kindly agreed to provide office accommodation. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Rome will continue to be accredited (on a non-resident basis) to Tirana.

  Ozone-depleting chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has appointed a firm of environmental management consultants to carry out a programme of environmental audits of its home estate. One of the purposes of the audits, which are scheduled for completion in September 1992, is to assess the possibilities within the Department for the recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is not possible to provide the information requested as the figures are not available. However, the stock of ozone-depleting chemicals stored within the Department is minimal.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances, controlled by the Montreal protocol, and HCFCs.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not to purchase ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances where their use is non-essential and where value for money alternatives are available.

  The Department will cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances in accordance with the Government's response to the Montreal protocol and EC Regulation 594/91.

  Amritsar Massacre
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now release all papers relating to the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre in Amritsar on 13 April 1919.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am unaware of any FCO records relating to the Amritsar massacre of 13 April 1919 that are not available to researchers at the Oriental and India Office collections of the British Library.

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff employed at the Government communications headquarters have committed suicide since 1979; and if he will list the date of each suicide and the coroner's court which heard the inquest.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  To the best of my knowledge, having consulted GCHQ, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is as follows:

  Coroner's court

  16 December 1980

  Cheltenham

  24 November 1982

  Cheltenham

  7 August 1986

  Taunton

  31 July 1986

  Gloucester

  21 January 1990

  Scarborough

  10 March 1991

  Cheltenham

  7 March 1992

  Tewkesbury

  19 March 1992

  Cheltenham

  Before 1982 GCHQ did not keep a separate record of employee suicides. Figures before that date are given to the best of GCHQ's knowledge.

  EC Presidency
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the basis on which consideration is being given to the appointment of the President of the European Commission for a further period of over two years; and what is the specific section of the relevant EC treaty which permits the extended period.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The next President of the Commission will be appointed for two years in accordance with the provisions of article 161 of the treaty of Rome:"The President and the six Vice-Presidents of the Commission shall be appointed from among its members for a term of two years in accordance with the same procedure as that laid down for the appointment of members of the Commission. Their appointment may be renewed".

TRANSPORT

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

  Mr. Norris
  The chief planning inspector's annual reports for the years in question record the following number of inquiries for which reports have been submitted to my right hon. Friend:28

  Number

  1981

  150

  1982

  137

  1983

  134

  1984

  162

  1985–86

  1186

  1986–87

  129

  1987–88

  106

  1988–89

  123

  1989–90

  134

  1990–91

  134

  1 l5-month period.

  EC Funds
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the criteria which determine whether EC funds will be made available for transport infrastructure projects in member states, and the United Kingdom in particular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3359/90, of 20 November 1990 (OJ No. L326/1) established the current three year ad hoc EC Transport Infrastructure Programme which expires at the end of 1992. Seven major schemes were defined as priorities for funding. Those affecting the United Kingdom are the Paris-LondonBrussels-Amsterdam-Cologne high speed rail network; the A5/A55 North Wales coast road link to Ireland; and improvements to the Dublin-Belfast railway line. The criteria for assessing individual projects are set out in Article 4 of the Regulation:"—the benefit and greatest usefulness of the project to international Community traffic, assessed by its contribution to the objectives set out in Article 1. Among the factors which must be included are:
  —the importance of present or potential intraCommunity international traffic;
  —the importance of exchanges between the Community and third countries on the route involved in the project;
  —the extent of the project's contribution to the creation of a homogeneous and balanced network within the Community framework, geared to existing and future transport needs;
  —the socio-economic return on the project;
  —the project's consistency with the other Community measures taken under the common transport policy or other Community policies and with the other national measures given priority in national transport infrastructure plans and programmes;
  —particular difficulties in raising finance;
  —inability of national or regional authorities to carry out the project alone".

  Criteria for EC funding under the European regional development fund for transport infrastructure projects in objective 1, objective 2 and objective 5b areas depend on the priorities set out in the relevant Community support frameworks which are agreed between the Commission and member states.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of forecasts of future EC funding for United Kingdom transport infrastructure projects broken down for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. and by mode of transport.

  Mr. Norris
  The information in the table is an estimate of receipts based on grant allocations from the current three year EC transport infrastructure programme and from previous programmes. The precise timing of payments will depend on the progress of work on the relevant schemes.
  29

  Road

  Rail

  Total

  ECU (million)

  £ (million) (approx)

  ECU (million)

  £ (million) (approx)

  ECU (million)

  £ (million) (approx)

  England

  7.38

  5.19

  21.00

  14.76

  28.38

  19.95

  Wales

  11.26

  7.92

  —

  —

  11.26

  7.92

  Northern Ireland

  0.44

  0.31

  —

  —

  0.44

  0.31

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  19.08

  13.42

  21.00

  14.76

  40.08

  28.18

  The present three-year transport infrastructure programme is due to finish at the end of 1992, and no decisions have yet been taken about any further programme thereafter.

  Grants for certain transport infrastructure projects are also available from the European regional development fund (ERDF). Future receipts will depend on the current negotiations on general future financing; and on the review of the EC structural funds, including ERDF, due to take place before the end of 1993.

  It is not possible to forecast future loans to United Kingdom projects from the European Investment Bank or the European Coal and Steel Community.

  M25
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans exist for feeder-distributor roads for the M25; when they will be published; and whether these plans include environmental considerations.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 16 June at column 203. The full range of environmental considerations have been taken into account in arriving at the proposals which will be the subject of the public consultation.

  Coastguards
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the number of auxiliary coastguards and the availability of equipment including cliff rescue gear and four-wheel drive vehicles at North Berwick.

  Mr. Norris
  Under proposals arising from the accepted recommendations of the Coastguard sector review, the North Berwick Auxiliary Coastguard Company is to be reduced in numbers from nine to five persons, and the current cliff rescue equipment and four wheel drive vehicle withdrawn on operational grounds.

  Over the last three years the majority of incidents have required the attendance of only one or two auxiliaries, and only one cliff incident occurred; even this did not require the use of cliff rescue gear. The four wheel drive vehicle is to be replaced by a smaller van since there will no longer be a requirement to carry cliff rescue equipment.

  A cliff rescue facility will continue to be provided by the helicopters from either RAF Leuchars or Boulmer.

  M3
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the proposed diversion of the Itchen navigation into a tunnel by his Department in pursuance of the M3 extension scheme at Twyford down.
  30
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In accordance with the decision following the 1987–88 public inquiry, a 1.8 metre culvert will be provided for the Itchen navigation under the M3 and diverted B3335. This will maintain the flow of water along the existing watercourse.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Norris
  General policy on the recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals is set out in the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside. My Department has made arrangements for the recycling of halon fire extinguishers in buildings which it occupies.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances, controlled by the Montreal protocol, and HCFCs.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's policy is to avoid the purchase of ozone-depleting chemicals and products that contain or use these substances during manufacture. The use of these chemicals are planned to be phased out in line with the Government's response to the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has not purchased any ozone-depleting chemicals in bulk in the last three years. There are approximately 1,000 portable halon fire extinguishers in the buildings occupied by the Department and these are planned to be replaced by the end of 1993.

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce possible routes for the A38 trunk road improvement scheme between Saltash and Trerulefoot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am planning to consult the public on proposals for the Saltash to Trerulefoot section of the A38 early next year.
  31
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce his preferred route for the A38 trunk road improvement to the west of Dobwalls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am planning to consult the public on proposals for the Doublebois to West Taphouse section of the A38 in the autumn and to announce the preferred route early next year.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the Humber bridge debt; and when he expects to conclude his discussions with the bridge board and others which will lead to a proportion of the debt being written off.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The estimated debt of the Humber bridge was £439 million at 31 March 1992. I shall shortly be meeting the bridge board to discuss plans for measures to reduce the debt burden. Pending legislation, growth of the debt has been halted by the payment of Government grant.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current safety regulations for the transport into and out of the United Kingdom of fresh nuclear fuel, irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium metal and oxides of plutonium by fixed wing aircraft and helicopter.

  Mr. Norris
  The transport of radioactive material by air is regulated by the Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1985, as amended.

  VAT percentage rates charged on passenger transport in the EC

  National transport

  International transport (taxation of national leg of journey)

  M.S.

  Air

  Sea

  Inland Waterways

  Rail

  Road

  Air

  Sea

  Inland Waterways

  Rail

  Road

  Belgium

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  0

  0

  6

  6

  16 flat-rate amounts

  Denmark

  exempt

  exempt

  exempt

  2exempt

  2exempt

  0

  0

  —

  exempt

  1exempt/25/ flatrate amounts

  Germany

  14

  7

  314/7

  314/7

  314/7

  0

  0

  47/exempt

  314/7

  114/7/flat-rate amounts

  France

  5.5

  5.5

  5.5

  5.5

  5.5

  0

  0

  5.5

  0

  55.5/exempt

  Ireland

  exempt

  exempt

  exempt

  exempt

  exempt

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Italy

  19

  9

  19

  69/exempt

  619/exempt

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Luxembourg

  6

  —

  exempt

  6

  6

  0

  —

  exempt

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  6

  76/exempt

  76/exempt

  6

  6

  0

  0

  6

  6

  6

  United Kingdom

  80

  80

  80

  80

  80

  0

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Portugal

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  90

  Spain

  13

  13

  13

  6

  6

  0

  0

  13

  6

  6

  Greece

  108

  108

  8

  8

  8

  0

  0

  —

  0

  8

  1 Generally flat-rate amounts are imposed upon entry into the country of foreign registered vehicles, vehicles. A VAT rate is applied to national vehicles. The exemption existing in Denmark concerns all scheduled traffic, both national and foreign. In Germany, the rate of 7 per cent. is applied to short distances.

  2 Non-schedule traffic 25 per cent.

  3 Long-distance 14 per cent.—short distance 7 per cent.

  4 Exemption for ferries on Rhine, Danube, Oder and Neisse.

  Coal Trucks, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what talks he has had with British Rail about the covering of coal trucks passing through residential areas close to the port of Liverpool, to reduce the level of coal dust settling on people's homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is an operational matter for British Rail.

  I understand that the hon. Member has written to the BR chairman and that the chairman will be replying shortly.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications for the re-opening of the Dunstable-Luton railway line for passenger traffic of the Government's policy for railway privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are considering the options for the re-opening of former passenger lines in the privatised railway.

  Public Transport (VAT)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each EC nation, whether public transport fares are subject to VAT and at what rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply. The application of VAT to passenger transport services varies considerably across the European Community both in terms of modes of transport and types of journey. The table, based on a paper by the EC Commission, contains the most up-to-date information available.
  33

  5 Transit: exempt. Others: 5.5 per cent.

  6 Long distance 19 per cent. (9 per cent. for sea and rail transport). Urban transport: exempt.

  7 Ferries opting for taxation and scheduled boats: 6 per cent.

  8Means of transport < 12 persons: 17.5 per cent.

  9 A special tax is collected at the frontier.

  106 per cent. for transport within and between certain islands.

EDUCATION

  Special Needs
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effect of learning support assistance in the classroom on the integration of children with special needs into mainstream schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Appropriate learning support may be of great benefit in assisting many children with special needs to take up places in mainstream schools. The Department has recently sponsored a comprehensive research project, carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research, into practical aspects of integration of children with special needs. The study is nearing completion, and when the final report is available I shall place a copy in the Library.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of children with statements of special need in nursery, primary and secondary sectors by local education authority in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  The numbers of pupils with statements of special educational needs in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1991 are shown in the table. Information for January 1992 is not available.

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in each local educational authority in England January 1991

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  City

  0

  2

  0

  Camden

  0

  89

  94

  Greenwich

  1

  192

  171

  Hackney

  3

  170

  80

  Hammersmith

  4

  78

  54

  Islington

  2

  179

  63

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  31

  20

  Lambeth

  1

  223

  95

  Lewisham

  0

  102

  129

  Southwark

  4

  197

  82

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  94

  61

  Wandsworth

  1

  246

  149

  Westminster

  1

  53

  62

  Barking

  0

  94

  50

  Barnet

  1

  111

  84

  Bexley

  2

  172

  137

  Brent

  0

  59

  70

  Bromley

  0

  332

  117

  Croydon

  0

  163

  169

  Ealing

  0

  151

  63

  Enfield

  0

  17

  17

  Haringey

  1

  49

  23

  Harrow

  0

  164

  113

  Havering

  0

  178

  83

  Hillingdon

  0

  75

  67

  Hounslow

  0

  326

  255

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  67

  57

  Merton

  0

  109

  62

  Newham

  8

  163

  124

  Redbridge

  0

  44

  46

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  105

  85

  Sutton

  2

  112

  67

  34

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Waltham Forest

  0

  63

  94

  Birmingham

  0

  358

  362

  Coventry

  0

  77

  80

  Dudley

  0

  152

  122

  Sandwell

  0

  54

  48

  Solihull

  0

  146

  163

  Walsall

  1

  186

  79

  Wolverhampton

  0

  185

  128

  Knowsley

  0

  90

  102

  Liverpool

  0

  138

  58

  St. Helens

  0

  114

  103

  Sefton

  0

  182

  168

  Wirral

  2

  303

  200

  Bolton

  3

  99

  98

  Bury

  1

  251

  198

  Manchester

  0

  57

  126

  Oldham

  0

  230

  194

  Rochdale

  5

  134

  119

  Salford

  0

  91

  50

  Stockport

  4

  355

  251

  Tameside

  0

  272

  125

  Trafford

  0

  169

  183

  Wigan

  0

  278

  168

  Barnsley

  1

  161

  -80

  Doncaster

  0

  101

  97

  Rotherham

  1

  189

  63

  Sheffield

  1

  296

  270

  Bradford

  0

  96

  247

  Calderdale

  0

  132

  66

  Kirklees

  7

  436

  234

  Leeds

  1

  585

  989

  Wakefield

  4

  127

  69

  Gateshead

  0

  40

  54

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5

  142

  168

  North Tyneside

  1

  145

  143

  South Tyneside

  0

  96

  74

  Sunderland

  1

  162

  121

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  4

  541

  515

  Bedfordshire

  4

  277

  344

  Berkshire

  4

  473

  178

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  712

  569

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  495

  417

  Cheshire

  3

  1,207

  1,123

  Cleveland

  0

  481

  470

  Cornwall

  2

  850

  725

  Cumbria

  6

  606

  516

  Derbyshire

  0

  971

  1,380

  Devon

  0

  1,230

  1,185

  Dorset

  0

  171

  413

  Durham

  43

  409

  205

  East Sussex

  5

  93

  63

  Essex

  1

  791

  919

  Gloucestershire

  0

  178

  193

  Hampshire

  1

  1,145

  961

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  210

  174

  Hertfordshire

  5

  789

  680

  Humberside

  4

  449

  429

  Isle of Wight

  0

  40

  69

  Kent

  0

  850

  617

  Lancashire

  16

  1,052

  1,200

  Leicestershire

  0

  651

  543

  Lincolnshire

  8

  465

  577

  Norfolk

  5

  1,001

  766

  North Yorkshire

  3

  557

  446

  Northamptonshire

  4

  277

  304

  Northumberland

  0

  171

  188

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  108

  103

  Oxfordshire

  1

  92

  51

  Shropshire

  3

  468

  715

  Somerset

  0

  305

  475

  Staffordshire

  6

  528

  302

  35

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Suffolk

  0

  592

  1,042

  Surrey

  17

  1,250

  410

  Warwickshire

  1

  238

  136

  West Sussex

  0

  198

  184

  Wiltshire

  0

  895

  1,107

  England

  264

  32,655

  29,337

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average number of hours of learning support assistance available to each child with a statement of special need by local education authority in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the weekly number of hours of learning support assistance in the classroom by local education authority in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally.

  School Places
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of additional school places which could be accommodated within existing school buildings in the vicinity of St. Ives and Huntingdon.

  Mr. Forth
  I understand that primary school capacity in St. Ives, derived from published admissions numbers, is 1,585 places. Numbers on roll are 1,496. The equivalent figures for secondary schools are 1,455 and 1,494 respectively. The figures for secondary schools exclude sixth form places and pupils. There are currently 288 students receiving post–16 education in schools in St. Ives.

  There are 1,708 primary places in Huntingdon, and 1,469 pupils on roll; 2,444 secondary places are in use out of a total of 2,590; 447 students receive post-16 education in schools in Huntingdon.

  Teachers
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of teachers employed in the public sector on temporary contracts of service.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the numbers of qualified teachers in regular service in the maintained (including grant-maintained) nursery, primary and secondary sector in England in January 1992. All figures are provisional.

  Barking

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Brent

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Under-fives

  1.37

  1.09

  1.13

  1.28

  1.39

  1.38

  1.08

  1.14

  1.63

  1.50

  Key stage 1

  1.02

  1.02

  1.00

  1.04

  1.06

  1.05

  0.84

  1.01

  1.00

  1.20

  Key stage 2

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  Key stage 3

  1.25

  1.41

  1.30

  1.43

  1.43

  1.56

  1.23

  1.36

  1.33

  1.33

  Key stage 4

  1.78

  1.41

  1.55

  1.72

  1.75

  1.66

  1.43

  1.71

  1.50

  1.55

  Sixth form

  2.47

  2.33

  2.10

  2.46

  2.81

  2.42

  1.54

  2.17

  2.06

  2.27

  Notes:

  1. All the data is derived from the 1991–92 section 42 statements received from local education authorities.

  2. The age-weightings were matched as close as possible to the relevant year groups within each Key Stage but due to the difference in definitions of year groups and age bands between different local education authorities a perfect match was not always possible. For each age group the relevant unit cost was taken and these were then averaged over the number of age groups within each Key Stage. The averages are simple arithmetic averages of the unit costs applied to the age groups. No account has been taken of the relative size of each age group.

  3. The following assumptions have been made:
  36

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Length of contract:

  Less than 1 year

  10,300

  13,300

  1 year or more

  9,000

  15,000

  Permanent

  334,500

  24,800

  All teachers

  12353,900

  53,100

  1 Due to rounding individual figures do not sum to the total.

  2 Excludes 500 full-time teachers on secondment for whom no contracts information is available.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time teachers there are in employment.

  Mr. Forth
  Provisional figures for January 1992 indicate that there were 354,400 full-time qualified teachers in regular service in the maintained (including grant-maintained) nursery, primary and secondary sector in England.

  Local Management of Schools
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the local management of schools budget per head for each of the London boroughs that comprised the former Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Forth
  Apart from Westminster, inner London local education authorities did not operate local management of schools until April this year. The 1992–93 budget figures are not yet available, but I will write to the hon. Member when our analysis of the data is complete.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing the ratio of the relevant age-weightings used during 1991–92 in the local management of schools scheme of each of(a) Barking and Dagenham, (b) Barnet, (c) Bexley, (d) Brent, (e) Bromley, (f) Croydon, (g) Ealing, (h) Enfield (i) Haringey and (j) Harrow local education authorities expressing the ratio in six bands of pupil ages, for pupils aged under five years, pupils in each of the four key stages and sixth-form pupils, with pupils in key stages two representing one in each ratio.

  Mr. Forth
  Age weightings do not tell the whole story as these determine the distribution of just over half the total schools budget nationally. The table shows the relative age weightings applicable under the LMS schemes for the 10 local education authorities for which information was requested.
  37

  —under fives includes all age bands under five including nursery and reception classes;

  —Key stage 1 includes ages 5 to 6 or years 1 to 2;

  —Key stage 2 includes ages 7 to 10 or years 3 to 6;

  —Key stage 3 includes ages 11 to 13 or years 7 to 9;

  —Key stage 4 includes ages 14 to 15 or years 10 to 11; and

  —Sixth form includes all aged 16 and over.

  4. The figures in the table show the resultant average unit costs expressed as a ratio of the unit cost for Key stage 2.

  Language Schools
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has received for a system of registration for language schools.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend receives representa-tions from time to time for the independent English language schools to be made subject to Government regulation. The Government believe that self-regulation in the independent sector provides the best means of ensuring that proper standards are maintained. The Government welcome the availability of voluntary accreditation schemes offered by the British Council and a number of responsible voluntary agencies.

  Physics Graduates
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the number of physics graduates in Britain(a) in 1983 and (b) in 1991; and what percentage these figures represent of the total number of graduates in each of these years.

  Mr. Forman
  Information is given in the table:

  Great Britain1

  1983

  Per cent.

  1990

  Per cent.

  Physics graduates

  2,354

  2.3

  2,310

  1.8

  Total numbers

  103,410

  100

  131,853

  100

  1 Excludes graduates from higher education institutions in Northern Ireland.

  First Degree Students
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in the most recent year for which figures are available, what was the public expenditure on the support of fees for full-time first degree students through(a) mandatory awards and (b) discretionary awards.

  Mr. Forman
  Expenditure by local education authorities in England and Wales on the support of fees for full-time first degree students through

  (a) mandatory awards was £259.3 million in 1989–90, the most recent year for which figures are available.

  (b) discretionary awards is not available centrally.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in the most recent year for which figures are available, what was the public expenditure on the support of fees for part-time first degree students through(a) the part-time fees support grant paid by the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and (b) through local education authority discretionary awards.

  Mr. Forman
  Public expenditure on the support of fees for part-time first degree students through

  (a) the part-time fees support grant paid by the UFC in Great Britain for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is as follows:
  38

  1991–92 (provisional) £ million

  1992–93 (provisional) £ million

  6.9

  7.4

  Source: Universities Funding Council.

  Note: Data are not available centrally on the PCFC.

  (b) Data on discretionary awards paid to part-time first degree students are not available centrally.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department;

  (2) what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal protocol and hydrofluorocarbons;

  (3) if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Forman
  Detailed information is not available but it is unlikely that any significant amounts of ozone-depleting chemicals have been used or purchased by this Department in the last three years. The Department's purchasing policy is based on the supply of goods and services which avoid the use of ozone-depleting substances wherever possible.

  Less than one tonne of ozone-depleting chemicals are present mainly in the sealed air conditioning units at two of the Department's leased buildings. Chiller units are regularly maintained and monitored by PSA approved contractors to prevent any leakage to the atmosphere. Any chemicals requiring replacement will be re-cycled.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with Her Majesty's chief inspector on drawing up the guidance and criteria for school inspections; what statements of policy, directions or advice he has issued to Her Majesty's chief inspector; if he will place copies of these in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Decisions on the arrangements for school inspections, including any guidance to registered inspectors, will be a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools to decide. While my right hon. Friend has discussed with Professor Sutherland his functions in general terms, he has issued no statements of policy. directions or advice.

  Arts and Drama
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students received discretionary awards from local education authorities for full-time courses in arts and drama in 1991–92; and if he will list the colleges and student numbers at each.

  Mr. Forman
  These data are not collected centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  African National Congress
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish a training programme for the members of the African National Congress in(a) youth employment legislation, (b) economics and (c) civic government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ANC members have participated in several training programmes funded by Her Majesty's Government, including courses in economics, local government and, most recently, a course in public administration held earlier this year at the Civil Service college. We have offered further assistance in these and other areas. Our assistance is not focused solely on the ANC: we have also invited nominations from other political parties in South Africa, including Inkatha, the Pan-African Congress and the Azanian People's Organisation.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish scholarships for members of the African National Congress studying the social sciences.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's Government are providing scholarships for around 1,100 black South Africans in 1992. These are awarded to individuals irrespective of their political affiliation, but members of political organisations, including the African National Congress, are welcome to apply. The scholarship programme focuses primarily upon mathematics, educa-tion, commerce and the physical sciences, but awards are also made in other subject areas, including the social sciences.

  Polio
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government are committed to the eradication of polio by the World Health Organisation targeted year of 2000.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes. This is one of a number of health targets established by the World Health Assembly which the British Government support.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the amount of funding for polio eradication.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA has provided £1 million between 1986–87 and 1990–91 for the "Polio Plus" campaign run by Rotary International. The United Kingdom also provides funds to polio and other immunisation programmes through our support for 40
  UNICEF, for WHO's expanded programme of immunisation (EPI) and for health care in our bilateral aid programmes. We will continue to provide support for activities to improve access to primary health care within developing countries—including immunisation—accord-ing to priorities agreed between national Governments, international agencies and ourselves.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government had with the Commonwealth countries over a collective policy to be submitted to the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Prime Minister and other Commonwealth Heads of Government discussed the preparations for the United Nations conference on environment and development when they last met in Harare in October 1991. Their collective position was outlined in the final communiqué, copies of which have been deposited in the Libraries of the Houses.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the amount of tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department of National Heritage came into existence in April 1992 and figures for usage since that date are not available. My Department is committed to eliminating the use of these products as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  The Naze
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what calculation he has made about the length of time it will take before the current rate of erosion of the Naze at Walton on the Naze causes the Naze tower to fall into the North sea;

  (2) if he will conduct a survey of the danger to the continued existence of the Naze tower, which now stands on the Naze at Walton on the Naze very close to the cliff edge, by the continuing erosion of the cliff edge; what he intends to do about the danger to the tower; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

SCOTLAND

  RENAVAL Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the distribution of RENAVAL programme moneys on(a) Strathclyde and (b) Fife.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The European Commission has approved European regional development fund (ERDF) awards under the RENAVAL community programme of some 21 million European currency units (MECU) (approximately £15 million) and 3.4 MECU (approximately £2.4 million) for Strathclyde and Fife respectively. The distribution of these monies is the responsibility of programme monitoring committees (PMC). To date, the Strathclyde PMC has approved ERDF grants to the value of some £1.5 million whilst the Fife PMC has approved ERDF grants totalling some £0.9 million.

