Sitting of 23 June 1992

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

    Technology Curriculum
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to present the revised statutory order governing national curriculum technology.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I expect to present to the House a revised statutory order by the end of the summer term 1993, following statutory consultation on our proposals by the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Secretary of State accept that if his predecessors had worked with teachers, such drastic revision would not have been necessary? Therefore, will he work with the people responsible for implementing the technology curriculum to ensure that such changes work?
    Mr. Patten: I am extremely grateful for all the hard work done by teachers to make that and other parts of the national curriculum work. In the past, all syllabuses have been changed and developed, as they will be in future. The aim of the proposed revision, which will be out for consultation, is to ensure a tilt from the theoretical to the applied. As my hon. Friends and I have made numerous visits to schools, we have gained the impression that such a change is much needed.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress has been made in relation to the development of the programme of local management of schools in Lancashire.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): Local management of schools is progressing well in Lancashire. All primary and secondary schools have been funded by formula since April 1990. Most now have delegated budgets and all will have full management powers from 1994.
    Mr. Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a sixth-form college in Blackpool that has been conspicuously successful in local management as it has enabled the headmaster, staff and governors to employ local tradesmen at a far more competitive cost to make improvements to the school more quickly than would have
    122
    happened in the days of the old local education authority bureaucracies? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that I hope to have an opportunity to show him or one of his ministerial colleagues that sixth-form college when they are next in the district?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that positive and encouraging message. It fits in exactly with the experiences of my right hon. Friend and myself as we visited schools and colleges up and down the country, where the message that we received was that local management was working well. It is giving school managers the opportunity to take responsibility and use it to the benefit of their school. I believe that the example given by my hon. Friend should be an inspiration to schools and colleges up and down the country, and I cannot wait to visit the college.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the majority of schools in Lancashire feel that the biggest problem with LMS is that the Government have provided insufficient cash resources? If there are insufficient cash resources in the first instance, schools cannot carry out the job. Will he recognise the problem caused by stable staff who are higher salaried, which puts severe pressure on the cash-limited budget?
    Mr. Forth: That exchange could not sum up better the difference between Conservative and Labour Members. We heard from a Conservative Member who was proud of the achievements of his local education system and of a specific college. All we hear from a Labour Member is the tired, routine whingeing that we have become so used to. It really is not good enough; it really will not do. The other lesson that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has yet to learn is that there is no established connection between expenditure and quality of education. Resources will be available where appropriate, but we look to school managers and teachers to go for quality, which is what we want from them.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend consider the special requirements of children with special needs in Lancashire? Is he aware of the forthcoming Audit Commission report slamming local authorities for their failure to account for the performance of children with special needs?
    Mr. Forth: That is an important matter. I pay tribute to the personal and political commitment that my hon. Friend has made over many years to it. I defer to his judgment on it. I am aware of the forthcoming Audit Commission report and of its contents. My noble Friend the Minister of State has had a lot to say about it recently in another place. She, the Secretary of State and I are working together to ensure that the delivery of education to children with special needs is of the best. We shall shortly have some important proposals to make which I am sure will please my hon. Friend and many others.

    Selection
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any proposals to reintroduce selection at 11 years throughout the country.
    Mr. Patten: We have consistently made it clear that the Government do not intend to impose any particular

    123
    organisational pattern for schools. It is, in the first instance, for local education authorities and school governors to establish the organisation most appropriate for their area, in the light of local needs and the wishes of parents and the community. That is why today there are, for example, at least 117 grammar schools maintained by 24 of the 109 LEAs in England, with a further 40 grammar schools in the grant-maintained sector. There are some 30 so-called bilateral schools in the country, which operate a mixed pattern of selective and non-selective admissions arrangements, as well as three technical schools and 13 city technology colleges. There are also comprehensive schools that select some pupils suited to particular specialisms offered by those schools.
    Mr. Callaghan: I listened with great interest to that statement about the 11-plus. Given that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated on the BBC "On the Record" programme that he would be delighted to see grammar schools flourishing, and given what is happening with the 11-plus in the Wandsworth area, does the Secretary of State intend to reintroduce the selective process by stealth through the schools opt-out system?
    Mr. Patten: Many schools in the maintained and grant-maintained system are considering or developing specialisms in particular areas. That should be welcomed, because it liberates the talents of all our children. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the antediluvian, neo-clause 4 arguments of the late 1960s which he has just raised from the grave are wholly unsuitable for purposes of comparison with the early 1990s. We have as a guarantee of good-quality education the national curriculum, nationally assessed and inspected, for all our children. There will be no second-tier schools in this country by the time we have finished.
    Mr. Bowls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that selection is wilfully misunderstood by some Opposition Members and that if there is no selection there is no way to match pupils and their abilities to the courses available in the students' best interests? Will he therefore warmly endorse the selection by aptitude which is the basis of Wandsworth's selection process?
    Mr. Patten: I am extremely interested in what is going on in Wandsworth, as all of us in the Conservative party always are. I must not fetter my discretion for a later stage when these proposals for a change of character come before me, but it is open to maintained schools—grant-maintained or local education authority-maintained —to introduce a large measure of specialism without having to come to the Secretary of State for permission to do so—just as comprehensive schools throughout the country can, I am advised, if they so wish, select small numbers of pupils by aptitude for particular subjects if that is what the local community wants. There is a rich diversity of provision, and so there should be.
    Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State would do well to learn an original script between one Question Time and another. May I remind him that he criticised my views on selection on the last occasion? May I congratulate him on his decision not to introduce selection at the Castle Hall school in Mirfield and ask him to resist both proposals from the right-wing extremists behind him and all attempts to introduce selection by the back door in grant-maintained schools? The arguments are known; selection
    124
    is wasteful and divisive, and the improvement in our staying-on rates and in the additional numbers in higher education have derived from a predominantly comprehen-sive system. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that and drop this 19th century idea of selection?
    Mr. Patten: As for the Castle Hall school decision, it is open to the school to re-apply at an early stage, having reconsidered the basis of its first application.
    I have visited many of our excellent comprehensive schools and I am extremely grateful to the teachers and other staff in them for the good quality of education that they provide. I have found time and again when visiting comprehensive schools that the staff are selecting children for streaming because of their particular aptitudes. Selection is part and parcel of what goes on within much of the comprehensive system. It would do the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) well to recognise that.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure he has for the number of pupils being educated in grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of secondary schools have been granted or have now applied for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Patten: The total number of pupils currently being educated in grant-maintained schools is estimated to be 160,000.
    The proportion of all secondary schools to have been granted grant-maintained status is 5.6 per cent., and 6.7 per cent. of all secondary schools have now applied for grant-maintained status. A total of 417 secondary schools have held or are committed to hold a ballot. This represents already just over 10 per cent. of all secondary schools. I can report to the House also that there have been about 2,000 inquiries to the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust since the general election seeking further informa-tion on grant-maintained status. There are now about 150 inquiries a day.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend help to increase the number of pupils at grant-maintained schools by dealing speedily and favourably with an application from Bushloe high school in my constituency? Is he aware that the application is made not on the basis of right-wing remarks or attitudes but because the pupils' parents, be they Liberal, Labour or Conservative, realise that the best chance of a good education within the school is provided by grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. I note that his constituency has only one grant-maintained school within it so far, and that is Gartree school. It is an excellent school and I congratulate it on its progress. I hope that the number of grant-maintained schools in the constituency may soon be doubled. I look forward to receiving the application to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    My hon. Friend should warn parents who support whichever of the political parties that he named that, despite recent reports in the national press of a change of heart by those on the Opposition Front Bench over

    125
    grant-mintained schools, and notwithstanding the warning that is contained in a document that those on the Opposition Front Bench have produced for some of the most extremist Labour authorities not to get in the way by pursuing guerrilla warfare tactics against schools that wish to go grant maintained, they reiterate in the document their total opposition to the principle of grant-maintained schools. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is positively antediluvian in wishing to go back further than the 19th century.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Secretary of State aware that opting out is threatening the proper management of secondary schools, to the detriment of pupils? Will he explain how the centralisation of secondary education will benefit choice and standards and provide opportunities?
    Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) he would have heard a pretty accurate description of the wide range and diversity of choice that is available already and on which, I think, schools in the grant-maintained sector will build. I hear, for example, that some schools wish to teach technology bilingually in English and German. That is a marvellous idea. Let us see many more ideas of that sort coming forward from the grant-maintained sector.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the increasing number of young people in grant-maintained schools is a clear sign of the success of those schools? Does he agree that grant-maintained schools represent an admirable opportunity for specialisation? For example, we have inner-city schools specialising in music, science, technology and mathematics. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that these schools represent an excellent opportunity to improve the quality and standard of state education, the sector in which the majority of children are educated?
    Mr. Patten: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is not in his place, I think that I can risk saying that if schools want to specialise in ballet—[Interruption.] Oh, he is here. It is too late; I cannot bite on my tongue. If schools want to specialise in ballet, music, performing arts, science or languages, so be it.
    I repeat to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) what I said earlier: on many occasions there is no need for schools to apply to the Secretary of State for a change of character. Generally speaking, specialisation can be developed without an application for a change of character, as can the development of a few places for pupils with a particular aptitude for certain subjects in which a school wishes to specialise.
    Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for all the spin that he tried to put on his figures, since the general election just 56 schools out of a potential 24,000 have decided to ballot to opt out? That takes us right through to October. Does not that figure show that, far from there being an avalanche of opting out since the election, a great many parents have seen through the rhetoric of opt-out and realise that opting out will lead to no improvement in standards, a loss of parental choice and tight central controls from Whitehall?
    Mr. Patten: With inquiries coming in at the rate of 150 a day, that is a pretty surprising remark from the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid to say that in some parts of the country Labour authorities, over which the hon. Gentleman has no control, have been trying to do all that they possibly can to stop local schools going for grant-maintained status. I promise the House that in the next education Bill to be introduced in the autumn we will introduce measures to put a stop to that.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of grant-maintained schools is that they reduce the pupil-teacher ratio, which is to the benefit of the schools and results in less money being spent on administration and more on teaching?
    Mr. Patten: That is why we must try to spend as much money as possible on pupils and as little money as possible on administration. That is not to say that good administration is not needed under a local education authority or a grant-maintained system—of course it is. We need better management and better leadership from those who run our schools. That is something which we need to promote during the next five years.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any further plans to meet teachers' union representatives to discuss teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Patten: I expect to meet the teacher unions again early next year to discuss the second report of the school teachers review body.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Secretary of State meets the teacher unions, will he tell them that he intends to restore teachers' negotiating status in matters affecting their pay and conditions? Does he recall that before the general election the review body offered the teachers 7.8 per cent? After the election another review body gives the judges, the generals and the top civil servants 30 per cent. Is not that an example of the double standards being operated by the Government? Are not teachers just as important to society as judges and generals? What has all this to do with the classless society? Give the teachers the same.
    Mr. Patten: I congratulate the interim Leader of the Opposition on this excellent question. At least we are getting some opposition from below the Gangway. I would vote for the hon. Gentleman if I had the chance—I think. Before the general election the 7.8 per cent. pay award announced by the teachers review body was warmly welcomed by five out of the six teacher trade unions. Needless to say, the National Union of Teachers did not care for it much, and we have heard the NUT's song sung this afternoon by the interim Leader of the Opposition. The pay review arrangements are working well and I look forward, as I am bound statutorily to do, to meeting the trade unions in due course to hear what they have to say, but the decision is for the review body. Since 1979, teachers' pay has risen by 45 per cent. ahead of inflation. It fell between 1975 and 1979.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend regard the vacancy rate among teachers as a clue to the adequacy of teachers' remuneration and will he say what the signs are in that respect?
    Mr. Patten: As I have just said, teachers' pay has risen by 45 per cent. ahead of inflation since 1979. That is ahead of the general average in adult earnings. The average salary for a schoolteacher—there are 400,000 of them in Britain at the moment, a considerable number—is some £20,000. The vacancy level is lower than it has been for more than a decade, which is good news.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: As the Secretary of State is so enthusiastic about pay review bodies, why does he fail to apply to the higher education sector the logic that he adopts in respect of schoolteachers? Why does he not establish a pay review body for university teachers, as he has been urged to do by them and by many Conservative as well as Opposition Members?
    Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman represents the other half of the university city that embraces my constituency, he knows that pay negotiations are currently under way. There are many more universities and polytechnics than ever before, and they are developing very well. Record numbers are staying on in higher and further education. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, the number was about 220,000. The figure today is about 800,000. Universities today derive a substantial proportion of their incomes from sources other than the Government, which gives them much more flexibility when dealing with pay.

    GCSE
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current teaching arrangements for GCSE; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is wholly satisfied with the adequacy of the current teaching arrangements for the GCSE.
    Mr. Madel: As the efficient use of teachers' time is so important in raising GCSE standards, can my hon. Friend confirm that although tests at 14 are important, they will not get in the way of or disturb essential classroom work on raising GCSE standards?
    Mr. Forth: The tests for 14-year-olds are straightfor-ward for teachers to administer and to mark, and are economical of their time. The tests are not expected to encroach significantly on the time that teachers can devote to their GCSE pupils. That is not to say that the marking and manageability of the test will not be examined closely before we settle the detailed arrangements for testing 14-year-olds in 1993. I emphasise that the test results will give teachers hard, objective information about each pupil's strengths and weaknesses, which will provide pupils with the best possible start to their GCSE courses. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I can reassure him that there is no problem or incompatibility.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what evidence he has of schools operating local management of schools getting into budgetary difficulties.
    Mr. Forth: The Department receives some letters from governors and headteachers expressing concern about their school budgets, but we have no evidence of schools getting into budgetary difficulties.
    Mr. Cohen: The Minister keeps pretending that there is no evidence that schools are encountering budgetary difficulties, but the budget of one school in Leyton does not match its staff costs, which is creating long-term teacher vacancies and causing early retirements. Does not the Minister acknowledge that the LMS formula discriminates against longer-serving, experienced teachers, because it is based on average teacher costs instead of actual costs—which are higher in many cases? Special measures are needed to help schools that run into LMS difficulties.
    Mr. Forth: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman brings such problems to me, but he appears to have bypassed his local education authority somewhere along the line. I suggest that he questions Waltham Forest LEA about the extent to which it delegates school budgets—because it is not yet up to the mark—and the central administration costs that the authority still seems obliged to carry. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade his LEA to sort out those problems, I expect that, under a developed and successful LMS, the very schools to which the hon. Gentleman refers would make better use of their funds, at the level at which expenditure decisions should be made. The hon. Gentleman should ask his local education authority the very questions that he put to me.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: As my hon. Friend approaches the three-year LMS review, will he reflect on the fact that in many local education authorities, the formula needs revising in two respects? Although many schools welcome added control over their own budgets, some pressures are emerging. I refer in particular to special educational needs, which have already been mentioned this afternoon, and the question of average and real costs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
    Mr. Forth: We have undertaken to examine again the latter point that my hon. Friend raised, but we shall bear it in mind that many LEAs and schools are coping admirably with the changes that are occurring. When making our review, we will bear their managerial successes in mind.
    I am happy to reiterate that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have special educational needs very near the top of our agenda. We are always concerned to ensure that special educational needs are dealt with properly, promptly and adequately within the education system—however it may develop. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased when he learns of the developments that we envisage, which we will announce very shortly.
    Mr. Don Foster: Many schools in my constituency are in budgetary difficulties because of a 4 per cent. budget cut brought about by poll-tax-capping legislation. According to the county treasurer's estimate, there will be a 10 per cent. cut next year. What advice does the Secretary of State give those schools?
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers would advise all such schools to ask their local education authority what it is doing, what its policies are and how it expects matters to develop. Under our system,

    129
    local education authorities still rightly carry the bulk of the responsibilities for local decision-making. I would also advise the schools to make inquiries of the kind described earlier by my right hon. Friend and to consider again all the opportunities that are open to them. If they are not satisfied with what their local education authority is doing, they should break free from it.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that I have drawn his attention to the problems affecting a number of schools in my constituency after talking to my local education authority about them? Will he bear out the impression given in his letters to me that the Government are taking action on the issue of average, as opposed to actual, salaries?
    Mr. Forth: I am certainly conscious of the approaches made by my hon. Friend on behalf of the schools in his constituency. They should come as no surprise to anyone who knows how assiduously he looks after his schools and, indeed, all his constituents.
    Through my hon. Friend, I am aware of the transitional difficulties that have occurred in some local education authorities and some schools. We shall consider those problems sympathetically; in the meantime, however, I stress that it is up to local education authorities to find their own answers to meet their local education needs. They must work out the best approach, along with the schools. That must be right, and we would be loth to interfere with it.
    Mr. Straw: How can the Minister claim that there is no evidence of the major problems that have been caused by local management of schools? Is he completely marooned in the jacuzzi-swirling glass palace, aptly known as the Sanctuary, that passes for the headquarters of the Department for Education? Is he not aware of the existence of independent evidence showing that parents now have to contribute between £80 million and £100 million from their own pockets to meet the shortcomings of local management? Does he not realise that many schools are being forced to appoint the cheapest teachers and to sack the best as a consequence of the scheme?
    Mr. Forth: Had the hon. Gentleman been fortunate enough to occupy the position now occupied by my right hon. Friend, I wonder how long he would have been able to resist that very jacuzzi—were it to exist. Fascinating though it may be, however, that question can exist only in the imagination.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong to give the impression that there are widespread problems. Many schools and local education authorities up and down the country are handling local management of schools very well. As we know from our visits to schools—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) confirmed earlier—in many instances local management has been welcomed by governors, teachers and parents. How Opposition Members can be so blind to that escapes me entirely.
    Parents are prepared to help schools with funding when they think that it is needed. Opposition Members are completely wrong to see that as something evil; surely it is a signal of the commitment and involvement that parents are prepared to give their schools, and I believe that it is good and healthy.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the smaller primary schools are beginning to have difficulty in balancing the books, not least because the funding formula does not adequately recognise that fixed costs bear disproportionately heavily on the budgets of small schools with fewer pupils? Will he listen sympathetically to the representations that are made to him, and does he agree that smaller primary schools are essential to the lives of the communities that they serve?
    Mr. Forth: I can understand the question, that my hon. Friend asked very well indeed, but the balance of expenditure within a local education authority between the secondary and primary sectors is, and must be, very much a matter for that authority to determine. It may well vary from time to time and between one authority and another, but safeguards in the formulae for small schools, and for small primary schools in particular, should operate very much to their advantage. If my hon. Friend has a case in mind, I ask her to let me know about it and I shall consider it to ensure that the school is benefiting as much as it should from the protections that we have put in place.

    Social Work Service
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the future of the education social work service.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): My right hon. Friend sees a continuing role for the education social work service —more commonly known as the education welfare service —in working with schools, parents and pupils to promote and maintain regular school attendance. The importance of that role is reinforced by new attendance and pupil reporting regulations, which place greater emphasis on the identification of unauthorised absence.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister must be aware that, by any measure, there has been a huge increase in the workload of the education social work service in recent years. What steps are the Government taking to improve staffing levels to take account of its increasing workload? What assessment have they made of the proposed introduction of league tables on truancy for the work of education social workers, and is the Minister aware that that proposal and the direction in which the Government are moving on the issue fly directly in the face of the spirit and intentions of the Children Act 1989?
    Mr. Forman: We certainly value the work of the education welfare service. It is very important that its 3,000 officers in England and Wales should continue their supportive work. There is no suggestion that truancy is anything other than a most serious problem which the Government view very seriously, not least because it is estimated that in the worst-affected areas perhaps one in five pupils is truanting at some stage. We shall continue to ensure that the education welfare service does the job for which it is appointed and shall support it through the new regulations to which I referred in my first answer.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the relationship between the education psychology service and the education welfare service, particularly in relation to the need to produce proper statements for children in need? Is he aware of the possible

    131
    dangers to the education psychology service from schools opting out, and will he ensure that the service has a future, just as grant-maintained schools also have a future?
    Mr. Forman: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Opted-out schools are making use of the service. Furthermore, we believe that it is right to give discretion on these matters to grant-maintained schools so that they can make decisions in the light of their own circumstances.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to expand the provision of nursery education; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in the provision of nursery education, both independent and state funded, since 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forman: It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of their provision for under-fives. Between 1979 and 1991, the number of under-fives in maintained schools in England rose from 429,000 to 604,000, while the number in independent schools rose from 28,000 to 45,000 —an increase of nearly 200,000 children in all.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not an abdication of duty for the Government always to seek to say that it is solely for local authorities to make provision for nursery education? Will the Minister be more positive about what the Government plan to do to encourage and promote the provision of nursery education throughout Britain? Does he accept that there are great variations in provision from one end of the country to the other and that in some areas it is inadequate? Is not one of the best ways of increasing the life chances of children from underpriviliged families to give them statutory access to nursery places if they wish to take them up?
    Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman should know that the provision of nursery education has increased under the Government from four in 10 to five in 10, which is a very satisfactory increase. He should also take account of the fact that the policy on which his party fought the previous election would have involved a considerable increase in expenditure on such matters—in excess of £500 million —money which could well be spent by local authorities for other purposes within the education budget.
    Mr. Brandreth: Although I warmly welcome the increase in expenditure and the diversity in recent years in nursery provision, whereby we are now spending about £740 million a year on the under-fives—
    Hon. Members: Question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am very keen to get through the Order Paper and I do not like long statements. Straight into the question please.
    Mr. Brandreth: The question is, does not my hon. Friend welcome that expenditure, because nursery education is the bedrock of education and represents enormous value for money?
    Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of diverse provision for
    132
    the under-fives. If one considers the international figures, one finds that this country compares very well with our European partners. If one also includes day care, the figure for the relevant age which is covered is about nine in 10.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister recognise that almost all the increase there has been because the commitment of Labour authorities to ensure that they offer children—
    Mr. Patten: Question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is not directly putting a question, I must ask her to do so.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I suspect that the Secretary of State did not hear. I asked, will the Minister—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We all want to hear, including the Secretary of State.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister recognise that fact, and will he commit himself to ensuring that every child in the nation gets the opportunity to receive publicly funded nursery education as the very best start for his education life?
    Mr. Forman: That intervention from the Labour Front Bench was a bit rich, when one recalls that under the previous Labour Government, whom I imagine the hon. Lady supported, the funding for nursery provision was cut substantially from 1976 to 1978.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure for the number of schools that are operating under grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Forth: There are 217 schools operating under grant-maintained status and a further 50 schools have been approved or are minded to be approved.
    Mr. Greenway: North Yorkshire schools continue to achieve some of the best examination results in the country and parental approval levels of local schools are very high, but parents and governors note the experience of grant-maintained schools, which have more books, more teachers for pupils and better equipment. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that when he publishes the White Paper in the autumn there will be a scheme for the grant-maintained system to attract the best as well as the worst schools?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend shows a greater understanding of the grant-maintained school system than any members of the Opposition have displayed, because, as he says, the reality is that anyone who visits grant-maintained schools cannot but be impressed by the enthusiasm and confidence of heads, governors and teachers who have discovered that to be in such control of their own futures is a liberation, and one which they welcome. That is the main justification for schools to consider grant-maintained status carefully and whether they wish to accept it. The White Paper that my right hon. Friend hopes to publish shortly will fully reflect that and all the advantages.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the question of local management of schools budgets within the last four weeks.
    Mr. Forth: The Department has received a number of representations within the past four weeks concerning the local management of schools.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the real reason why the Government are so insensitive to the funding crisis m state schools that the great majority of Conservative Members send their children to private schools—public schools—and find their way around the difficulties that exist in the public sector? What do I say to governors in my constituency who are now resigning on the basis that they cannot manage with the scarce resources being allocated by the Government? What do we say in reply?
    Mr. Forth: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to make such a tired and inaccurate accusation. I remind him and the House that my own children, those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those of the Minister of State all went to the state system. To suggest that in some way we have no understanding of the needs or the strengths of the state system is irresponsible and wrong and ill becomes the hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. Gentleman made the accusation that governors all over the place were resigning. Many governors have seen their first term of office come to an end and have decided to step down to make way for others. We are confident that many more people will come forward to take up the responsibility and the challenge of being school governors and to take advantage of the new powers that we have given them. I welcome that.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hall: The Prime Minister is aware that local authorities nationally have had £15 billion of assets frozen in the bank because of his Government's policy. In the light of the national housing crisis we now face, will the Prime Minister give the House a straightforward answer to my question? Why do we not allow local authorities to build houses for rent, which are much needed, with the money that they already have in the bank?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are perfectly able to use a portion of their accumulated receipts and that has been the position for many years. It is the right position for us to keep and we have no intention of changing it.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Amess: I believe that what is good news for Basildon is good news for the rest of the country. Does the Prime Minister share my constituents' delight in Basildon at yesterday's historic European air fares agreement? Is not it the case that yesterday's agreement is a particular triumph for Britain and for Basildon, as we pressed for the liberalisation of air markets?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I have no doubt that the triumph of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is the very talk of Basildon at the moment. The Community reached an historic agreement yesterday on the final phase of aviation liberalisation. I believe that that is excellent news for the travelling public and it should mean more choice, better services and lower fares. It has been a long time coming, but it is a very welcome agreement.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now serve the public interest by ensuring that the report by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation into the Maxwell companies' pension fraud is published without delay?
    The Prime Minister: I well understand the concerns generated by the whole Maxwell case. I understand that the Securities and Investments Board intends to publish a report on IMRO's findings and conclusions. However, the House will understand that it will be essential to ensure that publication does not jeopardise either civil or criminal proceedings in the Maxwell affair, including those currently under way against Kevin and Ian Maxwell.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful for that answer. However, I must express the hope that there will not be a delay, even given the requirement to take account of the implications for possible proceedings. Does the Prime Minister accept that the report, as so far recorded in the newspapers, says that the organisation fell short of the high standards which it should have expected of itself and that, therefore, publication is a pressing necessity so that everyone can know just how the organisation fell short, what is the Government's full responsibility in the matter and how that bears on the future of the Maxwell pensioners who have been robbed?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made, but, as I said a moment ago, the report will be published in due course. The SIB intends to publish a report of the findings and conclusions, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would wish to prejudice in any way either the civil or criminal proceedings—nor, I believe, would any hon. Member.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I in the meantime put it to the Prime Minister that we now know that in 1987 the Bank of England blocked an attempt by Robert Maxwell to take over a bank, that in the following year, 1988, the Department of Trade and Industry granted an investment licence to a main Maxwell company and that later that year IMRO renewed that licence? Is it not clear that in those circumstances both the Government and the system that they established have a clear and serious charge of negligence to answer and that they must answer it? The main responsibility is not with the SIB to publish the

    135
    report; it must remain with the Government and they must account for their actions and omissions in the whole disgraceful episode.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman still has not addressed his mind to the necessity of ensuring that nothing is done to prejudice civil or criminal proceedings. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman well understands. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I am equally anxious to ensure that the report is considered alongside the SIB's assessment.
    Mrs. Chaplin: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that shows that many 14-year-olds like taking tests, in direct contradiction of the many so-called education experts? Is that not another example of how Conservative policy is good for pupils, parents and those who are employed in education?
    The Prime Minister: I warmly welcome the news contained in yesterday's report about testing. It confirms that we were absolutely right to press ahead with testing in the teeth of opposition from the teaching unions and, indeed, from Opposition Members. I hope that, in the light of what has been said in the last couple of days, the Labour party will stop fighting testing, will support it and will change its policy, as it seems to have done on grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that it was a profound error of judgment for the British Government to press the European Community to lift its package of economic and oil sanctions against South Africa earlier this year? At the European Council meeting in Lisbon this Friday, will he press the EC to reconsider that decision, urge it to support the establishment of an interim Government in South Africa and seek international monitoring of the violence there?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the recent violence in South Africa. I also note the commitment of the South African Government to bring to justice the people responsible for that violence. The prime responsibility for law and order rests, as it must do, with the South African Government. But they have made enormous strides towards representa-tive democracy. I understand the strength of feeling that exists at the moment, but it is of great importance that the talks do not break down and that they continue, for great progress has been made. The people who will stand to gain most from the successful conclusion of the talks are the people in South Africa who have least and about whom we should be most concerned.
    Mr. John Carlisle: In the tragic and violent disorder that is now regrettably taking place in South Africa, is my right hon. Friend not absolutely right to send a message of support to President de Klerk, who has come so far in his brave and courageous attempt to find a democratic solution which is satisfactory to all parties? In those circumstances, should not the message go to Mr. Mandela and the African National Congress that empty gestures
    136
    such as suggestions of Olympic boycotts and sanctions will only hinder their chances and restrict the people of South Africa in the wonderful opportunities that they now have in front of them?
    The Prime Minister: Over recent months I have had many opportunities to discuss the present situation in South Africa with both President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I remain closely in touch with both of them. What is necessary at the moment is that both of them stand back from the present difficulties and then determine how it will be possible to continue the talks and reach a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall saying on 26 January that the Government's mortgage rescue scheme had "stopped repossessions"? Is he aware that since then, for every family mortgage rescued, 2,000 homes have been repossessed and that repossessions are now running at 140 families a day? Does he recognise that what he did then, although welcome, was too little and too late and that he now needs to do something more?
    The Prime Minister: No. I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were there to diminish the number of repossessions—where people are in receipt of income support, the repossession does not proceed. Repossessions are falling and that has been acknowledged, not merely by the Government but by many others. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the facts.
    Mr. Jenkin: Following my right hon. Friend's meeting with Members of the European Parliament last week and in the spirit of subsidiarity and our right to govern our democratic processes, is the Prime Minister able to assure the House that the European elections in 1994 will be conducted under the present voting system?
    The Prime Minister: That is certainly my intention.
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Betts: Would the Prime Minister like to commiserate with the millions of English football fans who have had to endure their team's performance during the past few weeks? Would he like to reflect on Graham Taylor's commitment to deal with his European problems by playing it long? Indeed, Graham Taylor might only be happy once he has picked the whole Wimbledon team to play for England. Does the Prime Minister agree that his European problems look just as difficult and troublesome? Does he further agree that, like the tactics of the England team manager, his commitment to play his European problems long, and to avoid an early debate on them in the House, is just as likely to prove to be unsuccessful?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries me with him on either proposition. I offer the same support and encouragement to the England football team that I was happy to offer to the Scottish team after its excellent performance in the recent championships. On the European policy of the Government, I have made it clear that we shall have a further debate

    137
    before the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill. That remains the case, but the time is not yet right to bring the Bill back.
    Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the British Government's part in negotiating the first-ever global ban on chemical weapons. Does he agree that one of the gravest threats to peace in the years ahead will come from the acquisition of a non-conventional weapons capability by third-world military dictatorships. many supplied by European countries? Is it not time that steps were taken to put on notice British defence contractors and others in European countries that they cannot expect Government contracts if they forge documentation, as evidence shows has been happening, to avoid the Government's embargoes on the export of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in his strictures on chemical weapons. If he has any detailed information on the second aspect of his question, I should be happy to receive it.
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Enright: Does the Prime Minister recall that in February the Government announced a settlement of RECHAR and promised action with all expedition? It is now July—[HON. MEMBERS: "June."] It is now almost July and no ground rules have been agreed. I have sent two questions to the President of the Board of Trade and have written him one letter, but he still has not replied. Will the right hon. Gentleman sack him and get something done?
    The Prime Minister: It is almost July and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is almost ready to reply.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members welcomed the abolition of the National Economic Development Council, or Neddy, last week for it meant an end to trade union domination and the running of the country through the union block vote?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that, in its day, Neddy did have a role to play, but that day has passed. I think that the right decision was taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will lists his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June 1992.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Meale: Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where I hope that he learnt a lot about the environment, will he support moves in this Parliament to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people? [interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman repeats his question, I will try to answer it.
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member repeats his question, we will all be able to hear it.
    Mr. Meale: Now that the Prime Minister has returned from Rio, where, undoubtedly, he learnt much about the environment, will he support legislation in the House to ban the hunting of animals, with dogs, for the pleasure of people?
    The Prime Minister: No, Madam. That is a matter of personal choice.

Unadopted Roads
3.31 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedure whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority; to require local authorities to act as guarantors for bank and building society loans taken out by householders and frontagers for the purposes of making up and adoption; and for connected purposes.
Many people may feel that this is not the burning issue of the day, but I assure the House that the many people who live in unadopted roads feel that they are cursed with a problem that no one wants to know about. For example, Pen-y-Banc road, in the old mining village of Seven Sisters in the Dulais valley in my constituency, has a primary school at one end, a cemetery at the other and a chapel in the middle. It is an unadopted road, that is to say, a public highway that is privately owned so that householders and frontagers rather than the local highway authority are responsible for its upkeep. As a result, it has been riddled with potholes for years and efforts by the residents to get it "made up" have been thwarted by the cost. The problem is further complicated by the fact that half of the road is owned by British Rail and, for BR, the state of it is not a priority.
Similar problems plague householders throughout Wales, and particularly in the former mining areas. According to a survey which I conducted with the help of local community councils, my constituency alone has 88 such unadopted roads, from Gwaun-cae-Gurwen and Cwmllynfell to my home village of Resolven. One study showed that there are 40,000 unadopted roads covering 4,000 miles across Britain. In Wales alone, there are about 3,000 unadopted roads. They are largely a hangover from the past when, for example, villages were built by pit owners and many of the roads were never made up.
The law governing unadopted roads is a tangled web. In certain circumstances, the local highway authority can require householders to upgrade their roads. Under section 230 of the Highways Act 1980, a notice can be served on frontagers where urgent
"repairs are needed to obviate danger to traffic".
That requires the frontagers to undertake the necessary work. If that notice is ignored by householders, the authority can do the work itself and then send the bill to the residents—a gesture that is hardly calculated to boost the popularity of the local council.
Householders can club together and finance the making up of their road, which could then lead to its adoption by the authority. However, the cost is often prohibitive. Where there is not unanimity among those in the street, perhaps because some simply cannot afford it. making up can be blocked. For pensioners or families living on the dreadfully low incomes prevalent in the south Wales valleys these days, £500, or £2,000—whatever the cost of making up their road may be—is completely out of the question. So unadopted streets continue to deteriorate, rotting away as people trip over potholes. fall into puddles or are dirtied by mud.
The highway authorities have a small fund for what are called urgent street works, but areas with plenty of unadopted roads, such as Wales, make it far too costly for local highway authorities even to begin to tackle the problem. In Neath, for example, the local highway
140
authority, West Glamorgan county council, suffered heavy cuts in Welsh Office funding this year, as a result of which householders such as those in Pen-y-Banc, Seven Sisters, feel deeply aggrieved, especially when their road is often used by members of the public going to school, to chapel or to the cemetery. Some local residents joke sourly that such is the state of their road that one day there will be an accident on the way to the cemetery and an additional inmate will result.
Householders in unadopted roads can even be legally liable for accidents involving passers-by. Although the public have a right of way and do not contribute to the maintenance of an unadopted street, they can put in a claim if injured in an accident attributable to poor surface —a Catch 22 situation, if ever there was one, for local residents.
What can be done about the problem? In the current political environment, a nationally funded programme to make up unadopted roads is clearly out of the question. Perhaps it always will be squeezed by other priorities. One estimate of the scale of the problem puts the cost at over £2 billion. So a combination of cost and all the complexities of the legal problems means that a state of paralysis reigns.
My Bill proposes a new route. It is that we should have a nationally promoted scheme by which local authorities are permitted to act as guarantors for loans by householders taken out through financial institutions and ultimately claimable against the estate or sale of the property of the residents affected. In other words, householders would be given a choice. They would be able to take out a conventional loan and finance the entire cost of making up the street ready for adoption; or they could pay part of the cost; or they could pay nothing up front and have the cost of the loan set against the value of their homes.
For councils to act as guarantors in that way may be possible without affecting their capital allocations since they would mainly be acquiring a contingent liability. But if they needed to borrow, the Treasury should respond favourably, if only because no new public money would ultimately be involved. The important issue is to empower —indeed, positively to encourage—local highway authori-ties and borough councils to take the initiative and enter into agreements with householders, even those initially reluctant to get involved. To achieve that, it is absolutely vital that we have a national scheme. It is no good leaving it to local initiatives. That has achieved nothing over the decades as the problem has beset and trapped local residents.
With a bit of Government pump-priming, we would achieve a private sector solution. What more could the present Government want? I call on Ministers to display some imagination and to give the go-ahead to overcome the long-standing and frustrating problem of unadopted roads. I look forward to an invitation from the Secretary of State for the Environment to discuss with him how to progress my Bill through its later stages in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Hain, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Alan W. Williams, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Ian McCartney.

UNADOPTED ROADS
Mr. Peter Hain accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedure whereby householders and frontages may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority: to require local authorities to act as guarantors for bank and building society loans taken out by householders and frontagers for the purposes of making up and adoption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 November and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Points of Order
3.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. A little while ago, on inquiring at the Speaker's Office, I was told that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill, which is on the Order Paper today, would not be discussed today. I welcome that decision because the Bill was flawed and was not a consolidation measure. However, it is important that the House knows whether it will be taken today. Will you confirm that? Furthermore, if it is proposed to discuss the Bill on another day and not abandon it, will it still be taken through all its stages in one day and, if so, when? Will it be discussed on the Floor of the House? It is unsatisfactory for those of us who were prepared to speak on Second Reading of the Bill later today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That matter should be raised at business questions. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During last month's Scottish Question Time, I gave notice that, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that I received from the Secretary of State for Scotland to a question about a referendum on the future government of Scotland, I intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House. I was then told by the Clerks that, because that subject was a matter for the Prime Minister, and because the Prime Minister does not answer Adjournment debates, it would not be possible for me to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House. Given the fact that it is in order to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland questions about a referendum for the future government of Scotland, why is it not also in order to raise that subject in a debate on the Adjournment to be answered by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults the Table Office.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I wish to clarify the position regarding the consolidation measures on the Order Paper today. It is important that any adjustments to the Order Paper should not simply be left to the Whip not to move at a given time, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Adjournment debate under item 7 is limited to an hour and a half. That in itself is disgraceful because the two reports of the Select Committee on Members' Interests run to many pages and the Select Committee spent hundreds of hours producing reports. For them to be dismissed in an hour and a half is tantamount to a cover-up by the Government.
If the consolidation Bill is not moved, is it within your jurisdiction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow us to use that time discussing item 7 so that we can spend more time on the reports of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, as they very much deserve?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is bound by its resolution of last Friday, when it agreed to discuss that matter for an hour and a half.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and I want to know where you stand on the matter. My hon. Friend found a flaw in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill. He then did his duty, as he saw fit, and sought advice from the Clerks about the flawed Bill. We have now found that the Bill has been taken off.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Was that his mistake?
Mr. Skinner: It sounds very much like it. Who is working with whom? My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock should have been allowed to oppose the Bill today. It has given the Government time to try to sort out the problem. Wheels have been working within wheels here. When my hon. Friend and I seek the Clerks' advice, we want to know whether that advice is being given in confidence so that we can get on with the job of opposing the lousy, rotton Tory Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that when hon. Members speak to the Clerks, they speak in confidence, which is what happened on this occasion.
Mr. David Trimble: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that the House is bound by the timetable motion on the debate on Members' interests passed last Friday, but is there any way to prevent timetable motions from appearing on the Order Paper on Fridays, when not many hon. Members are present? It is particularly unfortunate when there is a minimum of consultation and other hon. Members are not given the opportunity to express their opinions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It takes only one hon. Member to object.
Mr. Mackinlay: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the Leader of the House be brought here to tell us why the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill is not being proceeded with today? It is legitimate to ask why it has been abandoned and whether there has been some misunderstanding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Government, and no doubt the Minister has taken note.

Orders of the Day

  Boundary Commissions Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23 June]
  [MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

Clause 3

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN REPORTS
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 2, line 31, leave out from 'which' to the end of the line and insert
  'at the time of publication are prospective only.
  (8) For the purposes of subsection (7) above, a boundary shall be regarded as prospective at any time if, at that time, it is specified in a provision of an Act, Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly, statutory instrument or statutory rule but the boundary has not yet come into operation.".'.
  No. 12, in line 40, after 'applies', insert '(a)'.
  No. 13, in line 44, at end add
  `and
  (b) 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'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 44, at end add—
  '(4) For the purposes of subsection (7) of section 3 of the 1986 Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) to the report of the Boundary Commission in respect of London constituencies and which is a report to which subsection (2) of section 2 above applies, the Commission may delay submitting its report to the Secretary of State until it is notified as to the boundaries of London boroughs to be in operation until 12th June 2000.'.
  This is a probing amendment, designed to consider the problems of local government structure and the absence of any clear sign from the Government about what they want to do in London. The local government structure in London, as in other districts, has a major effect on parliamentary boundaries and the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England.
  There is a lack of clarity in the Government's approach towards the government of London. It is driven partly by the fact that, ever since the Government's abolition of the Greater London council, they have had no clear idea about what should be done in London. Since then, there has been confusion and difficulty in ascertaining what should be done in London.
  There are two specific problems. The first difficulty results from the size of some London boroughs and, particularly, the fact that the electorate, as opposed to the population, in some London boroughs appears to be much smaller than one would expect. Under rule 4 in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the boundary commission is told that
  "no London borough or any part of a London borough shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other London borough".
  London boroughs are ring-fenced in a way that no other local authorities are anywhere else in the country.

  145
  Clearly, it was thought at the time—there seems to be some logic in this—that if the borough was meant o be the major service provider, there was something to be said for relating that boundary with a parliamentary constituency so that one Member of Parliament or group of Members of Parliament would represent constituencies within a London borough. However, that creates a twofold problem: first, the size of the borough may be such that the constituency is much smaller than one would expect of an English constituency; and, secondly, especially in London boroughs, where there is likely to be a review of the structure of local government, the work of the boundary commission will be made much more difficult as it will not know what the Government have in mind or what Parliament will enact between now and 1994, when recommendations for London will be complete.
  It is perhaps not surprising that none of the Members who were making such a fuss on Second Reading about Scottish constituencies and their size is here today—
  Mr. Robert B. Jones rose—
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps one is. If the hon. Gentleman will just hold his horses for a moment I will gladly allow him to intervene later.
  Comparisons between some of the London boroughs and Scotland are interesting. The constituency of Surbiton has 42,800 electors. That compares well with Glasgow, Garscadden, which has 42,000. Kingston upon Thames, the Chancellor's constituency, has only 51,500 electors, and Fulham has 52,400. It will be seen that London's constituencies are, by and large, with some exceptions, on the small side, bearing in mind the English quota of 69,000 to which the boundary commission will be working.
  If Members who think that Scotland is over-represented look at London they will see that there are some anomalies. I would argue that anomalies in parliamentary boundaries are quite proper because it is right that the boundary commission should take into consideration community ties and the desirability of linking constituencies or boroughs in one parliamentary constituency.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Can my hon. Friend solve a problem for me? In the London boroughs of Camden and Westminster, what community of interest can explain dividing one side of a road from the other?
  Mr. Darling: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has read the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England No. 627, published in May of this year, but it makes many interesting points—such as the fact that it is not clear why some boundaries run down the middle of streets. Some London boroughs certainly have a specific identity. Boundaries must be drawn somewhere. The report asks where London ought to stop. We who travel in and out of it often wonder where it starts and stops, but for the purposes of drawing up a satisfactory scheme for the government of London the Government will have to decide where London starts and stops. As I say, some boroughs have an identifiable existence and their residents identify with them. There are cases, however, in which it seems a matter of pure accident why the boundary commission of the day chose to make some people residents of one borough and others residents of another.
  Mr. John Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in communities of interest in London, can he explain why his party was so keen to stop Streatham rejoining the London borough of Wandsworth, with which it felt a community of interest? The move had the support of the local Conservative party but was rigorously opposed by the Labour party.
  Mr. Darling: That makes my point. There are parts of London where there is no unanimous voice saying which borough they ought to belong to. Presumably the hon. Gentleman and his party saw some advantage in removing Streatham from the borough it was in; others might have taken a different view.
  It does not really matter whether one community or street is in one borough or another. What matters for the purposes of the boundary commission is that it should know what the position is likely to be for the next eight to 10 years. The Boundary Commission for England will have to determine and make recommendations on the parliamentary constituencies in London by 1994 and to comply with rule 4 it must take into consideration the existing London boroughs. If they are about to change to any significant degree, the commission should know that before it determines constituencies that are likely to exist for eight to 12 years, through three Parliaments.
  I am willing to concede in advance that the drafting of our amendment may not be perfect in every respect, but the Government should still tell us what they have in mind for London. We know that the Secretary of State for the Environment has in mind a review process for the rest of England that will take some time. The parliamentary answers that we have been given about London are not exactly illuminating.
  It would seem that the commission is bound to ponder on whether it can justify recommending that Surbiton, with an electorate of 42,800, should remain a constituency when the electorate of the Isle of Wight exceeds 100,000. It is perhaps inevitable, however, that there will be some disparities. If the Government were to make changes, or if Surbiton were to change in character, it would be useful for the commission, if not for the hon. Member who now represents the constituency, to know the position sooner rather than later.
  It is fairly easy to ascertain the size of electorates in London boroughs but it is not altogether clear what the electorates should be. The figures show dramatic changes. There are considerable movements within electorates and I do not know where all the people are going. I accept that in London people move about as they do in other areas, but when we consider the pattern of movements between 1987 and 1992 the changes are startling. During that period the electorate within Camden, as opposed to the population, decreased by 11,000. In Hackney, it decreased by 25,000 and in Lambeth by 11,000. It seems odd that so many people should move. If we take London as a whole, more people have apparently left their boroughs than those who have arrived to live within them.
  I would expect to see corresponding increases in population in other parts of England, but they are not apparent. That suggests that not everyone who is entitled to be on the register is on it. I accept that there will be some movement. For example, some people might have opted for Lord Tebbit's bike to seek employment elsewhere. It