  Capital expenditure per pupil on local authority schools

  (£ at out—turn prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Borders

  31

  60

  54

  39

  44

  58

  69

  57

  64

  72

  109

  215

  Central

  61

  52

  48

  28

  22

  23

  31

  53

  64

  102

  118

  112

  Dumfries and Galloway

  56

  60

  65

  82

  99

  100

  105

  92

  29

  75

  82

  63

  Fife

  35

  39

  39

  38

  28

  49

  73

  80

  37

  86

  106

  156

  Grampian

  79

  102

  140

  103

  80

  72

  103

  101

  29

  44

  52

  76

  Highland

  60

  69

  86

  77

  46

  23

  38

  32

  73

  107

  116

  92

  Lothian

  60

  69

  58

  68

  52

  54

  58

  36

  80

  79

  117

  96

  Strathclyde

  36

  41

  53

  44

  48

  50

  52

  46

  54

  69

  74

  66

  Tayside

  31

  25

  27

  31

  23

  35

  46

  34

  57

  64

  70

  56

  Orkney

  44

  27

  175

  353

  263

  388

  370

  282

  310

  327

  314

  406

  Shetland

  663

  703

  800

  624

  579

  436

  252

  121

  131

  230

  183

  211

  Western Isles

  76

  98

  225

  263

  150

  165

  204

  579

  712

  421

  306

  447

  Note: The figures relate to expenditure on nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  Birds
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for licences to cull(a) cormorants and (b) goosanders and mergansers were submitted to his Department in each of the past five years; and how many of these were granted.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 June 1992]: The information is as follows:

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Cormorants only applications

  6

  5

  12

  16

  12

  licences granted

  6

  5

  12

  16

  12

  Goosanders and/or mergansers only applications

  12

  9

  12

  13

  2

  licences granted

  12

  9

  12

  10

  2

  Both species applications

  23

  23

  18

  32

  20

  licences granted

  23

  23

  18

  24

  20

  Total number of applications submitted

  41

  37

  42

  61

  34

  Total number of licences granted

  41

  37

  42

  50

  34

  Education
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the amount of capital expenditure per pupil, per annum, in each Scottish region since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1992]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the amount of capital expenditure per capita, per annum, on secondary education in Scotland in each region, since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1992]: The following table provides information on capital expenditure per pupil in local authority schools. It is derived from local authority capital expenditure returns and the annual school census of pupil numbers.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of payments under the set-aside scheme in Scotland in each region which have been recovered or withheld in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 June 1992]: It is not yet possible to provide this information. Set-aside payments for 1991–92 will be made in the last quarter of 1992.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers have received payments under the set-aside scheme in 1991 in each region in Scotland for(a) horse-based activities, (b) golf courses, (c) game cover for recreational shoots, (d) sports grounds, (e) other recreational facilities and (f) other; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 June 1992]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. The table lists all agreements under the non-agricultural use option of the set-aside scheme for those who entered the scheme in 1988, 1989 and 1990. No payments have yet been made to participants who entered the scheme in 1991.
  43

  Payments for 1990–91 (set-aside agreements entered into in 1988,1989 and 1990)

  Region

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  Borders

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Fife

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  29

  1

  9

  2

  5

  2

  Highland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lothian

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Strathclyde

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tayside

  19

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  62

  3

  11

  2

  7

  7

  The information provided in respect of payments for the 1990–91 set-aside year (ending 30 September 1991) is provisional, pending completion of the processing of claims. As the scheme provides for five-year undertakings, the table above represents the cumulative position.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the figures in Scotland by region for 1991–92 of(a) the number of serious irregularities of the set-aside scheme, (b) the number of minor breaches of the scheme and (c) the number of cases where payments were withheld in full or in part; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 June 1992]: It is not yet possible to provide this information. The 1991–92 set-aside year runs from 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1992, with payments being made in the last quarter of 1992.

  Community Charge
  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. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 18 June 1992]: Figures showing the percentage of budgeted community charge income in respect of 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 received by each Scottish levying authority as at 31 March 1992 (the most recent date for which information is available) are given in the following table:

  Levying authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Borders

  101.2

  98.1

  88.0

  Central

  96.2

  90.9

  86.1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  99.6

  100.0

  90.1

  Fife

  97.6

  92.8

  85.5

  Grampian

  100.2

  96.4

  90.6

  Highland

  100.3

  91.5

  80.0

  Lothian

  88.4

  81.2

  72.3

  Strathclyde

  89.5

  79.3

  71.1

  Tayside

  97.0

  87.1

  79.4

  Orkney

  111.8

  100.0

  85.7

  Shetland

  100.0

  95.0

  85.7

  Western Isles

  90.3

  86.1

  68.8

  The uniform business rate does not apply in Scotland and information about non-domestic rate collection levels is not held centrally.

HEALTH

  Medical Records
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions she 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 medical records compiled before 1 November 1991; and what action she intends to take.

  Mr. Sackville
  A consultation paper was issued to interested organisations in February 1992 to seek views on the implications of the judgment. Comments received are being analysed before any final decision is taken. At this stage it is not the Government's intention to apply the judgment to the disclosure of personal health records.

  Hospital Standards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish a national inspectorate for health to review the standards in national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to establish a national inspectorate for health.

  Health authorities are already required to review and publish information about their performance against both national and local charter standards under the patients charter.

  Nurses
  Mrs Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of community nurses when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 comes into effect.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities are working with social service departments to establish locally agreed strategies for the provision of community care. The resulting community care plans will include whether there is an additional need for services provided by community nurses, and this will be reflected in contracts for NHS care from next year.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the public domain all records of her Department relating to the recruitment of black nurses to the national health service from Commonwealth countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. As from April 1991 NHS employing bodies are required to include in local planning data information about ethnic origin of all staff.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the longest time that anyone who has been identified as suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has survived after the diagnosis has been made.

  Mr. Yeo
  The duration of illness in Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) may range from less than one month to many years. However, in the great majority of patients the duration of illness is measured in months and there has been no change in the average length of illness in CJD since 1970.

  In the United Kingdom between 1985 and 1992 the longest duration of illness was 47 months. In 1979 a patient resident in England was reported to have a duration of illness of 60 months.

  Health Service Decisions
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment she has made of the sufficiency of the safeguards available to challenge the decision of a health authority that a change it proposes does not constitute a substantial variation in services;

  (2) what plans she has to review the regulations governing the consultation of community health councils when substantial variations in health services are proposed.

  Estimated resident population of the West Midlands (county) aged 18 and over

  Thousands

  Area

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  West Midlands

  1,977.5

  1,981.6

  1,987.2

  1,987.8

  1,989.1

  1,988.9

  1,993.1

  1,994.3

  Birmingham

  752.5

  753.1

  753.6

  752.5

  749.5

  746.9

  746.8

  746.4

  Coventry

  235.1

  234.7

  234.6

  234.0

  233.5

  231.9

  230.8

  230.5

  Dudley

  227.6

  229.0

  230.6

  231.9

  234.5

  236.9

  238.8

  240.3

  Sandwell

  229.3

  229.0

  229.1

  228.4

  227.3

  226.4

  226.6

  226.5

  Solihull

  147.4

  149.0

  151.8

  153.2

  155.6

  157.3

  157.7

  157.6

  Walsall

  196.9

  197.7

  197.8

  198.1

  199.0

  200.1

  201.9

  202.5

  Wolverhampton

  188.6

  189.0

  189.6

  189.6

  189.6

  189.5

  190.6

  190.5

  Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  National Health Service Staff
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants and administrators work for the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 30 September 1990 (the latest detailed information available) there were 120,040 whole-time equivalent1 national health service staff employed on the terms and conditions of the national health service Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council in England. These include a wide range from clerical and secretarial to senior finance, information technology and personnel staff and over a quarter work in direct support of clinicians. At the same date, there were 9,680 whole-time equivalent national health service general and senior managers.

  Additionally there are currently 60 civil servants working on secondment in the national health service.
  46
  Mr. Sackville
  We are satisfied that the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No. 304), as amended, contain adequate safeguards. There are no plans to review them at present.

  Organ Transplants
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of organs available for transplant.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department maintains a continuous campaign to promote organ donation, which is a Government priority. We are mounting a seminar of all interested bodies in September to look at ways of improving donation rates.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the estimated adult population in each borough in the West Midlands county for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Sackville
  Estimates of adult population relating to the years 1983–90 are shown in the table. These are based upon 1981 census results, with allowances for subsequent changes. Estimates relating to mid–1991, based upon results of the 1991 census, will become available in the autumn.

  The Department of Health currently employs 4,773 staff.

  1 Whole-time equivalents are calculated as the number of whole-time staff plus total hours or sessions per week contracted by part-time staff divided by the number of hours or sessions in the appropriate standard working week.

  Dentists
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of dentists in each family health services authority area who have withdrawn from the NHS in each year since October 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available. Since 30 September 1990 there has been a net increase of 52 in the number of dentists practising in the general dental services in England. The number of dentists on the dental list of each family health services authority at 30 September 1990, 30 September 1991 and 31 March 1992 (the latest available figures) is shown in the table.
  47

  Number of general dental practitioners England

  Family health services authority

  1990 30 September

  1991 30 September

  1992 31 March

  Cleveland

  155

  167

  172

  Cumbria

  145

  148

  148

  Durham

  144

  146

  146

  Northumberland

  87

  89

  82

  Gateshead

  58

  63

  65

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  106

  97

  102

  North Tyneside

  65

  58

  63

  South Tyneside

  39

  44

  44

  Sunderland

  70

  69

  75

  Humberside

  204

  198

  207

  North Yorkshire

  241

  243

  247

  Bradford

  153

  146

  142

  Calderdale

  53

  58

  58

  Kirklees

  104

  111

  115

  Leeds

  254

  255

  255

  Wakefield

  85

  81

  78

  Derbyshire

  242

  250

  255

  Leicestershire

  237

  233

  235

  Lincolnshire

  114

  124

  123

  Nottinghamshire

  265

  267

  277

  Barnsley

  53

  54

  59

  Doncaster

  80

  88

  90

  Rotherham

  61

  66

  64

  Sheffield

  166

  175

  170

  Cambridgeshire

  186

  183

  175

  Norfolk

  222

  224

  223

  Suffolk

  197

  197

  193

  Bedfordshire

  132

  140

  139

  Hertfordshire

  393

  400

  388

  Barnet

  161

  145

  142

  Brent and Harrow

  188

  187

  190

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  257

  248

  257

  Hillingdon

  84

  77

  79

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  297

  239

  228

  Essex

  418

  441

  435

  Barking and Havering

  94

  107

  96

  Camden and Islington

  190

  176

  170

  City and East London

  189

  173

  180

  Enfield and Haringey

  192

  180

  177

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  143

  145

  155

  East Sussex

  278

  276

  278

  Kent

  519

  510

  496

  Greenwich and Bexley

  140

  147

  149

  Bromley

  125

  128

  125

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  279

  273

  276

  Surrey

  446

  453

  453

  West Sussex

  284

  285

  285

  Croydon

  127

  122

  125

  Kingston and Richmond

  137

  140

  131

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  246

  242

  248

  Dorset

  230

  227

  233

  Hampshire

  506

  509

  512

  Wiltshire

  165

  158

  169

  Isle of Wight

  48

  45

  46

  Berkshire

  249

  256

  256

  Buckinghamshire

  226

  229

  232

  Northamptonshire

  150

  144

  141

  Oxfordshire

  201

  199

  193

  Avon

  355

  359

  363

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  143

  141

  142

  Devon

  369

  371

  369

  Gloucestershire

  195

  194

  204

  Somerset

  147

  152

  150

  Hereford and Worcester

  197

  202

  208

  Salop

  127

  128

  127

  Staffordshire

  244

  246

  245

  Warwickshire

  134

  131

  135

  Birmingham

  299

  292

  301

  Coventry

  81

  74

  79

  Dudley

  78

  75

  79

  Sandwell

  67

  69

  67

  Solihull

  51

  59

  55

  Walsall

  59

  58

  60

  Wolverhampton

  58

  62

  62

  Cheshire

  324

  322

  325

  48

  49

  Family health services authority

  1990 30 September

  1991 30 September

  1992 31 March

  Liverpool

  146

  146

  146

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  94

  89

  87

  Sefton

  82

  90

  91

  Wirral

  118

  118

  117

  Lancashire

  400

  414

  422

  Bolton

  65

  71

  71

  Bury

  65

  59

  59

  Manchester

  179

  178

  181

  Oldham

  62

  68

  69

  Rochdale

  54

  52

  57

  Salford

  68

  62

  64

  Stockport

  111

  106

  109

  Tameside

  60

  55

  63

  Trafford

  82

  82

  88

  Wigan

  86

  91

  90

  Total

  15,480

  15,451

  15,532

  Female Psychiatric Patients
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy that female psychiatric patients are given a choice as to whether they are cared for in a women-only or mixed ward;

  (2) how many health authorities offer women the choice of being admitted to a women-only psychiatric ward.

  Mr. Yeo
  Decisions on the hospital ward accommodation of psychiatric patients are matters for local clinical and managerial judgment, taking into account the

  Parliamentary electors registered in each constituency in the West Midlands (county). 1983–87

  Parliamentary constituency

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  BC

  61,714

  61,955

  62,192

  62,540

  62,984

  Birmingham, Edgbaston

  BC

  55,503

  55,477

  55,386

  54,929

  54,797

  Birmingham, Erdington

  BC

  56,561

  55,972

  55,405

  55,089

  54,597

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  BC

  61,712

  61,880

  61,744

  61,838

  61,666

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  BC

  61,895

  61,518

  61,220

  60,611

  59,785

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  BC

  61,006

  60,588

  60,225

  60,227

  59,286

  Birmingham, Northfield

  BC

  75,151

  75,164

  74,931

  74,641

  73,956

  Birmingham, Perry Barr

  BC

  75,149

  75,091

  75,047

  74,825

  74,413

  Birmingham, Selly Oak

  BC

  72,390

  72,490

  72,409

  72,686

  72,821

  Birmingham, Small Heath

  BC

  59,916

  59,783

  58,714

  58,225

  57,253

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook

  BC

  54,155

  53,632

  53,395

  53,438

  53,594

  Birmingham, Yardley

  BC

  58,346

  58,229

  57,923

  57,889

  57,423

  Coventry, North-East

  BC

  67,609

  68,045

  68,075

  68,094

  68,291

  Coventry, North-West

  BC

  52,541

  53,271

  53,069

  53,171

  53,703

  Coventry, South-East

  BC

  52,989

  52,662

  52,361

  51,897

  52,476

  Coventry, South-West

  BC

  65,735

  65,571

  65,684

  65,750

  66,364

  Dudley, East

  BC

  75,718

  75,788

  75,896

  75,932

  76,154

  Dudley, West

  BC

  78,890

  79,912

  80,941

  81,817

  82,884

  Halesowen and Stourbridge

  BC

  77,385

  77,729

  77,857

  78,252

  78,979

  Meriden

  CC

  75,212

  76,582

  77,663

  78,611

  79,436

  Solihull

  BC

  74,556

  75,069

  76,148

  77,474

  78,855

  Sutton Coldfield

  BC

  68,617

  70,030

  71,258

  72,442

  73,128

  Walsall, North

  BC

  69,805

  69,847

  69,884

  69,469

  69,306

  Walsall, South

  BC

  68,097

  68,144

  68,046

  67,990

  67,659

  Warley, East

  BC

  58,255

  57,845

  57,404

  56,756

  56,365

  Warley, West

  BC

  57,910

  58,110

  58,263

  58,332

  58,240

  West Bromwich, East

  BC

  60,265

  60,105

  59,793

  59,490

  58,993

  West Bromwich, West

  BC

  59,124

  59,408

  59,482

  59,543

  59,705

  Wolverhampton, North-East

  BC

  64,493

  64,760

  64,312

  64,308

  64,237

  Wolverhampton, South-East

  BC

  57,039

  56,900

  55,996

  56,637

  56,404

  Wolverhampton, South-West

  BC

  69,576

  69,271

  69,427

  68,867

  69,303

  Total

  2,007,314

  2,010,828

  2,010,150

  2,011,770

  2,013,057

  50
  patient's wishes. Information on the number of health authorities offering women the choice of being admitted to a women-only psychiatric ward is not collected centrally.

  Electors
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of electors registered in each parliamentary constituency in the West Midlands county(a) on the current electoral register and (b) on the registers in force for each of the years from 1983 to 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  51
  Notes:

  The figures in this table are those supplied by electoral registration officers at the times when the registers come in to use each year.

  BC—borough constituency: CC—county constituency.

  Source: Population Estimates Unit. OPCS.

  Parliamentary electors registered in each constituency in the West Midlands (County) 1988–92.

  Parliamentary constituency

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  BC

  63,119

  63,481

  64,249

  64,066

  64,166

  Birmingham-Edgbaston

  BC

  54,609

  54,162

  53,691

  53,601

  53,529

  Birmingham, Erdington

  BC

  53,991

  53,552

  53,477

  53,265

  52,848

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  BC

  61,702

  61,501

  61,225

  61,007

  60,792

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  BC

  59,446

  59,149

  58,935

  58,438

  58,239

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  BC

  58,746

  56,737

  56,288

  57,398

  57,607

  Birmingham, Northfield

  BC

  73,316

  72,403

  72,249

  71,866

  71,260

  Birmingham, Perry Barr

  BC

  74,399

  74,053

  73,318

  73,567

  72,817

  Birmingham, Selly Oak

  BC

  72,596

  72,099

  72,220

  72,907

  72,817

  Birmingham, Small Heath

  BC

  56,505

  54,631

  54,522

  55,514

  55,852

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook

  BC

  53,327

  51,788

  51,323

  51,832

  52,261

  Birmingham, Yardley

  BC

  56,883

  56,664

  56,438

  55,609

  55,265

  Coventry North East

  BC

  67,478

  66,464

  66,283

  65,460

  65,450

  Coventry North West

  BC

  53,504

  52,665

  51,954

  51,429

  51,166

  Coventry South East

  BC

  51,651

  50,333

  49,985

  49,246

  49,249

  Coventry South West

  BC

  66,283

  65,311

  64,781

  64,606

  64,196

  Dudley East

  BC

  76,010

  75,927

  76,341

  76,147

  76,148

  Dudley West

  BC

  84,329

  85,955

  87,155

  87,425

  87,633

  Halesowen and Stourbridge

  BC

  79,378

  79,279

  79,350

  78,657

  78,535

  Meriden

  CC

  79,755

  79,181

  78,808

  78,196

  77,742

  Solihull

  BC

  79,283

  79,223

  78,402

  78,097

  78,028

  Sutton Coldfield

  BC

  73,617

  73,387

  72,829

  72,494

  72,333

  Walsall North

  BC

  69,147

  69,731

  69,699

  70,057

  70,406

  Walsall South

  BC

  67,484

  66,790

  66,288

  66,338

  66,422

  Warley East

  BC

  55,421

  54,491

  53,709

  52,762

  52,267

  Warley West

  BC

  58,050

  58,083

  58,340

  58,025

  57,785

  West Bromwich East

  BC

  58,704

  58,339

  58,433

  57,983

  57,604

  West Bromwich West

  BC

  59,364

  59,144

  59,016

  58,484

  58,348

  Wolverhampton North East

  BC

  63,697

  60,596

  62,621

  63,389

  63,301

  Wolverhampton South East

  BC

  55,853

  55,561

  56,047

  56,921

  56,789

  Wolverhampton South West

  BC

  68,151

  65,503

  66,539

  67,353

  68,029

  TOTAL

  2,005,79g

  1,986,183

  1,984,515

  1,982,139

  1,978,839

  Note: The figures in this table are those supplied by Electoral Registration Officers at the times when the registers come into use each year.

  BC—borough constituency: CC—county constituency.

  Source: Population Estimates Unit. OPCS.

  Food Safety Act 1990
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that disabled people or people who have experienced serious injury or illness are not precluded from the therapeutic and rehabilitative benefit of participation in catering and domestic tasks in residential homes as a result of the application of regulations consequent on the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 19 June at column 708.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will initiate a feasibility study into the possibility of local housewives and mothers being employed as home helps for the elderly in their communities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Home help staff make up about a quarter of the total work force of social services departments in England. The majority of this valuable work force are women with family commitments. We do not consider that a feasibility study is necessary.

  Community Support Schemes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the number of community support schemes there are in existence;

  (2) what guidelines are issued for the operation of community support schemes.

  Mr. Yeo
  Guidance on implementing "Caring for People" includes material specifically on services for carers. We are funding the Carers Impact Group which will provide a consultancy service to statutory authorities about how to support carers, we also gave financial assistance to the King's Fund for their publication "Focus on Carers". Information about the number of community support schemes is not collected centrally.

  White Paper
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish her White Paper on the health of the nation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on 16 June at column 472.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will seek a report from the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority as to how much the trust applicants within the Wakefield health authority have so far spent on(a) press advertisements regarding trust proposals and (b) publicising the consultation meetings regarding the trust proposals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for co-ordinating the consultation process with the individual trust applicants and the financial details are a matter for them. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact Sir Bryan Askew, Chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority, for details.

  Ophthalmology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has received from the regional health authority on (i) a unified ophthalmology centre in Newcastle upon Tyne and (ii) a cataract centre in the Northern region; on what date her Department asked for the advice of the regional health authority on these proposals; and when she proposes to announce her decision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In January 1992, the national health service management executive asked Northern regional health authority to make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State concerning the siting of a unified ophthalmology service in Newcastle. The recommendation is for unification of services at the Royal Victoria Infirmary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the recommendation and will announce her decision shortly. Advice was not sought from Northern regional health authority on provision of a cataract centre. The regional health authority was asked to take its siting into consideration when making its ophthalmology recommendation.

  Registered Homes Act 1984
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984 the number of appeals to registered home tribunals by(a) private nursing homes, (b) voluntary nursing homes, (c) private residential care homes, (d) voluntary residential care homes, (e) dual registered private homes and (f) dual registered voluntary homes, stating in each category for each year (i) the reason for the appeal to the tribunal and (ii) the number of appeals which were, successful.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Immune Deficiency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will grant supra-regional funds status for severe combined immune deficiency syndrome work with children at the Newcastle general hospital.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government receive advice on such questions from the supra-regional services advisory group. I understand that the advisory group is considering an 54
  application for the designation of the service for the treatment of severe combined immunodeficiency and related disorders provided by Newcastle general hospital, and will make its recommendation later in the year.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she proposes to give to local authorities on how to deal, under the new community care arrangements, with cases where elderly residents in private residential or nursing homes who are self-financed exhaust their resources and are unable to continue paying their own fees.

  Mr. Yeo
  People who are already resident in residential care and nursing homes when the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 takes full effect next April will have preserved rights to income support under the present system. This applies whether they are currently self-financing or not. They will continue to be able to turn to the Department of Social Security for public financial support.

  People who enter residential care and nursing homes on a self-financing basis on or after the date the Act takes effect and subsequently exhaust their own financial resources will be able to approach local authorities. The local authority would then undertake an assessment of their care needs. We have issued extensive guidance on care management and assessment which covers all new cases seeking public support after April 1993.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the amount of paper used in answering hon. Members' questions.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no specific proposals to review the amount of paper used but, like all stationery items, Government Departments aim to keep costs to a minimum and cut out waste wherever possible.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the deposition in the Library of copies of the texts of(a) the Rio declaration on sustainable development, (b) the intergovernmental declaration on the management of forests, (c) the full text of agenda 21 blueprint for environmental action, (d) the biodiversity convention and (e) the climate convention as agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave to the hon. Member for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 17 June 1992,Official Report, col. 562.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out those issues that Her Majesty's Government pressed to be omitted from the final text of the agenda 21 document as a pre-condition of signing it at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro.
  55
  The Prime Minister
  The Government fully supported the Agenda 21 action plan and did not press for any issues to be omitted before agreeing the final text.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to consult non-governmental organisations in Her Majesty's Government's preparation of proposals for the Sustainable Development Commission agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, prior to their submission for consideration at the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government consulted non-governmental organisations on a wide range of environment and development issues before the Earth summit and will continue to do so during the follow-up. As 1 announced in Rio, the United Kingdom will convene, next June, a major international forum of the non-governmental community to examine and clarify their role in the practical implementation of Agenda 21.

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement of 15 June,Official Report, column 649, what additional resources Her Majesty's Government plan to make available to support his Darwin initiative on natural resources, research and monitoring, the compilation of inventories on important species, and the promotion of international co-operation and techniques for conservation respectively.

  The Prime Minister
  We are still considering the level of resources which will be required.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the subjects on which(a) majority voting and (b) qualified majority voting are allowed under the Maastricht agreement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 20 May 1992,Official Report, column 168–69. Where no specific voting rule is stated (e.g. for procedural issues), the residual rule of simple majority applies, by virtue of article 148(1) of the treaty of Rome.

  Colombia
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement of 15 June,Official Report, column 650, what assistance has been provided to Colombia to aid the fight against drug trafficking; what information he has on the number of people killed in Colombia in the course of suppressing that traffic; and what consideration he gave to the levels of killings when deciding on the level of financial assistance.

  The Prime Minister
  As indicated in the Official Report of 15 June 1992, column 650 we have provided a substantial package of anti-drugs assistance to the judicial and law-enforcement authorities in Colombia. The only accurate figure for the number of people killed in Colombia in the course of suppressing drugs trafficking is the number of anti-narcotics police officers lost, which for 1991 was 35. In deciding on the level of financial
  56
  assistance, our first consideration has been support for the democratically elected government of Colombia in their fight to maintain the rule of law.

  Global Forum
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional resources Her Majesty's Government have earmarked for supporting the global forum of nongovernmental organisations and aid agencies in 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are currently assessing the cost of supporting the proposed conference and we will be making provision for this in our plans for the next financial year.

  Global Environmental Facility
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to report to Parliament on the ways in which the global environmental facility will spend the £100 million which the United Kingdom is to contribute.

  The Prime Minister
  The Overseas Development Administration will continue to report on its global environmental assistance programme, through which our contributions to the global environmental facility are made, in the annual Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to challenge the decision of the European Court on the imposition of VAT on spectacles, hearing aids and dentures.

  The Prime Minister
  No. There is no right of appeal against a judgment of the European Court. The court found in February 1988 that the United Kingdom, in exempting supplies of spectacles and hearing aids (not dentures), had contravened article 13 of the EC Sixth VAT Directive. As a result of the judgment, the VAT Act 1983 was amended by section 13 of the Finance Act 1988 with effect from 1 September 1988.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Directors
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to control payments and remunerations made to company directors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  At present the details of directors' service contracts over one year are, with some exceptions, required under the Companies Act 1985 to be made available for inspection by shareholders who may ask questions or put forward resolutions on directors' pay at the annual general meeting. Also, directors' service contracts for a period of five years or more are subject to approval by general meeting.

  United Nations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the United Nations conference on trade and development following the decision to establish the new United Nations Sustainable Development Commission.
  57
  Mr. Needham
  The Government welcome the agreement at the eighth UN conference on trade and development in Cartagena in February this year, that UNCTAD should be radically reformed so that it can carry out its role to help promote sustained and sustainable economic development more effectively.

  If UNCTAD's reforms are to be effective, its work should not duplicate but should complement the activities of the new United Nations Sustainable Development Commission, once this body's role is agreed by the UN General Assembly meeting this autumn.