  147
  seems that yet another reason for delaying examination in London is that the individual registers appear to be inaccurate.
  The various changes between 1991 and 1992 were also fairly dramatic. Hackney's electorate decreased by 20,000 while Croydon's increased by 5,000.
  We are concerned because the Government seem not to know why these movements are taking place. I listened to the Home Secretary yesterday and he seemed not to care. He said that the answer might be that people are not keen to be on the register. He talked also about people having religious objections to being on it. I cannot believe that 20,000 people in Hackney have suddenly found a religious reason to disappear. The Government, both in the interests of good government and of arranging boundaries that fit the needs of London's population, should be concerned that there appears to be far greater movement than one would expect and that there is no apparent reason for it. There will undoubtedly be movement, as I have said, but it appears that there are more deep-seated reasons for it than normal demographic change.
  Mr. Bowis: I understand that the reason for the reduced electorate in Hackney is a change in practice by the registration officer. He ceased to register automatically people who had not completed the registration form.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is raising an important issue in the wrong debate. He is saying that the commission should have the ability to make major borough changes, but it makes it clear in its report that it does not have that discretion. It would be ludicrous, therefore, to wait for the commission to continue to deliberate. The hon. Gentleman should seek on another occasion to give the local government boundary commission new terms of reference. If he took that course, he might ultimately get what he wants.
  Mr. Darling: We are talking about the parliamentary commission, which bases its recommendations substantially on London boroughs. It is bound to do so because of the rules. If the structure of London boroughs is not clear or is uncertain, or if the basis on which the recommendations of the local government boundary commission that bear on populations are wrong, it follows that the parliamentary commission's findings will be based on a misconception of the true situation. Surely that should concern us all, especially as so many constituencies are, of necessity, represented by London Members.
  Many have said that it is high time that the Government accepted the fact that there clearly is a problem. It is obvious that some boroughs are not good at registering their population while others have made a determined effort to go through the registers to see whether people exist. But clearly, if one looks at the figures for all the London boroughs, there are tremendous discrepancies. It may have been more appropriate to raise the matter yesterday— I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday—but that is another argument for saying that we have an interest in ensuring that we know how many people live in each borough and how many people are eligible to vote in each borough before we start drawing up parliamentary constituencies.
  4 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that recommendations on the drawing up of parliamentary constituencies, certainly in areas where it is obvious that there is a substantial under-registration, would be based on the wrong data? Why should there be any confidence in such recommendations when it is known that the commissioners have said that a certain electorate is living in a constituency which we know is an underestimate of the true figure?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Before the review it was rightly complained that parliamentary constituencies are based on electorates that were thought to he accurate in 1976. It is odd that we should now draw up boundaries on the basis of electorates that we know, or have substantial reason to believe, are wrong in 1991. If they are wrong this year, the chances are that, by definition, they will be slightly changed by 1994. If the boundary commission's recommendations are accepted in 1994, it will be the beginning of the next century before we look at the matter again when the position may be very different.
  The argument for ensuring that we know the population of a borough is compelling, not just for the sake of representation but for the purpose of calculating what boroughs ought to receive in terms of revenue support.
  Another substantial reason for the parliamentary boundary commission delaying its work is the structure of local government in London. As I have said, the Government moved quickly once they were determined that the Greater London council was to be abolished. The GLC certainly had its faults. No one would deny that.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Name one.
  Mr. Darling: I was hoping to complete this passage of my speech before my hon. Friend came into the Chamber. However, I am extremely glad to see him for a number of reasons.
  The Government were quick to abolish the GLC, but they have been slow to tell us what they want to put in its place. The Government seem to have been more concerned with trying to create a political structure of their own political colour than with providing a structure of government that will efficiently deliver services to the people of London.
  London is the only capital city in the world that does not have a strategic planning authority. It is not surprising that people who are not supporters of the Labour party, people who are objective inasmuch as they are not beholden to any political party, have drawn attention to London's problems when its policy is being determined by a number of boroughs without any strategic planning.
  I well remember that in 1980 or 1981 the Government pledged to get rid of quangos, which they said had bedevilled the Government. Yet in London, following the abolition of the GLC, quangos are alive and well and flourishing.
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for England, in its report to which I have referred, has drawn attention to some of the problems that it faces. Clearly it can continue its work and make recommendations on the basis of the present London boroughs and the present boundaries, but if the Government are to change the

  149
  structure of local government, or if the borough boundaries are to be amalgamated, extended or whatever, the parliamentary boundary commission should take that into account. If it is thought important to link London boroughs and constituencies—clearly it must have been at least as recently as 1986—it follows that the boundary commission should have regard to the boundaries that are likely to be in existence for the next few years.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): It appears that the hon. Gentleman does not want the boundary commission in Wales to take account of intended changes there that are much further down the track—as opposed to changes which might occur in London, but which are not intended because we have no plans to make them. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are inconsistent with those that he made about Wales yesterday.
  Mr. Darling: There is no inconsistency. Our objection to the situation in Wales is that the Government propose that the boundary commission should have regard to changes debated in the House on Second Reacting but which have not received any further consideration. While in general the Bill proposes that the commission should have regard to changes that exist in the form of an Act of Parliament or some other measure, in the case of Wales it is proposed that such changes need only have reached Second Reading stage. It is quite within the contemplation of right hon. and hon. Members that there could be unanimity in all parts of the House that certain changes should not proceed.
  We do not object to the commission having regard to changes which have occurred or which are imminent. Our concern is that the commission might proceed in the knowledge that changes might occur when they are at such an early stage, or are so uncertain, that no commission could possibly have regard to them.
  The Government have not made clear their position in respect of London. If the Minister is saying that the Government plan to do absolutely nothing, that is an argument for the boundary commission to proceed in the way that the Government want. As I understand it, there may well be changes. The Minister shakes his head. Is the Minister saying that the present situation in Surbiton, for example, is satisfactory and should continue? It is a parliamentary constituency with an electorate of only 42,000, surrounded by much larger constituencies.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: This Minister will say, for the purposes of this intervention, that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the rule in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, which says that London borough boundaries should not in the normal way be crossed by the boundary commission when recommending boundaries, with the reform of local government structure in London. The two are not the same. All the hon. Gentleman's arguments have been directed at the former, but his amendment is about changes to London local government structure.
  Mr. Darling: The two are interrelated. I draw the Minister's attention to two written answers. The first, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), represents the Government's position in the terms that the Minister expressed it:
  150
  "There are no plans to change the general structure of local government in London."—[Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 59.]
  The second was given by the same Minister:
  "We have no plans for radical change to the pattern of local government in London."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 383.]
  That implies some change. If there are to be changes to the pattern and therefore to boundaries—in the sense that if local government is asked to effect changes, the units thought appropriate to deliver those changes might alter —it would be appropriate for the boundary commission to know about them.
  The purpose of this debate is to draw the Government on what they plan to do. The boundary commission's report to which I referred earlier stated:
  "There needs to be a clearer view of the role and functions of local government, both generally and in London, before the existing units can be evaluated and more fundamental decisions made on their boundaries."
  That suggests that we ought to know whether or not the Government plan any changes. The Minister appears to indicate that there are to be no changes whatever. I find that surprising, because I believe that changes are expected, and they are bound to have a knock-on effect on boundaries.
  This is not just a London point. If the rules in the 1986 Act are to provide for the ring-fencing of London boroughs, the boundary commission must know whether there are to be changes in the boundaries; otherwise, it will proceed on a basis that will not apply in four or five years' time.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The possible ring-fencing of London borough boundaries is relevant to schedule 2(5) of the 1986 Act. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if we take a straight reading of the entitlement of London boroughs—using the information given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones)—it is clear that the disparity between the population of the largest constituency, which is about 100,000, and that of the smallest, which is 54,000 or 56,000, outweighs almost any other aspect of the legislation?
  Mr. Darling: I do not have that information before me, but the smallest London constituency has a population of 42,000. I am not sure from where the hon. Gentleman gets his 56,000 figure.
  Mr. Bottomley: Hammersmith and Fulham is entitled to 1.44 Members of Parliament, and has a voting list of 100,000. Westminster has an entitlement of 1.58—in other words, it is entitled to two Members of Parliament—and an electorate of 109,000 plus the City of London's 4,000. Thus, unless borough boundaries are crossed, each Westminster constituency has an electorate of about 56,000, while Hammersmith and Fulham has an electorate of 100,000. The information can be found in column 7 of written answers in yesterday's Hansard.
  Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that London boroughs should be crossed or that they should not. I believe that he is saying that they should. Certainly, if the position does not change, it is difficult to see how the boundary commission can ignore rule 5 in the schedule to the Act, which relates to excessive disparity, and rule 6, which entitles the commission to cross London boroughs. It did not cross them to any material extent at

  151
  the time of the last review. If, however, there are changes in any London boroughs, especially the smaller ones but also the larger ones—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is right; the commission must examine the boroughs to assess entitlement to parliamentary con-stituencies—entitlements may change as well, even if the alterations are not dramatic. The question of registration is also important. If, for instance, Hackney's 20,000 missing voters are actually present, there is bound to be an effect on its entitlement. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has helped my argument, although I can see from his face that that was not his intention.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: On Second Reading, those who criticised the over-representation of urban Scotland pointed out that London was also over-represented, and that it was therefore logical to cross London borough boundaries. The boundary commission has already set a precedent by grouping metropolitan districts to get around the excessive disparities. Surely it is reasonable for it to group two or more London boroughs to avoid such a problem in the capital.
  Mr. Darling: I am not sure that all Conservative Members took that view, but I know that the hon. Gentleman does, and I do not quarrel with him. It may well be appropriate to cross boroughs in some circumstances.
  Amendment No. 8 is designed to draw the Government on their intentions relating to boroughs. The rules come into play only when the boundary commission is faced with a set of boundaries. If there are to be changes, the commission should be aware of them before starting its work. If the rules are to be obtempered, and if the rationale behind the London borough rule in particular has any weight in terms of community and other links, the boundary commission should know where the boundaries are likely to be when it draws up the parliamentary constituencies.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is not it perfectly clear that the local government boundary commission can make minor tidying proposals, and has done—for example, for the borders between Bromley and Kent and between Croydon and Surrey—but the parliamentary boundary commission can have regard only to what has already happened? Since there are no proposals for major overhaul of the London boroughs, the parliamentary boundary commission must work on the basis of the existing London boroughs, irrespective of whether it crosses borough boundaries.
  Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's intentions. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I said that it was a probing amendment. If the Government say that there will be no change whatsoever, fair enough; the issues will have been canvassed and we can all go home happy that we have done an afternoon's work. But if changes are to be made —even small changes can be substantial—it would be appropriate for the boundary commission to know before it makes its recommendations to the Secretary of State.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is not the Bill a political hot potato for the Government, because nothing creates greater anger and confusion among electors than people in, for instance, Richmond being claimed by the London borough of Kingston and people in Esher, which is in the district of Elmbridge, also being claimed by the London borough of Kingston? The Conservative party loses votes under such arrangements, as we saw with the London Government Act 1963. Conservative Members are very anxious about the possibility of the same happening now. Hon. Members who are anxious to defend the integrity of the county of Essex are concerned to ensure that the Government fully and frankly disclose their intentions. Many people in the counties surrounding Greater London are deeply concerned about the proposal for local government and parliamentary boundaries. They wish to be in the parliamentary boundary that is coterminous or has a relationship with their district council and local government unit. Above all, most people want to stay in the counties—
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.
  Mr. Darling: It is clear that in the next eight or 12 years the Government will have to turn their attention to what constitutes London and whether the present boroughs are satisfactory. Suggestions will always be made about whether a boundary should be down one street or another. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West said that changes are contemplated all the time. When the Government say that they are not planning anything, it usually means that they are planning something but do not want to say. [Hon. Members: "No."] Our experience over the past 12 years tells us that that is true.
  The amendment is a probing amendment designed to draw from the Government their intentions for the local government structure. It is important that the boundary commission knows what the Government plan, otherwise the basis on which it proceeds will be false and the boundaries that it suggests in 1994 may not be appropriate at that time, let alone eight or 12 years thereafter.
  I hope that, in reply, the Minister will tell us the Government's intentions. If, as the interventions and grunts from Conservative Members suggest, no changes are to be made, which I find hard to believe, I am sure that the people of London and of its surrounding areas would like to know about it.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said that the local government boundary commission seems to consider constituency boundaries simply on a street-by-street basis, but that has not been my experience. In the past two years, major changes to the boundary between the London boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon have been suggested. We saw fit to contest those changes strongly and succeeded in having them withdrawn. From the local government point of view, the proposed changes are merely a tidying process, perhaps to move a boundary to a railway line where the railway line is close to the existing boundary. That seems to make good sense, and it is such small, tidying changes which are needed rather than major structural changes.

  153
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central rightly said that the smallest London constituency comprises 42,500 people, but not many London constituencies are anywhere near as small as that. In any case, it does not compare with the smallest Scottish constituency of 23,000. As he is making comparisons between Scotland and London, I draw his attention to that fact.
  Mr. Bermingham: I understand the argument about Scotland, but it is a different matter and, like Wales, involves a different commission. However, can the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that Northampton—I choose that town deliberately, as it has two Conservative seats —has approximately 70,000 or 75,000 electors in each seat, whereas the London borough which was mentioned a moment ago has only 42,000? Is there something special about London, or is it part of England?
  Mr. Greenway: It is interesting that Labour Members of Parliament argue as they do. I do not remember them arguing against the substantial number of London Members of Parliament when most of them were Labour. Now that 47 of the 84 Greater London Members of Parliament are Conservatives—
  Mr. Bermingham: We need fewer of them.
  Mr. Greenway: I hope not, but I was merely saying what crossed my mind when the hon. Gentleman invited me to comment on what he said.
  I have heard nothing in today's debate or anywhere else about one of London's particular problems: we are obliged—I am not complaining—to give homes to substantial numbers of asylum seekers. In the past year, in the London borough of Ealing, about 220 housing units, some sizeable, were handed to asylum seekers. I may even be understating the case substantially, but the fact is that a fair number of asylum seekers have been put into leased accommodation, which means that local people who should be on the electoral register are not because they are not living in the units of accommodation which have been passed to the asylum seekers.
  As I was saying only this morning to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, a Member of Parliament is obliged—and, naturally, keen—to provide a service to asylum seekers. I dare say that, like me, many of my hon. Friends find that asylum seekers are keen to use the services of their Member of Parliament. They come to my surgery—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. What has this to do with the amendment?
  Mr. Greenway: I am dealing with the numbers game which was a central part of the argument of the lion. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who asked: why had people gone from the register? I am explaining that many of them have disappeared from the register because, at least in my constituency and in Ealing as a whole, many of the housing units have been taken over by asylum seekers who are not registered—[Interruption.] Yes, it is a considerable issue.
  Another matter about which I expected the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to be knowledgeable—he probably is—is the fact that, between 1986 and 1996, 1 million fewer people will reach the age of 18. As those over 18 go on to the electoral register, that fall in the population
  154
  will be reflected there. London has taken a substantial share of that population rail and that has substantially affected the numbers in our constituencies.
  I hope that we shall respect the London borough boundaries and not cross them unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so. It is well known that all London boroughs individually seek to create their own identities and that they succeed in doing that. Ealing regards itself as —and is—the queen of the suburbs and is proud of it. People who live in Ealing have their own ethos, just as there is a different ethos across the border in Brent—one only has to go across the border to discover that. If we start crossing borders in redrawing constituency boun-daries, we shall introduce a substantial change which will mean that not everyone in London will he well represented.
  All London boroughs, like other local authorities, have distinct services, such as the education and youth services. The services in one borough are very different from the services in others. For those and other reasons, I hope that constituency boundaries will continue to be drawn within boroughs, as they have been in the past.
  Mr. Bermingham: As always, I declare an interest in the subject as a practising lawyer who has been involved in a number of inquiries.
  I accept unreservedly that there will he no local government changes in London this side of the year 2000. I see no need for change because the boroughs, as has been said, have their own entities. That view may surprise Conservative Members.
  I am concerned about the sense of justice in the country as a whole. I hope that the Home Secretary will find it in his heart this afternoon to be gracious for once and to give way to a fair point. I hope that he will give an undertaking when, no doubt, I persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to withdraw the amendment in return. The undertaking which I seek relates to paragraph 4(1)(a)(ii) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 which deals with the London boroughs. The Home Secretary will recall that the paragraph deals with the question of crossing what I call the "skin" boundaries—the county boundaries.
  We know that developments are taking place whereby certain counties are being redefined. I Lake no issue with that because it is fair and reasonable. Monstrosities such as Avon and Humberside. which were set up in 1984, are silly. Let us have a little hit of sanity. Why, for example, can we not go back to Lancashire? It will happen. Our skin boundary, for the sake of argument, would he Lancashire and within it would be a number of metropolitan district councils. In the redistribution between 1976 and 1983, one of the factors that led to the case of Foot and others v. the boundary commissioners was that the law at the time led to differences between the way in which the counties were considered, the way in which the metropolitan districts were considered and the way in which London was considered.
  For my own purposes and for the record, I say that if we could have a system of every constituency having the same numbers, all well and good. No one could argue with that. However, I am a realist and I recognise that because a council is built in a series of wards—in some areas there are big wards and in others there are small wards—that is not always practicable. One must be realistic and realise that there will be an area of imbalance between

  155
  constituencies. Provided that that does not exceed 5 per cent. either way, that is tolerable. It becomes intolerable when the imbalance is more than 5 per cent.
  4.30 pm
  For the purposes of my argument, I am leaving out Scotland and Wales because they have different commissions and the 1986 Act deals mainly with the English commission. One accepts that the Welsh and Scots will go their own way—I do not mean to be unkind.
  In 1983, when we came to consider the matter in some depth, we found an interesting feature. We found that in the interests of achieving parity of number, for example in Tyne and Wear, it was necessary for the boundary to cross the Tyne bridge. I know that yesterday my mathematics were appalling, for which I apologise to the Committee. However, I corrected the figures for Hansard's purposes. I said that seven and a half plus three and a half equalled 12. That will undoubtedly bring a smile to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who is an expert in the subject. I got it wrong and I apologise for that.
  The point was that by crossing, say, the Leeds-Wakefield boundary, the commission was able to create seats of similar size. Boundaries were crossed in the west midlands, in Dudley; in Greater Manchester, in Rochdale; and in the borough next to Oldham. That was logical because it made it possible to create seats of the same size.
  When the skin boundaries come to be drawn for the counties or the new shire counties—leaving aside the future nature of local authorities and whether they will be unitary or otherwise—I hope that the commission will use common sense and try to keep towns in those areas as single units. Of course, that will mean crossing local government borders so that, within the county, seats of comparable size are created, perhaps consisting of part of the metropolitan district and part of the adjacent former county council area. But at least it will be possible to create seats of approximately the same size.
  The problem arises with paragraph 4(1) (a) (ii) of the schedule to the 1986 Act. The 1986 Act says bluntly that in London one cannot cross boundaries except for reasons of excessive disparity. How can one cross the border of Surbiton and—if someone will think of the name of a large seat in north London, I shall be grateful because I cannot think of one off the top of my head—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Brent.
  Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman has a suggestion, I shall give way.
  Mr. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) jokes from my side, there are not any large seats in London. The House understands the hon. Gentleman's point. He does the House a service in an additional sense. This is not a party political issue. Whether London is allocated Members of Parliament on the basis of its whole electorate or by adding up bits and pieces from column 7 of Hansard, the number comes to 70 or 71 Members. So London loses 13 seats, whatever happens. The question is, what sort of fairness and disparity will there be? Everyone is listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I take his words kindly. He understand the point that
  156
  I seek to make. The first question is, what is London? Is it the total of all the London boroughs which are known as the London boroughs of—? Once that point is reached, we have the total electorate. When we have the total electorate, we can determine the total entitlement. If the matter is dealt with in that way, we shall avoid the problems of 1983. In 1983, in some London boroughs, a factor of 4.3 or 4.4 meant four seats and, therefore, small seats. In other boroughs, 1.3 meant two seats and, in others, 5.2 or 5.3 meant five seats.
  In the rest of England the commission made a fair rule so that, for example, in Northamptonshire—I cannot think of the exact figures; I merely use Northamptonshire as an example—a quota of 8.4 resulted in eight seats, whereas in Leicestershire a quota of 9.5 resulted in 10 seats. In other words, the commission rounded up or down to the nearest whole number. In London it did not do that. It took 0.35 or 0.4 as the cut-off point, thus causing London to become over-represented. That is the root cause of the problem.
  Hon. Members have asked whether we shall be able to keep the number of seats down to 651. There is a simple solution. If London is properly represented, with seats that reach the norm for England, the House will not grow. I concede that in some areas in the south the number of electors warrants an increased number of Members of Parliament to represent them. That is fair, as some seats are over-sized.
  I cannot foresee a solution to the Isle of Wight problem, as it is illogical to tack part of Hampshire on to it. We shall have to wait for the island to become more popular. I think that it will happen and 'ere long it will reach a population that entitles it to two seats. I hope that the Minister will then decide to take an interim step to create two seats on the island, rather than waiting for another parliamentary boundary review.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say that he understands the argument with regard to London and that, because of the increasing disparity likely to occur between London seats and those in the rest of the country, the time has come to cross London borough boundaries. We are merely asking for London to be treated in the same way as any county. Once that is accepted, the argument is over. This is not a party political matter, as it will be for the commission to decide which boundaries to cross and not for us to decide or even to suggest, and I do not do so today.
  If London boundaries are to be considered as a single skin and are to be crossed, it will require a simple amendment to paragraph 4(1)(a)(ii) of the schedule. I suggest that the following wording should be added,
  "save as is where necessary to achieve parity with the rest of England"
  I am trying to be as succinct as possible and I hope that I have been as fair and non-partisan as I can be. I leave the matter squarely in the Home Secretary's paws. If he wants fairness in the commission and in the Bill, he must treat London the same as the rest of the country.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reject the amendment, because it is important for London constituencies to be considered in conjunction with the rest

  157
  of the parliamentary seats in England, Wales and Scotland before the end of 1994. It would be unparalleled and unfortunate if they were not.
  As a London Member, I have great interest in these matters, as do many of my Conservative colleagues. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South said that London constituencies are over-sized and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) pointed out —and received an answer—that London is over-represented in Parliament. That is inescapable. However, the means to overcome that problem must not depend on waiting for some supposed change in local government boundaries or local government reorganisation, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) suggested.
  As far as I am aware, Sir John Banham's commission is merely considering the possibility of changes to the structures of counties and districts. It is possible that some unitary authorities will be created. In any event, I understand that that does not necessarily apply to London boroughs, since they are unitary authorities and have been for some years. I did not read anything in the Conservative party manifesto during the run-up to the last election to suggest that there will be any other change in local government boundaries or local government in London.
  If we are to acquire the right amount of parliamentary representation equitably, within present Greater London boundaries, without over-reaching the county boundaries —apart from any marginal changes that may be suggested by the local government boundary commission—it seems right that the boundary commission might decide to cross boundaries; or the commission might decide to link two slender boroughs, which do not warrant two Members of Parliament each, to create three constituencies.
  Let us consider the smallest constituencies. I do not know which ones will be chosen, but from the written answer in column 7 in Hansard of 22 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) I see that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea has an electorate of 84,700. That seems to be close to the number necessary for one parliamentary seat. If it is linked with one of the boroughs close by—I know not which—it may be possible to find a rationale for those two small boroughs to have three seats rather than four. It is along those lines that I urge the Minister to consider whether the boundary commission should or should not transgress borough boundaries in order to make common sense and rationality out of what many people see as the unsatisfactory position in London.
  Like some of my hon. Friends, I will regret the passing of some of the seats in London. Traditionally, some helped to give the Conservative party, rather than the Labour party, a majority in London. However, having considered the position in London, I accept that it is manifestly unfair that some constituencies are made up of many electors while others are not.
  I also seek some reassurance from my colleagues on the Front Bench that they are not considering any reorganisation that will create a superstructure for the government of London. I warn them, straightaway, that I should be opposed root and branch to that.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: In some ways, I feel that we have been here before—both yesterday and on Second Reading. I wish to respond to some of the issues which have been raised today.
  158
  The consensus between the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and those Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate was heartening. The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head. Happily, the Isle of Wight, which is the great exception to the rule, is acceptable as a constituency to those who live there. They did not respond to the provisional recommendation that the Isle of Wight should have two constituencies. Therefore, they seem to be content to be under-represented at the moment, no doubt in the sure and certain knowledge that the Isle of Wight will have two constituencies in due course.
  I take issue with a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He seemed to suggest that a road that had one borough on one side and another borough on the other would inevitably create anomalies, but that one could somehow do something about that. It is inevitable that there will always be areas in which the border between urban authorities is a road and not something more significant, such as a river, railway line or canal. If that were not so, we would have enormous local authorities. For example, the local authority for London would cover not only Greater London, but large parts of the surrounding non-metropolitan counties. The city of Glasgow would have to include all its suburbs, too, because it is a continuous built-up mass.
  Mr. Darling: I can save the hon. Gentleman some time. That was not my argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who pointed out that some of the boundaries are odd and that there is no rhyme or reason for them. However, there is no way around the problem. According to the boundaries proposed by the last boundary commission review, my constituency is circumscribed because the residents parking scheme for Edinburgh stretches into one part of it, but not into another. That may be an anomaly, but I do not know what can be done about it. I accept that that is so.
  Mr. Jones: We have common ground on yet another point, which is excellent.
  The problem in London has become more acute in recent years because of the stair-stepping effect. When the number of seats in a London borough was reduced from five to four or from four to three, the problem was less difficult to overcome. In an extreme case, in which a London borough was theoretically entitled to 4.5 seats but actually had four, the average constituency size would be only 12 per cent. above the national average. If the number of seats in a borough were reduced from four to three, the maximum discrepancy in constituency size would be 17 per cent. If the number of seats in a borough were reduced from three to two seats, the discrepancy would be 25 per cent. If the reduction were from two seats to one, it would be 50 per cent. It is because of the stair-stepping effect that the proposed constituencies for London must cross borough boundaries.
  4.45 pm
  The precedent has been set in the metropolitan districts and it works perfectly well. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is no longer present, argued that it would be desirable if parliamentary boundaries and local authorities were contiguous units. That is simply not possible. In the non-metropolitan counties, it is quite common for Members to represent parts of more than one district authority. For example, in

  159
  my neighbouring constituency, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) represents part of the Three Rivers district council, the whole of the borough of Watford and part of the city of St. Albans. Such boundaries are set to ensure that there is the right number of electors in each non-metropolitan district.
  Until now, the only anomaly has been London. The logic of the figures, which show that the electorate in London has declined over a long period, means that, for reasons of fairness, that nettle has to be grasped by the boundary commission. Otherwise, we will have an increasing number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and the areas outside London, whose population is growing, will be treated unfairly.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I support the amendment.
  Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate so how does he know?
  Mr. Livingstone: I can read the amendment, but I doubt if the arguments of Conservative Members would have swayed me very much, given the appalling and, I think, corrupt approach of the boundary commission to London over the years.
  I have never had the slightest doubt that the boundary commission shows a small and significant bias in favour of the Conservative party. That is manifest because, whenever a boundary review is completed, one always finds such a bias. We saw that in 1950 and 1951 when it was much easier to elect Conservative Members of Parliament than Labour Members of Parliament. In 1951, the Labour Government were defeated, although they had won more votes than the Conservative party, because the boundaries had been drawn in a subtle way to benefit the Conservatives.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Simon Burns rose—
  Mr. Livingstone: I shall not give way until I have made my argument.
  The same thing has happened with each significant boundary review. After each of them, there has been a small bias in favour of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Burns rose—
  Mr. Livingstone: I shall give way once I have completed my argument. I advise hon. Members not to object to my argument until they have heard it.
  After the votes are counted at each election, psephologists have demonstrated that were the Labour and Conservative parties to receive an equal number of votes, the Conservatives would usually enjoy an advantage of 10 to 20 in the number of seats won. That advantage tends to be eroded during the lifetime of the boundaries as population change takes place, but every parliamentary boundary review has had an in-built bias towards the Tory party.
  I had the misfortune to attend one of the reviews in London during the last round. It was for the constituency of Hampstead and Highgate and was an absolute travesty, showing great prejudice. The constituency had been bitterly fought over, and it once returned a Labour Member of Parliament. We saw in that boundary review a complete ignoring of natural communities in order to
  160
  preserve a seat for the Conservative party. In the long term, it did not work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) demonstrates that fact. In Camden, before the review came into operation in 1983, we had three constituencies which, it was proposed, should become two. The choice before the boundary commission concerned what part of the old St. Pancras, North seat should be included in Hampstead.
  There were two proposals, one from the local Conservative party, arguing that Highgate should be included. That proposal overlooked the fact that no road joined the Highgate ward in St. Pancras, North with the Camden constituency. Unless one trekked over the heath —quite a trek—one had to go out of the Highgate ward, through Haringey and back into Camden to find a road that would convey one from one side of the constituency to the other. It was absolute nonsense.
  The alternative, put forward by the Labour party, was that the two wards of Gospel Oak and Grafton, which abutted the South End ward—it was one natural community but was divided for years—should be included. That would have made a clear and concise boundary created by a railway line. There could have been no doubt on the part of anyone listening to the hearing on that boundary review that the obvious and sensible natural community would be achieved by the creation of a Hampstead seat which included Gospel Oak and Grafton. Highgate was included for no reason other than the fact that Gospel Oak and Grafton were safe Labour wards, whereas Highgate ward normally returned a Conservative.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I read the report on that occasion. The boundary commission made it clear that it thought that there was merit in bringing together the two sides of Hampstead heath, which would have meant the least disruption to existing constituencies, that always being one of the commission's principles. There seems to be a clear communality of interest between those who look to the heath from one side and those who look from the other. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the commission acted out of political motivation is a travesty of justice and, even with his standards, he should know better than to suggest that.
  Mr. Livingstone: To define a constituency by being on opposite sides of an open space, one of the largest open spaces in London, seems to be a wonderfully new concept. That does not apply anywhere else in London. But it made all the difference to a seat that Labour would have been more likely to win.
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman sauntered in half way through the debate and then made outrageous allegations about the boundary commission. I fear that, because he was so late coming in, he missed the tabloid press reporters in the Press Gallery.
  The hon. Gentleman alleged that, following a boundary commission review, there will be at the next general election an inbuilt bias of 10 to 20 seats in favour of the Conservative party. Does he have any positive proof to back up his allegation? How does he reconcile it with the fact that, prior to the February 1974 election, the press having made that allegation, as press cuttings—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's intervention is becoming very long. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Livingstone: February 1974 was not the natural next election. Those boundaries should have come into operation at the 1970 general election, but we remember why the then Labour Government decided to put off the alterations, by which time the natural bias of which I spoke had started to erode. If those boundaries had operated in the 1970 election—[interruption] I refer Conservative Members to the analysis made by The Economist and published as a separate booklet in late July 1970. That made it clear that that inbuilt bias was there at that stage.
  There would have been a Conservative Government in February 1974 but for the split with the Ulster Unionists. That allowed Labour to win more seats because in every previous election the 11 Ulster Unionist seats would have been counted with the Conservative seats.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a major problem has been the fact that, in every redistribution since 1951, there has been a growing disparity in the average size of London seats compared with seats in the country as a whole? That has given a flavour of there being a Conservative bias. The bias has appeared to benefit the Conservative party simply because London has too many seats. Further, the hon. Gentleman must remember—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member and the Committee to the fact that we are discussing London boroughs in the year 2000, not what the situation is now or in the past.
  Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthousc. How on earth can we discuss the future without referring to the present and the past? The future is built on the present and the past.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I urge hon. Members to have a good try.
  Mr. Livingstone: My worry is that the boundary commission is planning to take the same corrupt approach to boundaries in London—[Interruption.]—in the coming redistribution—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that the boundary commissioners are corrupt?
  The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter for the hon. Member concerned to decide.
  Mr. Bottomley: It is disgraceful.
  Mr. Livingstone: Not at all. I have a lot more evidence about the corruption of the boundary commission, and it is what one would expect. I am not saying that it is blatant. Corruption in Britain is usually rather subtle. I am referring to a small bias, with a decision here or there, carefully moved the Conservative party's way, and I have drawn attention to what happened in Hampstead—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member return to the subject of the amendment.
  Mr. Livingstone: I return to the specific point of London and the borough boundaries. We have seen already the approach of the boundary commission. In 1993, London should have lost four more seats than it actually lost, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made, for too many seats have been given to London. Some people in
  162
  London greeted that as a sign of generosity on the part of the boundary commission. When one examines which four boroughs were the beneficiaries of the extra four seats, one discovers that they maintained four Conservative seats in London.
  Mr. Bowis: Including Newham.
  Mr. Livingstone: No, not Newham. The four boroughs that were allowed to keep an extra seat—which, if the formula had been applied accurately, they would not—were Bromley, Barnet, Bexley and Greenwich, with the result that in each borough the Conservatives retained a seat that they would otherwise have lost. If that is not biased, I do not know what is, and it has started again. A local government boundary review is being carried out in London and it is expected that the changes to be made will provide the basis for the parliamentary boundary commission's findings—the point made in the amendment.
  Mr. John Gorst: As the hon. Gentleman's objective is to win seats, may I put it to him that he would be more effective if, instead of traducing the boundary commission, he seduced the electorate? That has been his great failing so far.
  Mr. Livingstone: I have no intention of seducing anybody in the Chamber. A series of boundary reviews of the boroughs is occurring, and the parliamentary boundary commission faces a problem. If it reduces the London seats to exactly the number that the area should have in relation to its population, the majority of seats lost would be Conservative seats. Many Tory boroughs which, unjustifiably, held on to their seats at the last redistribution—[Interruption.] The majority of seats to be lost in London will be Conservative seats.
  The parliamentary boundary commission has started to change borough boundaries to try to reduce that impact. Brent is a borough from which, with the best will in the world, my party would have trouble dislodging the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). Equally, it would not be easy for the Conservative party to win either of the other two Labour seats in Brent. Although the boundary commission's attitude is to reduce Brent to two seats, the population figures do not justify that. Unless the boundary of the borough is changed, Brent will continue to have three parliamentary seats: two Labour and one Conservative. So the parliamentary boundary commission has approached—informally, of course—the local govern-ment boundary commission and asked it to reduce the population of Brent sufficiently so that it will lose a parliamentary seat. That is what I call corruption.
  I received an anonymous telephone call from a worker inside the local government boundary commission tipping me off about the fact that the commission had been asked to reduce the size of Brent to two parliamentary seats. When that redistribution takes place, the Brent, North seat would remain Conservative and Labour would lose one of the other two seats. Thus, the bias of the boundary commission is revealed once again.
  5 pm
  The boundary commission set about its task by suddenly publishing a proposal to remove the safest Labour ward from my constituency and move it to Westminster, North. That act was not received enthusiastically by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), as the ward concerned has about

  163
  5 per cent. Conservative voters. There was a huge public outcry. Tenants did not want to be moved around at the whim of the local government and parliamentary boundary commissions and the commissions were forced to back down. However, they did not do so all the way but allowed the bulk of the estate to remain in Brent, shaving off bits of Brent all around—a small part from Brent, North; more from Brent, South; and some more from Brent, East. It is a wonder to behold because they have taken just enough to bring us below the point where we qualify for three seats. That is corruption.
  A remarkable coincidence is that, in a borough where nobody has been arguing to change the borough boundary, the commission has changed virtually the entire borough boundary to try to reduce the population to the magic figure where we no longer qualify for three seats. It is down to within about 150 votes of it.
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting over his persecution complex, but little else. If what he says were true, why on earth would he want to support an amendment that delays changing the parliamentary boundaries until the local government boundary commission has brought in its new proposals?
  Mr. Livingstone: I am telling the House what has happened and what I have seen with my own eyes when those normally Conservative barristers conduct the reviews. Sadly, that is part of the problem. I realise that not every barrister is a Conservative—some of my best friends are barristers—but on any law of averages, if we rely on lawyers to conduct matters, we shall rely on people with no sympathy for the Labour party. The attack on Brent is bad. I oppose it not just on the ground that it will damage the Labour and Tory parties but because it is bad to sit down and ask, "How do we draw up the boundaries in London to benefit the Conservative party?", which is clearly what has been happening for years. We should ask how best we can benefit the people of London.
  If we reduce Brent to two very large seats, we shall create seats with enormous numbers of problems to be represented by just two Members of Parliament. Each year, I handle some 4,000 constituency problems and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) does exactly the same. If we fuse the bulk of those two seats together, we shall create a seat which it is almost impossible for one Member to serve, unless the House of Commons gives those Labour Members who represent hard-pressed inner-city areas extra parliamentary support and research facilities.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point because I raised precisely the same one yesterday on a previous amendment. If the boundary commissioners can take into account the geography of constituencies in rural areas and decide not to apply the quota, why cannot there be similar criteria for urban seats, such as those which my hon. Friend and I represent? As I said yesterday, with 42,000 constituents in my borough, I have two or three times the weight of problems of Tory Members in rural areas with 90,000 constituents. No acknowledgement is made of that in this place. Perhaps the boundary commissioner should be allowed to recognise it.
  Mr. Livingstone: Clearly, boundary commissioners cannot advise Parliament about the services and support provided to Members, but they should take account of the
  164
  fact that, when they carve up boundaries, they create an intolerable concentration of problems in a small number of seats that are far too large. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, we are in a position to make special exemptions for seats that cover large areas with a distant and spread population, why cannot we do the same in areas of London with massive concentrations of social problems? It shows that the boundary commission does not give a damn about the service provided to constituents caused by concentrating problems in a small number of parliamentary seats.
  I hope that the amendment will be successful because I have not the slightest doubt that, were we not under the pressure of a parliamentary boundary review, the local government boundary commission would not have started fiddling with virtually every yard of the boundary of the borough of Brent, moving people backwards and forwards to remove one seat from Brent.
  Another option was suggested. Westminster council, which is not normally a fan of mine—I do not normally agree with those people and consider them little better than grave robbers—came up with a proposal for the boundary commission to move a part of Westminster, North into my constituency. That was just waved aside because it would have made it impossible to get rid of one of the seats in Brent.
  Let us not continue to pretend that this is an academic exercise. It is about a biased parliamentary boundary commission. Its bias is not overwhelming but is just enough to make the difference in a tight election. It is using that bias against the people of Brent and intervening for political reasons, ignoring natural communities and the vast burden of problems that exist in those areas. As a result, it is giving them far too few Members of Parliament. I was tipped off about that by someone working for the local government boundary commission, who said that a request had been received from the parliamentary boundary commission to reduce the size of Brent. That has been done to within 150 votes. The four additional Tory seats that were retained in London last time were not justified on the basis of population. They were given not to the areas with the greatest number of social problems but to areas on the periphery with nothing like that scale of problem.
  Given the blatant fiddle which I have witnessed to prevent Hampstead becoming a much more winnable seat for Labour and creating an artificial constituency on two sides of Hampstead heath, and now the perverse fiddle of the boundaries of Brent, the time has come to do away with the parliamentary boundary commission. It would be much more honest if the House debated the matter, recognising that we are discussing the pursuit of power by a party that makes certain that the people conducting those reviews are largely its friends. They are people whom Conservative Members have met and with whom they have practised law decade after decade, and they are doing the business for the Tory party.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I have no intention of supporting the amendment because it simply tries to put off decisions further. Nor do I propose to follow the example of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who seems to be playing a rent-a-quote tendency by maligning the boundary commissioners.
  I wish to raise a subject that I raised on Second Reading with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home

  165
  Secretary. It must be considered on the basis of the totality of London and the outer London boundary. The issue was raised by the local government commissioners in their overview which was produced in the middle of May. I forget the number of the document. but I am sure that the Ministers will know it.
  The local government commissioners stressed the point that the Greater London boundary is now out of date and has been overtaken by the development of communities around the outskirts of London. The borough of Kingston, which I represent, is one such example. Kingston has spread from the township of Kingston, over the Greater London boundary into Surrey, and now the community of Kingston, with Long Ditton, Thames Ditton, Hinchley Wood and Claygate—all four form part of the borough of Elmbridge—are cohesive parts of the community that surrounds Kingston.
  In the light of that development, three years ago the officers of Kingston council presented the local government boundary commission with facts and statistics to show the way in which development had taken place and the boundary had been overtaken. The local government boundary commissioners have accepted the points raised. In their overview they stated that, although they believed that they were not empowered to make considerable changes in their recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the points raised should be considered in the near future.
  When will the boundary commission take into consideration the development which has created a community that now spreads over what we knew as the Greater London boundary before the Greater London council was abolished? There is no question but that that has also happened in other districts around the periphery of London, and it must surely be taken into account, or there will be confusion. As I have a constituency which touches on that district, I should be told what sort of steer can be given to the boundary commission. Should it consider those matters now, or should we continue in confusion for a number of years? I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will state that the parliamentary boundary commission will look seriously at the views expressed in the recent report of the local government boundary commission.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Any hon. Member who represents a London constituency—I am fortunate enough to have represented two London constituencies —will be well aware of the anomalies and problems and the need for a thorough review of the London boundaries. The facts are clear. We are conscious of the extent to which the majority of London constituencies fall below the numerical quota. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) rightly said, the caseload of most London Members is substantially greater than that of hon. Members for other parts of the country, which compensates for the smaller populations.
  We are conscious that the boundaries in London are often a historic feature, inherited over a long period, and do not always follow a logical pattern—they are there because they are there. When I first reviewed the constituency boundary and considered the western edge of Greenwich and its boundary with Lewisham, East and Deptford, I found it difficult to understand the logic. I was
  166
  advised by someone who was in a better position than Ito know the facts that the boundary was decided in the 1860s. I hesitate to use the word "gerrymandered" as the seat was then represented by William Ewart Gladstone, who I am sure would have regarded that as improper. However, I am assured that the boundary was adjusted in the interests of the Liberals at that time. It is a curious boundary, and there is no question about the need for a review and an adjustment. The boundary commission has been taking that entirely proper approach to the western boundary of the Greenwich parliamentary constituency and the Greenwich boroughs.
  I and other London Members are concerned at the risk inherent in the ad hoc approach taken to the redefinition of London boundaries. That is evidenced in the way in which the possibility of constituencies crossing borough boundaries is not being debated from first principles. Discussion is not centring on what is right in terms of the relationship between the parliamentary constituency and the borough boundary—there is a strong argument for making a link between the two and preventing parliamentary constituencies from crossing borough boundaries.
  The case is clear, but it is not being argued on its merits. It is being considered purely in terms of how to cope with boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham where the populations are falling drastically. Ad hoc decisions are being taken to try to avoid either creating a single constituency which represents about 100,000 people or, at the other extreme, maintaining two constituencies of only about 50,000 people. The issue of constituencies crossing borough boundaries is being considered, not from first principles, but on an ad hoc basis in an attempt to cobble together the best solution out of the current unsatisfactory framework.
  Having looked at the report of the local government boundary commission I feel more worried about our proceeding within a tight timetable in which decisions will be prompted by the need for quick decisions rather than by the need to take a broad, strategic view of the appropriate boundaries for London as a whole, and the relationship between those borough boundaries and constituency boundaries. Let us consider how we would approach the problem if we were starting from first principles.
  As the local government boundary commission stressed in its report, one would consider the boundaries of outer London and the limits of the metropolitan district. One would start—as it did—by identifying the existing problems. The present boundaries were defined long before the definition of current usages and other development patterns were clear. The report states:
  "Many of the boundaries pre-date the establishment of London in its present form, and were not amended to follow modern features when the Greater London Council was created. More recent years have seen the construction of the M25 and associated development on the edge of London."
  Those developments were not taken into account when the boundaries were drawn up.
  It is hardly surprising that the report, published just a month ago, should end with a clear steer. It recognises that more radical action is needed than the commission has been able to recommend because of its limited remit. That is true not just in south-east London, about which I am concerned, but, as the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) highlighted, the same applies in south-west London. Those boundaries, and the definition of London