  Environmental Incentives
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to launch a research programme on incentives to industry to meet environmental standards which would consider the application of(a) charges, (b) resource taxes, (c) tradeable permits, (d) subsidies and (e) performance bonds.

  Mr. Leigh
  The White Paper on the Environment, "This Common Inheritance", contains a commitment to a programme of research into the potential use of market-based instruments as a means of environmental protection. This work falls to several Departments. An important example of current work is the study which my Department has commissioned jointly with the Department of the Environment of the role economic instruments might play in helping us to achieve our recycling targets.

  Lean-burn Engines
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts are currently being undertaken by his Department to encourage the development of lean-burn engines.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department is not currently supporting the development of lean-burn engines. However, technologies across the range of approaches leading to reduced vehicle emission, including leanburn engines, are eligible for support, subject to meeting the support criteria.

  Financing Schemes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to outlaw off-balance-sheet financing schemes.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Companies Act 1989 extended the definition of a subsidiary undertaking and has resulted in the bringing on to consolidated balance sheets some schemes which were previously off balance sheet. I have no plans for further statutory provisions. However, the Accounting Standards Board is working towards an accounting standard on the matter.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation under which shareholders will be able to seek damages from the recognised supervisory bodies in respect of the audit failures identified in the DTI inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.
  58
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will establish an independent statutory body to hear complaints against the bodies recognised as the recognised supervisory bodies in the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation to require that completed ballot papers for elections of the officers to the recognised supervisory bodies are not returned to the secretaries of those bodies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such plans.

  Liability
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide a statutory definition of liability.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Expense (Statutory Definition)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide a statutory definition of expense.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Independent Ombudsman
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for appointing an independent ombudsman to hear complaints against the recognised qualifying bodies by the students of that body.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I see no need for such proposals.

  Accounting Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to prevent partners from the accountancy firms criticised by his Department's inspectors from having a seat on the Accounting Standards Board.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Appointments to the Accounting Standards Board are a matter for the Financial Reporting Council.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the costs of his Department's investigations which he has recovered under section 439 of the Companies Act 1985 from the auditing firms criticised in the inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no powers under section 439 to require those criticised in an inspectors' report to contribute to the cost of the investigation.

  Audits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to abolish audits for small companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have at present nothing to add to the statement made by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 18 February 1992,Official Report, columns 122–25.

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of company investigations authorised under the various sections of the Companies Act 1985 for the year ended 31 March.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Information on the number of Companies Act investigations, by section, is to be published in the companies annual report. The table gives the number of investigations under the Companies Act in the year ending 31 March 1992.

  Number

  Section 432

  4

  Section 442

  3

  Section 446

  1

  Section 447

  155

  Total

  163

  Mountleigh Property Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint inspectors to investigate the collapse of Mountleigh Property Group.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  It is not my Department's policy to comment on individual companies.

  If the hon. Member has information to suggest that the appointment of inspectors is appropriate, my officials will consider it if the hon. Member forwards it in the usual manner.

  Company Receivers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will launch an independent investigation into ways in which company receivers are appointed.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Companies Act Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will provide a list showing the names and business connections of the individuals who are currently acting as inspectors in connection with the investigations authorised under the Companies Act 1985. Mr. Neil Hamilton: The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  D. Donaldson, QC.

  I. Watt, FCA of KPMG Peat Marwick, Chartered Accountants.

  Miss, E. Appelby, QC.

  P. Foss, FCA of Moores Rowland, Chartered Accountants.

  L. Ziman of Nabarro Nathanson, Solicitors.

  W. Hoffman, FCA of Baker Tilly, Chartered Accountants.

  P. Heslop, QC.

  R. Lewis, FCA of Kidsons lmpey, Chartered Accountants.

  D. A. Evans, QC.

  B. Worth, FCA of Clark Whitehill, Chartered Accountants.

  E. W. Hamilton, QC.

  J. A. Scott, FCA of BDO Binder Hamlyn, Chartered Accountants.

  C. P. F. Rimer, QC.

  J. White, FCA of KPMG Peat Marwick, Chartered Accountants.

  60

  W. M. Gage, QC.

  A. H. Gilroy, FCA of BDO Binder Hamlyn, Chartered Accountants.

  R. G. B. McCombe, QC.

  J. K. Heywood, LLB, FCA of Price Waterhouse, Chartered Accountants.

  P. H. Bovey of DTI.

  M. A. Pickford of Government Actuary's Department. A. R. Fausset of DTI.

  D. G. Dean, FCCA of DTI.

  A. H. S. Robertshaw of DTI.

  C. K. B. Mayhew of DTI.

  M. Crystal, QC.

  V. B. A. Temple, Barrister.

  D. L. Spence of Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants. R. J. L. Thomas, QC.

  R. T. Turner, FCA of Neville Russell, Chartered Accountants.

  Bryanston (Inspectors' Report)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish the inspectors' final report on Bryanston.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Recreational Craft
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what barriers to trade, within the European Economic Community for recreational craft of between 2.5 and 24 m length for use on inland waterways or coastal waters, have been identified by the European Commission which are associated with draft directive 6119/92 concerning the removal of any such barriers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The barriers to trade identified by the European Community Commission are the technical rules for type approval under national legislation applying in France and Italy.

  Magnox Nuclear Power Stations
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the age of each of the Magnox nuclear power stations; and at what age each of the stations will be decommissioned.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nuclear Electric's seven operating Magnox stations first produced power in the following years:

  Year

  Bradwell

  1962

  Dungeness A

  1965

  Hinckley Point A

  1965

  Trawsfynydd

  1965

  Sizewell A

  1965

  Oldbury

  1967

  Wylfa

  1971

  A further Magnox station at Berkeley is currently being decommissioned.

  The date at which any operating Magnox station will be decommissioned is a commercial matter for Nuclear Electric plc, subject to the views of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish an independent assessment of the safety and life expectancy of the Magnox reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that is the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) normal practice to publish the
  61
  independent nuclear installations inspectorate's (NH) findings of its assessment of operators' long term safety reviews (LTSRs) of Magnox nuclear power stations. The NII's findings on the LTSRs for Berkeley, Bradwell, Calderhall, Chapel Cross, Hinkley Point A, and Hunterston A have been published. The HSE propose to publish the Nil's findings on the LTSRs for Dungeness A, Oldbury, Sizewell A, Traswfynydd, and Wylfa in due course.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what or whose expert advice decisions on the safety of nuclear power operations are made.

  Mr. Eggar
  The nuclear installations inspectorate, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive, regulate the safety of nuclear installations by virtue of powers contained in the Health and Safety At Work etc Act 1974 and relevant statutory provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  Net Book Agreement
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what calculations he has made of the economic effects to public libraries of the abolition of the net book agreement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Figures are not available. In 1991 expenditure on books and pamphlets by United Kingdom public libraries was £101 million and this figure includes a 10 per cent. discount on net hooks under the library licence which is a part of the NBA.

  Department of Trade and Industry regional office running costs £ Thousands

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Current prices

  1987–88 prices1

  Current prices

  1987–88 prices1

  Current prices

  1987–88 prices1

  Current prices

  1987―88 prices1

  Current prices

  1987–88 prices1

  North East

  2,727

  2,727

  3,250

  3,032

  3,412

  2,990

  4,246

  3,431

  4.420

  3,338

  North West

  2,758

  2,758

  3,686

  3,439

  3,633

  3,184

  3,609

  2,916

  3,997

  3,018

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,600

  1,600

  2,098

  1,957

  2,300

  2,016

  2,686

  2,170

  2,863

  2,162

  East Midlands

  1,115

  1,115

  1,432

  1,336

  1,599

  1,401

  1,728

  1,396

  1,865

  1,408

  West Midlands

  2,043

  2,043

  2,572

  2.400

  2,951

  2,586

  3,133

  2,531

  3,705

  2.798

  South West

  1,011

  1,011

  1,390

  1,297

  1,461

  1,280

  1,616

  1,306

  1,804

  1,362

  South East

  1,389

  1,389

  2,429

  2,266

  2,663

  2,334

  2,876

  2,324

  3,221

  2,432

  East2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  391

  343

  1,124

  908

  1,423

  1,075

  1 Deflated by the public spending plans GDP deflator.

  2 The East region was created during 1989–90 by splitting off the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk from the South East region.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (I) what proportion of Great Britain's working population live in the current assisted areas; and what changes he envisages in this figure as a result of his recently announced review;

  (2) what percentage of the current assisted areas are (a) development areas and (b) intermediate areas; and what changes he envisages in this split as a result of his recently announced review.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Under the current assisted areas map of Great Britain, 42 (13 per cent. by number) of the 322 travel-to-work areas have development area status, 56 (17.4 per cent.) have intermediate area status, and 1 (0.3

  Assistance Programmes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a table of expenditure of his Department's programmes of assistance to industry broken down by programme and cross-referenced for standard regions, showing Greater London as a separate region, for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information sought is not available except at disproportionate cost. However, a breakdown by region of expenditure on the Department of Trade and Industry's programmes of regional assistance to industry and for other industrial support under the Industrial Development Act 1982, including the consultancy initiatives, is provided in the appendices to the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual reports. Total expenditure on each of the Department's programmes is shown in the annual appropriation accounts.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a table of expenditure showing the running costs of each regional office of his Department and the cost of running sub-regional offices aggregated by region, and with Greater London shown separately, and excluding the funding programmes operated by the offices for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Greater London is part of the south east region. No separate figures for Greater London are available.

  per cent.) is part intermediate area and part non assisted area. In working population terms, approximately 15 per cent. have development area status and a further 20 per cent. have intermediate area status.

  The consultation paper we have issued made it clear that the coverage of the assisted areas is unlikely to increase. We have not decided, in advance of representations received under the consultation arrangements, the precise extent of the new map or the split between the two categories. These will in due course have to be agreed with the European Commission.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a table of expenditure on regional financial assistance to each development area and
  63
  intermediate area in the Northern region in each year since the last revision of the assisted areas held in 1984 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1984 prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Expenditure on regional financial assistance in the Northern region broken down into development areas and intermediate areas from 1984–85 at

  Regional Financial Assistance

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern region at current prices

  DA

  106.1

  84.4

  116.0

  84.2

  113.8

  97.6

  63.4

  45.3

  IA

  1.1

  1.1

  4.4

  2.5

  3.6

  2.2

  3.3

  1.2

  Northern region at 1984–85 prices

  DA

  106.1

  79.9

  106.4

  73.27

  92.4

  74.3

  44.6

  29.8

  IA

  1.1

  1.0

  4.0

  2.2

  2.9

  1.7

  2.3

  0.8

  Notes:

  1. The table comprises expenditure on Regional Development Grants, Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grants.

  2. The Northern Region is defined as the area covered by the North East and Cumbria.

  Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what applications he has received to import highly enriched uranium fuel from Iraq to Dounreay.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. AEA Technology and British Nuclear Fuels plc are awaiting the decision of the International Atomic Energy Agency as to whether their services will be required.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out his estimate of the plutonium stockpile under safeguards that will be loaded at United Kingdom nuclear facilities in(a)1995, (b) 2000 and (c) 2005; and whether such estimates are made available to the European Commission.

  Mr. Eggar
  Projections for loadings of plutonium fuels into United Kingdom power stations are a matter for the generating companies as owners of the stations.

  Walls Ice Cream Company
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the Walls Ice Cream Company to the Office of Fair Trading in respect of its policy on the use of freezers loaned to retailers for Walls' products.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is considering representations made about this matter, following which he will decide what action if any he should take. The present inquiries do not constitute a statutory investigation and will not end in a report.

  Renaval Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the distribution of Renaval programme moneys in terms of(a)regions assisted, (b)projects receiving financial support, (c)amounts given by Her Majesty's Government to regions and projects and (d)matching funds provided by local authorities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The table shows the amount allocated from European regional development fund to each 64
  current prices and at 1984–85 prices is set out in the following table. The schemes covered in the table are regional development grants, regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants. A more detailed breakdown by assisted area is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Renaval programme and the total grant so far committed in each programme. The award of grants to projects is a matter for the programme monitoring committees.

  Co-funding of the non-grant element of project costs may be from central Government, local authorities or other sources.

  Distribution of Renaval programme grant

  Programme

  Allocation ERDF grant £ million

  Value of grant so far approved £ million

  Plymouth

  10.7

  1.3

  Tyne and Wear

  23.0

  13.0

  Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh (Cleveland)

  4.3

  1.2

  Wirral and Sefton (Merseyside)

  5.6

  —

  Fife

  2.4

  0.9

  Strathclyde

  15.0

  1.5

  TOTAL

  61.0

  17.9

  Astra Holdings plc
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report,column 126,whether the DTI inspectors' inquiry into Astra Holdings plc will include the trading relationship between Astra and Allivane.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors have not yet submitted their report, and it is not appropriate to disclose details of particular investigations.

  Car Prices
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a study of on the road car prices of every make and model in the United Kingdom and, compared like with like, in each other EC country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 June 1992]: Full and reliable international comparisons of car prices are complex and resource-intensive exercises. I am not convinced that there is a case for setting up further studies of car prices so soon after those recently undertaken by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the European Commission which, between them, covered the ground in considerable detail. However, I welcome the indications

  65
  from United Kingdom car companies that they will cooperate with initiatives proposed by the EC Commission for greater transparency in their prices, to the benefit of consumers.

WALES

  Local Authority Boundaries
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the secretary of State for Wales if it is his intention to base the boundaries of the new Welsh local authorities on existing district council boundaries.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It was, but I have now agreed to consider views on whether that approach should be modified in particular cases.

  Rural Homelessness
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he yet has figures for rural homelessness in(a) Clwyd, South-West and (b) Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data on homelessness is available on a district basis and is published annually in the Welsh Housing Statistics.

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much grant aid was received in Wales in total during 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Total expenditure within my responsibility for 1990–91 was £4,437 million. The estimated outturn for 1991–92 is £5,286 million.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future funding of further education colleges in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made towards establishing a further education funding council for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  From 1 April 1993 the funding of further education will be the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. I announced the names of the members of the funding council on 21 May and on 27 May my right hon. Friend issued a letter of guidance to the funding council, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing Renovation Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the expenditure on housing renovation grants in the public sector in Wales in 1991–92; what is his estimate of corresponding expenditure in 1992–93; and what is his assessment of the effect of changes in the regulations for such grants on the ability of local authorities to meet the needs of disabled people in their area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data on renovation grants for public sector tenants are not held centrally. There have been no changes in the regulations affecting disabled facilities grants.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will be having further discussions with the chairmen of area health authorities in Wales about funding.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I will next meet chairmen on 7 July. I understand, however, that the question of funding has not been raised as a specific item for discussion.

  Business
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry in Wales about the outlook for business in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met representatives of the CBI in Wales on 1 June. I was very pleased that the CBI's latest monthly survey shows 46 per cent. of firms in Wales expecting to show an increase in output during the next quarter. This is an increase on the 34 per cent. showing an improvement in orders recorded in the four months to April and it is all the more significant when compared to figures for the UK as a whole of 31 per cent. and 22 per cent. respectively. This is extremely encouraging for the business community in Wales and is further evidence that Wales can lead the UK out of recession.

  Tourism
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the value of Welsh tourism in 1992.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Figures for 1992 are not yet available but in 1991, despite a difficult economic climate, the tourism industry showed considerable resilience. There was an estimated increase of 5 per cent. in the number of tourism trips taken in Wales by United Kingdom residents compared with 1990, while expenditure by domestic tourists remained unchanged at £900 million at current prices.

  Acidification
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to deal with the problems of acidification in upland Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's approach to acidification is set out in the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance". The Welsh Office is playing a full part in the development of policies to tackle the problem as well as funding relevant research.

  National Parks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the creation of further national parks in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for designating national parks in Wales rests with the Countryside Council for Wales, although such designations require confirmation by my right hon. Friend. There are no orders relating to new national parks currently before my right hon. Friend but any such proposal would be considered on its own merits.

  Sports Hall, Llanrwst
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when a decision on the application by Aberconwy borough council for grant assistance under the Welsh Office rural initiative grant scheme for a sports hall at Llanrwst is going to be made.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Allocations of the balance of funding available under the 1992–93 round of the rural initiative capital grants scheme were announced on 5 June 1992. I am pleased to confirm that phase 1 of the Llanrwst sports hall project has been allocated £424,260.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much European Community money he expects to come to Wales during the 1992–93 financial year from its RECHAR programme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is too soon to estimate how much of the £20.7 million made available to south Wales will be allocated in the current financial year. Invitations have been issued to all potential sponsors to put forward projects to take up the available resources, but the deadline for receipt of these bids has not yet been reached.

  Roads Investment
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of investment in roads in Wales in 1979; and what it is at the present time.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Gross expenditure by central Government on motorways and trunk roads in Wales in 1979–80 was £75 million. Provision for 1992–93 is £197 million. These figures include capital grants, road safety, traffic census and other miscellaneous expenditure.

  Total expenditure on local roads in 1979–80 was £102.7 million. Provisional expenditure in 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available, was £252.2 million.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he has received from hospitals in Wales for opting out of the present arrangements in order to form trusts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  National health service trusts are, and will remain, an integral part of the national health service. To date, 14 health service units in Wales have formally applied to become national health service trusts in April 1993. As the House will be aware, I have already announced details on the applications received together with the timetable for statutory public consultation. Decisions on the applications are expected in the autumn.

  Community Hospital, West Môn
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made to establish a community hospital in west Môn.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest information provided by Gwynedd district health authority envisages advance site works commencing early in 1993. Funding for this new community hospital has been provided in the major capital building programme.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) for what reasons the publication of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's report on burning orimulsion at Pembroke has been delayed from its planned publication date of 29 May;

  (2) when the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the proposed burning of orimulsion at Pembroke power station will be published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I understand Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution requires additional information from National Power to assist it in determining the company's application. The company has agreed to extend the determination period until 30 September.

  Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the future of the housing stock owned by the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I hope to be in a position to lay draft regulations to govern disposal of the Development Board for Rural Wales housing stock before the House shortly.

  Psychotherapy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the provision of psychotherapy services which are available on the national health service in Gwynedd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Psychotherapy is a recognised form of therapy practised by professional disciplines in the mental health field, and is, therefore, available as part of the NHS general psychiatric services in Gwynedd.

  Brynglas Tunnels Road
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit the site of the Brynglas Tunnels road relief scheme to meet residents and their representatives.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present. However, as with all our trunk road schemes, the resident engineer and the Welsh Office remain available to deal with matters raised by residents and the representatives.

  Pensioner Travel Passes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to require local authorities in Wales to issue pensioners with free passes for public transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None; this is a matter for local authorities to decide.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales issue free passes for public transport to pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Bus passes are available in Cardiff to enable persons over 75 to travel free.
  69
  Rhuddlan borough council provide a bus service which is free to pensioners holding concessionary passes.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his best estimate of the number of non-registered residential homes for the elderly(a) in Wales, (b) in each county in Wales and (c) in each district in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  information on non-registered residential homes is not held centrally.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that residents are not denied the therapeutic and rehabilitative benefit of participation in catering and domestic tasks in residential homes for elderly people in Wales as a result of the application of regulations consequent on the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Food Safety Act does not prohibit anyone in residential or sheltered accommodation from preparing their own meals or beverages. However, the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970, as amended, set out the controls necessary for the hygienic preparation of food other than in domestic settings. Environmental health departments advise on controls bearing in mind the nature of any food safety risk, including the type of food handled and the preparation involved. Residents may assist staff in the kitchen if the hygiene controls can be satisfied.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal protocol and HCFC.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department follows the advice on government procurement policy set out in Her Majesty's Treasury publication, "Public Purchasing Policy: Consolidated Guidelines" and also the Environmental Action Guide issued by the Department of the Environment.

  I expect this Department to cease using substances controlled by the Montreal protocol by the dates agreed internationally under the protocol.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Industry and local authorities are encouraged to recycle CFCs and halons. The recovery and 70
  elimination of ozone-depleting substances will feature in the programme of the Network of Environmental Managers in Wales which is to be launched in July.

  Housing, Pantasaph
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received over the proposal to build 53 homes in Pantasaph, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 14 representations either objecting to the proposal or asking him to call the application in for his own determination.

  These have been carefully considered, but my right hon. Friend concluded that the issues do not warrant taking the matter out of the hands of the local planning authority.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales further to the letter of the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of 13 December 1990, a copy of which was placed in the Library, what is the latest estimate available to him of the outturn cost of constructing the proposed Cardiff Bay barrage on a comparable basis with the £147.7 million referred to in page 5 of that letter.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest estimate of the cost of all elements included in the £147.7 million—that is construction of the barrage and associated works (including the Wentloog lagoon), acquisition of land and rights and protective provisions for groundwater and water quality—is the total of £152.5 million (at 1991–92 prices) included in the financial memorandum to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill introduced in November 1991.

  Flint Bypass
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the proposed inland route for the Flint bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters. This is a county road scheme and is the responsibility of Clwyd county council as the local highway authority.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in the matter of reforming local government in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I set out my proposals for a single tier of unitary authorities for Wales in a statement to the House on 3 March. These are now the subject of consultation. The closing date for submission of comments is 30 June.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the moneys so far unpaid on the community charge.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 19 June]: Local authorities reported that at 31 March 1991 arrears of

  71
  community charges in Wales were £49 million. Returns from local authorities relating to the position at 31 March 1992 are still incomplete.

DEFENCE

  Bases (Leasing)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask them Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those bases and facilities operated or leased by United States armed forces that have been returned to his Department's control in the last five years giving the date of transfer for each base and facility.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The list of those bases and facilities where the United States visiting forces no longer have a presence and which have been returned to Ministry of Defence control in the last five years is as follows:

  Location

  Type of facility

  Return date

  RAF Wethersfield

  Standby Deployment Base

  October 1990

  RAF Hullavington

  Storage Facility

  September 1991

  RAF Chessington

  Contingency Wartime Hospital

  September 1991

  RAF Kirknewton

  Contingency Wartime Hospital

  September 1991

  RAF Lanark

  Contingency Wartime Hospital

  December 1991

  Greatworth

  Communications Site

  February 1992

  Great Bromley

  Communications Site

  May 1992

  In addition, RAF Abingdon and RAF Brawdy are no longer available as collocated operating bases for United States forces in wartime.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many papers have been withdrawn from the Public Record Office by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Figures for retrievals over the past 5 years cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  The Ministry of Defence, in common with all other Government Departments, has a statutory right, under the Public Records Acts, to retrieve its records from the Public Record Office. Records which are in the public domain, but on loan to the MOD, are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed, but well-established procedures also exist for the earlier return of those records which are the subject of urgent access requests from the public.

  Housing Rights
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the rights to housing of soldiers in(a) the British Army and (b) each of the armies of the other NATO member states.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All serving regular members of the British Army are entitled, as part of their conditions of service, to public accommodation for themselves, and if married, their families. This applies to all personnel enlisted for worldwide service, but will not apply to personnel whose service is limited to Northern Ireland 72
  under the terms of the Army Act 1992 which comes into effect from 1 July 1992. Such personnel will continue to live in their own homes. The policies of other NATO member states are a matter for those countries.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States department of defence announced on 30 January 1992 the decision to withdraw from RAF Greenham Common in autumn 1992 returning the station to full Ministry of Defence control. Work is continuing to establish whether there is a further defence use for RAF Greenham Common.

  Spandau Prison
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make public all papers relating to the British administration of Spandau prison.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the time available, we have been unable to locate any Ministry of Defence records relating to the administration of Spandau prison. The prison was administered under four-power (British/US/ French/Soviet) control and any surviving quadrupartite records are the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Lord Aldington
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether access was allowed to Lord Aldington or his representatives to papers held by his Department that are not accessible in the Public Record Office for preparation of his court case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Lord Aldington saw a number of open files in the MOD whch had been borrowed from the Public Record Office. Records on loan to the MOD are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed, but well-established procedures also exist for the earlier return of those records which are the subject of urgent access requests from the public. Lord Aldington was also, as is the right of any former serviceman, given information on request from his own Service Record held in confidence by MOD. Other than this information from his service record, Lord Aldington was neither given information nor saw any files which were then or are now closed to the public.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the first degree obtained by each of the chief executives of the Duke of York's royal military school, the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation and the Queen Victoria school; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executives of the agencies. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum salary payable, including
  73
  performance-related element, and the length of time of the contract of each of the chief executives of the Duke of York's royal military school, the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation and the Queen Victoria school.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The head of the Duke of York's Royal Military school is a serving colonel and the maximum salary payable to him is £47,577. The present head was appointed for a term of five years which ends this year; his successor will also serve for a five-year term. The chief executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation is a serving captain RN and the maximum salary payable to him is £42,358. He was appointed early this year and is expected to serve three years in the post. The head of the Queen Victoria school is entitled to a maximum salary of £38,902. He is aged 56 and his normal retiring age is 65. None of the chief executive appointments currently attracts performance-related pay.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Duke of York's royal military school, the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation and the Queen Victoria school as agencies; and whether the cost was borne by the parent Department or the new agency in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This is a matter for the chief executives of the agencies. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Collaborative Procurement
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proposals he has for further collaborative procurement projects with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;

  (2) if he will list the procurement projects in which the United Kingdom is currently collaborating with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation;

  (3) if he will list the procurement projects in which the United Kingdom is currently collaborating with countries other than those who are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Aitken
  Those collaborative projects currently being undertaken by the United Kingdom both with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and with other countries, including those in service, production, development or at earlier study phases are as follows:

  WITH MEMBERS OF NATO

  In production or service

  Naval equipment

  Other participants

  Sea Gnat Decoy System

  Denmark, United States

  NATO Ships Inertial Navigation System

  Canada, Netherlands, Spain

  Land equipment

  FH70 Howitzer

  Germany, Italy

  M483A1 Artillery Shell

  Netherlands, Turkey, United States

  Scorpion Reconnaissance Vehicle

  Belgium

  Multiple-Launch Rocket System Phase I

  France, Germany, Italy, United States

  74

  Multiple-Launch Rocket System Phase II

  Germany

  Missiles

  Martel Air-to-Surface

  France

  Sidewinder Air-to-Air

  Germany, Italy, Norway

  Milan Anti-Tank (including improvements)

  France, Germany

  Air systems

  Jaguar

  France

  Lynx

  France

  Puma

  France

  Gazelle

  France

  Other participants

  Tornado

  Germany, Italy

  Harrier AV8B/GRS

  United States

  Joint Tactical Information Distribution System

  United States

  Other equipment

  Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS)

  Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United States

  Midge Drone

  Canada, Germany

  IN DEVELOPMENT OR EARLIER STUDY PHASES

  Naval equipment

  Other participants

  The Future Frigate

  France

  Surface Ship Torpedo Defence System

  United States

  NATO Improved Link Eleven

  Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, United States

  Land equipment

  COBRA (Counter Battery Radar)

  France, Germany

  Multiple-Launch Rocket System Phase III

  France, Germany, United States

  Aimed Control Effect Anti-Tank Mine

  France, Germany

  Future Tank Main Armament

  France, Germany, United States

  Electro-magnetic Launcher

  United States

  Missiles

  TRIGAT (Third Generation Anti-Tank Guided Weapon)

  Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands

  Other particiants

  Family of Anti-Air Missile Systems

  France Italy

  Air Systems

  Airborne Radar Demonstrator System

  France, United States

  75

  European Fighter Aircraft

  Germany, Italy, Spain

  EH101 Helicopter

  Italy

  RTM322 Helicopter Engine

  France

  Allied Standards Avionics Architecture Initiative

  France, Germany, United States

  Other equipment

  NIS Question & Answer

  France, Germany, Italy, United States

  Component Development

  ADA Computer Language Project Support Environment

  Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United States

  Universal Modem for Satellite Communications

  United States

  Allied Data Systems Interoperability Agency NATO Procedural Interoperability Standards

  France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United States

  Stand-off Radar Programme of Studies

  United States

  WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

  In service

  Barra Sonobuoy

  Australia

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  Figures for the amount of ozone-depleting substances procured and used by the Ministry of Defence in the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 are not readily available and it would require disproportionate time and effort to assemble them. This also applies to estimates of usage for the next year and to how many months supply have been ordered by the Department. The first phase of a procurement monitoring exercise to establish a baseline will be completed mid/late 1992. The current holding of ozone-depleting substances is estimated to be 2,000 tonnes.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal protocol and hydrofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is our policy to monitor the procurement of all ozone-depleting chemicals contained in articles to be supplied against contract. This procurement will be 76
  reduced in line with percentage reductions prescribed by the Montreal protocol. Release to atmosphere of all ozone depleting substances, including HCFCs, is restricted to operational emergency use only.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is our policy to recover ozone-depleting substances from service equipments and installations during maintenance or at end of service life. The substances are then recycled.