  167
  boroughs and their surrounding districts, needs a more strategic review than was possible given the remit of the local government boundary commission.
  Having considered the total exterior London boundary, I shall consider the boundaries of individual boroughs, where similar considerations apply. The report of the boundary commission makes it clear that there are wide variations and anomalies in the size of boroughs, which range from 118,000 to 258,000 residents in inner London and from 136,000 to 318,000 in outer London.
  The report makes the following important point:
  "There seems to be no clear rationale for the present number and size of the existing boroughs. The present arrangements for London government seem to be a compromise between two types of authority—on the one hand the boroughs are not truly strategic, while on the other hand they seem too large to represent local community loyalties given that there has been no provision for parishes in Greater London."
  Many of us working in inner-London areas know the strong sense of attachment that people still feel to their local communities and the sense of loss deriving from the fact that the local government boundaries introduced in the 1960s no longer allowed them the same sense of proximity and contact with their local authority. I frequently encounter people who feel that since the larger London borough of Greenwich was brought into existence, embracing Woolwich and Eltham, those in the former metropolitan area of Greenwich find the town hall now located in Woolwich more remote and do not enjoy the same degree of contact with it.
  The boundary commission clearly hints that, despite its remit, it would have liked to deal with the issue more broadly and strategically and to consider the right local authority size, role and functions. Those difficult issues are not being properly considered, but they should be.
  I am interested in the factors which relate to the boundaries of the borough of Greenwich. An important recommendation in the provisional boundary commission report suggests that the community of Thamesmead should be united with the borough, on the principle that communities should not generally be divided across boundaries. The recommendation makes a great deal of sense, but for a variety of reasons there was some local opposition to it. I suspect that there is a great deal of conservatism among electorates and a reluctance to move from one borough to another which can easily be stirred up by people who do not want boundaries to be rationalised. I hope that the logic of the recommendation will be reinforced when the boundary commission report finally appears. The whole of Thamesmead should be brought inside the borough boundary—a sensible arrangement.
  Mr. David Evennett: As the Member whose borough covers Thamesmead, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman is overlooking the voice of the people? Conservative Members believe in what the people want, not in what looks good on a map or in what the bureaucrats may think is a good idea—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, West (Mr. Banks) is always vocal on these issues, but we are not discussing his part of London.
  168
  The people of Thamesmead made their voice clear in a referendum: they do not want to be part of Greenwich. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in listening to them.
  Mr. Raynsford: On the contrary, listening to the people is an important exercise, but one should not be misled into thinking that a view held at one time is final or decisive. Electorates change their minds; temporary factors may influence their decisions. That is why these issues should be dealt with in broad strategic terms, not in an ad hoc way. The poll tax, for instance, may at a given moment influence people to express a preference in a certain direction, but far more fundamental issues are at stake.
  If the recommendation is confirmed and Thamesmead is united with Greenwich, that will influence the size of the borough and hence the number of constituencies. Other factors not relevant to the amendment also come into play —the extent to which the register is accurate, for example. There is a great deal of evidence that it is not. Future development proposals are germane to my constituency as well. The proposals for the development of the Greenwich peninsula are stalled because of the hiatus over the Jubilee line—a hiatus for which Conservative Members have a considerable responsibility. The key point is the need to avoid a rushed decision leading to ad hoc conclusions and unsatisfactory short-term answers. There should be a much broader long-term review of boundaries.
  All the factors that I have mentioned suggest the case for a more rational and strategic approach than is likely to be adopted if the process is rushed. The amendment would allow the boundary commission to act on wider considerations, to take a broader view and to bear in mind long-term aspects. There is thus a great deal of merit in it. I ask the Committee to support it.
  Mr. Tony Banks: As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, amendment No. 8 is a probing amendment designed to elicit from the Government their intentions in respect of London. I have heard hon. Members mutter from sedentary positions that there is no intention to change borough boundaries or the local government structure of London, but that view is not universally held in the Conservative party or in the Government—nor will it hold for the foreseeable future.
  During the general election campaign, Ministers made a number of statements about the future local government structure of London. The then chairman of the Conservative party, Governor Chris Patten as we must now call him, said that there would be something in the Conservative manifesto on the subject. He hinted as much in an interview carried by the Evening Standard.
  Then there was a proposal by the President of the Board of Trade—I believe he wants to be called El Cid to the effect that he was in favour of directly elected mayors for London. There have been proposals to set up a new London forum made up of appointed business men —I stress the word "men". Lady Shirley Porter has suggested a Minister for London and a look at the question of London's boroughs. Clearly, a great deal is going on in the Conservative party.
  The state of flux in London is brought about by the uncertainty arising from the abolition of the Greater London council. It is hardly surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central should move

  169
  an amendment suggesting that the boundary commis-sioners take that state of flux into account. We want to get it right this time.
  Conservative Members say that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I have an axe to grind about the GLC, and we certainly have—we were both on it when it was abolished. But I believe in the old political dictum, "Don't get mad, get even," and that is what we intend to do—eventually. Unfortunately, we shall have to wait another four years before doing so.
  The Confederation of British Industry, the London chamber of commerce, the London advisory planning committee arid anyone else who takes a logical, disinterested and dispassionate look at London and the way it is governed—I exclude the political hacks on the Conservative Benches—
  Mr. Wilshire: Come off it.
  Mr. Banks: We all know why the GLC was abolished: it was because that mad fool, that loony half-mad cretin, the former Prime Minister—I trust that I am not being unparliamentary in thus describing her —decided to abolish it. That was no way to deal with London.
  Tomorrow morning I shall be on my way to Vilnius in Lithuania because I have been asked by the Council of Europe to look into whether that country is a fit and proper country to join the democratic family of nations in the Council of Europe. One of the problems put to me concerned the Lithuanian Government's disbanding of the Polish and Russian councils in the country. Apparently that is a threat to democarcy. It is easy for us to say that something should not have been done, but we have a Government—
  5.30 pm
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's remarks are interesting, but he should relate them more closely to the amendment.
  Mr. Banks: I was about to do so when you intervened, Mr. Lofthouse. I was not setting out my itinerary merely for the sake of it. I was about to contend that what has happened in London with the abolition of the GLC is no worse and no better than what the Lithuanian Government have done. Indeed, that Government had excuses for what they did. After all, their country has only recently emerged from 50 years of Soviet domination. I see much similarity between the totalitarianism and the Stalinism that existed in the Soviet Union and that which was perpetrated on the United Kingdom by Mrs. Thatcher, or Lady Barking, as I understand she is to be called, when she takes up her new position in the other place.
  Uncertainty has been created in London by the abolition of the GLC, and that is not surprising. You might have guessed, Mr. Lofthouse, that I am biased.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Never.
  Mr. Banks: I admit to a certain tinge of bias when it comes to the GLC. Certain views have been expressed, however, by various bodies and if I am biased so are they. For example, in report No. 627 the boundary commission expressed several concerns about the structure of local government when setting out its conclusions. The commission stated:
  170
  "The pattern of administration covering any one part of the capital is now so complicated, with many joint arrangements and functions taken on by both local government and non-local government bodies, that it is difficult to see how accountability could be improved without a fundamental reappraisal of the role of the borough in London's government."
  Has the Minister paid any attention to that which is stated in the commission's report? Are the Government taking no account of the views that the commission expresses? If the Government are not listening to the views of electoral commissioners, are they similarly not listening to what is said by the local government boundary commission? These are things that we need to know. The commissioners need to know because they do not want to waste their time producing reports that the Government trash.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents an even smaller electorate than mine—so if I go, so does he. Many would say that the House of Commons would be well rid of us both. The hon. Gentleman said that there is confusion about what is London and what is the Greater London area, and that is precisely what the commission has said. There is uncertainty.
  We should not be considering these issues in a piecemeal, party-political, partisan way. The way in which Mrs. Thatcher scrapped the GLC was undemocratic. I take as an example the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who I know is a big man in terms of his heart and his conscience. If he were strictly honest with us, as he is from time to time, he would admit that Mrs. Thatcher's approach was not the way to deal with London's local government structure.
  It was possible to present a case—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East did so—for the abolition of the GLC. I disagreed violently with my hon. Friend at the time and the issue remains a bone of contention between us. Similarly, arguments could be advanced now for changing borough boundaries and the strategic government of London, but they should be presented only after calculated consideration by the parties following the findings of a Royal Commission, for example. Instead, Mrs. Thatcher wrote on the back of an envelope, "Scrap the GLC." She did so because she happened not to like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, myself, other members of the GLC and what the GLC was doing. That is not the way treat local government structures.
  If Conservative Members were truly democratic—I doubt whether there is any more than a thin veneer of democracy within the Conservative party—I believe that they would agree with me, but Conservative Members will go along with democracy so long as it serves their interests. As soon as it appears to go against those interests, democracy goes out of the window.
  Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene to show the Committee my big heart and to say how much we shall miss him when his constituency disappears. Does he understand, however, that the measure that we are discussing has nothing to do with the reform of London's local government but everything to do with boundary proposals? We can return another day to consider boundary changes in London. Of course, I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for trying to do my job, but I am capable of doing it myself.
  Mr. Banks: Thank you, Mr. Lofthouse. I am capable of looking after myself, but I welcome what you say. I am speaking to the amendment, which seeks to make it clear that the commission may delay submitting its report to the Secretary of State until it is notified of the boundaries in London which are to be in operation until 12 June of the year 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, it is a probing amendment. I have probed the hon. Member for Battersea—metaphorically, not literally, as he well knows—and he has been found wanting.
  We are talking about London boundaries, and I do not really mind if borough boundaries are crossed. I accept that that might be necessary. I do not like the idea, but many of my hon. Friends say that if borough boundaries are crossed outside London there is no reason why they cannot be crossed inside the capital. I would not like it to happen in the context of trying to fix parliamentary constituencies. In other words, I would wish there to be more discussion. The crossing of boundaries causes confusion and I would not want to represent a community which straddled a borough boundary. The crossing of boundaries takes away the community element that we like to have in the relationship between Members and their constituents.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I tend to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It might be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) —I apologise for stemming his torrent of words—that the commissioners are "corrupt". If he agrees with that assertion, can it be backed with some evidence?
  Mr. Banks: I did not make the assertion. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East is capable of looking after himself and substantiating his allegations. I know that he felt strongly about the matter and believed what he said to be true. If an hon. Member feels something to be true, he has the privilege of being able to speak his mind without fear or favour.
  It is not necessary to believe in fifth-form conspiracy theories when we consider the role of the commissioners, but I believe that they very much share the Government's outlook. I would think that they are all part of the club. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East has said, conspiracy and corruption within our society is subtle. We do not have the open corruption that is to be found in other countries. Those who are involved here are far more subtle than that. The British ruling class has had so many generations of manipulating our society that it does not have to do it in an open and obvious way. Instead, it uses subtlety. Members of that class share the same value system. They went to the same schools, they are in the same chambers, and they are members of the same lodges. They go to the same clubs.
  Mr. Livingstone: They go to bed with one another.
  Mr. Banks: As my hon. Friend says, they go to bed with one another.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I thought that the chairman of the boundary commission was the Speaker of the day of this honourable
  172
  House. Surely it is not possible to accuse the commission of being corrupt in any way without making the same accusation against its chairman. It is about time Labour Members stopped slurring past Speakers and the present Speaker.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Newham, North West (Mr. Banks) has been treating the Committee to one of his humorous performances. If that has resulted in any stain on Madam Speaker, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw.
  Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I referred mainly to the barristers who conduct the inquiry. I cast no aspersion on Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Banks: I, too, was referring to the barristers, Mr. Lofthouse. Let us get that clear.
  Mr. Porter: Further to the points of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If it is clear that Members of the House of Commons have gone insane, is there a method by which they can be stopped from speaking?
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to decide that.
  Mr. Banks: I can assist the hon. Gentleman. We were talking about Madam Speaker, and under the mental health legislation the Speaker has the right to section any Member. Conservative Members should contemplate that carefully before making any further speeches.
  Let me pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) before he disappeared out of the Chamber after being unable to obtain any reaction to his last denunciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. No doubt he went to the Library to discover the role of Madam Speaker. But her position on the boundary commission is purely nominal; it is not a working position.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone far enough and I hope that he will now address his remarks to the amendment.
  Mr. Banks: Of course—I was just trying to give a rudimentary lesson in constitutional theory to the hon. Member for Eltham.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is there not some truth in the suggestion of semi-secret proposals? Does my hon. Friend recall that, not long ago in this very Chamber, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now the President of the Board of Trade, asked why we needed London boroughs? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in London are not aware that under section 14(3)(d) and (e) of the Local Government Act 1992, which was supposed not to apply to London, the commission can recommend
  "the abolition of a London borough and the distribution of its area among other London boroughs"?
  I am sure that most London borough councillors are not aware of that. Certainly some Members of Parliament are not. That reinforces the case for some form of delay as set out in the amendment unless and until that matter has been addressed and concluded.
  Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is all part of the uncertainty argument that I put earlier. When Nicholas Ridley was Secretary of State for the

  173
  Environment, he made it clear that he felt that boroughs should simply have an annual meeting with councillors getting together—in his words—over a good lunch, in order to decide which particular contracts were to be allocated to which particular—
  Mr. Jim Dowd: Friends.
  Mr. Banks: That was the unwritten part of what he was saying.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) emphasises the uncertainty that exists in London. As the parliamentary boundary commissioners are paying some heed to boundaries for the local government boroughs, it is obvious that they need to know in some detail what Government thinking is. I hope that eventually the Minister will give us an honest and open account of the current thinking within the Department of the Environment and the Home Office on the future structure of local government in London.
  I am not talking about now. The Minister can no doubt say that at the moment the Government have no plans to make any changes. I want to know what long-term thinking—assuming that that is not too much to expect from Cabinet deliberations—there is on local government structures. I cannot believe that nothing is happening. There have been too many representations from too many bodies to which the Conservative party pays heed to the effect that something needs to be done about London if it is to play its part as one of the major European capital cities and to retain its position as the financial centre of Europe, and that it must have some sort of direction, coherence and identity. The Corporation of the City of London is saying that, as are the commercial and business interests within the square mile.
  It is not only Labour Members who need to know; it is not only the boundary commissioners looking at parliamentary constituencies who need to know; it is also the local government boundary commission. Everyone wants to know. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government to tell us.
  Clarification of the Government's plan is particularly important as the local government boundary commission under Sir John Banham, which is due to take over from the present commission, has been given explicit power to make radical changes to the pattern of London boroughs. Section 14(3) of the Local Government Act 1992 allows the new commission to recommend the following changes:

  "(d) the constitution of a new London borough by the amalgamation of two or more London boroughs or by the aggregation of parts of London boroughs or by the separation of part of a London borough;

  (e) the abolition of a London borough and the distribution of its area among other London boroughs."

  That is explosive stuff—not my speech I hasten to add, but what I have just read out is explosive stuff. When the people of London get to know that there is the possibility of boroughs and boundaries disappearing and amalgamations taking place, they will want to know what part they are to play in those deliberations. The Minister owes it to the House to say what sort of democratic processes will be brought into play so that communities can discuss with which part of London or community they want to maintain links, or whether they want to go somewhere else.
  174
  5.45 pm
  What we have long missed in London is a proper discussion about London's local government. We do not want decisions made by Ministers on the run, as it were, or by Prime Ministers who take a particular dislike to figures or bodies, or by Conservatives who cannot now retreat from the face of Thatcherism because to do so would be like spitting on the previous Prime Minister's grave. They have done much stamping and spitting on her grave up to now, but I do not think that they want to go any further.
  The people of London deserve something better than their local government structure being left to decisions made on the back of an envelope in the Cabinet from time to time, with various statements being made ex cathedra by Ministers and those who are now governor of Hong Kong or who have gone on to different positions in the Cabinet. London deserves to know. At least the amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to start the great debate on London that we want. I hope that he will show himself ready and able to meet the challenge. Go on!
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I was so diverted by the rehearsal of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for his visit to Vilnius that I did not notice that no other hon. Member had risen.
  I shall start with the hon. Gentleman because he finished on a rousing note. I shall not tell him the "Lloyd" plan for the future of London, but in a few moments I shall come to the Government's plans for the future of London.
  The hon. Gentleman read from the Local Government Act 1992 the powers that the Local Government Commission will have to recommend the amalgamation and division of London boroughs. It certainly does have that power to recommend, just as I believe the local government boundary commission which it supersedes had.
  But local government boundary commissions make their reports at intervals of 10 to 15 years, so the next report of the Local Government Commission after the one that is currently under way will probably not come forward until well into the next century.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) put most of his questions in a form that related to whether the Government had a secret agenda to change the structure of London's local government in the foreseeable future. Most of his complaints, however, seemed to relate to the rule in schedule 2 of the 1986 Act which precludes the crossing of borough boundaries by the parliamentary commission except in exceptional circumstances.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no such agenda. It is a matter for the Department of the Environment rather than for me, but in summary I can say that the Government have no plans to review the general structure of local government in London. They have no desire whatever to inflict another layer of bureaucracy on London which would create, not solve, problems. They have set up a special Cabinet sub-committee. That relates to some of the references made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to plans for the future and various suggestions. The sub-committee is chaired by the Secretary of State for the Environment and has been set up to co-ordinate Government policy in London.

  175
  It intends to establish a private sector London forum to promote London as a world centre of business, tourism, and culture. None of those changes and developments affects London local government structure or boundaries.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What opportunities will Londoners and their representatives, such as local councils and the London Boroughs Association, have to discuss the future shape of the London forum? That is an important development, and many of us would like to be involved in the forum's creation and in selecting its members.
  Mr. Lloyd: That question should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am sure that he will take on board all good ideas—even those submitted by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. However, that has nothing to do with London local government structure or boundaries, which is the subject matter of the Bill and of amendment No. 8 in particular.
  Mr. Darling: Is it not ironic that the Cabinet has established a special committee, but that matters affecting many other parts of the country will be considered by local councils? That is typical of the Government's approach to London and of their fear of its electorate. If there is to be no change, why did the 1986 Act allow the local government boundary commission to examine the constitution of new London boroughs and amalgamations, and so on?
  If the Government do not intend to do anything about London, why as recently as earlier this year did they seek to amend the 1986 Act, which specifically enjoins the commission to consider such aspects—and presumably it would have the contemplation that Sir John Banham might recommend changes?
  Mr. Lloyd: He might do so, but those powers to recommend exist in previous legislation. As I told the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, another local government boundary commission review is not due this decade. Commissions make their reviews at intervals. We are in the middle of a review now. A review under the terms of the new legislation—not dissimilar to the 1986 Act—is not expected until into the next century.
  London boroughs and their boundaries are not due to be considered in the foreseeable future. In the normal scheme of things, that will be done 10 or 15 years after the current commission has reported.
  Mr. Bermingham: I am well aware of the local government review proposals and of the action that Sir John Banham intends to take. Is it already in mind to change the shape of London boroughs at some future time? If so, that surely adds weight to the suggestion that I made to the Home Secretary earlier today with regard to the 1986 Act—that the parliamentary boundary commissioners should be allowed to cross London borough boundaries to ensure parity with the rest of England.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman concentrated on that point for most of his speech, and it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I appreciate the force of the argument. It is open to the boundary commission to cross London borough boundaries if, in the
  176
  commission's judgment, an unreasonable and unaccept-able disparity in the size of a constituency's population would otherwise exist. In the same way that the commission can cross London boundaries, it can cross other base line boundaries in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  It is for the commission to decide whether the disparities have become so great that it must cross boroughs. It is for the commission, not the Government, to interpret its responsibilities under the schedule in question.
  I and the Government would be loath to alter the boundary commission's rules at this stage. I hold out no hope that I would think it practicable and right to do so. I shall, however, discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department the points made in the debate. I emphasise that at this stage I do not consider that change would be practicable. Nevertheless, we will turn our minds to the comments that have been made and to the possibilities before Report stage and Third Reading.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does not the Minister appreciate that at the heart of the 1983 case was the ruling by the appellate committee in the House of Lords that it could not interfere with a statutory base? The position has worsened—as the Minister knows from the experiences that other Conservative Members recounted this afternoon. If the review is to be just and not to he seen as partisan, the rules for London ought to be the same as for the rest of the country.
  Mr. Lloyd: In the rest of the country, there are always boundaries over which the commission may not trespass other than in exceptional circumstances. There are different boundaries for different reasons in different parts of the country. It may be that the hon. Gentleman is right and that the position has deteriorated in respect of London. It may be more difficult to devise constituencies of roughly equal size or of acceptably similar size—in which case, it will be for the boundary commission to reach its own conclusions under the rules in the 1986 Act, on which it is entirely for the commission to reach its own judgment.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend's earlier remarks will have provided some comfort to hon. Members in all parts of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) spoke of a skin or envelope around one or possibly two constituencies. That is very different from the situation in most English counties, whose boundaries contain at least four constituencies—except in the Isle of Wight. The figure can be as many as 14, but the lower limit is what matters. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to return at a later stage to say whether he believes that the proposition made in the amendment that was not called today, that "excessive disparity" can mean 10,000 extra votes, and should certainly apply in the case of 20,000 votes, is one that the boundary commissioners might be expected to share. If the commissioners do not consider a disparity of 20,000 votes excessive, we ought to change the primary legislation.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the difficulties confronting the commission when he refers to the envelopes in other parts of the country that contain a varying number of constituencies. In other parts of the

  177
  country, that number is very small compared with the huge number in the whole of Greater London. If we abandon the instruction contained in schedule 2 to the 1986 legislation, we shall create enormous difficulties for the commission. I am not sure that the suggestion—and as this was made in an amendment that was not called, I shall not dwell on it—that the boundary commission should be given some instruction as to an excessive disparity would answer the case.
  Even if such an amendment were made, the Bill would still contain the requirement that the commission is obliged to give precedence to the borough boundary—even though the numbers were unequal. Substantial problems would still exist. I am not sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion represents an effective remedy.
  Having considered that point, I believe that it would be extremely difficult to introduce an acceptable change. I understand the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House—albeit not unanimously, because the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) argued the other way. However, there is sufficient force of argument for me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to want to reconsider the issues. Nevertheless, I would be misleading the House if I were to lead hon. Members to believe that I envisaged a solution. I want to consider the arguments again.
  Mr. Bermingham: The problem is not so great. In the shire counties, 10, 12 or 14 seats can bring us closer to the norm. I believe—the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) will correct me if I am wrong—that merely allowing one seat to cross the boundary between certain south London boroughs would remove all the disparity, allowing us to reach the required norm of 69,000 very quickly. The boundary commission knows where those boroughs are. The difficulty has been dealt with elsewhere in the country, and it can be dealt with very simply in London.
  6 pm
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's proposed solution would tend to leave matters as they are. If it is so simple to achieve a rough uniformity in that part of London, it can reasonably be left to the boundary commission to regard the opportunity as an exceptional one of which it would be right to take advantage. However, what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central said about the grouping of boroughs in parts of London underlined the complexity of what he proposes. There are 84 constituencies in Greater London, and I suspect that, if the boundary commission is to manage them effectively, they will have to be grouped. We are well down the track with the boundary commission review, and I do not think that it would be right or practicable to change the rules at this stage, given the complicated adjustments that that would require.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer in his place—
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has gone to check the Hansard report. Apparently, he said something that has caused concern.
  Mr. Lloyd: In that case, I shall read Hansard with interest tomorrow. According to the rules, the meaning of what an hon. Member has said must appear in the record, even if the grammar has been tidied up.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brent, East cast such fantastical aspersions on the objectivity and non-partisanship of the boundary commissions, but I shall not dwell on the matter, except to say that the hon. Gentleman did not seem to carry either side of the House with him, and to add that, at the last general election, it took some 71,000 voters to elect a Conservative Member and some 61,000 to elect a Labour Member. If the boundary commission was indeed biased in favour of the Conservative party, it did an extremely poor job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) asked whether we would examine the boundaries of Greater London and the county of Surrey. I must disappoint my hon. Friend, and tell him that we do not intend to do so in the foreseeable future—probably not during this century. That issue is tied up with the whole question of the distribution of seats in London.
  We have said very little about amendment No. 8 itself. The amendment would enable the parliamentary boundary commission for England to delay its report for London until it knows what the London borough boundaries will be on 12 June 2000. I hoped that an Opposition Member would explain the significance of that date. Perhaps it is a printer's error for 1 June; if not, however, its significance escapes me—and it seems to have escaped the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central as well.
  I note that the amendment uses the words "may delay". Presumably the commission would be able to produce its report without knowing the boundaries if it felt that that was the right course. As we established yesterday, however, the 1986 Act requires the commission to produce reports that relate to all the parts of the United Kingdom for which they are responsible. That would prevent the English commission from presenting a report that left out London. The Bill, on the other hand, requires the commissions to produce their reports by the end of 1994.
  The amendment manages to contradict parts of the 1986 Act as well as the central feature of the Bill. If accepted, it would produce internal contradictions in the legislation. I realise that it is a probing amendment, but I believe that Opposition Members intend to divide the House, so I shall explain why I do not think it should go on to the statute book. There is a good practical reason —albeit a technical one—for my view.
  As I have said, I can give some comfort to Opposition Members. The local government boundary commission for England will produce its recommendations for the London and metropolitan boroughs in the autumn; there will thus be adequate time for the House to approve them by statutory instrument, so that they are effective by 1 April 1994. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central wisely refrained from moving amendment No. 6, there will also be adequate time for the boundary commission for England to take the revised London borough boundaries fully into account; indeed, it will be obliged to do so before submitting its final report.
  Although the amendment is not acceptable, what it ostensibly seeks to achieve will almost certainly happen, because the London boroughs will not be due for another boundary review for 10 to 15 years. That will take us well into the next century, far beyond the magic and unexplained date of 12 June 2000.
  Mr. Dowd: I support the amendment. I have not been reassured by anything that the Minister has said, principally because for many years the Tory stewardship of London's affairs has served Londoners very badly, especially inner Londoners.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) produced their traditional sterling defence of the Greater London council. Some of us, however, regarded its creation with little more than equanimity. It was created by a Conservative party that had given up hope of ever securing a majority on the even earlier and much more lamented London county council. I did not take a very active part in the debate that took place across London at the time, because I was at the council's tender mercies in one of its schools. The fact remains, however, that the traditions of the LCC and its successor are now denied to the people of London.
  The amendment holds that it is not a good idea to allow for a wholesale review of the governance of London that does not include at its heart a review of the provision for that governance. The date of 12 June seems reasonable, although I am not sure why it is there; I would support 11 June or 19 June—particularly 11 June, which is my girlfriend's birthday and would have some sentimental value, if nothing else. The point is, however, that we need more reassurance than the Government have given about the form of government that London can expect.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that he was prepared to debate the matter some other time. Let us debate it first, and then return to parliamentary boundaries. Opposition Members consider it imperative for us to know what the people of London can look forward to before deciding that their parliamentary representation adequately reflects their needs and aspirations.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am sorry to interrupt, but my hon. Friend has mentioned the governance of London. Did he observe the ghost of Christmas past sidling into the Chamber and seating himself on the Front Bench, in the form of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)?
  Mr. Dowd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I sincerely hope that it is not the ghost of Christmas to come, otherwise we are all in for a pretty lean time.
  The primary function of the Greater London council was as a redistributive tax mechanism. The Government chose to abolish that, and once they had done so the council's value to Londoners, principally to inner Londoners, was zero, because the problems of inner London are not the same as the problems of outer London: the problems of Surbiton are not the problems of Deptford. Simply to hoick them into a job-lot for the convenience of the Conservative party was a totally inadequate reason for the existence of the GLC once its redistributive mechanism had been lost.
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman makes one of the strong points that the Conservative party has made consistently in the past decade—that the interests of the people of Surbiton were not the same as the interests of the people of Deptford. Therefore, the Greater London council was superfluous, irrelevant and a costly nonsense, which is why we got rid of it.
  Mr. Dowd: The Conservative party got rid of the GLC when it ceased to serve its purpose.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you confirm that we are still dealing with amendment No. 8, my copy of which may be printed differently from the hon. Gentleman's, but which seems to refer to the boundaries of London boroughs, not to the future or past of the Greater London council or a greater London authority?
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) has been going rather wide of the amendment. I try to give reasonable latitude to hon. Members, but I hope that the hon. Member will take that point on board.
  Mr. Dowd: I apologise if I have stretched parliamentary convention to its limits, and perhaps beyond it. I am learning rapidly.
  I hope that you, Dame Janet, will forgive Labour Members if they express grave misgivings about the proposed Banham commission. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East word for word, lest I have to leap out to the Hansard office every few moments.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Given the allegations that have been made, my hon. Friend can call me an old cynic if he likes, but when the chairman of the Local Government Commission is the ex-director general of the CBI—an organisation that is well known as the lickspittle of the Government—it is not surprising that we think that there is some stitch-up going on.
  Mr. Dowd: As I said, I am learning fast in this place. I have just learnt not to let my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West sit behind me, because that is what I have written down here.
  Before Sir John Banham was director general of the CBI, and before he was knighted, he was in charge of the Audit Commission. Where do hon. Members imagine the current director general of the Audit Commission will go when the director general of the CBI retires?
  Mr. Banks: Give us a clue.
  Mr. Dowd: I shall happily give way if anybody wants to answer. Howard Davies of the Audit Commission will occupy the seat that will be vacated by Sir John Banham.
  Mr. Banks: It is a disgrace.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The only disgrace is the way in which Members are intervening from sedentary positions. I suggest that everybody sit more quietly and that we permit the hon. Member to resume his speech, but strictly according to the amendment under consideration.
  Mr. Dowd: The Banham commission is a central part of the Bill, certainly of future provisions for boundaries.
  Mr. Winnick: As the amendment refers to the report of the boundary commission, is it not essential that we should have full confidence in the impartiality of the boundary commissioners? If there is a feeling that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) have pointed out, we cannot have confidence in the impartiality of the commissioners, that is

  181
  disturbing indeed. I do not know whether corruption has occurred, but in the past 13 years the Conservative Government have been keen to place their own people in positions of authority. If boundary commissioners are sympathetic to the Tory cause, our confidence in their impartiality is undermined. The Home Secretary had to reassure us that all is well with the Bill. Like my hon. Friends, I am rather disturbed by everything—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Not for the first time, I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short. That was far from short.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Dowd: I shall explain why some of us are so suspicious about the powers that have been granted to the Banham commission. Dulwich Conservative association, whose most illustrious member is Lady Barking, has called for the creation of a borough comprising the southern part of the London borough of Lambeth, the southern part of the London borough of Southwark and two wards forming the western part of the London borough of Lewisham. Such a creation had never occurred to anybody in the history of south London. Such an artifice would have so little in common with the people and communities that it covered that it would defy logic, except in one respect: it would create a Conservative-held stronghold in an area that is currently denied to it. Labour Members are deeply alarmed about the Banham commission having powers to create such monstrosities.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): This is becoming a slightly schoolboy debate, with Labour Members attacking the impartiality of the commissioners. We know that the vast majority of sensible members of the Labour party, as opposed to a few left-wing Labour Members from London, do not agree. The Banham commission is not the subject matter of the Bill. We are dealing with the parliamentary boundary commission, which nobody can traduce. The purpose of the amendment, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just made clear, would be to delay the English boundary review until the year 2000. That delay cannot be defended on any high moral ground by the Labour party. It is seeking to go back on its acceptance of the Bill, and the principles behind it, on Second Reading. It is disgraceful that it has moved an amendment that is a thinly veiled disguise for an attempt to delay the Bill and has tried to occupy the high moral ground by making unjustified attacks on the impartiality of public servants who give up their time for the boundary commission.
  Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have now seen the disturbing face of prejudice, bias and corruption, which confirms what I said earlier. May I appeal to you to suspend the sitting until members of the boundary commission can be brought here to give detailed answers to the points of corruption that we have raised?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: The answer is no.
  Mr. Dowd: Conservative Members will be delighted to know that I have almost finished.
  Mr. Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly help us by saying exactly what would give him confidence in the boundary commission? Would it help if, for example, the commission were to bend the arrangements slightly in one
  182
  or two constituencies to enable Labour to secure seats that it does not already have? What else would give Labour confidence? It would help us enormously to know precisely what it had in mind.
  Mr. Dowd: In response to that intervention, one thing that would reassure me would be for John Banham to have absolutely nothing to do with parliamentary constituency boundaries in the future.
  As I said, the people of London have been singularly ill-served by Tory stewardship in the past. The bigotry of the Thatcher years was merely its zenith, not its origin. Until we have a damn sight more reassurance than is forthcoming at the moment, hon. Members representing London constituencies in particular will not stand by and let people in inner London be so ill-served in the future.
  Mr. Spearing: The Minister conceded that there was something different about London, and I gathered from his brief speech that he is opposing the amendment because of the timing. What he said about the date was reinforced by the Home Secretary, but I think that the Minister will agree that there is a reason for delaying the review—not necessarily for the time mentioned in the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd indicated dissent.
  Mr. Spearing: The Minister shakes his head, but let us test that. Once the boundary commission has presented its recommendations to the Home Secretary this autumn, is not the plan to lay the necessary statutory instruments in 1993? I think that that is the timetable.
  Mr. Lloyd indicated assent.
  Mr. Spearing: The Minister nods. That means that around this time next year there will be some debate on the merits of the statutory instruments, whatever they may be. It is clear from the scope given to the boundary commission, which I quoted in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and which he also quoted in his concluding remarks, that it is at least conceivable—I hope that the Minister will respond briefly—that he intends to publish the recommendations before he decides which to accept.
  The timing is important. Until the recommendations are published, until the statutory instrument is laid or until the Minister states that he does not intend to lay one, it is conceivable that any London borough—I presume that the power is not merely for one but for any number to be abolished—which feels that it might be up for dissolution will feel any degree of security. That is how I understand it, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the timetable. If it is, I suggest that any degree of certainty for local government administration and the distribution of seats is at risk. Therefore, uncertainty precedes the delay that we are advocating.
  Mr. Lloyd: Any recommendations of any commission must cause uncertainty before they are known, because no one knows what they suggest. The boundary commission will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the near future. He will introduce orders to put into effect the recommendations as they stand or with modifications, or he may decide not to introduce orders, but that will be made known to the House and it will be for the House to decide whether a statutory instrument should be put into

  183
  effect. The timetable will be such that there will be time for the parliamentary boundary commission to have regard to the recommendations in the proposals which it must make to the Home Secretary at the end of 1994. That is clear and logical.
  I hope that it satisfies the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) because there is no other way to proceed if we are to achieve what Labour Members apparently want—no change to the parliamentary boundaries in London until we have the borough boundaries in place as they are likely to be for the next decade. That will be the case because the review of local government boundaries will be carried out by the present local government boundary commission, and the new one that is taking over is not due to report until the normal interval has elapsed, which should take us well into the next century.
  Mr. Spearing: I think that the Minister has confirmed almost precisely what I was saying. My concern is not only with the linkage of parliamentary seats and the future of local government in London but with the uncertainty that must arise between now and when the Minister or the Home Secretary chooses to reveal his intentions about any such recommendations. That reinforces the case for some delay.
  This debate has been partly a London debate, but the two Ministers do not represent London constituencies. I make no complaint about that, but they should realise that in London the link between the function of a Member of Parliament and the function of local government is, I suspect, rather more intimate than in other parts of the country, not least because the functions—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary should not laugh.
  The functions of the Greater London council were not those advertised by the former Government in their propaganda. The GLC was fundamental to the services of London and if its duties are not taken on by the borough councils, they must be taken on by hon. Members. Therefore, the number of issues with which London Members have to deal day after day, in telephone message after telephone message and green card after green card, in relatively small constituencies but in highly complex urban areas are of a different character and calibre from those facing many hon. Members from other parts of the country. That is especially true in comparison with those representing cities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham which have different local government set-ups to which they can refer.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have listened to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whose views I usually respect. My expression was one of exasperation because he has not accepted the clear explanation that account will be taken of London local government boundaries when the parliamentary boundary commission reports. The hon. Gentleman may have been misled by some of the earlier debate. He does not belong to the loony left in London, although the debate has largely been dominated by the loony left which has attacked members of the Banham commission, which is not involved in the process, and has taken the opportunity to attack people who are not in the House to defend themselves.
  184
  The local government commission sitting in London is almost due to report. That commission, which is not the one chaired by Sir John Banham, will report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the very near future. He will no doubt make proposals to the House in the light of its recommendations. That will be in time for the parliamentary boundary commission, which we are now considering, to take into account the new boundaries when it undertakes its review which we believe should end by December 1994. When the—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions should be short, even those from Secretaries of State.
  Mr. Clarke: I apologise, Dame Janet, but I hope that what I said was clear. The hon. Gentleman's argument was beside the point. The amendment would delay the whole shooting match until the year 2000.
  Mr. Spearing: The Home Secretary's need to enlighten the Committee—I am grateful to him—underlines my point. There is a degree of uncertainty in the matter which should not exist. I agree with the Home Secretary that there is a sequence in the report of the local government boundary commission, the laying of orders and the final recommendations of the parliamentary boundary commission.
  My point concerns the opportunity that the House will have to discuss and to consider those recommendations. Despite my request, the Minister has not said when that opportunity will be. I suggest—I think that the Minister agrees—that boundaries could be changed in London by the laying of a single statutory instrument. I do not know whether it will be a negative or an affirmative instrument. Even if it is an affirmative instrument, the local government map of London could be changed by a maximum of one and a half hours of debate.
  6.30 pm
  The extent to which the Conservative party wipes away the importance of local government can be illustrated by the statutory instrument which set up the London Docklands development corporation. Half of its area is in my constituency, but I was not even able to speak on that instrument. I suggest to Ministers that they take a little more care in their concern for the operation of local government and for the work of their hon. Friends in Greater London than they have done previously.
  Mr. Tony Banks: My point relates to something that the Home Secretary said in his intervention. Does my hon. Friend share my sense of annoyance about the Home Secretary's reaction when we criticise someone such as Sir John Banham, formerly director general of the Confederation of British Industry? If a Labour Government had put a former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress in charge of a boundary commission, the accusations from Conservative Members would be legion. It is a bit much for the Home Secretary to say that we are crying foul when he knows damn well that if we put up one of our stooges in place of one of the Government's stooges, he would say precisely what I have been saying.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend knows well that commissions which look at matters objectively carry the

  185
  confidence of all parties. From what I have heard of the debate this evening, that does not appear to be the case in this instance.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The underlying point is that the amendment includes the word "delay", and the delay concerns the bringing in of fairer constituencies. The electorates of the three Newham Members added together come to roughly the same as the electorate of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the electorate of my hon. Friend the Minister. Looked at in that way, the Labour party is arguing for unfair constituencies and unfair voting.
  Mr. Spearing: My case does not necessarily concern the dates. The amendment is a probing amendment. I seek greater care and, therefore, a longer time scale, which could be called delay, for considering these important matters.
  I will explain why boundaries in London are important by reference to the Minister's speech. The Minister told us that the Conservative party made clear in its election manifesto that there was to be a Cabinet committee which, in effect, would take over responsibility for the co-ordination of public affairs in London. Previously, that co-ordination was the responsibility of the Greater London council. In relation to the east Thames corridor or the organisation of docklands, there may be a recommendation from the boundary commission for significant changes. All sorts of rumours have been going round about that. It will be necessary to take a far longer period in which to consider the consequences.
  So far, the Government have not shown any sensitivity when dealing with strategic affairs in London. If they had, we should not have the debacle of Canary Wharf, the debacle of the docklands light railway or what is likely to be a further debacle—the mess over the docklands-Thames corridor and the planning for the high-speed link to the channel. That may appear to be a long way from local government, but it is not in view of its consequences for London. I support the element of delay and the element of reconsideration which are the main parts of the amendment.
  Mr. Darling: This has been a useful debate even though, at times, it has strayed rather more widely from the terms of the amendment than I might have anticipated.
  As I and some of my hon. Friends have said, the amendment is essentially a probing amendment. Given the narrow nature of the long title of the Bill, it was possible only to table such an amendment if we were to remain in order. The purpose of the amendment was to draw the Government on what they planned to do about the structure of local government in London over the next few years, which has some significance for the parliamentary boundary commission.
  The Home Secretary is right in saying that the date of 12 June 2000 is arbitrary. In fact, the date was 1 June when the amendment left my desk; it seems to have been transcribed as 12 June by the time it appeared on the amendment paper. As the date was arbitrary, I saw no need to table a further amendment or to do something to get it back to 1 June.
  The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to delay. There is no intention to delay the report of the boundary commission until the year 2000, which would be absurd. Equally, it would be absurd to hold back the
  186
  boundary commission for England just because there might be problems in London. That was not the point, as I think the Minister, the Home Secretary and those advising them—although they will have advised Ministers to answer the points in detail—will have grasped. They understand that the object of the exercise was to try to ascertain from the Government what they planned to do with regard to local government in London.
  Interestingly, Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members raised questions about the future government of London. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who is not in his place, clearly has territorial ambitions as he represents the smallest constituency in London, if not in England. He asked where London would end in the next few years, and whether it would extend or whether the area covered by the London boroughs would decrease.
  Under the terms of schedule 4 to the 1986 Act, it is clearly intended by Parliament that the boundary commission must have substantial regard to the London boroughs. Our argument is that if the pattern of the London boroughs is to change over the next eight to 10 years, we should know so that the boundary commission can have regard to those changes. I say that for all the reasons given by hon. Members of all parties. I am glad that the Minister appears to be nodding; at last he has grasped the point.
  Other useful points were raised. I emphasise one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who seems to be off checking Hansard again. He drew our attention to the fact that from the terms of the parliamentary answer given by the Home Secretary today to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who has also gone, the quota entitlement for Brent would be 2.4, although, as I said earlier, 18,000 people were missing from the register between 1987 and 1992. If the boundary commission wants to reach the correct allocation of seats, it should have regard to the actual number of people in Brent rather than merely to those on the register, if the register is inaccurate.
  Other hon. Members have drawn attention time and again to the point that there are problems in London because we believe that the Government intend to change the pattern of local government there. I and my hon. Friends referred to the report by the local government boundary commission which has drawn attention to substantial difficulties in drawing boundaries in London. It has drawn attention to the role and functions of local government in London, and to the mixed pattern of administration between Government and non-Government bodies.
  Given the powers of the local government boundary commission, the report is extremely strong stuff. It asks the Government to have regard to the formidable difficulties in London. In an intervention in an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew attention to paras (d) and (e) of section 14(3) of the Local Government Act 1992, which make it clear that the Local Government Commission—the body chaired by Sir John Banham, as opposed to the local government boundary commission—has the power to examine the constitution of London boroughs.
  If the Government intended the Local Government Commission to examine the constitution of London boroughs, they must have contemplated that the boroughs would be changed. If changes are made to the boroughs,

  187
  changes will be made to the boundaries. The local government boundary commission might wish to have regard to all those matters when compiling the report which it will lay before Parliament some time after the end of 1994.
  I said that the amendment was a probing amendment, and so it is, to a substantial degree. It was never intended to be a perfectly drafted amendment suitable for inclusion in the Bill. It was not the intention to table a wrecking amendment. Indeed, a wrecking amendment probably would not have been in order. But, as the Government have failed to give any satisfactory answer on what they plan for London, even though the Secretary of State and the Minister are here to answer on behalf of the Government—whether the answer is from the Home Office or any other Department is irrelevant—I regret that the Opposition feel that we should press the matter to a Division. Accordingly, I invite the Committee to support the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:-
  The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 302.

  Division No. 40]

  [6.40 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, Bob

  Anderson. Donald (Swansea E)

  Cummings. John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Alistair

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies. Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bayley, Hugh

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

  Beckett, Margaret

  Denham, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dewar, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

  Bennett. Andrew F.