  Amritsar Massacre
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now release all papers concerning the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre in Amritsar on 13 April 1919.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All official papers relating to the Amritsar massacre on 13 April 1919 have been available to the public since 1968 and are currently held at the Oriental and Indian Office collection of the British Library.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technical capacity the United Kingdom possesses to dismantle nuclear depth charges and free-fall nuclear bombs; and what are his Department's plans to store or dispose of the nuclear materials recovered from dismantled warheads.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom has the appropriate expertise and facilities for dismantling United Kingdom nuclear weapons withdrawn from service. It is not in the national interest to give details of the processes involved as they are classified.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent information Her Majesty's Government have received from the authorities of the former Soviet union about British prisoners of war moved to Russia during or at the end of the Korean war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now declassify all documents relating to British prisoners of war in Korea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Most contemporary records dealing with this subject are already open in the Public Record Office. A very small number of files continues to be properly witheld from the public domain under the criteria of the Public Records Acts of 1958 and 1967. The personal service records of all servicemen from this period are retained in the Ministry of Defence. Information from these records is available on request to the serviceman concerned or his proven next of kin.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make representations to the authorities of the former Soviet Union about allowing the Commonwealth War Graves Commission access to the records and sites of camps in Russia where British prisoners of war are believed to have been held.
  77
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible for the graves of British and Commonwealth Service personnel from the first and second World Wars, but not the Korean war. If any definite evidence is received that graves of British service personnel have been found in Russian, appropriate action will be taken.

  Rescue Co-ordination Centre
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the rescue co-ordination centre of RAF Pitreavie.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The RAF is reviewing its arrangements for the co-ordination of rescues, but no final decisions have been taken.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Countryside Premium
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to extend eligibility for the countryside premium to the set-aside scheme to all counties in England and Wales.

  Mr. Curry
  We plan to introduce a national successor to the countryside premium scheme once we have the necessary legal powers to do so. The agri-environment proposals agreed in principle last month as part of the CAP reform package should provide that legal basis. We aim to submit proposals next year for a programme of agri-environmental measures, including an environmental set-aside scheme, to the EC Commission for its approval.

  Water Management
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers his Department has in respect of water resource management; if he has any plans to bring forward proposals to enhance those powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Responsibility for water resource management rests with the National Rivers Authority and the Secretary of State for the Environment under the Water Resources Act 1991. We are in close touch with both on questions of water resource management for agriculture and horticulture.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any plans have been made to help Cheshire farmers adjust to the cuts in support under the CAP reforms.

  Mr. Curry
  While the overall level of support to procedures has been reduced, in most sectors cuts in price have been accompanied by the introduction of, or increases in, direct payments to farmers. These will help farmers throughout the United Kingdom to adjust to the new arrangements.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the projections on which the expected reduction in the cost of the common 78
  agricultural policy is based including indications of timing and the amount of increase and decrease in food purchases and European Community budget, respectively;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for each of the next five years the range of estimated expenditure on the common agricultural policy, showing that part which is estimated to arise from the recently announced measures and which constitute additional expenditure, together with any estimated reductions for those and succeeding years up to the estimated reduction of £8,000 million per year.

  Mr. Curry
  Commissions estimates of expenditure under the common agricultural policy for the next five years are as follows:

  Year

  £ billion

  1993

  23.6

  1994

  25.3

  1995

  26.5

  1996

  27.5

  1997

  27.1

  These figures take account of the effect on the EC budget of the measures agreed in the reform package including the accompanying measures. They assume that in other respects patterns of production and trade remain unaltered.

  It is not possible to give estimates of expenditure on individual commodities, as a number of details remain to be decided. However, it is expected that there will be additional expenditure on direct aids for arable producers, higher beef premia and the accompanying measures, and savings on intervention and/or export refunds for cereals, beef, butter, pigment and poultry products. There will also be savings in the tobacco sector.

  The additional cost to the EC budget of the reform measures will be offset by savings to consumers. The figure of £8,000m to which the hon. Member refers is a broad estimate of the extent to which consumers' expenditure on food will be lower than otherwise when the effects of the agreement have fully worked through, assuming patterns of consumption remain unchanged. It reflects the support price reductions agreed for beef, butter and cereals and a number of assumptions about the impact on market prices: some of the effects are expected to be evident in 1993 and the rest should have worked through by 1997.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the expenditure by the EC on agriculture in each of the most recent annual periods for which figures are available; and what estimates have been made for expenditure in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is in the table. There are as yet no published figures available for 1993.

  EC expenditure on Agriculture (£ million)

  1988

  19,563

  1989

  17,855

  1990

  20,147

  1991

  24,105

  1992

  26,463

  Sources: 1988–90: budget outturn; 1991: provisional outturn; 1992: budget.

  Whaling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had with representatives of groups regarding the forthcoming International Whaling Commission meeting; what was the outcome of the meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I had a very helpful meeting on 10 June with the cetacean group of Wildlife Link to discuss our approach to the next meeting of the IWC. I made it clear that we will not contemplate any lifting of the present moratorium on commercial whaling, of which we have been a leading advocate, because present evidence suggests that whales cannot be taken in an acceptable and humane manner; because we have to be assured that any revised management procedures include proper enforcement and monitoring; and because we must be sure that whale stocks are at healthy levels. I and my officials look forward to working closely with Wildlife Link on these and other points.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the international forums at which he has raised the issue of commercial whaling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I attended and opened the 39th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Bournemouth in 1987 and have also made clear the

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  11991

  (a)Total imports ('000 tonnes)

  985.00

  947.00

  1,005.00

  897.00

  907.00

  Percentage of United Kingdom total usage

  13.39

  12.40

  13.38

  12.52

  12.65

  Of which:

  (b)Processed imports('000 tonnes raw equivalent)

  394.00

  488.00

  543.00

  521.00

  557.00

  Percentage of United Kingdom total usage

  5.36

  6.39

  7.23

  7.27

  7.75

  1 Provisional.

  The Naze
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the current role of his Ministry in preventing the erosion of the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze;

  (2) by what date he expects to have reached conclusions about providing funds to prevent erosion of the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze.

  Mr. Curry
  The Coast Protection Act 1949 empowers maritime district councils to carry out works to protect land from erosion and encroachment by the sea. Proposed schemes must be submitted to the Department for approval. To qualify for approval and for grant aid from the Department, schemes must be technically sound, economically worthwhile and environmentally acceptable.

  The Department has been awaiting the submission of further documentation from Tendring district council as regards the economic justification for the proposed scheme to reduce the rate of erosion at the Naze. This has now been received. We hope to be able to reach a decision shortly.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the costs of schemes to prevent the erosion of the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze;80
  Government's views about whaling in statements made on my behalf at the commission meetings in New Zealand in 1988, in the Netherlands in 1990 and in Iceland in 1991. I plan to open the 44th meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Glasgow on 29 June.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he uses to establish whether a whale stock is healthy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for advising on the states of whale stocks and the impact of catches on them is a matter for the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission. These are matters currently being addressed by the committee meeting in Glasgow and we look forward to receiving their advice. I have made clear elsewhere the reasons why we cannot contemplate any lifting of the present moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Potato Marketing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of potatoes in weight and percentage terms of the United Kingdom market are imported(a) in total and (b) in processed form.

  Mr. Curry
  Potato imports into the United Kingdom over the past five years were:

  (2) if he will set out the method of analysis his Ministry is applying in attempting to calculate the economic benefits which would arise from preventing futher erosion of the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze.

  Mr. Curry
  Coast protection authorities are responsible for estimating the costs and benefits of proposed coastal works which are put to the Department for approval and for grant aid, in conformity with project appraisal guidance issued by the Department. In the case of Walton-on-the-Naze, it is for Tendring district council, the responsible authority, to assess relevant costs and benefits. The Department will then consider whether the proposal is economically worthwhile, using best available techniques for quantification of the expected benefits from the scheme.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions in the last two years Ministers from his Ministry have visited the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze;

  (2) if he will list the meetings which his Ministry has had and the bodies concerned, over the last two years, on the subject of the erosion of the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze.

  Mr. Curry
  Ministers from the Department have not visited the Naze in an official capacity in the past two
  81
  years. During that period Ministry officials have met representatives of Tendring district council on five occasions.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the extent to which the Naze at Walton-on-the-Naze has eroded over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  Erosion at the Naze is being monitored by Tendring district council, the responsible coast protection authority. Their latest report is that on average some 1.76 metres has been eroded along the length of the Naze in the past 12 months.

  The rate of future erosion will depend upon weather, wave and ground conditions and so cannot be predicted with certainty. Current estimates are that if no further coast protection works are carried out, the Naze tower will probably be lost in around 26 to 30 years time. Tendring district council has submitted a proposal to the Department for approval and for grant aid for works which would slow the rate of erosion at this site and so could delay loss of the tower until around 40 to 50 years from now.

  Cereals
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention that the intervention standard for cereals will be based on the existing feed wheat criteria.

  Mr. Curry
  No decision has yet been taken on the quality standards that will apply for intervention but the Council has asked the Commission to bring forward proposals. In the negotiations, we shall be seeking an outcome that takes account of the importance of feed wheat in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will exercise the regional base area for cereals, as distinct from imposing farm quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes. The United Kingdom will not exercise the option of imposing individual farm quotas. We will publish details of the regional base areas as soon as possible.

  Early Retirement
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will apply the early retirement scheme so as to ease the structural changes which will follow the CAP reforms.

  Mr. Curry
  The scheme is primarily designed to amalgamate farms in those member states with large numbers of very small holdings. It is not relevant to United Kingdom conditions, where the average farm is already five times larger than in the EC as a whole.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of Agricultural Development Advisory Service and the Central Science Laboratory as agencies; and whether the cost was borne by the parent Department or the new agency.
  82
  Mr. Curry
  As the launch of ADAS and the Central Science Laboratory coincided with the run-up to the general election, events and publicity surrounding the launch were scaled-down and involved minimal costs. Both agencies are highlighting their change in status in the course of their normal working and promotional programmes.

  Beef Special Premium
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to set individual reference quantities for the beef special premium.

  Mr. Curry
  Although the option exists for the setting of individual quotas for the beef special premium rather than apply a generalised regional ceiling, I do not at present intend to take up this option. Before making a final decision, industry representatives will be consulted.

  Agri-environment Programme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the provisions of the EC environmental directives will be met under the agri-environment programme.

  Mr. Curry
  In preparing our proposals to implement the new agri-environment regulation we will take account of relevant EC environmental directives.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  Data on amounts and use of ozone-depleting chemicals could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling ozone-depleting chemicals;

  (2) what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal protocol, and hydrofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is currently preparing an environmental strategy which will contain an environmental policy statement and a plan for environmental action. This strategy is expected to include policy and an action plan on ozone-depleting substances. The Department plans to have this strategy in place by December 1992.

  Rabies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 121, if he will now publish the EC scientific veterinary committee's report on the control of rabies.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Quarantine
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the groups of mammals from schedule 1 to the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats, and other Mammals) Order 1974 which will be exempt from quarantine control as a result of the agreement with Agriculture Ministers in the EC on 15 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  From 1 January 1994, commercially traded animals born and kept on the holding of origin, from the following groups, will be subject to similar rules as for farm livestock and need not undergo quarantine:

  Edentata

  Hydracoidea

  Dermoptera

  Insectivora

  Lagomorpha

  Marsupalia

  Rodentin

  Additionally, from 1 July 1994, subject to very stringent conditions certain commercially traded cats and dogs for breeding may move between registered premises without quarantine.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the consideration at future meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on acceptable alternatives to quarantine for pet animals is linked to any time scale; and if a decision on such alternatives will be made by majority vote.

  1991

  1992

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Marble Spleen Disease (Birds)

  1

  0

  1

  7

  3

  0

  3

  2

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Enteric salmonellosis in

  12

  10

  12

  5

  8

  7

  5

  12

  8

  10

  5

  4

  5

  10

  5

  pigs—not recorded but included in S. Typhimurium and Other Serotypes

  16

  6

  8

  4

  3

  10

  6

  12

  10

  8

  10

  4

  4

  8

  7

  Hypocalcaemia (Sheep)

  9

  30

  47

  16

  11

  3

  2

  4

  0

  1

  4

  4

  27

  44

  41

  Hypomagnesaemia (Sheep)

  6

  10

  19

  22

  6

  4

  0

  5

  1

  0

  0

  1

  4

  13

  14

  Swine Erysipelas

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  3

  3

  4

  3

  5

  1

  4

  3

  2

  7

  Parvovirus in Pigs

  3

  8

  3

  5

  3

  7

  8

  2

  3

  8

  4

  10

  4

  7

  4

  Pyelonephritis in Pigs

  3

  7

  9

  7

  6

  4

  2

  3

  3

  3

  4

  1

  4

  4

  4

  Greasy Pig Disease(Exudative Dermatitis)

  3

  3

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  2

  0

  3

  5

  2

  4

  2

  9

  Swayback (Sheep)

  1

  3

  8

  11

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  Coenuniosis (Coenurriasis) (Sheep)

  3

  4

  2

  0

  1

  3

  0

  4

  3

  4

  6

  1

  4

  7

  2

  Listeriosis (Sheep)

  24

  58

  74

  57

  18

  2

  l

  3

  4

  3

  3

  7

  19

  48

  42

  Foetopathy caused by

  17

  22

  24

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  9

  36

  17

  Listeria (Sheep)

  Scrapie (Sheep)

  126

  120

  141

  80

  67

  62

  54

  76

  73

  69

  52

  69

  91

  119

  69

  Border Disease (Sheep)

  2

  3

  16

  15

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  1

  Rotavirus Infection (Cattle)

  177

  197

  218

  189

  105

  55

  66

  61

  96

  125

  157

  169

  175

  209

  207

  Abortions in cattle caused by Bacillus Licheniformis

  16

  19

  23

  10

  12

  17

  8

  7

  4

  4

  8

  4

  23

  13

  23

  Note:

  Figures for April and May 1991 are not yet available.
  84
  Mr. Soames
  No time scale has been adopted. I hope that any agreement on rabies control measures for pet animals would be unanimous, as was the agreement on commercially traded animals on 15 June.

  Cats and Dogs (Imports)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) traded cats and dogs and (b) cats and dogs which are pets, were imported into the United Kingdom for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  This detailed information is not collected by the Ministry.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the number of cases of marble spleen disease in game birds in each month since January 1991;

  (2) if he will list the number of cases of enteric salmonellosis in pigs in each month since January 1991;

  (3) if he will list the number of cases of hypocalcaemia and hypomagnesaemia in sheep in each month since January 1991;

  (4) if he will list the number of cases of swine erysipelas in each month since January 1991;

  (5) if he will list the number of cases of parvovirus infection in pigs in each month since January 1991;

  (6) if he will list the number of cases of pyelonephritis and greasy pig disease in each month since January 1991;

  (7) if he will list the number of cases of swayback, coenuniosis, listeriosis, scrapie and border disease in sheep in each month since January 1991;

  (8) if rotavirus infection in calves is notifiable; and if he will list the numbers of cases in each month since January 1991;

  (9) if he will list the number of abortions in cattle caused by bacillus licheniformis in each month since January 1991.

  Mr. Soames
  The figures are as follows:

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Regulations
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will lay the regulations consequent on the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  In laying today the first package of Child Support Regulations we have sought to achieve the right balance between the needs of parents and others responsible for the day to day care of children and absent parents who still retain responsibilities for their upkeep.

  Today's regulations contain a number of important provisions including the precise details of the assessment formula provided for in the Child Support Act, the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to collect necessary information and charging of interest on maintenance arrears.

  Before becoming law these regulations must be debated in Parliament. Further regulations regarding collection and enforcement procedures will follow shortly and a final package of regulations will be brought forward in due course.

  Comments on our proposals for the regulations were received from around 100 organisations and individuals who responded to the consultation exercise. A consultation exercise was also undertaken in Northern Ireland. Five hundred copies of the consultation document were sent out last November. We have considered the comments carefully and we have been helped in our decision-making by the helpful recommendations put to us. The main variations are:

  Minimum payment required from some absent parents on Income Support

  The Government have decided to modify its proposals for requiring absent parents on Income Support, if they are fit and not currently responsible for children, to make a minimum payment. It is now proposed that those who are under 18 years old will not have to pay. For those who will have to pay, the minimum payment is at the same level as other standard deductions from Income Support, and is designed to establish the liability and a pattern of contributing to maintenance.

  Dates from which maintenance liability is effective

  The Government have looked very carefully at the comments about the date from which liability for maintenance should come into effect and has now decided that the effective date in all new cases, regardless of the benefit status of the person with care, will be the date on which the absent parent is notified that a maintenance application from (MAFF) has been received by the Agency. This will be the date when the maintenance inquiry form (MEF) is issued to the absent parent.

  While the absent parent may owe some arrears by the time he or she is notified of the assessment, they will accrue only from the time he is aware of a Child Support Agency interest and can take steps to put money aside. Where the absent parent applies for maintenance assessment, the effective date will remain the date of receipt of the MAF by the Child Support Agency. Cases in the transitional period where there is an existing court order will have an effective date of issue of the maintenance assessment plus 2 days to allow for postage.

  Phasing in Formula Assessments

  The Government have reconsidered its proposals to phase in formula assessments where they are larger than
  86
  existing orders. It was the original intention to restrict phasing to absent parents with a second family who had a court order.

  The Government consider that this would discriminate unfairly against parents who had made voluntary agreements to pay maintenance, and now proposes to extend phasing to absent parents with a second family who have written evidence of a maintenance agreement.

  The Government has also concluded that the original proposals were weighted too much towards the needs of the absent parent to the detriment of the interest of the person with care, and so it has reconsidered the duration and amount of the phasing arrangements. Regulations will therefore be laid to allow for phasing to last for one year before the full formula assessment will be instituted, to be available only where the formula assessment is less than £60, and to be based on a stepped increase of £20.

  Maintenance Requirement

  The Government originally proposed a reduction in the amount of the adult allowance included in the maintenance requirement when the youngest child reaches the age of 11. However, in response to concerns expressed particularly by legal bodies as to the clear responsibilities that remain for the care and welfare of children under 16, we have now decided not to reduce the allowance at age 11

  Reasonable housing costs

  The Government had always intended that housing costs should be allowed in full provided that the parent acted responsibly in taking on housing costs in the light of existing commitments.

  It is now proposed that no restriction of allowable housing costs will apply to parents who are disabled or have a disabled child or children living with them. High housing costs brought about by factors such as interest rate rises will also be allowed, as will costs which the parent has been meeting for at least 52 weeks.

  Maintenance Application Form (M A F)

  Fourteen days will now be allowed, rather than seven, for the return of the MAF, this will give the person with care longer to complete the form but ensure that the payment of maintenance is not unduly delayed.

  Reviews

  Under the new scheme, there will be automatic annual reviews of maintenance assessments which will pick up changes of circumstances. In the meantime, however, as originally proposed, maintenance assessments will be changed if the difference in the new amount is £10 per week or more. This will ensure that significant changes do not need to wait until the annual review while ensuring that the person with care can expect a stable income from maintenance.

  In some particular circumstances—where an absent parent gets the benefit of protected income and there is an increase in the amount of maintenance payable, or there is a new qualifying child, or a child ceases to be a qualifying child—the amount will be changed if the difference is £1 or more (rather than zero as originally proposed).

  Interim Maintenance Assessment (IMA)

  The Government now propose to set the level of an IMA at one and a half times the maintenance requirement instead of double. The Government also propose to increase the warning period (before an IMA is actually imposed) from seven to 14 days.

  Tribunals

  The Government has decided not to pursue its proposal that child support appeal tribunal chairman should have a

  87
  discretionary power to exclude representatives. They have also decided to propose that hearings will be held in private, unless the chairman directs otherwise.

  Shared Care

  The Government have decided to maintain its decision that two nights overnight stay is the minimum amount of care necessary to justify reducing the maintenance the absent parent pays. That provision keeps the right balance between the interests of both parents and interests of the child, given that shared care should mean joint responsibility for all important aspects of a child's upbringing, nurture, and day-to-day care and expense.

  Requirement to Co-operate

  The Government remain of the view that a sanction is needed to ensure that a parent with care cannot simply decide, with no good reason, to pass the full costs of maintaining a child on to the taxpayer rather than to seek maintenance from the other parent. The current proposals already include a number of changes which were made as a result of helpful comment during Parliamentary debate on the primary legislation. These changes were welcomed when they were made, and the Government feel that the right balance has now been achieved.

  The Government believe that the level and duration of reduction set out in the consultation document achieve its objective of encouraging the parent to think his or her responsibilities and the benefits that maintenance offers to the child concerned.

  Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that there would be a risk of the parent with care, or of any child living with the parent, suffering harm or undue distress as a result of pursuing maintenance, then no further action will be taken. The Government have said before that "harm or undue distress" would cover a risk of violence to the parent or child.

  While corroborative evidence in support of a parent's claim of good cause will be welcome, it will not be essential. A Social Security Commissioner's decision sets out the presumption which applies in similar circumstances for benefit decisions, namely that the person concerned is telling the truth, unless there are strong grounds for thinking otherwise. The Government think it is right to follow such an approach for child maintenance.

  Suitable and comprehensive training and guidance will be given to staff of the Child Support Agency to ensure that this sensitive area of work is handled professionally and sympathetically.

  Take-on of Responsibility by the Child Support Agency

  As indicated in general terms in the consultation document, the responsibilities of the Child Support Agency will be taken on over a period of time. From April 1993 the agency will take responsibility for the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance in respect of all cases where there are no existing arrangements in place with the court.

  Additionally, the Department of Social Security, with its "liable relative" responsibilities under section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986, has a large number of maintenance cases either presently without an arrangement or under an existing court order or voluntary agreement, and the Government intends to assess these cases under the Child Support Act over the three-year period 1993–96.

  There are a large number of cases that have a court order but where there is no benefit involved. Because the agency will be taking on all new claims for maintenance
  88
  and liable relative cases from 1993 it will not be possible for the agency to accommodate these cases, where parties wish to come to the agency, until 1996. Fropm April 1996, the person with care will be able to apply to the agency for an assessment, subject to phasing by surname of the person with care to the following timetable:

  Surname A-D

  April 1996

  Surname E-K

  July 1996

  Surname L-R

  October 1996

  Surname S-Z

  January 1997

  From April 1997 the agency will provide full services for all maintenance cases.

  Disability Benefits
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider and investigate the implications of the Social Security Act 1975, section 82(5) and the Persons Abroad Regulation 2(1)–2(1)c in relation to ethnic minority groups in Britain taking their disability benefits permanently abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to amend the regulations to which the hon. Member refers. However, we will consider this matter further and reply to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) about any specific recommendations they wish to make following the launch on 29 May of there pamphlet entitled "Disability Benefits While Living Abroad".

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are aware of the importance of the care of the environment and we promote the use of environmentally friendly goods whenever possible.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manu-factured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances, controlled by the Montreal protocol, and HCFCs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our policy is to promote the use of environmentally friendly materials, processes and pro-ducts in the goods and services which we purchase. We expect to meet the requirements of the Montreal protocol and the EC regulations by the prescribed dates.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available but we are committed to reducing the use of ozone-depleting substances where suitable alternatives are available.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to raise child benefit to £10.40 per week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We are committed to increasing the current value of child benefit each year in line with prices. Child benefit will remain the cornerstone of our policies for family support and will continue to be paid to all families in respect of all children.

  Income Support
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to allow income support to be paid in advance, in cases where this is necessary to secure accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Income support is available to meet clay to day living expenses whilst budgeting or crisis loans may be awarded from the social fund for rent in advance. In 1991–92, 11,992 social fund awards were made for rent in advance, totalling more than £1.4 million. Income support for people under pension age is paid in arrears. This is in line with the way wages and other benefits are paid. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. P. Mills-Williamson
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the mobility allowance claim appeal of Mr. P. Mills-Williamson, of 23 Higher Park, East Prawle, Kingsbridge, South Devon, to be heard by the adjudication officer; why there has been a delay; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a formal request is to be made to the authorities in Liechtenstein regarding Maxwell funds that could be held in that country; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 19 June at column 704.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security it' he will make it his policy to make a statement in the House before the summer recess over future funding for pensioners in Maxwell companies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 16 June at column 489.