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Dunnachie. Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody. Mrs Gwyneth

  Blair, Tony

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Enright, Derek

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Etherington, William

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell. Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Fraser, John

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Galbraith, Sam

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gapes, Michael

  Cann, James

  Garrett, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  George, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham. Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  188

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hall. Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hanson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hardy, Peter

  Olner, William

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Henderson, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Heppell, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoey, Kate

  Pope. Greg

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoon, Geoff

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hoyle, Doug

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Redmond, Martin

  Ingram, Adam

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jamieson, David

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross. Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Ruddock, Joan

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

  Salmond, Alex

  Khabra, Piara

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Leighton, Ron

  Simpson, Alan

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spellar, John

  McFall, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Stott, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mahon, Alice

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marek, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tyler, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Milburn, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Winnick, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Worthington, Tony

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Wright, Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

  Mudie, George

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  189

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Elletson, Harold

  Alexander, Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ancram, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Faber, David

  Ashby, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gallie, Phil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gillen, Ms Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  190

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sackville, Tom

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Legg, Barry

  Shersby, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Marlow, Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Needham, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trend, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trimble, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitney, Ray

  Pickles, Eric

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 44, at end add—

  191
  `(4) In Schedule 2, rule 4(c), of the 1986 Act, for the word "ward" there shall be substituted the words "district electoral area".'.
  After what we have listened to for the past couple of hours, it is interesting to arrive at the debate on this amendment. We have heard about the inviolability of London borough boundaries and about the difficulties that arise from sticking to borough and county boundaries in any revision of parliamentary boundaries in England and Wales—[Interruption.]
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but there is too much noise and I find it difficult to hear him speak.
  Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Dame Janet. I used my comments on the previous debate partly as a throat-clearing exercise, because I had expected Members to make some hubbub when dispersing.
  The idea for the amendment occurred to me after listening to, and reflecting on, the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on Second Reading. He dealt with the difficulties encountered in Birmingham, which comprises about one dozen constituencies, each based on three or four wards. As I recollect, two were based on four wards and the remainder on three. The hon. Member said that each Birmingham ward contained about 19,000 electors, so that the size of constituencies increases in steps of 19,000.
  The rules in the schedule to the Act direct attention to county boundaries in England and Wales and to London borough boundaries, and the basic building blocks for parliamentary boundaries in England and Wales are wards, which are also the basic electoral units.
  The reason why I tabled the amendment, and why I hope that it will commend itself to the House, is that the situation in Northern Ireland is anomalous. The rules in the schedule apply, not to county, borough or district boundaries, but to ward boundaries. That is anomalous in itself, but it is even more so in Northern Ireland, where wards have no electoral significance.
  Let me explain some of the background. Until local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, local authorities operated on a basis comparable to that in England and Wales. Authorities—whether counties, county boroughs or boroughs—were divided into multi-Member wards, electing three Members of Parliament, on roughly the same basis as those in England and Wales. During the reorganisation it was proposed that the three-Member wards should be replaced by smaller single-Member wards. The reasoning behind that suggestion had much to commend it. Unfortunately, in 1973 a form of proportional representation was
  Introduced—a single transferable vote—which required multi-Member wards, and so the proposed single-Member wards were grouped together for electoral purposes into what were called district electoral areas, which remain the basis unit for electoral purposes in Northern Ireland.
  Under the' regulations now in force, a district electoral area must consist of five, six or seven wards. The wards notionally exist; we have ward boundaries and the electoral register is prepared on a ward basis. However, for electoral purposes the ward is not significant. The district electoral area is the significant element for electoral purposes. That is the area in which the vote takes place and
  192
  on which the count operates. Obviously, party structure and organisation is, or should be, related to the district electoral area, of which the ward is just a sub-division and is of significance only to the structure of the electoral register.
  7 pm
  The spirit behind the rules in the schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 is that local government units should be the basic building blocks for parliamentary boundaries. That is sensible. There are horrendous problems if parliamentary boundaries march across the basic electoral unit. That does not happen in England and Wales because the parliamentary boundaries are drawn up on ward boundaries and they are largely confined within counties and county boroughs. That is not the position in Northern Ireland.
  I shall pursue the analogy between Belfast and Birmingham. In the city of Belfast there are 200,000 voters, which is significantly fewer than the three-quarters of a million in Birmingham. The 200,000 voters in Belfast are divided among nine district electoral areas. That gives each district electoral area a number of voters that is not much different from the figure of 19,000 in Birmingham. The hon. Member for Perry Barr pointed out that in Birmingham the constituencies are made up of three or four wards. Those wards are analogous in size to the district electoral areas in Belfast.
  How are the four constituencies of Belfast divided? Belfast, South and Belfast, West each contain two entire district electoral areas and part of a third. Therefore, part of the boundary of each constituency runs across the middle of a district electoral area. Belfast, North contains one complete district electoral area only and two that are divided. The situation is worse in Belfast, East, which contains parts of three district electoral areas. That constituency does not contain a single complete district electoral area and the parliamentary constituency operates on boundaries that are quite different from those of local government. It cuts across not only district electoral areas, but the city boundary to take in parts of Castlereagh.
  A similar pattern exists in other Northern Ireland constituencies. The problem is not quite so acute outside Belfast because smaller councils and, consequently, smaller district electoral areas exist. The parliamentary boundaries correspond entirely to those of local government in just two of the constituencies in Northern Ireland. By local government boundaries, I am referring to the basic electoral units in Northern Ireland—the district electoral areas. In 15 of the 17 seats, the district electoral areas are split. In fact, 13 district electoral areas are split and two of them are split three ways. The parliamentary boundaries in Northern Ireland cut across district council and county areas.
  In England and Wales, regard must be given to county boundaries or, in London, to borough boundaries. The amendment does not suggest that regard should be given to district or city council boundaries in Northern Ireland. For the past couple of hours, I have listened to London Members who have spoken about such boundaries at great length. However, I am merely asking that, in Northern Ireland, the constituencies should relate to the basic unit used in local government elections. At present, that is not the case and it causes problems to my party and, I understand, to other political parties in Northern Ireland. I have not consulted other parties about the amendment,

  193
  so one should not read into my comments a claim that other political parties endorse it. I should be surprised, however, if they were opposed to it.
  Would making district electoral areas the basic unit for parliamentary boundaries in Northern Ireland cause any problems? I think not. In Northern Ireland there are nearly 100 district electoral areas and there would be no great difficulty in matching parliamentary boundaries to those areas. For example, there are nine district electoral areas in Belfast and, traditionally, Belfast has always had four constituencies. That does not create any problems because the basic units would simply go beyond the city council boundary and into the suburbs. In fact, the Belfast city boundary is artificially restricted because of the jealousy of the Stormont Government towards Belfast city council, but that is not relevant to the debate. The adjoining councils of Castlereagh, Newtownabbey and Lisburn are in all respects extensions of Belfast and there would be no problem in including district electoral areas from those councils to reach the appropriate figure to create a constituency. That could be done without creating any great disparity in numbers.
  If there are difficulties, we should remember that rule 4 in the schedule is prefaced by the phrase "So far as practicable". Therefore, the regard to be given to ward boundaries, as stated in the present wording of the schedule, or to district electoral boundaries, as the amendment would suggest, is not absolute. It can be overridden so far as that is practicable. In fact, in Northern Ireland, that qualifying phrase has been invoked by the boundary commission to divide eleven wards. Therefore, the ward unit, which has no significance for electoral purposes, has been divided in eleven cases—10 are in Belfast and the other is in Newry. That is indefensible.
  Another factor makes this an appropriate time to make the change. In Northern Ireland, we are concluding the revision of local government wards. The next stage in that process will be the appointment of a commissioner to draw together the wards into district electoral areas. In the normal course of events, we would expect that appointment to be made fairly soon. I am not sure of the exact date and do not know whether the Northern Ireland Office has made an announcement, but we could expect the process to be completed by the beginning of next year.
  That revision must he made soon because we need to know the district electoral areas before the local government elections next May. Would hon. Members from England tolerate it if, 11 months before elections, they did not know the boundaries on which those elections would be fought? In Northern Ireland, the elections will be fought, not on ward boundaries, but on district electoral area boundaries. I refer to the current revision because if it is thought that there would be any difficulty in switching from ward to district electoral area boundaries in the revision of parliamentary boundaries, which will take place shortly, that can be taken into account now when drawing up the new district electoral areas.
  Therefore, I see no difficulty in adopting the amendment, which should be regarded as technical because it brings the legislation into line with the adoption of proportional representation. I suspect that the reference to wards in the Bill has been carried forward from earlier legislation when we did not have proportional representa-tion in Northern Ireland. Many of us would love to get rid of it, but, for the purposes of the amendment, we accept its existence and argue that one should operate, as the spirt
  194
  of the schedule suggests, on the relevant local government boundaries. The relevant local government boundary in Northern Ireland is not a ward boundary, but a district electoral area boundary. Therefore, it is logical to base parliamentary boundaries on those district electoral area boundaries.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am interested that a Unionist Member should seek further to entrench an arrangement which springs from the unique single transferable voting system in Northern Ireland. Perhaps matters and opinions have moved on in Northern Ireland more speedily than I would have predicted when I was able to take a closer interest in matters in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Trimble: I do not want the Minister to misunderstand the situation. It is similar to the temporary nature of direct rule. We have to live with the present situation, which causes significant inconvenience in terms of fighting elections, party structure and organisation, and so on. We are not debating our fundamental objection to proportional representation. As for its removal, it would be easy to change back by way of a consequential amendment.
  Mr. Lloyd: I have always known that there is nothing so permanent as the strictly temporary.
  The amendment would substitute, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, district electoral areas for wards as the basic and generally indivisible building blocks for constituencies in Northern Ireland. I followed his argument that there would be considerable
  convenience from the point of view of political organisations in Northern Ireland if those district electoral areas were never divided between constituencies, as I believe about 30 are at present. The hon. Gentleman did not mention a figure and I understand that he does not dispute my figure of 30, which is a sizeable number, and I appreciate the inconvenience.
  If I understand the situation correctly, in many cases difficulty has arisen because the last reviews were conducted in an unhelpful order. New constituencies were constructed by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission in 1982. That was followed by the work of the local government boundaries commissioner, who constructed new wards, some of which crossed the new parliamentary boundaries. Then the district electoral areas were formed, as the 1984 order required, by linking between five and seven wards together.
  On this occasion, the sequence is the other way round. The local government boundaries commissioner, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, presented on 15 June recommendations for local government boundaries. Should the Secretary of State accept them, with or without modification, they will be incorporated in an order. Recommendations will then follow for the revision, as necessary, of the district electoral areas. Thus, unlike last time, before it reports the parliamentary boundary commission will be able to consider the new local government ward and DEA boundaries before making its recommendations to the Secretary of State.
  It is for the boundary commission to decide whether a parliamentary constituency boundary should cross a DEA boundary. I would expect some, perhaps even most, of the difficulties that the hon. Member for Upper Bann outlined

  195
  to disappear because the parliamentary boundary commission must have regard to local links and other such factors.
  As the hon. Gentleman heard in the last debate to which he referred, I am, for a vast variety of practical reasons, reluctant to change rules for the parliamentary commissioner. There is also a great deal of convenience if the building block remains the ward, as it is sufficiently small to make it extremely unlikely that it will need to be sub-divided.
  If the basic block were to be the larger DEA of five to seven wards, rule 5 of schedule 2 to the 1986 Act could bite, as in practice it does not bite under the present arrangements because the DEAs are much larger. That would oblige the commissioner to divide a DEA between constitu-encies if not to do so would, in the commissioner's judgment, produce unacceptable disparities in constituency size.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Trimble: If that is the Minister's argument for retaining wards in Northern Ireland, why will he not apply the logic of that argument in England and Wales, where they operate with much larger units?
  Mr. Lloyd: We are retaining wards not as building blocks that may never be split. In fact, they are not split, and the hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks at the reorganisation of constituencies, that wards are units that are put together with other wards from other local authorities to form constituencies that cross local authority boundaries. So in practice they usually are the building blocks. To move to the DEA as the building block would not rule out there being a division of the DEA if those other factors demanded it.
  I also pointed out that the divisions that Northern Ireland had experienced in the last decade or so stemmed from the order in which the last reviews were taken. The boundary commission must pay some regard to local authority boundaries and links. But in constructing local authority wards—and, in Northern Ireland, DEAs—the local government commissioner need not have regard for constituency boundaries.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood the Minister's argument to rest on wards not being divided. Some of our wards are divided even to make a DEA, and that is confusing not only for electoral workers but for constituents who believe that they live in a part of the city represented by one Member of Parliament but discover that, when they wish to raise an issue, they must make representations to a different Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has succeeded in teasing out the issues here at Westminster so that guidance may be given to those who are now drawing up the boundaries.
  Mr. Lloyd: That is right, and the present unsatisfactory and inconvenient state of affairs exists because, as I said, the boundary commission did its work before the local government boundaries commissioner had done his work. The parliamentary boundary commission must have regard to those factors, but the local government boundaries commissioner need not have regard to parliamentary boundaries. Hence the problem of wards
  196
  being divided between constituencies. It was the order in which things were done. That is being remedied this time round.
  It is up to the boundary commission to decide what it reports, and it will have the opportunity of knowing what the local authority boundaries are. The ward boundaries and DEAs will be known when it produces its proposals for the Secretary of State's consideration. It did not have that advantage on the last occasion. In the new order in which matters will be tackled on this occasion lies the solution, if not to all then at least to a considerable number of the problems that have been outlined.
  I cannot say that all the problems will be solved because it is not for me to determine what the boundary commission will recommend. But knowing that that commission will operate with common sense—it is obliged to look at the existing boundaries and take them properly into account—it is likely that the cutting in two of wards will not be a feature of the new arrangement that it recommends.
  Mr. William Ross: Surely it is unreasonable totally to ignore the existence of DEAs in Northern Ireland. They must be mentioned somewhere so that the parties and others concerned with the issue in Northern Ireland can point the commissioner to a particular boundary to which he must give cognisance, even if he need not follow it rigidly.
  The present situation is a nonsense and the DEAs are totally ignored by the commissioner in drawing up boundaries. That should not happen. It is a matter of common sense that if we are to apply various boundaries in the United Kingdom generally, the same should apply to all of the United Kingdom. When we talk about boroughs in London, we should also talk about DEAs in Northern Ireland. If the commissioner finds it convenient on some occasions to split DEAs, well and good, but he should have to take notice of their existence.
  Mr. Lloyd: The boundary commission is required to take notice of links. It is not specifically required to take notice of DEAs and, in the rest of the United Kingdom, for example in England, it is not required to take notice of district council boundaries. Yet much political activity is based, certainly in local government terms, on the district council area.
  I understand the complaint about the present position. The boundary commission will be able to deal with it under schedule 2 of the 1986 Act, which makes it clear that it must have regard to those links. Ultimately, however, it must make up its mind, in the light of that schedule, given the need to have constituencies of reasonably equal size.
  I cannot provide hon. Gentlemen with a remedy to the problems that they envisage. By accepting the amendment, I would not necessarily be doing so because, ultimately, it is the boundary commission's judgment. Many, if not all, of the problems that the hon. Gentlemen have outlined will be dealt with by the sequence of the reviews of local government, DEAs and parliamentary constituency boundaries. Furthermore, I do not believe that if the change urged on me by the hon. Gentleman were put in place, it would of itself have the beneficial effect that he seeks.
  Mr. Trimble: The Minister has made much about the commissioner's duty to have regard to local ties. He suggested that, thereby, a regard to DEAs could be

  197
  smuggled in. But paragraph 7(b) of the schedule refers to local ties that would be broken by such alterations. That is, alterations consequent on rule 4, which is splitting wards. It does not involve having regard to the DEAs, which are larger units than wards.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman could refer to several parts of the schedule. For instance, section 7 says:
  "It shall not be the duty of a boundary commission to aim at giving full effect in all circumstances to the above rules but they should take account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituency, other than alterations made for the purpose of rule 4, and any local ties which would be broken by such alterations".
  So the ties would already have been established by the adjustment, if an adjustment is to be made, of the boundaries of the DEAs. They would exist by the time the boundary commission considered its proposals for parliamentary constituency boundaries.
  I shall not satisfy the hon. Gentleman in this debate. He has not convinced me that his amendment would produce the effect that he desires. As I said before, I am loath to introduce changes to the rules under which boundary commissions operate when reviews in various parts of the United Kingdom have gone so far down the track. However, the hon. Gentleman can pin considerable hope on the order in which the reviews will be undertaken and the fact that this time the parliamentary boundary commission for Northern Ireland will take into account the arrangements being made for local government and DEAs.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's point in response to my hon. Friend, when he admitted that he had not convinced him. Will he rely on the common sense of the commissioners? I was taught by professors that common sense is the most uncommon of all the senses. I wonder whether we can rest revision on such a statement or whether the Minister will support his colleagues and
  198
  restore the single member constituency. We would then be the same as the rest of the United Kingdom and would not have all those problems.
  Mr. Lloyd: That lies outside my power under the Bill. The commissioners have taken a considerable battering this afternoon but the hon. Gentleman's assault was more delicate and feline than the others that we have heard. We can rely on the common sense of the Ministers and must do so because they understand the existing rules and must put forward their recommendations. This time they will put them forward for Northern Ireland with the knowledge of what has been proposed for local government in Northern Ireland. That was not the case when the present boundaries were drawn up.
  Mr. Trimble: I am not convinced by what the Minister has said, but we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with amendments.
  As amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  PROTECTION OF BADGERS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  Criminal Law
  7.27 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
  That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It may be for the convenience of the House to know that with this order we shall take the second order:
  That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
  Mr. Jack: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that clarification.
  This Order in Council signals our determination to press ahead with measures to strengthen international co-operation against drug trafficking. The Government put around £½ billion a year into efforts to tackle drug misuse. The steps that we are taking today are just one example of our resolve to tackle drug misuse on the international front. In recent years, we have made great advances in our ability to deal with the drug problem at the international level. Our investigators are using ever more sophisticated equipment and techniques. We are at the forefront of efforts to improve international co-operation. We have been very active in our support of international organisations such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe. We have also given encouragement to other countries in their efforts to deal with the problem, including the provision of equipment, financial support, and the sharing of expertise.
  Last year, we ratified both the 1988 United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances—more commonly known as the Vienna convention—and the 1959 European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. Those events marked a significant step forward in our ability to co-operate with other countries in international investiga-tions and criminal proceedings. The Vienna convention provides a framework for countries to co-operate on, among other things, the tracing, freezing and confiscating of the assets of drug traffickers. Even before the convention took shape, the United Kingdom had embarked on the creation of a network of bilateral agreements on the tracing, restraint and confiscation of assets. That exercise was made possible by our strong confiscatory powers—contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986—which are an important part of our anti-drugs strategy, both domestically and internationally. We now have 25 such agreements, and the network is constantly expanding.
  Our powers to restrain and confiscate proceeds may be extended only to countries which have been designated by Order in Council. By bringing forward such orders, we are able to keep up to date the designation of countries which have ratified the Vienna convention, or with which we have concluded a bilaterial confiscation agreement in the recent past. The House has already approved several such orders, and we have now designated a total of 51 countries and territories. Like its predecessor, which the House approved in June 1991, the present order has its legal basis
  200
  in section 26 of the 1986 Act. As before, it simply amends the original order made under the 1986 Act by adding to the list of countries designated in that order. The new countries are named in the schedule to the order.
  The House will no doubt be aware that asset seizure legislation is a highly complex and technical sector of the law; even more so in the international context. Drug traffickers are constantly looking for more sophisticated ways of concealing their ill-gotten gains. We must do all that we can to stay ahead of their efforts and block any avenues which are open to them. The order has that purpose in mind. First, it will enable us to implement the bilateral agreements that we have recently negotiated with a further four countries—Argentina, Germany, Guyana and Uruguay. Secondly, it will ensure that we continue to comply with our international obligations under the Vienna convention by designating those countries which have decided to ratify the convention since the last amending order.
  The order is made in the spirit of reciprocity, and it is understood that the countries designated would be able to offer to us the same powers in return. It will enable us to enforce requests from any of the countries listed in the schedule to freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. By proceeds, we mean the traffickers' profits in all their guises—cash, property, investments and so on. Perhaps I should mention here that the other order, which I shall be moving shortly, will enable us to do the same as regards instruments used in drug trafficking—such as cars, boats or aircraft—as this order enables us to do for proceeds.
  A Scottish equivalent of this order is being laid separately. A separate order in respect of the enforcement of confiscation orders in Northern Ireland is not required; any country which is designated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act for England and Wales is automatically designated for Northern Ireland.
  To make the legislation effective, we have established a single system to handle all requests from overseas to restrain and confiscate assets. At the centre of this system is the United Kingdom central authority, a department in the Home Office which receives and dispatches requests for mutual legal assistance. The central authority acts as the point of contact between equivalent overseas authorities and the prosecutors in this country who will put foreign requests before the courts for enforcement. When the central authority receives a request from a designated country, it checks its acceptability and passes it immediately to the national criminal intelligence service. A unit within NCIS then co-ordinates our response to the request. In practice, the NCIS will arrange for either the Crown prosecution service or customs prosecutors to carry out the necessary enforcement action in the High Court. When dealing with requests from the additional countries designated in the orders, the courts will be exercising a general discretion in deciding whether or not to comply with the request. An order from a foreign court will not be enforced unless it is clear that it has been properly made. Safeguards exist to protect the rights and liberties of the accused or convicted person and the rights of third parties who may be affected by the enforcement process.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Before the new regulations take effect, may I ask how much money, if any, has been received under the old order as a result of confiscation seizures?
  Mr. Jack: As far as I am aware, the latest cumulative figure for orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act is £35 million, about £10 million of which has already been recovered. We also have moneys gifted to us under the seized assets fund, which runs parallel to those arrangements.
  Mr. Steen: What actually happens to that money? Is it used for a specific purpose or does it just go into the fund? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) tries to anticipate my response. The larger sum of money goes to the Consolidated Fund and contributes towards the £500 million that goes towards the Government's overall fight against drugs. Money that goes into the seized assets fund can be used for a number of schemes to further the fight against drugs, including the purchase of sophisticated computer equipment to assist us in that work. If my hon. Friend wants further details, I shall be pleased to write to him.
  In the case of restraint orders, the High Court will want to be sure that proceedings have been or are to be instituted in the foreign jurisdiction. No property will be restrained unless there is a realistic prospect of a confiscation order following.
  A restraint order must be notified to any person affected by it. All those affected have a right to apply at any time for the order to be varied or discharged. No property may be realised in satisfaction of a confiscation order unless people with an interest in it have had an opportunity to make representations to the court. Those are essentially the same conditions as those applying to restraint, confiscation and forfeiture in domestic proceedings. The House can therefore be assured that due care has been taken to uphold the proper standards of justice which everyone in this country is entitled to expect.
  I am delighted that the hon. Member for Huddersfield is replying. I know that he fully supported the drug trafficking legislation when the previous order was debated in Committee in June 1991. I sincerely hope that we can rely on his continuing support for this and future orders, whether they are taken in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House.
  I commend the order to the House.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me pleasure to support the Government on this occasion. The Opposition have always supported measures which aim to prevent international drug traffickers salting away their ill-gotten gains so that even long prison sentences seem relatively rewarding. If a drug trafficker is put in prison for 10 or even 15 years, the colossal sums involved may make some of the offenders think that it is worthwhile to spend such periods in custody. We want to prevent the salting away of the proceeds of the evil trade.
  It would be remiss of the Opposition not to mention one or two matters tonight. I intend to prod the Minister for some clarification as to how the orders will work and
  202
  how they will impinge on the other changes to which he alluded—agreements entered into since the last time we held such a debate.
  The orders were introduced under the affirmative procedure, deriving from the 1986 Act. The Minister was kind enough to remind us that even at that time, when I was not involved, the legislation had the Opposition's support. We debated similar orders in May 1990 and again in June 1991. On both occasions, I debated the subject with the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). It was necessary at the time to add further countries to the list, since when another four have appeared on it—they are the whole point of this procedure.
  I draw the Minister's attention to a press release issued by his predecessor shortly after our last debate. A Home Office press release, it is dated 29 August 1991 and entitled, "United Kingdom ratifies European convention on international crime". The convention was an important step forward. In our previous debates, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon anticipated a broader and more integrated structure in Europe for dealing with international drug trafficking and fraud. The fact that the convention would be signed was seen as important. In August 1991 the European convention described in the press release was ratified. It will radically increase co-operation between countries in the fight against international crime.
  How does the convention impinge on the orders? We had looked for increased co-operation from the country closest to us, France. France is not designated in the orders, but it is a signatory to the European convention. Germany, which this evening is being added to the list of bilaterals, is already a member of the European convention on international crime, but we still have no bilateral agreement with France.
  I tried to discover from the Minister's predecessor why we needed bilateral agreements with European countries once the convention came into force. We have signed that convention, yet we now add Germany to the bilateral list and France is still missing. There may be a simple answer to this question, but I hope that the Minister will give us it.
  Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all European Community countries should automatically be part of the campaign to rid us of drugs? Is it not extraordinary that any country should choose not to co-operate? Should not the Minister lean heavily on such a country at the Council of Ministers?
  Mr. Sheerman: That is precisely my point. I am fundamentally pro-European, so I did not want to call one of our great partners in Europe any names if I had misjudged its position. In our previous debates it was said that France has a different legal tradition; it has Roman law. We have common law, so extradition treaties are complicated and necessitate changes in domestic legislation.
  The convention was signed in the summer of 1991 and came into effect in January 1992, so it has been in effect since only the start of this year. Perhaps the official Opposition are being rather dim on this occasion, but we still require an answer to my earlier question.
  In earlier debates, we discussed the effectiveness of tracking down international criminals. Sometimes our