  Claimants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of people receiving income support/supplementary benefit in each of the years 1979–80 to 1991–92 for Scotland and Great Britain; and what is the estimate of dependants of these claimants in each year.
  90
  Mr. Burt
  The information available is in the tables. The most recent figures are as at May 1991, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Table 1

  Supplementary benefit/income support recipients in Scotland

  Year

  Number of claimants

  Number of dependants

  1979

  286,000

  165,000

  1980

  304,000

  178,000

  1981

  371,000

  238,000

  1982

  423,000

  282,000

  1983

  440,000

  273,000

  1984

  458,000

  304,000

  1986

  506,000

  326,000

  1987

  535,000

  327,000

  1988

  499,000

  328,000

  1989

  486,000

  313,000

  1990

  481,000

  296,000

  1991

  487,000

  318,000

  Table 2

  Supplementary benefit/income support recipients in Great Britain

  Year

  Number of claimants

  Number of dependants

  1979

  2,855,000

  1,516,000

  1980

  3,118,000

  1,746,000

  1981

  3,723,000

  2,399,000

  1982

  4,267,000

  2,803,000

  1983

  4,349,000

  2,889,000

  1984

  4,609,000

  3,119,000

  1986

  4,938,000

  3,354,000

  1987

  4,896,000

  3,310,000

  1988

  4,352,000

  3,036,000

  1989

  4,161,000

  2,862,000

  1990

  4,180,000

  2,770,000

  1991

  4,487,000

  3,260,000

  Notes:

  1. No information is available for 1985.

  2. Dependants means partners of a claimant and children and young persons aged up to 19, living in the household of a claimant.

  Source: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries 1979–1991.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund grants and loans have been made in each district in Wales in each year from 1988–89 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about social fund awards is in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the gross and net social fund budget for grants and loans respectively for each district in Wales, in total and per head of income support caseload, for each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92, and the corresponding gross and estimated net total and per capita budget figures for 1992–93 based on the caseload at the latest date for which information is available.

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

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action was taken as a result of the letter sent to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency by Mr. Martin Baillie of the Islington Welfare Rights Unit on 9 January concerning leaflet FB31.

  Mr. Burt
  The wording of leaflets is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total cost of unemployment in each of the years 1979–80 and 1991–92 at current prices broken down by income support, unemployment benefit, housing benefit and rate or poll tax rebate; and what estimate he has made of the extra cost per 100.000 unemployed in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on the cost of unemployment is not available in exactly the form requested, as the DSS element of housing support was included in supplementary benefit in 1979–80. The available information is given in the table.

  Estimates of the extra cost per 100,000 unemployed are given in Figure 25 of the 1992 departmental report (Cm. 1914), a copy of which is in the Library.

  £million at 1991–92 prices

  1979–80

  1991–92

  Unemployment benefit

  1,516

  1,506

  Supplementary benefit/income support

  1,897

  4,143

  Housing benefit/community charge benefit

  1,713

  1991–92 figures are estimated outturn.

  1991–92 figures for income support includes social fund expenditure.

  Government Resettlement Units
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Government re-settlement units are currently in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are currently 15 resettlement units in operation. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 5 February 1992 at column 210.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Shortages
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory powers the Director General of the Office of Water Services has in respect of water shortages; when he expects to receive the report of his Department's investigation into water shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department will be issuing a consultation paper on water conservation before the summer recess. Among other things this will discuss the role in that context of the Director General of Water Services. The statutory responsibility for water resources management belongs to the National Rivers Authority.

  Development Policy
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that in future development of land and resources in the south west in general, and Torridge and west Devon in particular, the areas' natural assets and environmental diversity will be safeguarded.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes. Regional planning guidance and the plan-led system of development control can help achieve this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be issuing regional guidance in response to advice from the South West regional planning conference. At the more local level, planning authorities have a responsibility in their development plans to make adequate provision for development but they must take environmental considerations comprehensively and consistently into account. Plans have to include policies on the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land.

  Mersey Special Protection Area
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the extent of the area of the Mersey estuary which has been proposed for designation as a special protection area under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will arrange for a map showing the proposed boundary of the Mersey estuary special protection area to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to designate the Mersey estuary as a special protection area under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are firmly committed to an accelerated SPA designation programme. We recognise the value of the Mersey estuary in the light of the scientific evidence put forward by the former Nature Conservancy Council. There are many complex issues to consider and I cannot at this stage forecast when the Mersey estuary will be designated.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify those features of the Mersey estuary which are of nature conservation importance, and provide an indication of the main factors necessary to maintain their conservation importance.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will arrange for the hon. Member to he sent a copy of the site of special scientific interest notification which gives details of the important nature conservation interests of the Mersey estuary. Many complex inter-related ecological factors operate in the estuary which help to maintain these interests. The features of the estuary are already afforded firm protection under the SSSI notification and through local planning policies and procedures. The Estuary Group of the Mersey Campaign Basin (supported by my Department's Mersey campaign unit) have commissioned a management plan which is intended shall give a good framework to all interested bodies facing the many difficult issues that arise in the planning and conservation of such a vital area.

  Unitary Local Government
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the potential organisational benefits of moving to a unitary system of local government where appropriate;

  (2) what estimates he has made of potential savings in the long and the short term of a unitary system of local government.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It will he for the Local Government Commission to assess the costs and benefits of changes to the structure of local government.

  Grace and Favour Apartments
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate how many grace and favour apartments are situated in crown properties and list the criteria used for allocating the tenancies.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is no longer held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons it has been decided to carry out the review of local government boundaries in Surrey at a different time from its neighbours.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The programme of reviews of local government structure and boundaries to be carried out by the Local Government Commission is designed to give priority to areas where there is a history of dissatisfaction with the existing local government structure, and to produce a balanced and manageable workload for the new commission.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach his conclusions following the review of the operation of Mineral Planning Guidance 3 into opencast mining.

  Mr. Baldry
  I expect to he in a position to announce my conclusions shortly.

  Humberside Structure Plan
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what evidence the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 based its conclusions on the opportunities for residential development in the city of Hull;

  (2) what assessment has been made by the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 of the capacity of the infrastructure to accommodate growth in the areas they designate;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the reasoning behind the view of the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 that market demand cannot be switched from one part of the wider Hull area to another;

  (4) what factors led to the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 to conclude that the scope for development on the periphery of the larger settlements in the borough of Beverley had not been fully explored;
  94
  (5) what methodology the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 used to distribute the target housing figure between the nine Humberside districts;

  (6) what was the methodology used by the examining panel to arrive at the flexibility allowance in the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1;

  (7) what was the source of the housing provision figure produced by the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1;

  (8) what consideration the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 gave to the desirability of waiting for the outcome of the 1991 census results before reaching conclusions about the housing provision figures;

  (9) if he will make a statement on the proposals in the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 to relax policy S9 in the existing structure plan;

  (10) what were the range of factors aside from marketability used by the examining panel to determine housing provision figures for each of the Humberside districts in the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1;

  (11) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1, what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the examining panel's recommendations are in accord with recent departmental advice on sustainability;

  (12) for what reasons the error in policy 39(ii) concerning the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1, referred to by the borough of Beverley, was not corrected;

  (13) for what reasons the examining panel for the Humberside county structure plan decided to limit itself to two tours of inspection of the county before recommending alterations to the plan;

  (14) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1, what weight he attached to the strength of existing policies and, in particular, policy S9 in the existing Humberside county structure plan in reaching the conclusion that there was no need for a green belt because pressures could be controlled by means of these existing policies;

  (15) if he will specify the grounds on which he reached the conclusion that the examining panel's recommenda-tions concerning additional housing in the borough of Beverley in relation to the Humberside county structure plan alteration no. 1 were in accord with the recent departmental advice that the best and most versatile land should be protected;

  (16) for what reasons the objection submitted in writing by the borough of Beverley was not taken into account by the examining panels in their statement concerning the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1 that policy S7(a) was not the subject of objection at the examination in public;

  (17) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1, for what reasons he decided to support the proposals recommended by the examining panel which will join together by future development the city of Hull and the presently distinct urban areas of the borough of Beverley;

  (18) in considering the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1 on what factors he based his conclusions that the examining panel's recommendations are in accord with his recent departmental advice

  95
  concerning the placing of increased emphasis on re-using urban land as a means of relieving pressure on the countryside;

  (19) in relation to the Humberside county structure plan alteration No. 1, for what reasons the examining panels decided that 29 per cent. of the increase in housing provision should be placed in the borough of Beverley rather than in other districts in the county;

  (20) for what reasons he decided to be site specific in the alterations to the existing Humberside county structure plan rather than follow the previous practice of being non-site specific in the structure plan.

  Mr. Baldry
  The panel's reasons for its recommenda-tions are set out in its published report, and it would be inappropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend to elaborate on those. Similarly, his reasons for proposing the published modifications are contained in his statement relating to those modifications, which has also been published.

  When the period for representations ends, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider all those received before deciding whether to proceed straight to approval of the alteration, or whether to propose further modifications.

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department encourages industry and local authorities to recycle CFCs. The Department has invited bids from local councils for supplementary credit approvals for new recycling projects. About 80 per cent. of local authorities now run or take part in such schemes. We have also produced a consumer leaflet which includes advice on how to ensure CFCs and halons are recycled. As a further measure, we intend to ban the supply of refrigerant in disposable containers. These containers lead to unnecessary emissions of CFCs and act as a disincentive to good practice, including recycling.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's poliicy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manu-factured with these substances; and in which year his Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances, controlled by the Montreal protocol, and HCFCs.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department's policy in respect of the purchase of ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured by these substances is to eliminate the use of all such products, if possible, in advance of the phase out dates set by EC regulations and the Montreal protocol and to ensure that chemicals are properly recovered.

  HCFCs are needed in some areas if users are to move away rapidly from CFCs. The United Kingdom, together with the EC, is playing an active role in discussions to control HCFCs under the Montreal protocol. The Department will consider its own use of HCFCs once these discussions are completed.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his 96
  Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures on the amounts of ozone-depleting chemicals used by my Department since 1989 are not available. My Department is fully committed to eliminating the use of these products as soon as it is practicable to do so. Since 1989 considerable progress has been made towards this objective by the inclusion of a requirement in departmental contracts for supplies and services that products containing ozone-depleting chemicals must not be used where acceptable alternatives exist. Other departmental initiatives have included the replacement of all hand-held halon fire extinguishers with environmentally acceptable alternatives.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to abolish the 50 per cent. business rate on non-productive empty premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. Empty property benefits from local services and it is right that it should contribute to the cost. We estimate that abolition would cost £600 million a year. We are already providing £1–25 billion of help to businesses over the next three years under the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992.

  Charging authorities have discretion to grant rate relief to businesses in cases of hardship provided it is in the interests of their community chargepayers to do so.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to invest moneys raised from the sales of councils houses into expansion of the rented sector of accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities must set aside 75 per cent. of capital receipts from the sale of council houses (and 50 per cent. of most other receipts) to meet outstanding debt. They are free to use the remainder of those receipts to finance new capital investment. This arrangement has enabled a greater proportion of capital receipts to be recycled in the form of new credit approvals to those local authorities where housing needs are greatest and where best value for money may be obtained.

  Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.

  Housing Association Ombudsman
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to establish the ombudsman for housing association tenants.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are considering at present what form the ombudsman service should take, and we shall be working with the Housing Corporation to get progress under way as quickly as possible.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the drinking water inspectorate's investigation into the outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in North Humberside; and if he will state the reasons for the present delay.

  Mr. Maclean
  This case has raised a number of new and complex issues, and necessarily continues to involve external advisers as well as the drinking water inspectorate. It is being taken forward as quickly as possible and I shall make a statement as soon as there is progress to report.

  Building Material Sales
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the value of building material sales in each region of the United Kingdom, and in the country as a whole, in the latest quarter for which figures are available; what was the comparable figure for the same quarter in the previous years; and what the percentage change is in each region over the period in question.

  Sir George Young
  The available regional information relates to quantity sold or delivered of certain building materials. This is published in tables 5, 6, 10 and 12 of the Department's "Monthly Bulletin of Building Materials and Components", a copy of which is in the Library. It is not possible to aggregate different products expressed in different units.

  Sales by value are only available for the country as a whole and this information is published by industry in the Central Statistical Office Business Monitor series, copies of which are in the Library. However, it is not possible to identify on a comprehensive basis how much is sold for use as building materials.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Livestock Testing Stations
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends(a) to sell or otherwise dispose of or (b) to discontinue the service provided by Loughgall beef testing station and Antrim pig testing station.

  Mr. Hanley
  It has been decided that the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland should cease to provide livestock recording and testing services to pedigree cattle, sheep and pig breeders. The Department is consulting the relevant interests in the livestock industry about future requirements for such services and, if they are to continue, how they would be organised and financed by the industry. The future of the test stations at Loughgall and Antrim will be decided later in the light of the response from the industry.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Compensation Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and Ordnance Survey as agencies; and whether the cost in each case was borne by the parent department or the new agency.
  98
  Mr. Mates
  A total of £1,230 was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Compensation Agency, the cost of which was met by the agency; £2,820 on the launch of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, with all costs being met by the parent Department, except £365 which was paid by the agency, and £249 on the launch of the Ordnance Survey Executive Agency, the cost of which was borne by the Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the maximum salary payable, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the contract of each of the chief executives of the Compensation Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Mates
  The maximum salary payable to the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, including the performance-related element is £38,134. His contract is for a period terminating three years after 1 April 1992, with the possibility of renewal for a further period.

  The maximum salary payable to the chief executive of the Ordnance Survey (NI) Agency is £46,122 which includes a performance-related element. Arrangements in respect of a special performance bonus have not yet been finalised. His contract is for a period terminating four years after 1 April 1992, with the possibility of renewal for a further period.

  The maximum salary payable to the chief executive of the Compensation Agency, including a performance-related element is £45,000. His contract is for a period of three years, terminating on 31 March 1995, with the possibility of renewal for a further period.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the first degree obtained by the chief executives of each of the Compensation Agency, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and Ordnance Survey; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded in each case.

  Mr. Mates
  The chief executives of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency and the Compensation Agency do not have a first degree. The first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Ordnance Survey (NI) Agency was BA (Hons) in Geography from the university of Leeds.

  Ozone Depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our policy is to encourage measures relating to the recovery and recycling of these chemicals. Schemes for the removal of chlorofluorocarbons from redundant refridgerators and freezers are available in most district council areas of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by his Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within his Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by his Department.
  99
  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not available.

  International Agreements
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the bilateral and multilateral agreements directly or indirectly negotiated by his Department or a body acting on behalf of his Department with(a) Switzerland and (b) Liechtenstein.

  Mr. Mates
  There are no such agreements.

EMPLOYMENT

  Ozone-depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her Department's policy on purchasing ozone-depleting chemicals and goods manufactured with these substances; and in which year her Department expects to cease using, purchasing or releasing ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal protocol and hydrofluorocarbons.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is part of the Department's environmental policy to eliminate where possible the use of non-renewable resources or toxic materials.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will outline her Department's policy on recovery and recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The use by the Department of ozone-depleting chemicals is minimal but we pay due regard to proper disposal methods.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the amount in tonnes of ozone-depleting chemicals used or purchased by her Department for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, and estimates of usage for the next year; what is the estimated bank of ozone-depleting chemicals contained within her Department; and how many months' supply of ozone-depleting chemicals have been ordered by her Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department is not a major user of ozone-depleting chemicals. There are no records of the quantities used, held or ordered for future use. Such information would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Employees in Scotland

  March/April 1991

  Numbers with hourly earnings excluding overtime

  less than £2.00

  £200—£2.99

  £300—£3.99

  £400—£4.99

  £500—£9.99

  over £10.00

  Males

  25,000

  50,000

  150,000

  175,000

  475,000

  175,000

  Females

  25,000

  125,000

  275,000

  175,000

  275,000

  50,000

  Note: The estimates have been rounded to the nearest 25,000.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to increase the number and extend the scope of wages councils in Scotland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give for each of the years 1979–80

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the skills offered to those on employment training in relation to those necessary to help them obtain jobs in the current labour market.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 16 June at column 493.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will make publicly available the range of management and evaluation information which is collected by her Department about employment training.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A great deal of information about employment training is already available. The Department produces an annual report on research. The 1992 report will be published shortly. This contains summaries of research and evaluation projects carried out on employment training in 1991–92 and lists those to be carried out in 1992–93. A copy will be placed in the Library. A regular monthly report containing information about the success of employment training trainees in obtaining employment and qualifications is placed in the Library. The Department also produces a Labour Market Quarterly Report which includes employment training management information.

  Wage Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give from the new earnings survey the number of employees in Scotland, broken down by age and sex, in each of the categories: paid less than £2 per hour, £2 to £2.99, £3 to £3.99, £4 to £4.99, and £5 to £9.99 and over £10 per hour.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is estimated, based on the 1991 New Earnings Survey and estimates of the number of employees in employment from other Departmental enquiries, that the number of employees in each category are as given in the table. The figures are not available broken down by age.

  to 1991–92 the number and names of employers in Scotland prosecuted under wages council legislation for making illegal underpayments.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  From 1 January 1979 to date, there have been five prosecutions in Scotland for illegal underpayment of wages; they are as follows:

  1991:

  Allardyce Cafe (Stonehaven) Ltd., Stonehaven.

  Snooker Masters Ltd., Wishaw.

  101
  1992:

  J. & M. Beattie, Banchory;

  Nursery World, Inverness;

  Pattie Skelton, Glasgow.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she has any plans to abolish the remaining wages councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have made it clear on many occasions that the wages councils have no permanent place in the labour market.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give the number of employees covered by wages councils in each of the standard regions. Scotland and Great Britain and for each occupation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information as requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 497, and to article 6.4 of the Training and Enterprise Councils Operating Agreement 1992, if she will list those chairmen of TECs who have left the post because their company or partnership (a) ceased to achieve an annual turnover exceeding £5 million, (b) no longer met the requirement of at least 25 full time employees., (c) voluntary reasons and (d) other reasons.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information is not kept in the precise format requested. The following table shows that of the 26 TEC chairmen referred to in my previous answer, 10 left for voluntary reasons and 16 for other reasons such as retirement or geographical moves which meant that they were unable to retain the chairmanship.

  Training and enterprise council

  Chairman

  Left chairmanship for voluntary reasons

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  Tim Evans

  South Glamorgan

  Roger Helliwell

  North Derbyshire

  Roy Pelham

  Shropshire

  David Houghton

  Hertfordshire

  Tony Saint

  Bedfordshire

  Ian Dixon

  North West London

  Alan Coppin

  North Nottinghamshire

  Anthony Darbyshire

  Wolverhampton

  Roy Carver

  Wearside

  John Anderson

  Left chairmanship for other reasons

  West Wales

  Peter Allen

  HAWTEC

  David Hutchins

  Hampshire

  Martyn Wylie

  QUALITEC (St. Helens)

  John Gillespie

  Leeds

  Sir Gordon Linacre

  Rotherham

  Ken Knaggs

  CAMBSTEC

  Leszek Jakubowski

  Greater Nottingham

  Ian Maclean

  Southern Derbyshire

  Peter Burden

  AZTEC

  Ed Holloway

  Manchester

  Geoffrey Maddrell

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Tony Gartland

  Teesside

  Peter Kerr

  Dorset

  Peter Allsebrook

  Stockport and High Peak

  Tom Wcatherby

  METROTEC (Wigan)

  Paul Sneddon

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science and Technology
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set up a new Government advisory structure for science and technology.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is considering what advisory structure would enable him to carry out our responsibilities for science and technology most effectively. We are seeking views from all interested parties on the best way of achieving this. As I announced in the House on 11 June, the Government intend to publish a White Paper on science and technology, probably in the early part of next year, and I will consult widely in its preparation.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to improve the funding of interdisciplinary science.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Government recognise the value of interdisciplinary research across classical discipline boundaries and have already provided substantial additional funding for such research through the interdisciplinary research centre initiative.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in putting civil service functions out to tender.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As promised in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", departmental targets for market testing in 1992–93 will be announced later this year.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants in grades 1 and 2 hold commercial qualifications and how many degrees in the arts.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Grade 1 and 2 civil servants gain the commercial knowledge which they need for their jobs in a variety of ways during their careers. These include experience from previous jobs, secondments, training programmes, conferences and regular contact with counterparts in the private sector. Of the current cadre of 170, just under half–84—have arts degrees. Of the remaining 86, three have masters of business administration; seven have accountancy qualifications, 27 are qualified in law; 11 have economics degrees; 11 have science degrees; six have mathematics degrees; and four have engineering qualifications.

  Charters
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce new charters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter White Paper (Cm 1599) includes a commitment to publish a charter for London Underground customers. This will be published shortly by London Undergorund Ltd. We intend to publish a courts charter later this year, and in due course a charter for higher and further education.

  Private Sector Management
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants in grades 1 and 2 have industrial or commercial experience of management in the private sector.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Some 60 civil servants in grades 1 and 2 have industrial or commercial experience of management in the private sector. Such experience has been obtained through working in the private sector, or on secondment, or through holding non-executive directorships of companies. Others have had experience of management in the wider public sector.

  Magistrates (Political Affiliation)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what account he takes of the political affiliation of potential magistrates in his appointment policy within the Duchy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The political affiliations of potential magistrates is a factor that needs to be taken into account by my advisory committees. These committees endeavour to recommend a bench which broadly reflects the local community as a whole.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the seminar which the Prime Minister held recently to discuss the Citizens charter.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Prime Minister held a seminar on the citizens charter at No. 10 Downing street on Friday 19

  Agency chief executives

  Agency

  Chief executive

  Civil service grade equivalents

  Method of appointment

  Origin

  Accounts Services Agency

  Mike Hoddinott

  5

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Agricultural Development Advisory Services Agency

  Dr. Julia Walsh

  2

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Building Research Establishment

  Roger Courtney

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  CADW (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  John Carr

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Central Office of Information

  Michael Devereau

  4

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Central Statistical Office

  Brian McLennan

  1A

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Tony Little

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Central Science Laboratory

  Dr. Peter Stanley

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Chemical Biological Defence Establishment

  Dr. Graham Pearson, CB

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Civil Service College

  Marianne Neville-Rolfe

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Companies House

  David Durham

  4

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Compensation Agency (Northern Ireland)

  John Robinson

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Defence Research Agency

  John Chisholm

  2

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts

  Michael Dymond

  4

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Stephen Curtis

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Brian Watson

  5

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Driving Standards Agency

  Dr. Christopher Woodman

  5

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Duke of York's Military School'

  Col. Christopher Horsfall

  —

  Armed forces appointment

  Armed forces

  DVOIT

  David Evans

  5

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Employment Service

  Michael Fogden

  3 +

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Fire Service College

  Brian Fuller

  Commandant

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Forensic Science Service

  Dr. Janet Thompson

  4

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Historic Royal Palaces

  David Beeton

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Historic Scotland

  Graeme Munro

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  HMSO

  Dr. Paul Freeman, CB

  2

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Hydrographic Office1

  Rear Admiral John Myres

  —

  Armed forces appointment Open competition

  Armed forces

  Insolvency Service

  Peter Joyce

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Intervention Board

  Guy Stapleton

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  104
  June. Ministers reported on the achievements of the last 12 months. These include the publication of 19 follow-up charters covering some of the most important areas of the public service such as education, health and British Rail.

  The main purpose of the seminar was to agree a demanding programme of action for the next 12 months including: new charters covering courts and further and higher education; the extension of the patients charter into primary health care, most importantly general practitioner services; the publication this autumn, for the first time, of comparative tables of school performance; the publication, by the end of this year, of indicators against which the performance of police in England and Wales will be measured; and the issue of videos to explain court procedures in England and Wales to new jurors and to help owners of small businesses understand their tax.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all executive agency chief executives, and their grade, stating whether they were appointed through open competition, and whether they were serving civil servants or direct entrants.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table provides the information requested in respect of the 72 existing "next steps" agency chief executives at 16 June 1992. Of the 72 chief executives now in post, 20 were appointed internally, 47 following an open competition and five are armed forces appointments. Thirty-nine were serving civil servants, 28 were direct entrants and five were from the armed forces.
  105

  Agency

  Chief executive

  Civil service grade equivalents

  Method of appointment

  Origin

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Dr. Richard Worswick

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Land Registry

  John Manthorpe

  2

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Medicines Control Agency

  Dr. Keith Jones

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Meteorological Office

  Professor Julian Hunt

  2

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Military Survey1

  Major-General Roy Wood

  —

  Armed forces appointment

  Armed forces

  National Engineering Laboratory

  William Edgar

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Dr. Seton Bennett

  5

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  National Physical Laboratory

  Dr. Peter Clapham, CB

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Natural Resources Institute

  Anthony Beattie

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation1

  Capt. David Symonds

  —

  Armed forces appointment

  Armed forces

  NHS Estates

  John Locke

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Occupational Health Service

  Dr. George Sorrie

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Ordnance Survey

  Professor David Rhind

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  Michael Brand

  5

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Patent Office

  Paul Hartnack

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Planning Inspectorate

  Stephen Crow

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Public Record Office

  Sarah Tyacke

  3

  Opem competition

  Direct entrant

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Roy Kendrick

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Queen Victoria School

  Julian Hankinson

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Radiocommunications Agency

  John Michell

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  RAF Maintenance Unit7

  Air Vice Marshal Don Campbell

  —

  Armed forces appointment

  Armed forces

  Rate Collection Agency (Northern Ireland)

  David Gallagher

  6

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  Michael Geddes

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Registers of Scotland

  James Barron

  4

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Royal Mint

  Tony Garrett

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Dr. Robert Hay

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Scottish Fisheries Prrotection Agency

  Andrew MacLeod

  5

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)7

  Ian Mitchelson

  4

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Alex Wylie

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Michael Bichard

  2

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Ann Chant

  5

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  John Kenworthy

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  Tony Ward

  6

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  Denyse Metcalfe

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  The Buying Agency

  Roger Powell

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Julian Crozier

  3

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Transport Research Laboratory

  John Wooton

  3

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  John Hayzelden

  5

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Valuation Office

  Rex Shutler CB

  2

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Derek Harvey

  5

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Ron Oliver

  4

  Internal appointment

  Serving civil servant

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Dr. Michael Rutter

  4

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  Warren Springs Laboratory

  Dr. D. Cormack

  3

  Open competition

  Serving civil servant

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  Geoffrey Denton

  5

  Open competition

  Direct entrant

  1 Defence Support Agency

  106

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

Libya: Sanctions
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the light of Libya's failure to comply with Security Council Resolutions 731 and 748 they propose to advise the Security Council to take further measures by way of sanctions or otherwise against Libya.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are determined to maintain the pressure on Libya to comply with Security Council Resolution 731. The sanctions imposed under Security Council Resolution 748 will remain in force as long as Libya fails to do so. In accordance with that resolution the Security Council will review those sanctions after 15th August. In the light of the Libyan Government's compliance the Security Council will then consider whether further measures may be necessary.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very satisfactory reply. Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to urge intensified sanctions in the event that Libya continues to defy the Security Council?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are determined to keep up pressure on Libya. Sanctions will remain in force as long as Libya fails to comply. We shall have to consider further measures in the light of the Security Council review of sanctions after 15th August.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether there is any substance in the report in the Independent newspaper that some British firms are in breach of the United Nations arms embargo? If that is the case, it would be an extremely serious breach of the sanctions. Can the Minister say what was the result of the discussions on the IRA between officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and officials of the Libyan Government?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I read that article. In 1989—the year quoted—arms could be exported to Libya with a licence. Nowadays one has to have a licence to export arms to anywhere. It is an offence to supply fraudulent documents in support of an application. Any licence issued on that basis is not valid. End user certificates form only part of the information used to decide whether to issue an export licence. False end user certificates can be valuable evidence in any subsequent prosecution.
With regard to the IRA situation, Libyans provided information on support for the IRA at the
334
Geneva meeting on 9th June. A preliminary assessment suggests that although in parts the evidence is incomplete and unsatisfactory, it also contains positive elements which may prove helpful.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in the course of that conversation, did the Libyan Government express any regret as regards their complicity with the IRA? Was the question of compensation raised or considered at any point?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know whether they expressed regret because I was not there.

Trade within the EC: Monthly Statistics
2.40 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to provide Parliament and the public with accurate monthly statistics, after 1st January 1993, on the United Kingdom's visible trade with each member state of the Community, and what other arrangements will be made to ensure that consistent and comparable data continue to be provided in Economic Trends and other regular publications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, a new system called Intrastat is being introduced throughout the Community with effect from 1st January 1993. Under this system, which is linked to VAT, large traders will be required to supply monthly details of their trade with other member states. That will enable the Government to continue to produce and publish accurate, consistent and comparable data.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the current system of compiling statistics on the balance of trade with our European partners rests upon extremely accurate figures supplied by HM Customs and Excise which show that for the five months to the end of May there was a visible trade deficit with the Community of £1.8 billion; that is, about as much as the whole of last year? Is the noble Lord also aware that the system to which he refers depends upon data submitted by those larger firms supplying 80 per cent. of the trade either way, and the 20 per cent. balance is an estimate only? Further does he accept that this time next year we shall be unaware of exactly what our trading position is with the other 11 members of the European Community?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. I shall attempt to answer some of them. Obviously we can no longer use Customs data. The inevitable result of the single market will be the abolition of most fiscal frontier controls. That is the system to which we shall move.
We have not yet decided on the threshold to apply; that is, the size of firm that will be providing the detailed data in the form of monthly statistics. Our aim is that it should be of the order of the top 20 per

335
cent. of traders, which we estimate will account for 96 per cent. and not 84 per cent. of all trade, as the noble Lord indicated. We accept that there will be some temporary dislocation in the first half of next year in providing the statistics, but as the system beds down we expect to provide accurate statistics only two to three weeks later than the current system.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the data provided in the future will be provided on a comparable basis? That will enable us to compare before and after figures, unlike the unemployment data, which have been increasingly non-comparable.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the premise underlying the second part of the noble Lord's question. We will try to make new data as comparable as possible. Obviously these data will not be identical to those which presently exist.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is essential that we have correct data to enable us to compare the statistics before and after the advent of the single market to see whether there has been any benefit? Does he agree also that since we joined the EC in 1973 this country has had a totally adverse trading balance in manufactures with the Community of £90,000 million? It is therefore essential that we have the correct data after the advent of the single market.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's question has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. I have accepted that there will be some delay when we change over to the new system, but as the new system beds down we should produce good, reliable, honest statistics within two to three weeks of the current system.
Lord Peston: My Lords, when we move to a single currency, statistics between individual member countries will be of complete irrelevance and of as much interest as trade between Yorkshire and Lancashire. I was not clear on what the Minister said with regard to the new method. Is he saying that the aim is to use the new method for this year so that both methods are in being for the same year, thus enabling us to see how closely they match? Alternatively, is he suggesting that the new method will simply come in next year? If so, there will not be an overlap showing whether the new method compares with the existing method.
Lord Henley: My Lords, what happens in the event of there ever being a single currency is another matter. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot answer questions regarding trade between Yorkshire and Lancashire, however desirable that may be.
I do not believe that it is desirable to use the future system this year as well as the current system. It will be from 1st January 1993 that traders will have to provide details on their VAT returns. We do not envisage the system requiring much more work for traders and it will be only the larger traders who will have to provide detailed monthly statistics.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister, but the point does not concern the amount of work. We need to know whether or not the new system measures the same figures as the existing system. The only way that that can be done is to apply both systems to the same set of circumstances and compare them. If the new system starts next year and the old system ceases we shall never know how accurate the new system is; we will simply know that it produces data.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am saying that we have no plans to bring in the new system before 1st January next year. The noble Lord makes an interesting point about proving the reliability of what will be our new set of figures. I shall pass on that comment to my right honourable friend. However, we have faith in the new system providing reliable and consistent figures.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that the figures produced by the new system will be in all respects comparable with those previously produced? Will he confirm that it will he unnecessary to make any amendments, for comparative purposes, in the variety of data at present rendered, which often goes back for 10 years or even longer? Will the noble Lord take note of the fact that if the Maastricht Treaty were ever ratified the Commission would take on the responsibility for the production of figures? Does he regard that with unalloyed pleasure and trust?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I stated earlier, the figures will not be strictly comparable with existing figures. However, we believe that they will be good, reliable figures giving an accurate measure of trade with our European partners.

Nuclear Testing: Moratorium
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, having regard to the moratorium on nuclear testing entered into by France and Russia and now carried by the United States Congress, they will take similar action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom has a continuing requirement to conduct a minimum programme of nuclear tests to maintain the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. I should point out to the noble Lord that the US Congress has not approved a moratorium on tests.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the noble Viscount aware that Congress approved the moratorium? It is true that it has to go through the Senate, but the Democratic leader in the Senate has said that he has no doubt that on this occasion, rare though it is, the Senate will agree with Congress. In that case, if the United States then decide to join the moratorium, will her Majesty's Government do the same?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the House of Representatives, as the noble Lord suggests, approved such a resolution. However, it has not passed the Senate and the United States government policy remains the same as it was before that resolution was approved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the context of my noble friend's Question, can the noble Viscount give Her Majesty's Government's reaction to the agreement reached between President Bush and President Yeltsin over the weekend? Does he believe that in due course it may lead to a comprehensive test ban treaty to which this Government will subscribe?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome the proposals for further cuts in the United States and Russian nuclear arsenals which were announced at the recent Summit in Washington. However, I must point out that the United Kingdom has already announced very significant reductions in its nuclear capability, including the ending of the maritime sub-strategic capability which we announced last week before the announcement was made in Washington.
Her Majesty's Government are committed to a comprehensive test ban treaty. I point out to the noble Lord that a comprehensive test ban treaty is not necessarily an absolute guarantee that countries which wish to acquire a nuclear capability will not do so. I need only cite to the noble Lord the example of Iraq.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Viscount announces the Government's welcome of the huge reductions agreed in nuclear capability by the Russians and the Americans. It is true that in certain minor respects we have reduced our nuclear capability, but does the noble Viscount agree that overall our strategic and sub-strategic capability is being increased by the Government? Can the Minister say how that reconciles with the Government's welcome of the huge reductions made by the Americans and the Russians?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord rather underestimates the contribution that we have made. He will remember as well as I that we have cut the RAF nuclear role squadrons from 11 to eight; given up our nuclear artillery and Lance missile role in Europe; and we have also cut the number of free-fall nuclear bombs by about 50 per cent. The noble Lord will also know that, as a result of the exchanges that he and I had some weeks ago, we are reviewing the question of our sub-strategic nuclear capability. This is a review which is not yet complete. He already knows that we are considering a number of possibilities.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, apart from the major fallacy in the Question posed by the noble Lord—that is to say, that Congress has not passed this resolution and that it is not even yet in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee —there are two other points which should be borne in mind if the House is not to be misled? The first is that this resolution is to come into force only if no republic
338
of the CIS conducts a nuclear test and that it is only Russia that has declared the moratorium. Secondly, is the Minister aware that this resolution is only part of a broader provision, which is the appropriations for 1993? Therefore, does the Minister agree that it would be premature for Her Majesty's Government to take such action now?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I certainly subscribe to his analysis. I point out that, as I understand it, the French announcement covers only the suspension of testing for one year.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, no doubt out of courtesy, my noble friend did not point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that Congress in the United States, like our own Parliament, consists of two Houses; namely, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The reference made by the noble Lord in his Question and supplementary question to Congress made the mistake of not realising that simple fact.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he said. I believe that I made the distinction in the reply that I gave to the noble Lord's supplementary question.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House the reasons for the British Government deciding that the safety of this country requires the continuation of testing while the safety of Russia and France does not?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is a matter for Russia and France. Both those countries have been conducting a very much higher volume of testing than the United Kingdom over the years. As regards the reason for our own continuance of testing, it is perfectly clear that one of the benefits of the minimum amount of testing that we have been conducting has been that it enables us to keep a much safer guard over our own nuclear weapons than we would otherwise have.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, despite what the noble and learned Lord has said, it is true that the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a resolution in favour of a moratorium? Is he further aware that it is also true that the leader of the Senate has expressed the view that the Senate is likely to go in the same direction? If that happens, then the possibility of the United States joining the moratorium is real. Will the noble Viscount answer the question: if that occurs, will Her Majesty's Government do the same?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is dedicated to asking hypothetical questions at every opportunity. I shall address myself to that matter if the eventuality occurs which he suggests. That may well be an unlikely event. I stress to the noble Lord what I said to him a moment or two ago; namely, that without question the American Government are still committed to the existing policy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my Question is not as obvious as the fact that night follows day, but very nearly so.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the further interest of accuracy, perhaps I may intervene once again. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that the resolution had been overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives. In fact it was passed by a majority of 190 to 160 which is scarcely overwhelming.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wish to acquaint the House with the fact that I quoted from the International Herald Tribune which used the word "overwhelming".
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps, as is so often the case in matters of this kind, not only does the noble Lord ask me hypothetical questions but his judgments are as subjective as anyone else's.

Energy Efficiency: Ministerial Responsibility
2.56 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Ministerial Group on Energy Efficiency, formerly under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Energy, has been reconstituted.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Environment has proposed that the responsibilities of the Ministerial Group on Energy Efficiency should be merged with those of the group of Green Ministers who co-ordinate environmental initiatives across government.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while accepting that this is a move forward in the interests of the environment in general, does the noble Viscount agree that very valuable work was done by the Ministerial Group on Energy Efficiency under the chairmanship of the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his then capacity of Secretary of State for Energy? Does the noble Viscount share my opinion that the first annual report of that group was one of the most impressive documents produced on energy efficiency? Can the Minister say whether that work is to be continued or are we simply to have just this first report on the subject and then will the interest move elsewhere?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. This change shows that the Government's commitment to energy efficiency has grown even stronger. The group of Green Ministers has more senior representation, including several Secretaries of State. We are proposing that the Green Ministers will carry on the work taken forward by the ministerial group.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that some noble Lords who are interested in this subject take the opposite view? Does
340
the noble Viscount agree that the involvement of three Ministers in charge of one matter instead of one Minister who has overall responsibility and is advised by the body referred to in the Question, is a far from progressive arrangement? Is the Minister not aware that, if the Government continue on the new course that the Minister suggested in his Answer, it may well throw this important subject open to market forces, which would be disastrous?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, energy efficiency is one of the quickest and most effective ways of dealing with the problems of global warming. Therefore, as I say, we are proposing to incorporate it into the work of the Green Ministers, who are responsible for environmental issues, and so put the matter into the right context.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, while not disagreeing with the tributes which have been paid to the first report, does the Minister agree that the need for effective action by government is emphasised by the fact that half of the government departments increased their energy consumption last year, half of them failed to meet the standards set for energy managers and four-fifths failed to meet standards set for investment in energy efficiency?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the role of the ministerial group was to promote awareness and raise the profile of energy efficiency; to encourage an efficient lifestyle and to set an example in government. It is too early in the campaign to say what the results are. However, departments are undertaking measures to ensure that they meet the targets.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, may I ask whether the league tables on efficiency in different government departments which were contained in the group's first report will continue to be published?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the data on the progress of the Government's campaign which were published in the ministerial group's annual report last year will be included in the second-year report on the environment this year.

South Africa: Massacre at Boipatong
3 p.m
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this morning I submitted a Private Notice Question to the Leader of the House to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to mobilise international pressures to halt the massacre of black Africans in South Africa and to promote the search for a genuine non-racial democratic constitution.
According to The Companion to the Standing Orders, the question is whether this matter is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply. That matter rests in the first place with the Leader of the House but ultimately on the general sense of the House. I suggest that it is urgent and I appeal to the House to support me against the preliminary decision of the Leader of the House.

341
The case on urgency is quickly stated. First, there has been in the township of Boipatong outside Johannesburg a massacre of over 100 black Africans in the past few days—and I understand that the killing is still continuing. The police and the government forces are seen by independent witnesses to have been involved.
Secondly, the British Government, along with other governments, lifted sanctions on South Africa, thus tacitly approving the policies of President de Klerk. This matter therefore has an international dimension and I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would have liked the opportunity both to express their condolences to the relatives of those who have been killed and to have a short discussion about how international action can be brought to bear to defuse the tension and to bring the parties back into negotiations.
Thirdly—again this relates to the question of urgency because all these things need to be done now —it is urgent today for Her Majesty's Government to state their concern about this situation because the National Executive of the African National Congress is meeting tomorrow and negotiations between the ANC and the Government in South Africa have been broken off. If the leadership of Nelson Mandela and the modern-thinking members of the ANC is to be preserved, it is essential that we show our sympathy with their situation today, that we help them to control their wilder elements—which exist also in the white community —and that we bring the two sides back together again in the negotiations.
I submit to the House that on those grounds of urgency this Question should be allowed in the House this afternoon.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord for giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we are always saddened by loss of life in these circumstances whether in South Africa or anywhere else in the world. However, it seems to me that the first thing I have to do is to make a preliminary decision as to whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply. The matter does not fulfil the criteria usually adopted in determining whether to accept a Private Notice Question. Generally speaking, it would have to be a matter that could not be considered on a later occasion. That is clearly not the case with the present Private Notice Question, which addresses the action which the international community may bring to bear in resolving the problems in South Africa. This, by definition, is part of a lengthy and ongoing process. The noble Lord could table a Starred Question on this subject if he so wished.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is there any means by which the opinion of the House can be tested? Could the matter be put to the vote here and now, for example, if we so decided?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, in determining these things I seek to understand the general feeling in the House. My predecessors have had discussions with the
342
leaders of the other parties and with the Convenor of the Cross-Benches to ascertain the most acceptable basis for proceeding. I think that I am acting within that spirit. I understand that such a matter could be put to a vote, but I do not believe that that has ever been done.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and, indeed, Members in all parts of the House, will agree that the developments in South Africa over the weekend have been both a disappointment and a tragedy. In view of the close relationship that has existed for a very long period of time between this country and South Africa, it is not unreasonable that my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby should have made this request. The Leader of the House referred to the possibility of tabling a Starred Question. Would he give his equal support to the possibility of holding a debate on this matter by way of an Unstarred Question?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, of course, if the noble Lord asks me that question, I shall certainly have discussions with him to see what can be done.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may say from these Benches that, while we do not dissent to any great degree from what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has said about the fears and the worries that exist over the present situation, we nevertheless feel that in the circumstances not much would be added to the greater pool of knowledge by a discussion in your Lordships' House this afternoon, especially at such short notice. We need much more information and much more awareness about this matter on all sides. Therefore, we support the Leader of the House in his decision not to accept the Question.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his support.

Business
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has withdrawn his Unstarred Question on the level of official support available to British exporters.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether we may have some elucidation of that. It is a little unfortunate that noble Lords will have come to the House today —probably not many, but my noble friend Lord Ezra is certainly one—anticipating that this matter would be debated later this afternoon. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that an Unstarred Question should be withdrawn on a day when there is very little business other than that, and that noble Lords who have come to the House intending to speak have found that they cannot do so until some unspecified time in the future.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the fact that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has withdrawn his Unstarred Question is entirely a matter

343
for the noble Lord himself. As I understand it, all noble Lords who had their names down to speak were informed through the usual channels.

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a Bill whose purpose is to amend the procedural arrangements for handling maintenance orders for reciprocal enforcement in magistrates' courts in England and Wales. Until the amendment is made, a number of people in England and Wales wanting to claim maintenance abroad, or those from outside the United Kingdom wanting to claim maintenance from people here, will be unable to obtain maintenance for themselves and for their children to which they are entitled. We need to put this situation right, and this Bill provides a prompt remedy.
Reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders allows for maintenance ordered by a court to be paid even though the payer and payee live in different countries. For example, an English court may make a maintenance order to benefit a woman living in England but there is no way that it can be enforced by that English court if the payer lives abroad. However, the payer can be obliged to pay maintenance by order of a court in his home country. International co-operation on the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders means that maintenance debtors and creditors who live in different countries can be treated in much the same way as if they lived within the same jurisdiction. The process is entirely reciprocal and is governed by a number of international conventions which the United Kingdom has ratified.
Reciprocal enforcement cases in England and Wales are always heard in the magistrates' court.
Reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders has a long history, and the need for reciprocal enforcement arrangements has become ever more pressing. Better communications have meant that families are now more likely to be dispersed around the world than ever before. In 1920, arrangements were put in place for the first time whereby maintenance orders made in countries which were part of what was then the British Empire could be recognised in the United Kingdom and vice versa. This was a remarkably progressive step for the time. By comparison, it was not until 1950, 30 years later, that the complete recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders between the different legal jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland became possible.
Since 1920 there has been considerable progress, and there are now well over 100 different foreign jurisdictions with which the United Kingdom has reciprocal enforcement arrangements. The primary legislation governing the reciprocal enforcement of
344
maintenance orders is the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 and the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. The underlying principle of these Acts was that as far as possible a person claiming maintenance to or from abroad should not be disadvantaged as against claimants where the respondent lives in the same jurisdiction. As a result, the legislation provides for reciprocal enforcement maintenance cases to proceed before magistrates' courts in the same way as claims where both parties are in the United Kingdom. When this legislation was drafted, the procedure for seeking maintenance before magistrates' courts in England and Wales where both parties were in this country was by way of complaint. It was therefore intended that reciprocal enforcement cases should also proceed by way of complaint. The 1920 and 1972 Acts used the terminology of the complaint procedure.
The procedure for seeking maintenance in magistrates' courts was entirely altered with the coming into force of the Children Act 1989 on 14th October 1991. The Children Act removed the system under which claims for maintenance where both parties lived in the United Kingdom proceeded by way of complaint. It substituted a new procedure, by way of application. However, there was no consequential change to the legislation governing the procedure to be followed in reciprocal enforcement cases. The effect is that magistrates' courts have no jurisdiction to process these cases. They cannot use the complaints procedure because its operation depends on there being a complaints procedure in place for United Kingdom cases, and this is no longer the situation. Nor is it possible for these cases to be processed using the new application procedure, as the 1920 and 1972 Acts expressly refer to the complaints procedure.
It is not the intention of this Bill to break new ground. Its purpose is, very simply, to bring the foreign applications into line with our new domestic procedure and all applications for the enforcement of maintenance will, so far as possible, be dealt with in the same way irrespective of whether both parties live in this country or one lives abroad. I should make it clear that the Bill applies only to England and Wales: there is not a parallel problem in Scotland and Northern Ireland because the relevant provisions of the Children Act do not apply there.
The four clauses of the Bill do nothing more than deal with commencement, introduce the schedules and establish the Short Title. The main provisions of the Bill are found in Schedule 1, which is in two parts. Part I amends the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920. Sections 3 and 4 of the 1920 Act contain references to summonses and defences —terms which refer to the complaint procedure. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule replace these with references to notices of hearing and grounds for opposing the confirmation of an order, which reflect the terminology used in our new procedures. Paragraph 3 of the schedule disapplies those amendments with regard to the 1920 Act's application in Northern Ireland, where, as I have explained, no new provision is required.

345
Part II of Schedule 1 effects similar amendments to the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972. Again, specific references to the complaint procedure have been replaced by references to applications, with consequential amendments; but the existing provisions of the 1972 Act have been reproduced for the purposes of the Act's application in Northern Ireland. There are certain other features of this part of the schedule which I should bring to your Lordships' attention.
First, paragraphs 7 and 12 extend the rule-making powers under Parts I and II of the 1972 Act, to allow for the same scope as the rule-making powers contained in Section 93 of the Children Act 1989. This accords with the general principle of ensuring that, so far as possible, these applications will be dealt with in the same way as applications where both parties are resident in England and Wales.
Your Lordships will also notice that paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 incorporates amendments made by the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991, which will require a court to specify the method by which maintenance must be paid. The new Section 28B inserted by the schedule preserves the present position whereby applications concerning reciprocal enforcement are heard only in a magistrates' court, by disapplying the provisions made under the Children Act 1989 which enable applications under that Act to be transferred to a county court or the High Court. The second schedule to the Bill is concerned only with consequential repeals.
This is a modest Bill which I am sure your Lordships will readily support. The numbers of individuals affected by the present inability of the magistrates' courts to deal with certain categories of reciprocal maintenance claims is not large: fewer than 1,000 a year. But it is clearly necessary to restore their rights. It is also important that the United Kingdom should set a good example in meeting its international obligations. We must not allow our reciprocal enforcement arrangements, which have been carefully nurtured over the past 70 years, to seize up. The Bill will prevent that outcome. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.16 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may put one point to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I fully agree about the urgent necessity to pass this legislation—I am sure that no one will disagree with that—but I am a little concerned about the situation of the unfortunate practitioner who will have to read this Act, as it will be, and then apply it to a series of cognate Acts dating back to 1920. The Bill contains several important alterations to the actual phraseology of those Acts.
It is the case that the particular alterations are contained in the schedules. In fact, the Bill is composed almost entirely of schedules with two or three purely formal enacting clauses at the beginning. Will my noble and learned friend consider the possibility either of following this piece of legislation with a consolidating Act, as to which there might be
346
difficulties owing to the absence of a Northern Ireland and Scottish application, or of at least seeing his way to ensuring that the consolidated provisions so far as regards England and Wales are included in the forthcoming edition of the Statutes Revised. I do not think that the practitioner applying these provisions will find it at all easy to do so.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is always a joy to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, especially if one is able to agree with the theme that he has just addressed. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will join me in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear exposition of the Bill. All your Lordships will agree that the reciprocal arrangements in regard to the enforcement of maintenance are a necessity in this day and age and are to be welcomed. Therefore, in regard to the spirit of the legislation, none of us, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, will have any dispute with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But following on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said about the difficulties of the practitioner, I am covered with bewilderment as a legislator, if I may so humbly refer to myself in that way, in your Lordships' House. I have given notice of my bewilderment to the noble and learned Lord and it is directed in this way.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, rightly said that the Bill is largely made up of schedules. What it does is something of an elementary kind. First, it affects only magistrates' courts. Secondly, it applies the provisions of the recent Children Act in regard to procedure—we are only interested here in procedure—on a reciprocal basis, if I may use that shorthand. I am amazed as a humble legislator that where one deals with a question of procedure only and where one brings into that procedure the procedure that was enacted in the Children Act 1989 one has to do it by primary legislation, going through the whole process of a Second Reading and all the other proceedings that have to take place in your Lordships' House. Have we slipped up in some way? I am not interested in pointing out an error; I am only interested in seeing that if there is an error, it is not repeated. Should we have given power under the Children Act 1989 by regulation to apply it in such circumstances or to alter the procedure in a which your Lordships might approve when a regulation comes forward?
I have stood at this Dispatch Box many a time trying to invoke the priority of primary legislation as against secondary legislation. On this occasion, I must say that I miss from his place the familiar and very affectionately regarded noble Lord, Lord Renton. However, as I said, it is extraordinary that we must have primary legislation purely saying, "Look, what we enacted in the Children Act should apply in regard to procedure to these reciprocal cases, whether from the United Kingdom to the outside or from outside to the United Kingdom". I hope that the noble and learned Lord can tell us why that is necessary. If it is

347
necessary, can we not learn a lesson on this occ2asion and ensure that somehow or other our legislative procedure sees to it that it does not happen again?
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful that the substance of what the Bill wishes to do has met with such universal and so clearly expressed approval.
The matters with which I have to deal are primarily questions. First, why must we deal with a matter which is eminently procedural by this method? The first answer to that is the terms of the reciprocal enforcement legislation are perhaps more precise than one would have wished in specifying the procedure by which such matters were to be given effect.
Of course, if how that might cause difficulty had been as fully appreciated then as it is now, it would have been possible to propose some amendments of the reciprocal enforcement legislation in the Children Act. However, noble Lords who were concerned with that legislation will remember that the jurisdiction arrangements of the Act were dealt with at quite a late stage of the procedure. It was a very important stage and one which I would certainly not have liked to have forgone for the sake of ensuring that it was absolutely complete.
The result is that primary legislation in a different field of the reciprocal enforcement maintenance provisions was not amended by the Children Act. There may be scope—and this is a matter for the future—in sometimes having rather wider clauses in such legislation to permit procedural changes in other legislation. But, as your Lordships know, I occasionally find myself in difficulties about the width of such clauses rather than their narrowness. In this case, it is the narrowness of the clause in the Children Act which causes the problem.
So far as concerns the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the amendments are framed on the basis that if one had copies of the two principal Acts dealing with reciprocal enforcement, it is comparatively easy to amend them. The practitioner who has those Acts could do it in that way. I hope that the Statutes In Force, which are not quite as up-to-date as I should like to see, will cope with that particular problem. I shall certainly seek to examine that aspect.
I do not believe that problems of consolidation will be very serious. I shall also certainly examine that as a possibility. But my primary answer is that the practitioner will find the amendments, and the way that they have been framed, as the best possible method of actually effecting the amendments to the procedure with which he is familiar. From that point of view, the Bill is designed with the ease of the practitioner in mind.
In view of the general acceptance of the Bill, it is with confidence that I repeat my Motion that the Bill should now be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Court Practice: Wearing of Wigs and Gowns
3.25 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to proposals to dispense with the established custom as to wearing of wigs and gowns by Her Majesty's judges and members of the Bar in open court.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question has been tabled because apart from correspondence and comment in the press there has been no discussion on a matter of general interest to the public—that is, the proposal to do away with the established custom of wearing wigs and gowns in open court by, it has been suggested, the decision of some council of judges by issuing a practice direction.
We are not concerned with ceremonial occasions; we are not concerned with work in chambers; and we are not concerned with timely dispensations. Timely dispensations in exceptional circumstances have always been accepted as part of the custom; indeed, there was a case at Lewes Assizes in the mid-19th century when the judge, who had a very severe attack of gout, charged the jury from his bed. Moreover, as Mr. Justice Megarry truly said in 1973—and I like his wording:
"Jurisdiction is neither conferred nor excluded by matters of attire".
We are not concerned with timely dispensations for good reason in exceptional circumstances. The proposal for discussion on the Order Paper is concerned with a permanent dispensation; namely, the abolition of a long-established custom. Two questions arise for your Lordships' consideration. The first is: ought the established custom to be abolished? The second is: is it open to the judiciary to abolish it?
As to the first question, which is far more important than the second, your Lordships may think that it is a proper question for the consideration of Parliament but assuredly not for legislation. Members of the public, judges, members of the Bar and some solicitors to whom I have spoken casually are in favour of retaining the established custom as it stands. So indeed am I. On this, I am basically a retentionist, although assuredly not for any personal reasons of convenience. However, your Lordships may think that we ought to retain an air of dignity, anonymity and authority which the uniform of this type of public service commands.
The uniform of the judiciary and the Bar is a wig, a gown and neckwear. Silks wear a sort of court dress, while solicitors have gowns and neckwear. Your Lordships may think that the rights of audience recently accorded to solicitors (a most welcome innovation which I supported) may not be prayed in aid as a reason for the abolition of wigs or for any departure from custom. But all Her Majesty's judges, Queen's Counsel and all advocates on both sides of the profession are servants of the public. The public perception of us all—perhaps, what might be called

349
our consumer rating—is of cardinal importance. There is no longer that ivory tower retreat to stifle the noise of criticism, and rightly so.
If the public conclude that they have had all the flummery of wigs, gowns, and the lot and that we shall all go "Perry Mason", plus or minus Della, so be it. But at least the judge in the United States wears a kind of gown of office. I suggest that the question of whether the public will so conclude is open to the most serious doubt, hence the purpose of this debate.
The proponents of abolition claim, first—I have taken these examples at random from the press—that the wig and gown isolate judges from litigants and give a false suggestion of some mystical power. A sense of isolation is utterly essential in order to maintain the dignity and authority in solemn proceedings. It is suggested that the theatrical atmosphere hinders the work of the courts. But what could be more theatrical than the work of the courts of the United States of America? It is suggested that the cult of the robes, wigs and gowns encourages legal pomposity. I hesitate to say so in such distinguished company but pomposity is the chronic occupational disease of the lawyer, to a lesser or greater extent. It is said that wigs and gowns distance the courts from common standards and from common-sense and that they set up a barrier to communication with the public, which the court exists to serve. Standards and common-sense are not affected by the apparel. To all intents and purposes the media ensure that there is no barrier to communication with the public, and on the whole they do so very well.
Of course there is room for exceptions to be made but great care must be taken in doing so. For example, perhaps the public are not so much concerned with proceedings in the Commercial Court. Nor are they so much concerned with the proceedings in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House where the Law Lords wear ordinary clothes but members of the Bar wear wigs and gowns.
I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Brightman, in their places. How well I remember the resentment expressed to me by Vic Feather about, as he put it, the insult to the trade union movement in having to appear in the NIRC, a branch of the High Court, before judges wearing "silly suits". I believe that at that time he represented a broad trade union view when he said that it was, so to speak, down-grading the quality and authority of the court because the High Court judge, who had full powers of committal, was not wearing wig, gown and so forth as worn by the High Court judges. That is why from one small perhaps insignificant personal experience—I appeared regularly in that court for both sides, although on different occasions—I believe that care must be taken in the making of exceptions.
The second issue is whether in any event it is open to the judiciary to abolish the custom. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 18th April 1992, suggested that judges should:
"probably shed their wigs and gowns"
and that that could be introduced
"by a judge's practice direction".
I have looked into the matter, which is wrapped in the mists of history, and it appears that the judiciary administered justice in the name of the Monarch originally by delegation, prerogative, and now to a large extent under statutory control. When in 1832 the bishops wished to shed their wigs they sought the permission of the Monarch, William IV, and it was granted by him. If that serves as a precedent perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the judiciary, should seek the permission of the Monarch in whose name the judges administer justice. Perhaps he should set up a process of consultation. Perhaps he should defer to the opinions expressed in debate, in particular in another place whose Members represent the public. Perhaps he should even defer to such views as expressed in your Lordships' House.
It must be doubted whether it is open to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary to abrogate this established custom by practice direction or otherwise. That could well be misunderstood as some arbitrary arrogation and exercise of power. Gowns have been worn by judges and advocates since the early Middle Ages. The judicial wig was adopted in the mid-18th century when their wearing had fallen out of fashion. In 1780 the Bar adopted the present form of wig.
The connection with the monarchy is fairly long-standing because in 1635 a dress regulation was issued by the Monarch. Under Charles I those were subject to variations according to the Church calendar. Somerset Herald, in his Cyclopaedia of Costumes published in 1671, quotes the dress regulation in 1635. I shall not bore your Lordships with the details but merely wish to make the point about the connection with the Monarch and the need for seeking the consent of the Monarch. For more than a century Ede and Ravenscroft has supplied a judges' robing list, the last of which was issued in the reign of King George V and is still current dress regulation.
For those reasons, and as a result of the two questions that arise, the subject is thought to be worthy of your Lordships' opinions expressed in this House.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for tabling the Question. I am delighted to speak on the subject about which so many people have such firm and opposing views. The question of whether wigs and gowns should be worn in court is important. They convey upon the wearer a respect for the uniform of court. They also give a sense of authority to those who stand up and present the case for their clients.
I have heard members of the legal profession put forward the view that wigs and gowns convey a sense of anonymity. When walking down the street after the court proceedings have ended members of the legal profession are less easily recognised because they are not wearing their wigs and gowns.

351
I do not believe that those points alone justify the wearing of wigs, although I support the wearing of gowns. I believe that wigs are a relic of the past. They give the impression that the law is remote, inaccessible and lends an air of mysticism to the general public.
Is it necessary to put on a wig when for some time it has been the practice in cases involving children for wigs to be removed? Adults can equally find a court case harrowing. They would be grateful not to be confronted by a wig. There is undoubted need for a uniform in a court. When solicitors and barristers act in the same court it will he important to afford them the same status. For one person to wear a wig while the other does not—the present practice in the county court—makes them appear unequal in the eyes of justice.
The issue of whether wigs and gowns should be worn is secondary to what is happening in the legal profession. The law is not remote because of the theatrical nature of the courtroom but because of the cost involved in taking a case to court. The demise of the legal aid system will make it only more so.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for bringing forward this matter for discussion. I do so because I welcome any discussion on any aspect of the administration of justice. If he will forgive me for a minor note of regret, my only regret is that he did not bring forward some matter of greater urgency such as delays in the Court of Appeal, where the list of outstanding appeals was constant between 1983 and 1991, but, which, in the past 12 months, has increased by 12.5 per cent.
Let me return to the subject of wigs and gowns. I accept that my judicial head gear has been out of fashion now for some 200 years. The whole subject has much of the stuff of which fourth leaders in The Times are made; but that is not to say that it should not be taken seriously, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has indeed taken it seriously. Once it was raised by the Commercial Bar Association a few months ago, it was referred to the Council of Judges which discussed the matter in some depth, and came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to form any view—let alone make any decisions—until there had been much wider consultation than was possible within the judiciary, the legal professions or the joined professions such as probation officers and the like.
The problem in the Council of Judges was that we did not have the machinery for any such consultative process. Happily, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to say that his department would undertake that exercise.I understand that it is already in the process of preparing the consultation paper which will go out in due course. The Question asks what is the Government's response to the suggestion. Of course, the Government's response is a matter for my noble and learned friend and not for me. But, absent legislation, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord
352
Campbell, has said, I should have thought that it was a matter within the competence of the Lord Chancellor in his judicial capacity and the judges, as a collegiate body, to decide what was the appropriate dress in their own courts. We still control our own courts.
If it be said that the Bar has some customary right to wear robes, so be it. I should have no objection, after any abolition of robes, if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wished to appear in robes in my court, certainly if he claimed a customary right to do so. It is of course a matter upon which your Lordships are competent to express a view. Indeed, the judges would appreciate your Lordships' views, but, I repeat, absent primary legislation, the only way in which Parliament has ever sought to control the judges is by persuasion. I trust that that will long continue.
I first met the problem when I was appointed President of the National Industrial Relations Court of which my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman was another judicial member. We had to consider: to wig or not to wig; to robe or not to robe? Our decision was to do neither. There were several reasons: it was important to bring out the fact that the lay members were of co-equal status with the judicial members; so, either we had all to wear robes or none of us had to wear robes. It was important, as we saw it, that the court should be seen as a court of conciliation. Many people will remember the moments of conflict, and think that we were perhaps singularly unsuccessful. That is not historically correct. Conciliation was the fate of many more cases than ever created confrontation. At any rate, that was our aim.
We wanted informality to be the key note. With that in mind, it was arranged that the Bench should be no more than nine inches above floor level. We told those coming to the court that we were not bothered with formal modes of address. I was normally addressed as Sir John; but, occasionally, I was addressed as brother, and regarded that as something in the nature of a compliment. So it all depends.
I was very much surprised to hear of the conversation that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had with Vic Feather. I had more than one conversation with Vic Feather at about that time. He never expressed to me the view that we were insulting the trade union movement, and that was not the intention. It is true that when eventually the court was closed down—by primary legislation—a number of people said, "Ah, there would have been no problem if only you had worn wigs and gowns". That is pure poppycock.
There is perhaps some support for the importance of wigs and gowns in two experiences that I had at the Winchester Assizes. In the first I was confronted by two cases—one to follow the other—in which the accused were charged with affray. They were each "matches"—if I may use that word—between ethnic minorities. In the first case, ethnic minority A was in the dock and in the second case ethnic minority B was to be in the dock. I had to advise the jury in summing up the first case that if there was reasonable doubt as to guilt they had to acquit. As each of the accused

353
produced something like 20 alibi witnesses it is perhaps not surprising that the jury had some lurking doubt and acquitted.
When we came to try the opposing side in the following case, it seemed to me that the same result was likely to occur. I therefore saw counsel for both sides in my room and asked the prosecution whether it intended to proceed with the case. The prosecution said that it did not, but it would like me to consider the senior probation officer's views. I asked what they were. He said that the thing to do was to bind over both parties (both teams) to keep the peace. Being a mere lawyer I pointed out to them that that did not seem sensible since when the question of a breach arose each would have 20 alibi witnesses and we should be back where we started. The senior probation officer said that I did not really understand real life and that being bound over by a "red judge", wearing a wig, would do the trick. So I bound them all over, and two years later I asked him what had happened and the answer was that there had been no further affray.
There was another case at Winchester of a rather different character in which a respectable middle-aged lady was being asked questions which were perfectly proper but which were embarrassing and referred to her personal life. In the middle of her cross-examination she announced that she was taking no further part in the proceedings and was leaving. That created a problem for me, because clearly I could not commit her for contempt of court, and, equally clearly, it was important that she should give her evidence. Thus, drawing myself to my full height, including my wig, I said, "Madam, you will answer that question at once". Rather to my surprise, she did.
Wigs can be useful as a disguise. Again, if I may use an illustration from personal experience of an occasion at Durham Assizes, in those days it was customary that if the wife of an assize judge wished to sit on the Bench she could do so, although she could not take part in the proceedings. A wife could see what was going on and perhaps keep an eye on her husband. At any rate, it was customary, and on the previous day my wife had done so.
The next morning, we were shopping in Woolworths in plain clothes before going to the court. A lady came steaming up to us whom I recognised as a member of the jury in the case we were currently trying. I was very apprehensive that we would be faced with a new trial or at least explanations and an assurance that I had not told her what the verdict should be. I need not have worried, she came straight up to my wife and said something nice about the hat and clothes she had been wearing the previous day. Then the juror went on her way. It was clear that she had not the slightest idea who I was.
There may also be an advantage that the wig reminds the judge that he is there as the representative of society and to apply the law, not to apply his version and view—which may be somewhat eccentric —as to what the justice of the case calls for. It may even remind the criminal that he is in peril because he is alleged to have offended against society, not against the judge. It all depends on circumstances.
354
We all know that judges customarily see children in their private rooms in ordinary clothes, certainly in wardship cases and many child cases. However, even that can go wrong. There is a fairly well documented case of a child being brought to see the learned judge and bursting into floods of tears. When inquiries were made as to why, it appeared that she had been briefed by her parents that she was to see a very wise, kindly, old man who was a bit peculiar. He wore a black dressing gown and had something that looked like an outsize pan scourer on his head. One can understand the child's disappointment at meeting someone dressed in an ordinary lounge suit.
A decision will have to he made one way or the other, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when solicitors achieve rights of audience in the High Court. The problem has already arisen —although perhaps it has not been noticed—in the context of the county court. I agree with him that advocates of equal status should be dressed alike, for which there is a prima facie case.
The essence of any robe or uniform is that it is not what other people wear. Wigs and gowns seem to me to fulfil that role admirably. The issue is whether and when judges should look just like anyone else.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I owe a deep apology to your Lordships, especially my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, for having only just arrived to take part in the debate. The reason is that I had an unexpected car problem starting from my home 70 miles away.
To my mind, there are three decisions for your Lordships to take or rather views to express. First, who should be responsible for deciding whether or not wigs and gowns should be worn in court? Secondly, whose advice should the responsible person take? Thirdly, what advice should we give that responsible person?
The responsible person should be my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary. We shall then know where responsibility lies. But if responsibility is divided between the judges collectively or left to the profession, I see difficulties arising. My noble and learned friend is answerable to Parliament for whatever he decides and I am sure that the judiciary and the profession will accept his decision.
As to the advice to be given to him, in my opinion it must come primarily from both Houses of Parliament. That is why, as has no doubt been said, we should welcome the raising of the matter by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. It gives your Lordships an opportunity to express opinions and give advice on the matter.
I now come to what the advice should be. Historically, as I understand it, the present practice of members of the Bar and the judiciary of wearing wigs and gowns dates from the early 18th century. I understand that barristers were told to wear wigs, gowns and bands in order to go into mourning after the death of Queen Anne. We have adopted that mode of dress ever since.

355
Before the 18th century, gowns but not wigs were worn by the judiciary and, so far as we know, by members of the Bar from the earliest times. If one examines portraits of members of the judiciary in Tudor and Stuart times, one finds them wearing various kinds of head-dress but rarely wigs. I do not recollect a portrait of a judge wearing a wig in Tudor or Stuart times, but in the 18th century it became common practice and has continued ever since.
What advice should your Lordships offer? I hope that there will be no disagreement that we should continue to wear gowns. They are perhaps an unnecessary impediment in a warm climate, but the public expect a certain dignity, an outward visible sign of dignity, to be shown by the Bench and the Bar as well as solicitors who wear gowns when appearing in the High Court. Therefore, I suggest that we may easily reach agreement in advising my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that gowns should continue to be worn.
As for wigs, I respect those who say it does not matter, although personally I am inclined to feel that we should continue to wear them. Wigs have a great levelling effect, they make the young look old and the old young. I find that a great advantage. When I started at the Bar, like some others, I looked many years younger than I was and it was a handicap, but the wig helped. For older men who are completely bald and perhaps show their age, a wig helps them look younger and is a great leveller.
Now we have very large numbers of women in practice at the Bar and I personally feel that the wearing of wigs by women—I have a daughter who now wears my wig, which is nearly 60 years old, at the Bar—places them on more equal terms with men. Therefore, there is that advantage to be derived for women. Of course, it could be said that women have the opportunity of displaying magnificent hair-dos which would enhance the environment of the courts. However, it would be utterly wrong surely if a woman's prowess at the Bar were to be affected in any way by what she does with her natural growth of hair. There are those advantages for the wearing of wigs.
Having spent so many years in the profession one could reminisce quite a lot, but I am content to leave the matter with the conclusion that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should advise the judiciary and the profession, especially the Bar, to continue to wear gowns and wigs.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, poses an important question. When I first approached it I did not feel that it was an easy question to answer with any confidence. I am, however, much clearer in my mind now for reasons that I shall relate.
I begin with a few further words about the history of the wig as I understand it. I believe that it was introduced as an article of formal wear in the court of Louis XIV and was then imported into this country at the time of the Restoration. It remained in vogue for just over 100 years until, perhaps not surprisingly, in
356
about the year 1790 it fell into disuse as an article of formal apparel. It has, however, survived as a picturesque custom in legal and certain other circles for the ensuing 200 years. So much for the wig. I think that the gown must be considered in a wholly different light. It has been worn for centuries by a great number of office holders and the like as a distinct feature of their office or calling. It is a symbol of authority and it is not in any sense an anachronism.
What are the possible answers to the question posed by the noble Lord? I believe that the principal options are the following. First, to give up the use of the wig and gown by judges and advocates in all courts; secondly, to give up the wig but to retain the gown and, thirdly, to maintain the present tradition. I would without hesitation reject the first option to give up both wig and gown. In my view the gown must be retained at all costs. On most occasions it is important to preserve in court a visible distinction between, on the one hand, those who have the duty to administer the judicial process—that is to say, the barrister or solicitor who argues the case and the judge who has to decide the case—and, on the other hand, those who are present in court for other reasons; for example, the litigants, witnesses, audience and so on.
The judge and the advocates, be they barristers or solicitors, are officers of the court. They have special responsibilities and duties which set them apart from others who are present in the court room. Their separateness, in my opinion, should be marked and apparent to all. They are temporarily on a different plane from others in court. Therefore, I believe that the gown at least must be retained.
What about the second option to abandon the wig but retain the gown? I was at one time attracted by that course. One reason, which has already been alluded to, was that solicitors now have a potential right of audience in most courts. Solicitors do not have to wear wigs as part of their formal apparel. If in a particular case both a barrister and a solicitor appear as advocates, would it be right to draw a visible distinction between them? I would say possibly not.
However, at the end of the day I have come down firmly and decisively on the side of no change. I believe that both wig and gown should continue to be worn by judges and members of the Bar on all appropriate occasions. My reason is that, as has been said, a court of law performs a public service. Judges and barristers exist for the public. It therefore seemed to me that it would be appropriate to try to discover what the public thought should be the answer to this question.
Accordingly, I commissioned one branch of my family to see whether they could find out what their non-legal friends and acquaintances thought about the wearing of wigs in court. They were not to disclose their own preferences and they were to consult, so far as possible, a cross section of the community. The result came as a surprise to me. Some 57 of the chosen sample were in favour of keeping the wig and only 23 were against it. That is a proportion of 71 per cent. to 29 per cent. The reasons given were always much the same —tradition and the importance of maintaining the solemnity of court proceedings.

357
Of course, I appreciate that that mini-poll is open to all sorts of valid criticisms. However, the result suggests to me that the public may be far more concerned with upholding the tradition than some of us appreciate, certainly more than I appreciated. I very much doubt whether there exists any strong demand for change.
One feature of the mini-poll which I should perhaps have mentioned was that ordinary people—the butchers, the bakers and the candlestick makers—were the strongest opponents of change as distinct from what I may describe as the professionals and intellectuals, whose views were far less strongly expressed.
It is no hardship for a judge or barrister to wear a wig and a gown. If that is truly what the public want I see no reason why they should not have it. The tradition should not be abandoned unless there is some very sound and compelling reason for doing so. Once abandoned, the tradition can never be restored. I venture to hope that the response to any proposal to dispense with the established custom of judges and members of the Bar wearing wigs and gowns in open court will be "no change".
4.12 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long this afternoon. As the only lay Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken so far in this debate I have been much encouraged by the general drift of the discussion and particularly by the contributions of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. My feelings on this matter are on the lines of the views expressed by those noble Lords.
However, I believe that there is a place in this discussion not for an opinion poll of the entire nation, let alone a referendum, but for some exploration of relevant opinion—if one can call it that—among those who have some knowledge of the factors involved, such as has been mentioned this afternoon. It would be useful for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to have such information at his disposal if a decision has to be taken.
My own feeling as a layman, and as a Conservative who has always felt that change is our ally in many fields and has to be faced in so many fields, is that at a time when we are faced with quite enough change, and extremely rapid change, it is preferable that issues such as this should be left very much on the sidelines since there is no urgency about them. I do not like interfering in any way with established institutions and customs which have sound foundations in the successful running of this country over many centuries, whether it be in the law or government.
I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for raising the matter and have taken much heart from what has been said by the other noble and learned Lords.
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack, described himself as a member of the laity in this field. I address your Lordships in a rather hybrid capacity. I have never worn a wig and gown but I do wear a cap and gown upon those occasions in the year when at graduation ceremonies, by virtue of my authority as chancellor, I create graduates out of graduands at an academic ceremony.
On such occasions we all wear academic robes. They have curious histories. My cap is what one would probably call a mortar-board, but it has a gold tassel to indicate my degree as chancellor. My gown is a most elaborate affair, derived originally from the jerkin of a peasant. Therefore, in the Middle Ages, to prove one was not a peasant, one added a pair of sleeves to one's jerkin. To prove one's social status sleeves became longer and longer until they reached the wrists. The progress of the sleeve was inexorable and when it grew down below the hand a slit was cut in the sleeve in order to give the hands free play. Nothing then stopped the sleeve from growing longer and longer—I see that the noble and learned Lord is indicating his agreement on that point. As a result I wear sleeves which reach the ground but which have two comfortable slits cut in them which enable me to hold my papers, speeches or whatever it may be.
The robe marks a sense of occasion. Graduation day is a solemn feast, in more senses than one. Graduates may have been at university for four, five, six, or seven years depending upon whether they are bachelors, masters or doctors. They wear different robes according to the level of their degrees, and their parents are present watching their young hopefuls graduate. Everyone is in a happy state of mind. It is an occasion; something to remember. The robes we wear add to the sense of occasion and it will be remembered for the rest of their lives as an occasion for which they had worked very hard.
There are many ceremonies at which we need a sense of occasion. At the ultimate ceremony, the coronation ceremony, Her Majesty the Queen came down the aisle orbed, sceptred and crowned. None of that has any functional purpose but it serves a symbolic purpose. We cannot manage without a certain amount of symbolism. Therefore, I believe that the Bar and judiciary should continue in their traditional robes.
It is perhaps worth perpending a little on the history of the wig. My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman attributed the wig to the court of Louis XIV, quite rightly I believe. I asked a historian why it originated in the court of Louis XIV. It originated because people were beginning to clean themselves up and did not like being infested with head lice and body lice. To cut one's hair short so that it could be easily washed and wear a wig which, if it became infested, one could hang out in the sun and wear a spare one, was a prophylactic against being lousy. Could anything be more symbolic of cleansing oneself than a court of law?
The High Court of Justice should have its sense of occasion. It cannot be a hardship for barristers or

359
judges to wear the wigs and gowns that all barristers and judges have been wearing for centuries. It gives a sense of occasion. I believe that when someone has suffered from injustice and the matter finally comes to judgment it is an occasion which should be marked as such and that that person can welcome.
Therefore, as a conservationist—and we hear a lot about conservation at present—I agree with anyone who wants to keep judicial wigs and robes and barristers' wigs and robes. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising the subject because it has given me an opportunity to state my views.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I too warmly thank and indeed congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on initiating this most timely and extremely important debate. I particularly applaud his endeavours, both direct and indirect, in obtaining support for it and in encouraging laymen to speak. He has succeeded to a considerable extent; five of the 11 speakers today are laymen. I believe that that is correct. Indeed, with his usual perception, my noble friend recognised quite clearly that the donning of wig, gown and bands in court has little or nothing to do with those who wear them. It has everything to do with the public perception of practitioners at law and hence respect for the law itself.
Perhaps we should consider why counsel, clerks, ushers and judges wear—and in my view should wear —formal dress in open court. There are two fundamental reasons. First, open court is the only occasion when the law is seen publicly in action—the law militant, so to speak. Secondly, the first duty of prosecuting counsel or plaintiff's counsel is not to the state or to his client. Defending counsel's first duty is not to his client. The judge's primary duty is neither to the Crown nor to the court. The first duty always and at all times is to the interests of justice.
Wearing wigs, gowns and bands is critical for its symbolism and importance, despite the fact that it might appear futile to the facile and the populist. The wearing of robes is or should be a daily visual and tactile reminder to court practitioners that they must sublimate self to the greater interest of justice. In open court, practitioners at law, however humble or high their background, skill or knowledge of the law, are among equals; they are inter pares. They serve the common interest of justice. It will be clear to noble Lords that I believe that the profession of the law is, and above all should be seen to be, a solemn and quasi-sacred vocation.
That perception of the lawyer's role might seem to some, laymen or lawyers, as hopelessly romantic and out of date. I do not think so. A populist and facile attempt to dispense with the custom of formal dress in court is in my view a dismal reflection of the legal practitioners' perception of their role in society. To put it another way, their loss of public esteem is beginning to hurt and they are responding in an insidious and dangerous way.
360
That becomes even clearer when one considers the other professions who wear robes, so to speak, while performing public duties. Who are those people? They are the teaching profession, generally on formal occasions, unfortunately; the Armed Forces, policemen, firemen, nurses, and not least the clergy. They do so because in common with lawyers their formal wear symbolises their dedication to public service and that they are not as others. They have solemn duties that take precedence over self-interest and indeed over self-preservation. That point was very well made by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls.
I dismiss entirely the practical arguments in the press, which suggest that wigs should be dispensed with, not least from a practical point of view because they are exceedingly uncomfortable. In terms of discomfort, modern lawyers are rank amateurs. Their patron saint, St. Ivo, wore a hair shirt. He abstained from meat and drink, fasted during Advent and Lent, and at other times, on bread and water. He took his rest, which was always short, lying on a straw mat with a book or stone by way of a pillow. But that was nothing compared with worse discomforts: not content with dealing out justice for the helpless in his own court, he personally pleaded for them in other courts, often paying their expenses and visiting them in prison. He never accepted presents or bribes, which had become so customary as to be regarded as a lawyer's perquisite. He always strove if possible to reconcile those who were enemies and to induce them to settle their quarrels out of court. In that manner he prevented many of those who came to him from embarking on costly and unnecessary law suits. Hence the verse:
"Sanctus Ivo erat Brito,
Advocatus, et non latro,
Res miranda populo".
Roughly translated, it means: St. lvo—a Breton, a lawyer and not a thief; a wonder unto the people.
I beseech my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he considers these matters to pay particular heed to laymen's views. In addition, I ask him to bear in mind that any attempt to secularise, so to speak, and thus cheapen the public's perception of practitioners at law, or indeed lawyers' perception of themselves and their role, would be very sad indeed. It would be a very sad day if the practitioners at law are perceived to be no better than advisers and advocates in the law, selling their wares to the highest bidders and to an ever more cynical public. The English and the Celts in the main are highly spiritual and poetic people. Both visual and linguistic symbolism is often of far greater meaning to them than the substance itself.
4.27 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for giving the House the opportunity, particularly those of us who are not versed or qualified in the law, to make observations on an issue which is part of tradition, going back a very long time, as noble Lords have said. My experience of wearing a gown—I think it could be described as a gown—was a cassock and surplice in a choir. My head has grown through my hair but as yet

361
I do not have the necessity for a wig so I am without any experience of the dress, which is the subject of our debate.
However, my youth was passed in a Commonwealth country. Many noble Lords may ask what that has to do with the matter under discussion. As a young man in a Commonwealth country I was brought up to believe in the importance of Great Britain. That importance was manifest in the fact that we all called this country the home country. That applies to New Zealand, Australia and Canada. But let us not forget that there are many other Commonwealth countries with a wide variety of different populations by colour and creed who have benefited from the justice and integrity of the law which they have learnt in this country, either at university or school, or from those people who have taken up legal positions in the country concerned.
One of the most important aspects manifested by that approach is that of dignity. Dignity could be described as a degree of excellence, deserving of respect. It makes no difference whether one goes to a court in the United Kingdom, Uganda, India, or many of the other countries which were part of the Commonwealth or still remain so, the dignity of the law has been preserved to some extent by dress. It is that dignity which I believe underlines the authority and inspires the respect for the people in various levels of the profession whose task is to plead for and to dispense justice.
The preservation of dignity in this day and age is a battle that can only be won by keeping on keeping on. We may reform the contents of our law books but we must maintain the outward manifestation of the law's dignity and authority. The use of the wig and gown is but a small inconvenience to assist in that achievement.
A story is told of a missionary who visited India during the procession on Palm Sunday. The visiting missionary spoke with the minister in charge of the area as the procession came through. In the procession Jesus was portrayed sitting on an elephant. He asked, "Why is Jesus sitting on an elephant when according to the Bible he sat on a donkey?" The minister replied, "You must understand this. These chaps don't understand the dignity of a donkey, but they understand the dignity of an elephant." I do not suggest to any noble and learned Lord that his wig has such a power.
However, before attending your Lordships' House today I had a brief conversation with an acquaintance who had recently been involved in a court case. He said, "I found that some who wore short wigs were aggressive but the person in the long wig was both understanding and wise". If my acquaintance had been able to attribute names and personalities to those involved in the process of the law he may have had a more personal view. He may even have left that court bent on revenge. I am sure that your Lordships would not condone such thoughts. I believe that we are all protected by the dignity of the full court dress.
4.33 P.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak. However, the skill matched as usual by the subtlety with which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, opened the debate has aroused me. I wish to make my position absolutely clear. I am in favour of gowns and against wigs. I shall explain why.
I am in favour of gowns because in almost every European country judges wear gowns. They are learned men. It may well he that in some countries advocates also wear gowns. It has to do with the dignity of the law and, very rightly, they should continue to wear them. However, if I may so put it, the wearing of wigs sticks in my gullet. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, stated that the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker in some survey were in favour of wigs but that professional men and intellectuals probably were not. I am a member of that repulsive species, the intellectuals. To my mind, wigs do not add to the dignity of the court. They make it ludicrous. That is a belief held by many people in this country at present.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to the case in which a lady attempted to leave the witness box at which point he simply said to her, "Madam, answer that question at once". I can assure the noble and learned Lord that it was not the wig, nor even the gown, that made the lady answer that question immediately. I would have answered that question if he had said to me, "Sir, answer that question at once", because of the personality of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. On his argument, does he agree that a great many academic robes, and certainly the headgear, might also be abolished?
Lord Annan: My Lords, as with legal robes, academic robes are an indication of a learned body of men. That is another reason why I am entirely in favour of robes being worn.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, what about the hat?
Lord Annan: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers now to the square cap which academics wear, it is worn only on ceremonial occasions. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. We are not discussing ceremonial occasions. I should be entirely in favour of the judiciary sitting massed in their full panoply of wigs and gowns of various hues and colours at the Queen's Speech, but that is a very different occasion from normal procedure. Indeed, in universities today a few lecturers may still wear their gowns but they no longer wear the mortar-board.
Perhaps I may make one other point in favour of the abolition of wigs. They are not only a ludicrous form of headgear; they are very uncomfortable. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton can express an opinion on what it is like to sit day in and day out as a clerk wearing a wig. I do

363
not ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give us his opinion. That would be rather unfair on him. However, the opposition of members of a great profession to any change on the matter suggests a factor that has been stated many times in recent years. I refer to the innate conservatism and the unwillingness to change on any single point which the legal profession expresses time and again. I ask it to consider this matter from the point of view of common sense.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was chairing an annual general meeting and therefore could not leave.
I make one point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, took a straw poll from various people he knew. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, also consulted a number of people. Will the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, consider the opinion of those who view the court from the dock? I have much to do with prisons. I visit them; I have a number of friends in prisons. I have stood in the dock with prisoners. Is it possible to ask the opinion of those who view the court from that position? What do they think and what difference has the attire made to them?
I remember standing before the judge in the dock with a very disturbed girl. What she would do and how she would behave was a worrying factor. What the court thought I would do, I am not sure. However, she pointed to the judge and asked, "Why are you wearing that funny hat?". He replied, "I'm the judge". She said, "Thank goodness for that. You're different from other men and I might get justice". Perhaps she was biased, but never mind. That is how the matter appeared to her.
We have all considered this question of wigs and gowns. However, those who have been in the dock, who have been convicted and who are in prison, and others who appear in the courts in that way, should be consulted and their opinions sought.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that he had been tempted to make an observation because of the speech made by my noble friend. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has tempted me to intervene. I had no intention whatever of speaking in this debate. However, there is a point of view which is different from that held by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which should be on the record.
We should not interfere with this tradition for all the good reasons presented so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and others. Those reasons are clear for all those who have knowledge of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, does not need to wear a wig or a gown because of his presence, his personality, his voice and general demeanour.
364
There are very few noble Lords equivalent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. Many of the people who practise law in the courts and whose demeanour must give satisfaction to the litigants and the people involved, need some sort of disguise. It is important that they should have the kind of presence which the importance of their task demands. There are many whimpish-looking, weak-kneed people practising in our courts who are not whimps and who are not weak kneed but they look as though they are. We wish the courts to retain their sense of majesty. Therefore, it is important that those who are skilled in the law should be seen to be so.
The reason that I wanted to go further than the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is because I wish to mention a matter which truly disturbs me. It could well be that Members of Parliament and Members of this House should wear something equivalent to the wig and gown. I shall give my reasons—and this is not a flippant observation. Very few pleasant measures are passed by Parliament. At the end of the day, to most people we seem to be either increasing taxes or interfering with people's freedom. That has been accepted over the centuries, because, by and large, under our system people have looked upon their Members of Parliament as being rather different and perhaps superior. That is perhaps because of how one is elected and all that goes with that.
Unpleasant decisions have been accepted. We have a law-abiding nation because people have adhered to the decisions which have come from Parliament. Nowadays, Parliament is no good unless it is made up of ordinary people. Television advertises how ordinary Members of Parliament are. They are just like one's next door neighbour that one does not like and who is rather a disreputable sort of chap. If we are not careful, that will interfere with the general acceptance of the edicts which come from Parliament.
In the Victorian age and before, MPs dressed in top hats and frock coats. They looked more significant. Now MPs turn up in pullovers and open-necked shirts. That carries no dignity whatever.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in this House we do not take off our coats and hang them on the Benches.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I accept that; but we are only part of Parliament. Parliament is made up of two Houses. We can see many examples of what I have spoken about. The person wearing the top hat and frock coat may not have possessed anything like the intellect of MPs today. However, that person looked as though he was intelligent, as a consequence of that and it was possible to accept his decisions.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I would say that in order to maintain the dignity and general acceptance of the courts, we should not rely on everybody looking as dignified and foreboding as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend think that it might help if, as was done in the early 19th century, we were all to wear chokers?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not care what people wear so long as it makes them look dignified and worthy of carrying out the tasks which are given to them, whether they are in Parliament or in the courts. In the absence of the natural physique which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson has—and many do not have that—lawyers should be dressed not to please lawyers but so that in a law-abiding nation the law is acceptable to those who must obey it.
I shall never be an academic with all the qualities of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. However, I believe he is rather out of touch with the effect on the general standing of people who practise in courts. That is enhanced when they not only are the part but also look the part.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, first, I apologise for not being here earlier. My excuses are that, first, we were involved in Appellate Committee work and, secondly, I have been trying to brief myself in order the better to help my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the Committee stage on Tuesday week of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill.
I have two contributions to make. The first heading is the cosmetic factor. When I was chairman of the Bar, I attended, along with Lord Elwyn-Jones who was then the Attorney-General, the annual opening of the Paris law courts known, I believe, as the Séance Solenelle but to those, like myself, who had been more than once, the Séance Eternelle.
Lord Elwyn-Jones and I were the only ones wearing wigs. In my best schoolboy French I turned to a lady French judge and said, "Do you think it is absurd that we go on dressing ourselves up like this wearing wigs? Is it not high time we abolished it?" She turned to me and said in French which I understood, "Mais jamais, ça a beaucoup d'allure". No woman has ever before or since said that I had any allure and I think that establishes that the cosmetic factor is extremely important.
I now come to the security aspect. Many years ago as a commercial judge I had to try a long case about an industrial onion-peeling machine. It was a long and boring case. In order to break the monotony I asked to view the locus in quo and see how the commercial onion-peeling machine worked. I am sure that noble Baronesses at least will appreciate that you cannot go to inspect a commercial onion-peeling machine dressed in ermine because you would never get the smell out of the fur. Therefore, I attended the factory in civilian clothes. Thus, I blew, so to speak, my alias.
The case contained a mini Watergate plot. The inventor of the onion-peeling machine was obsessed by his invention. He had sold it to a big company which was foolish enough not to buy it outright but to create a new company in which it had 50 per cent. of the shareholding and the inventor had the other 50 per cent. He was intent on establishing in his claim that the company had not used all proper efforts to develop the machine. He took the rather ineffectual director from the company out to dinner, filled him up with whisky and then tape recorded into the back of his
366
Mercedes car the uninhibited observations which the director made about the incompetence of his company which was meant to be exploiting the invention. I said it was a mini Watergate because there was to be a serious issue as to whether the tape had been doctored.
It is not often that I travel by public transport. We in London as judges, as your Lordships are probably aware, with the beneficent Treasury under which we operate, are not provided with cars. For once my car was out of action and I went home by tube. I found myself strap-hanging close to the director who had been filled up by the plaintiff with whisky and was shortly to be cross-examined to establish his lack of integrity. I was as close to him as I am to my noble friend sitting immediately in front of me. He knew who I was and I knew who he was. Fortunately the case was settled. However, I took the opportunity of writing to the then Lord Chancellor suggesting that it was an excellent opportunity for the Treasury to reconsider providing cars to judges. Needless to say the Treasury did not take advantage of that sensible suggestion.
Under the heading of security it is vitally important that judges should continue to wear their wigs. In case this point was not made in my absence, two judges in the Family Division in Australia were shot and killed by angry litigants. In order that they should preside over modern up-to-date courts, those judges were not wearing wigs and gowns and as a result were identified. I understand that Family Division judges in Australia are now back in wigs and gowns.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this has been an interesting, revealing and enjoyable debate. I thought I was to be in the minority of one until the first of the four speakers in the gap—who now seems to have fled in any event—the noble Lord, Lord Annan, rose and made his speech.
Of course we understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was engaged on important work in the Appellate Committee of this House. As he sat there observing the dignity of the law, unwigged and unrobed, no doubt he reflected upon this specific debate this afternoon. We are grateful that he came in although he was somewhat delayed.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that it is right that this issue is joined. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, at the beginning of his speech. It is an issue that deserves to be taken seriously. The public seem to be taking it seriously. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is taking it seriously when I gather he is to have excessive consultations with all sorts of interested parties. That is thoroughly desirable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said that a straw poll had been conducted by members of his family. I conducted a straw poll at the Crown Court at Guildford where my wig has been engaged throughout the past six weeks. It was extremely interesting. There is no clear view. Indeed, there is a

367
clear division among the members of the Bar whom I asked as to whether or not wigs and gowns should be preserved.
In so far as a consensus may be capable of emerging, it may be that wigs should be abolished but that gowns should be preserved. I am bound to say that that is an eventual result which I would find appealing and certainly would not object to. I have always disliked wigs. I say that right at the outset. I do not believe that they add any dignity to the proceedings and I am sure that they do not add any dignity to me. I believe that I look ridiculous wearing a wig. Indeed, when I first came to the Bar, 37 years ago, the wig I then obtained was at that time second hand. It survived for some 32 years.
I find wigs are insanitary, scratchy and extremely hot. In hot weather they have been known to smell, and not exactly of the purest aromas. I must say that my family took to my wig with great enjoyment. They treated it rather as a family pet more than anything else. Occasionally, on a rainy Sunday, my small children would say, "Go on, Dad, put on your wig and give us a laugh". Indeed, every time I put it on the laugh invariably came.
When I returned from Brussels after my stint in the Commission I tried to get my wig cleaned. I felt that I was returning to a profession which demanded dignity, decorum and all those matters about which we have heard so much in this debate, so I thought I should see whether or not I could get my wig renovated and repaired and therefore sent it to a specialist cleaner to see whether that could be done. He said that, unfortunately, he could not do so because the only thing holding it together was the dirt. If it is seriously suggested that the dignity of cases in which I appeared was in the least enhanced by my wearing that insanitary object on the top of my head, I am bound to say I find that an extraordinary argument.
The ultimate argument this afternoon in favour of wiggery came from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I have never before heard it suggested that we should keep wigs in order to ensure that head lice do not get onto the heads of the judiciary. It is an interesting possibility.
Another point which I must say surprised and alarmed me in the course of the debate occurred in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. When he quoted the hair-shirted aesthetic, the patron saint of lawyers, I feared that he had inserted an "r" at the end of the name, rather than leaving it at "Ivo", and somehow or other attributed it to one of my ancestors. I bear no resemblance.
Eventually my wig fell to pieces. It was sad. One by one the curls fell off. The wigbox used to come down on top of the hair and gradually I was left with two curls at the back and one on either side. Then calamity really struck because the pate of the wig developed a hole. At that stage we decided that the "pet" should be put down, and so it was and I had to acquire a new one. But the idea that somehow or other it was adding to the dignity of the profession seems to me to be
368
absolute and utter nonsense. I take sides with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who said that it does not make courts dignified; it makes them look ridiculous.
How do the public regard us? A leading article in The Times, dated 27th April, stated,
"The wig is supposed to convey gravitas to a judge and to a barrister a kind of impersonal anonymity. But just as the cowl does not make the monk, the wig does not make the law. A good lawyer needs no wig to make his case; the incompetence of a bad lawyer cannot be concealed beneath a wig a foot high. In their antique Latin jargon lawyers have a maxim, Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda: 'The law forces no one to do vain or useless things'".
The Times concluded ponderously and thunderously,
"The lawyers' wig has become a vain and useless thing, getting between the customer and the law of the land. Lawyers' Latin may survive a little longer. But the wigs should go now".
Let me be serious about the issue for a moment. The real test is whether the wearing of wigs and gowns actually assists in the administration of justice. Do they help to make our trials fairer, better conducted, more comprehensible and more relevant? All those qualities—fairness, proper conduct, comprehensibility and perceived relevance—are surely ones which everyone would accept as being desirable in any system of justice, particularly with regard to the criminal courts.
I do not believe that it can be demonstrated that the wearing of wigs adds to the fairness of proceedings. It does not. That is essentially a matter for the judge. The quality of the judge is surely greater than the clothes that he happens to be wearing. Nor does it add to the proper conduct of the proceedings. Surely our judges are not so dependent upon their apparel as to allow it to interfere either with their sense of justice or the way in which trials are conducted.
The debate has been slightly anecdotal and perhaps your Lordships will therefore forgive me if I add another to the list. Three or four years ago I was engaged in a longish fraud trial at the Crown Court in Southwark. The judge trying the case was His Honour Judge Mota Singh QC, a Sikh. Therefore, he wore no wig, but an immaculate turban everyday. The trial lasted for about eight weeks. During the first week it was extremely hot. The judge, with that consideration and compassion for counsel for which he is well-known and widely respected, agreed that we should take off our wigs, and so we did. A few days later the weather cooled but none of us put on the wig again. Therefore, for the remaining eight weeks—although the weather was wig-like in the sense that there was no immediate heat danger to counsel from wearing them—the trial continued with wigless counsel appearing in front of a judge who wore no wig but a turban.
I do not believe that that had a scrap of effect on the trial itself either as regards its fairness or the conduct of the proceedings themselves. The trial proceeded perfectly normally and properly. I cannot believe that any Member of your Lordships' House really accepts the fact that a judge wearing a wig makes a scrap of difference to the way in which a trial is or is not conducted. I do not believe that proceedings in a magistrates' court, in front of a tribunal, a commercial arbitration, a planning inspector or before a coroner,

369
are necessarily less fair or well conducted merely because they are conducted by someone who is unwigged and unrobed.
However, I believe that such dress has an effect on the comprehensibility and the perceived relevance of the trial. In my view the effect is undesirable. It produces a degree of remoteness and separateness which is surely undesirable today. Not only is it undesirable but its retention has to be justified on severely practical grounds. I hope that we live in an increasingly participatory democracy. The perpetuation of a system which deliberately fosters a sense of separation has surely to be justified on grounds connected with the good conduct of the proceedings or the fairness of the proceedings themselves. If the wearing of this extraordinary 18th-century garb has little effect on the proceedings themselves, what are the other arguments which might justify its retention?
There appear to be two such arguments. We have heard both of them tonight. One is anonymity and the other is what I might call professional recognition. As regards anonymity, it is said that the wig confers a degree of anonymity on the wearer and therefore greater security from the revenge of disappointed litigants or prisoners. If that is a good argument, why should it apply only to the higher courts? Why should the danger appear to affect only judges and barristers? What of magistrates, inspectors, arbitrators and coroners? What of those who prosecute in the magistrates' courts and the employees of the Crown Prosecution Service? More importantly, what about the witnesses in the case themselves? In a normal criminal trial it is not usually the judge or counsel who may find themselves at risk. Those who are far more likely to be vulnerable are the witnesses who gave evidence against the accused or even sometimes the jury or jury persons who did the actual convicting.
As regards the question of security, I do not agree with the argument that we have to retain our wigs because of some special vulnerability on the part of the judiciary. If anonymity is a good argument for some, it is a good argument for others. I noted the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He was calling for some kind of uniform on the part of our legislators. He was not putting the argument forward on security grounds but on grounds of dignity. If the security argument has any validity it applies to Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House with greater force than it does merely to the higher judiciary and barristers who at present wear wigs. I am not over impressed with the "disguise" argument.
There is the recognition argument; namely, that the qualification of barrister and subsequent elevation to the judiciary is such as to require some public and visible recognition of that qualification by society as a whole. It is perhaps rather like a clerical collar and robes or a soldier's uniform. I have some sympathy with that argument. The question is: How far do we need to go in order to establish that recognition? Does it require more than some more modest but recognisable mark of distinction which establishes the qualification in a clear and acceptable way?
370
I welcome this debate. I suggest to the House that the wearing of robes and the banishment of wigs would produce on the whole the kind of effect that I have been talking about —that is to say, public recognition. For those who believe that a court's dignity depends on apparel, there would still be the robes that counsel and the judge could wear. For those who believe it important, there would still be a degree of separation from one's clients or from the common herd of mankind. If those arguments are important, then robes would probably be sufficient.
My own views, honed as they are by 37 years, on and off, at the Bar, are that wig-wearing adds very little to our judicial process. I do not believe that wearing a wig enhances the dignity of our proceedings, adds to their fairness or creates proper conduct. Indeed, I believe that it tends in the opposite direction.
Ultimately, the argument probably comes down to preserving what has become one of those traditions so beloved by the British. We have heard that argument today. I am not quite sure how it arose. Nobody is quite clear as to why the Bar went on wearing 18th-century wigs when everyone else moved from the 18th-century into the 19th and beyond. But there it is. There is a tradition. We all do it and ergo it must be justifiable—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It was because they started washing.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in that case, if the Bar washed too they should have given up the wig as well. I see no justification for the Bar evading the so-unwashed part of society when we have moved from the 18th and 19th centuries and soap has become more readily available. The noble Earl may be absolutely right. But I say to him that for a tradition to survive now in any form other than one which is preserved as being quaint or touristic—which I hope no one is suggesting the Bar is—then the tradition has to be perceived to be relevant. My attitude is undoubtedly influenced by what I perceive to be the almost total irrelevance of our head covering to the administration of justice and the court proceedings in which, as barristers, we daily participate.
5.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the only one to participate in this debate wearing the wig and gown, I perhaps should he rather reticent in expressing any views of my own. Whether or not that is a good reason for not expressing my own views, that is the attitude that I propose to take. I agree that this is an extremely important subject to which a number of answers have been returned in the course of your Lordships' discussion of it.
Therefore, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and thanking him for giving your Lordships this opportunity of expressing your views on this important subject. The views which have been aired have been varied. The grounds on which they have been expressed have been even more varied. The inspection of an onion-peeling

371
machine has produced an argument against peeling the wig. There are a number of other bases on which that proposal has rested.
Comparisons have been made with other types of uniform. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has differentiated between the headgear of the academic and the rest of the academic dress. My noble friend made clear at the beginning of this discussion that he was talking only of the general rule. He was not talking about ceremonial occasions or of special occasions such as a heat-wave or anything of that kind. He was talking about the general rule. However, any discussion of this subject-matter must embrace the possibility of ceremonial and special occasions.
In recent times, there has been discussion of this matter in a number of quarters. As far as the court is concerned, that happened first and formally in the commercial Bar, by the judges who regularly sit in the Commercial Court. The matter was then referred to a more general meeting of the Judges Council. As a result, my senior colleagues in the judiciary and myself have agreed that it would be wise to consult publicly and in some detail on this subject. Obviously, as has been pointed out, the Monarch has an important interest in these matters and in due course account will have to he taken of that.
On behalf of my judicial colleagues and myself, I hope to he in a position to publish a detailed consultation paper that will take account of the views that your Lordships have expressed today. We shall try to put the issues as fully as we can. We have secured the help of a distinguished academic who is interested in the law and in legal dress, Dr. Baker from Cambridge. His expertise will certainly inform the consultation paper.
I hope that all the arguments for and against will be put in the consultation paper and that the result will be to interest the public in this debate in a way that will enable them to express their views for our benefit. Most of your Lordships were agreed that the important aspect of this matter is the effect on the
372
public. My noble friend Lady Faithfull drew attention to a particular section of that public—namely, the users of the court who appreciate its excellence mainly from the dock. I hope that all sections of the public, including those particular members, will have an opportunity to state their views against a background of information. We seek to produce a reasonably complete consultation paper that will set out the issues against the background that we have reached at present. In the light of that consultation, matters will be taken further.
Therefore, I think that it would be quite inappropriate for me to express any view on this matter today—as I seek to retrieve my long sleeves from the Floor. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out, they are one of the features of this dress. It is better that we wait to see the results of the consultation before expressing any further opinion. Your Lordships may take it that the progress of this matter will be something of which the House will be informed if, in fact, we do make progress.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, can he enlighten the House by saying who he envisages will have the ultimate responsibility for this?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said that the consultation paper would be issued on behalf of my senior judicial colleagues and myself. I also indicated that I believe that the Monarch has an important interest in these matters. Accordingly, one of the things to be decided as we go forward—assuming that, on consultation, it is reasonably clear that a change is required—would be precisely how the formal decision on this matter should be taken.

Durham Markets Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.

  KURDISTAN: IRAQI MILITARY ACTIVITY
  KURDISTAN: IRAQI MILITARY ACTIVITY
  ESPERANTO: OFFICIAL USE
  ESPERANTO: OFFICIAL USE
  EAST TIMOR MASSACRE, 12th JUNE 1991: UN REPORT
  EAST TIMOR MASSACRE, 12th JUNE 1991: UN REPORT
  INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION
  INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION
  GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS: APPLICATION MECHANISM
  GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS: APPLICATION MECHANISM
  ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PRODUCTS: DEFINITION
  ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PRODUCTS: DEFINITION
  NATO DOCUMENTS: PUBLICATION
  NATO DOCUMENTS: PUBLICATION
  OILSEED RAPE SUPPORT SCHEME: APPLICATION FORMS
  OILSEED RAPE SUPPORT SCHEME: APPLICATION FORMS
  COMMITTEE WORK OF THE HOUSE: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  COMMITTEE WORK OF THE HOUSE: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  YTS: INCOME SUPPORT FOR APPLICANTS
  YTS: INCOME SUPPORT FOR APPLICANTS
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT 1991: REGULATIONS
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT 1991: REGULATIONS