  203
  discussion ranged more widely, covering the increasing problem of international crime. The signing of the European convention certainly marks a healthy change, and more than 50 countries have joined the bilateral list —but do not we need to go further than treaties and bilateral agreements? Do not we need to get our hands dirty by taking on international criminals across Europe? Trevi, for instance, is important in this context. Germany seems to be adopting a more positive attitude than we are to Europol, believing that it can be used as a positive force to combat international drug crimes in particular. My impression is that Germany wants Europol to have a dedicated operational arm dealing with international drug traffickers; Britain, by contrast, seems to be dragging its feet. We say that we do not mind it having a role as an international intelligence gathering service—but no more. We should emulate the German approach to Europol.
  The Minister's predecessor, discussing the convention and comparing it with these sorts of order, stated:
  "This convention, together with the legislation we have introduced in order to ratify it, provides a very valuable weapon in the fight against international crime—particularly fraud and drug dealing."
  It is interesting that the Minister coupled fraud with drug crime. A certain newspaper empire cannot be discussed at present because the matter is sub judice, but fraud is alleged to have been perpetrated within it and money is alleged to have been salted away in European countries. There is a parallel to be drawn between methods of hunting down the ill-gotten gains from drugs and those from fraud. How would the two activities be dealt with under the convention or under the bilateral agreements?
  I see that the list of signatories to the convention includes Liechtenstein and Switzerland. I often get the impression that when we are chasing the Mr. Bigs, the real criminals, the top people who have made millions of pounds out of both drugs and fraud, their money goes to safe havens in Liechtenstein and Switzerland and we cannot retrieve it.
  We have a convention with which the Minister's predecessor was pleased. A press release stated that the United Kingdom had ratified the European convention on international crime, a convention that would help us with the
  "fight against international crime—particularly fraud and drug dealing."
  The press release then goes into detail. It states that the convention will
  "make it possible to serve on individuals in the UK summonses and other judicial documents … empower the UK courts to seek assistance from overseas authorities in obtaining evidence for use in investigations … provide for UK prisoners to be temporarily transferred overseas … enable courts in the UK to authorise the police to exercise powers of search and seizure for evidence, on behalf of other countries; and provide for the enforcement in the UK of overseas court orders for the forfeiture of items used in the commission of serious offences."
  If that means anything, a plain person's logic will cause the following questions to be asked: "Why cannot we get our hands on money that is salted away in Liechtenstein and Switzerland, whether by newspaper barons or by drug traffickers? If we have a European convention, why cannot we get our hands on money that has been derived from
  204
  crime? Why is that not possible if we have bilateral agreements with some of those countries, if not all of them?"
  I hope that I have not strayed too far from the matters which are before us. I believe that I have raised an important issue and I shall seek to drive home the point. When the Minister's predecessor discussed these matters in 1990, he produced a good example. In my usual style. I said that I did not fully comprehend these matters in theoretical terms. I then asked whether he could give me an example of what actually happened. The Minister replied:
  "A request would be made by our central authority in the Home Office—we should be notified of the criminal's existence—to the equivalent in the Ministry of the Interior, or the Ministry of Justice, in Spain, Switzerland, the United States, or whatever, for the property in their respective jurisdiction to be restrained. This is stage one. While criminal proceedings are underway, we do not want the money to flip out of the relevant jurisdiction. Therefore, the first step is to obtain a restraining order, pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings."
  The right hon. Gentleman then said:
  "As soon as criminal proceedings and the committal stage begin in this country, our central authority would act quickly and say, We believe that Mr. X or Mrs. Y has property in your country. A trial is pending and we wish those assets to be frozen. At the same time we should seek to put a restraint on assets owned by the accused in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 16 May 1990, c. 6.]
  Is that the procedure that is now established, whether for drugs or fraud, and is it being implemented in highly publicised cases? I would go to sleep much easier tonight if I knew that the assets salted away in Switzerland or Liechtenstein by whoever would not disappear somewhere else during the period preceding a long trial. I hope that I have made my point and that I have kept in order.
  Our purpose is to assess the effectiveness of the order and those which have preceded it. I was pleased when the hon. Member for south Hants—
  Mr. Steen: South Hams.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman changed his constituency. I remember his previous constituency rather than his present one.
  When the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) intervened and said, in effect, "How much money?", I was disappointed by the Minister's response. Almost two years ago we were talking about £27 million. Given the estimates of international drug crime, the profits that flow from it, the amount by which it is growing and the sums that are being made by international criminal syndicates, it seems that the tip of the iceberg with which we are dealing is not becoming larger at the pace that we might expect. I am concerned that we are not dealing with the sort of sum with which I would have expected us to deal at this stage.
  Perhaps that reinforces my argument that we need to take a much more effective stance to buttress the order by having a much more positive agreement with others, through Trevi or Schengen, to ensure that the fight against international drug crime and the international fraudster becomes much more effective. I shall introduce the only sour note this evening by saying that we are not doing enough. International drug crime is growing rapidly and we know that the problem is becoming worse. Are we not becoming a little too complacent about our effectiveness in the fight against the international criminal?
  We support the order because we will support anything that is designed to stem the flood of drugs into the United

  205
  Kingdom, but should we not consider other methods of achieving that purpose? I know that the Minister and his ministerial colleagues have a dialogue with colleagues in other Departments who are responsible for shedding 400 Customs and Excise officers over two years—a 10 per cent. cut. The order will have all-party agreement, but it is important to recognise that the most effective way of stopping drugs coming into the country is through Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The police rarely manage to get hold of any substantial quantities of drugs. That is the truth. I have asked parliamentary questions about that matter and I think that the Minister will agree with what I have said.
  It is the staff of Customs and Excise who at points of entry—ports and airports—apprehend and mark up major victories against international drug traffickers. I hope that the Minister will take that on hoard. I hope also that he understands that he has the Opposition's complete support for anything that will stop the international drug criminal. I trust that my remarks have demonstrated the fullness of that support.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: It will be with pleasure that I take up one or two remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—I endorse most of his arguments—in my short contribution to the debate.
  I welcome the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), to the Government Dispatch Box. I believe that this is his first appearance to talk about the extremely important subject that is before the House. I wish him well in all his efforts on behalf of the Government and of every person living in the United Kingdom.
  I have the honour to be chairman of the all-party drugs misuse group, which has supported the Government in their efforts, most particularly in the two pieces of major legislation to which reference has already been made—the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which was designed to confiscate illegally gained assets, and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, to allow the seizure of the tools of crime and their disposal following seizure. I welcome the extensions of the Acts to embrace Argentina, Germany, Guyana and Uruguay. I look forward to further amendments to broaden the embrace of the bilateral agreements that we have struck.
  That brings me to my first question. Can my hon. Friend the Minister anticipate any further steps in the imminent future to increase the number of bilaterals which have been struck with, for instance, countries which are such important suppliers of the raw materials of drugs that are misused in Britain and reassure the House on their necessity? I immediately think of countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, India and Syria.
  Closer to home, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned, there are those members of the EC, those signatories of the Vienna convention, with whom we ought to have bilaterals in order to be sure that we can take the steps that we want to take and have them take the steps that they should take on our behalf and on our mutual behalf.
  Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the legislation and the orders which allow the British criminal justice system to enforce requests by those other countries included in the orders are entirely reciprocal? Do those
  206
  countries which we are discussing this evening and other countries which have been included in the legislation by previous amendments behave in a reciprocal way? Have they passed the relevant legislation needed so that they can do so? If not, can my hon. Friend reassure the House that they have the process in hand? I am aware that that process is long and drawn out—longer and more drawn out in some of those countries than in Britain.
  There is no doubt in anybody's mind, in the House or outside, that vigorous tackling of trafficking in drugs and crime associated with it is a crucial part of the Government's well-directed efforts to meet the growing menace of drug misuse. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, it is, tragically, a growing problem.
  The number of addicts has doubled in the past four years. The number of drug offenders under the age of 17 has quadrupled, and that is largely due to amphetamines and cocaine and new drugs such as Ecstasy, which is a class A dangerous drug. There are signs that between one in 10 and one in 25 between the ages of 15 and 30 have used Ecstasy at least once, causing 14 tragic deaths last year.
  Like others, I praise the police and customs at home. In addition, a marvellous job is being done by British drugs liaison officers around the world. They particularly deserve our praise because they sometimes operate in extremely dangerous circumstances. I also commend British support for, and for many years leadership of, the Council of Europe Pompidou group. That has been admirable. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to play as vital and vigorous a part in it as his predecessor in the responsibilities that he now holds.
  I also want to mention the successful British initiative to establish Europol. Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I rather doubt whether in present or foreseeable circumstances it is wise to consider Europol as an operational entity. But there is no doubt that, as a central source of intelligence, it is excellent and admirable. In the same context, the establishment and operation of the drugs intelligence unit here at home has also been important.
  There is a further question that I want to raise, not precisely pertinent to the orders but which I hope I shall be allowed to mention, and that is the question which still remains about the central organisation of anti-drugs police activities in Britain. There is still room for centralised operation and control. So long as that operational unit, built up into a substantial force and divided from other forces, is composed of people seconded from existing police forces rather than building its own recruitment and training, it should be able to overcome the natural worries of chief police officers.
  Moneys raised from confiscations make a marvellous contribution to many aspects of the Government's efforts to tackle drug misuse, but there is still a peculiar divide between assets fed in from abroad, which can be used specifically by those fighting against drugs, and those assets which are seized within Britain, which go into the Consolidated Fund.
  I plead with the Minister yet again—this point has been made over and over again—to tackle his colleagues in the Treasury to try to obtain specific identification of those funds and channel them back not to the forces which seized them, because that would be indiscriminate, but to all the various efforts not only in trafficking and criminal control, but in treatment, and so on, which so desperately

  207
  need extra funds. They should be looked upon as extra funds, not as part of a substitution for funds which the Government already make available.
  I commend the Government on what has been achieved and on their continuing efforts. There is still room to do more and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will allow me and other members of the all-party group to keep reminding him about that, not just in tackling trafficking, but in reducing production and improving methods and availability of treatment and, most important of all at the end of the day, in reducing demand.
  Britain has given a genuine lead to other countries in the fight against drug misuse and I hope that we shall remain in the lead by ever-expanding efforts which include the measures that we are discussing today.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: It is a pleasure to see many of my hon. Friends present for a debate on a matter which obviously is of concern to the whole House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has taken a particular interest in this subject. He was a member of the Third Standing Committee on 16 May 1990 which debated it. It is good to see that his interest has sustained all these years. No doubt he will make one of his excellent contributions shortly.
  I have only three points to make. First, I am concerned about the countries which have been added to the list of countries under the reciprocal arrangement. Many countries are missing and I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister can explain why. For example, many of the West Indies are not on the list. I have just come back from Trinidad as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. It admits that it has an increasing drug problem. Why is it not on the list? Why is Barbados not on the list? I know that a Barbados Minister has visited Britain. I cannot see Holland anywhere. Am I wrong? Is it excluded from the reciprocal arrangement? When my hon. Friend replies, will he tell us why some countries are missing, particularly some of the important countries which admit that they have a drug problem?
  My second point concerns money. It is right that some of the money should go to defray the costs of the drug enforcement procedures. The rest of the money is lost in the Consolidated Fund and none, as my hon. Friend explained, goes to the many voluntary groups which try to fight drug abuse and the quasi-organisations which the Government fund through other sources. They do not receive any specific money. The Government should specifically identify money coming from drugs and the drug barons and put it back into preventive work rather than just enforcement work or the drug intelligence unit. It would be a useful and constructive step for the Government to ensure that ill-gotten gains were put into preventing drug abuse. My constituency includes part of the English riviera, but I much regret that the drug Ecstasy is readily available there. In fact, parents in Brixham say that their children can obtain Ecstasy cheaper and more easily than a Devon cream tea—and everyone knows how readily available cream teas are in the constituency that I have the privilege to represent.
  208
  Not enough preventive work is being undertaken or funded by the Government. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the proceeds derived from drug barons should go towards helping community groups and other voluntary organizations—such as those found in Brixham, where a concerned group of parents are themselves funding a voluntary effort to prevent any growth in the ready availability of Ecstasy. I hope that my hon. Friend can give an assurance that money seized from drug trafficking does not get lost in the bottomless pit of the Consolidated Fund, and that more of it will be used specifically to fund voluntary work.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Mr. Malcolm Jack.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Jack: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rechristening me. I am sure that my parents will be very interested to learn of my new name!
  I will do my best to respond to the interesting points made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), including his remarks about European co-operation. I believe that they were directed at the European convention on mutual legal assistance, which was covered by the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. It was introduced to enhance our ability to extend mutual legal assistance to countries requiring help in the fight against drugs and serious crime. Its powers are different from those provided by the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which concentrated on freezing and confiscating proceeds.
  The 1990 Act enables people to travel abroad to give evidence, gives powers to take evidence and to obtain documents, and provides for police assistance in respect of powers of search and seizure and in serving court documents.
  Good relationships have been established between our law enforcement authorities and those of other European countries, which assists us in our investigations. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Huddersfield placed emphasis on European co-operation. He will be aware of the Council of Europe convention to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. We hope to be in the lead in ratifying that convention, which will provide a comprehen-sive range of powers for dealing with many of the matters that the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned. I hope that it will receive widespread support. Taken together with the Vienna convention and the bilateral arrangements that form the basis of the orders, the Council of Europe convention will represent a comprehensive response.
  France is already designated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, so we can co-operate fully with that country in tracing, freezing, and confiscating proceeds. We can also provide a wide range of mutual legal assistance under the 1990 Act. In no way are we leaving France out of the picture.
  In responding to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Liechtenstein. I shall try not to stray too far from the substance of the orders. We have powers to investigate financial fraud both in this country and abroad, and they are adequate in respect of Liechtenstein. The 1990 Act enables us to extend a full range of mutual legal assistance. In addition, Department of Trade and Industry investigators have powers of their own under the Financial Services Act 1986. Work can also be undertaken by

  209
  Serious Fraud Office investigators under the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Liechtenstein should not present any barrier.
  Mr. Sheerman: I mentioned a particular example cited by the Minister's predecessor. When a court case is just beginning, do the authorities have the power to freeze assets in Liechtenstein or Switzerland fast—so that they do not disappear to some other part of the world? My understanding of the convention and of the orders is that they make that possible. However, one reads in the national and international press of concerns that moneys disappear to different destinations before trials are concluded and anyone is sentenced.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman's question requires a detailed response, but I will make a general reply. The arrangements contained in the orders will enable us to move very quickly. Once we know that a country wants to exercise its rights, an ex parte application can be made to the High Court to restrain the movement of assets. provided that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting drug trafficking. The whole idea is, as the hon. Gentleman says, to get in quickly. I assure him that such a mechanism exists.
  Mr. Sheerman: A press release issued by the Minister's predecessor dated 29 August 1991 said that the convention —which the Minister said is part of the weaponry against the drug trafficker—mentions also the international fraudster. If a drugs or fraud trial commences in this country, will the arrangements that we have with Liechtenstein and Switzerland allow the authorities to freeze the accused's assets now rather than at some time in the future?
  Mr. Jack: As I explained, I answered in general terms —but I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific arrangements relating to Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Meanwhile, I assure him that speed is of the essence. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer that I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), reported in column 78 of the Official Report for 9 June.
  Mr. Steen: Do the arrangements that my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in respect of France apply also to Holland? I see no mention of that country in any of the lists.
  Mr. Jack: I hope to deal with Holland in a moment. If I do not, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives an answer in due course.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked about our international arrangements in relation to money launder-ing. Our own arrangements—which are clearly internationally based—have been reviewed by the Group of Seven financial action task force, an ad hoc group set up about three years ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will derive some comfort from the fact that a report that we have just received from its examining team concludes that our approach to money laundering is effective and comprehensive, and could serve as a model for other countries. That, surely, is encouraging.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about our approach to crimes other than drug trafficking. The Criminal Justice
  210
  Act 1988 empowers us to confiscate the proceeds of serious crimes; those powers can be used on behalf of other countries, subject to the designation procedure.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Minister mentioned the G7 appraisal. I am sure that everyone knows that our methods are becoming pretty good. The trouble is that an international drug trafficker or fraudster with any sense will no longer put his ill-gotten gains into British banks. Since the dramatic changes that have taken place in the London banking climate, and the enactment of legislation, the international criminal has put his money in other parts of the world. The efficiency of our war against such crimes should be measured not by how good it is in London, but by how good we are at gaining access to other banking capitals. What does G7 say about that?
  Mr. Jack: G7 commented on our own problems rather than the problems in other countries to which we have no access. The hon. Gentleman, who plainly understands these matters, will know that at the heart of our ability to counteract money laundering in connection with drugs is the reporting of unusual transactions within our own banking system. I have visited the national criminal intelligence service, and have observed the degree of international co-operation that exists, in terms of both contact and manpower. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a sophisticated and dedicated fight is being waged against those who benefit from the entry of suspicious moneys into the United Kingdom, and that that fight is succeeding.
  We are aware that some areas, such as British dependent territories, require upgrading. A great deal of work has been done to ensure that places such as the Caribbean can comply in legislative terms, and that they operate legislation similar to ours.
  If the hon. Gentleman had read the terms of the Vienna convention, he would have noted that countries that sign the convention—their number is increasing almost daily —must be able to reciprocate in terms of their own legislation. We must have reciprocal arrangements to confiscate the proceeds of money laundering. Although I would not say that there is a worldwide uniformity of approach, our targeting approach—for example, the process by which we decide whether we wish to go further than the conventions by negotiating bilateral arrange-ments—focuses on the need for workable solutions. This is not a "sloganising" exercise to extol the virtues of our actions; we take the position very seriously, and where there are loopholes to be plugged we try hard to assist the process.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Customs officers. Let me pay tribute to their achievements in regard to the enforcement and seizure record. It is a proud record; theirs is unstinting and dangerous work, and I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating them. I was grateful for the tone of what the hon. Gentleman said: he was right to probe, and I assure him that I shall remain vigilant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathhone), who chairs the all-party group on drug misuse, made a telling contribution. I congratulate him on his continuing dedication and interest in the subject; we have met, and I have listened carefully to the views that he has advanced on behalf of the all-party group. As a

  211
  long-standing member of the Council of Europe, he will no doubt appreciate some of my comments about wider European legislation and co-operation.
  My hon. Friend asked about the policy on increasing the number of bilaterals. We are working hard to identify further countries in this regard, and to find the best way of co-operating. In time, more bilaterals will certainly be announced. We consider them to be very important in operational terms: they help to secure a smooth conclusion to any inquiries that are made, and any prosecutions that have begun, under the terms of the orders. Here I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. When bilaterals are in place we can have good working relationships, which are vital if we are to be quick off the mark.
  I agreed with what my hon. Friend said about the Pompidou group, and with what he said about the national criminal intelligence service. As I have seen, serving police officers—as my hon. Friend pointed out, they are sometimes seconded from other forces—are working extremely hard to make the sophisticated fight against drugs succeed. I am sure that my hon. Friend's observations about the use of assets seized in connection with drugs activity will not go unnoticed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that he will be reassured by my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen): good use is being made of the seized-assets fund.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams asked about missing countries. I assure him that nations involved in this work are not wandering around the world like Marie Celeste, seeking an opportunity. He specifically mentioned Trinidad. I can tell him that officials from the United Kingdom and the Trinidad Government have been holding detailed discussions about a bilateral agreement; further progress awaits the completion of Trinidad's domestic legislation. I hope very much that bilateral arrangements will soon be in place. As I told my hon. Friend earlier, a good deal of work is going on in the Caribbean to strengthen legislation in the British dependent territories.
  Mr. Sheerman: As the Minister will know, I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) about missing countries. We need bilateral arrangements with them. But what about the missing Customs officers? The Minister paid tribute to Customs officers, but he did not mention the reduction of 200–10 per cent.—in their number. Where are they now, and will he ask for them to be returned to their jobs?
  Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has at least noted the effectiveness of the Customs operation. As I said at the beginning of the debate, the Government are putting £500 million into the fight against drugs. We take the matter very seriously, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that we have done our best to equip those engaged in that fight in a way that enables them to carry out their task.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that the number of Customs officers engaged on anti-smuggling operations at Birmingham and Coventry airports has been halved? That undermines his claims about an effective Government response to drug trafficking. It cannot be effective if Government policy does not interrelate with the areas under discussion.
  Mr. Jack: I was trying hard to avoid hiding behind the excuse of a Minister at the Dispatch Box for not answering the question, but the hon. Member for Huddersfield has supplied me with the answer: the Home Office is not directly responsible for the Customs service. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) may have studied in some detail the effectiveness of drugs enforcement at the two airports that he mentioned. If he has reservations, I strongly recommend that he writes to the Treasury Minister directly responsible for Customs. In general terms, seizure figures show the overall effectiveness of Customs work. Customs officers would tell the hon. Gentleman that effective Customs work relies heavily on good intelligence sources. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me refer to the national criminal intelligence unit at Scotland Yard and the excellent contribution that it is making.
  Mr. Steen: As I represent 88 miles of south Devon coastline, I pay tribute to Customs officers and say how much their work is appreciated. They have seized millions of pounds worth of drugs on yachts that entered ports on the south Devon coast. Although the number of seizures has decreased, the amounts that they have seized have increased. The sophisticated devices that they use show that men are being replaced by machines rather effectively.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of my comments about the effectiveness of the Customs service.
  Comment has been made about the use of the seized assets fund. We have spent some of that money on projects to counteract drug misuse. Indeed, 147 projects have benefited from the disbursement of funds. The fight against drugs has been enhanced. Computers have been purchased for Customs, encrypted radios have been purchased for the police and we have funded drug rehabilitation schemes, educational materials, needle disposal projects and fast launches for overseas customs services.
  We have tried hard to strengthen the fight against drugs at home and abroad. I urge the House to support the orders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1992. which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  Members' Interests (Reports)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  8.33 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Given the limited time available for the debate, it would be wrong of me to open it with a long speech going through the recommendations of the two reports in detail. I regret the shortage of time, because the two reports are on separate and distinct issues and contain some complicated proposals. I shall give hon. Members the credit for having read the reports and of being familiar with the main points in question.
  I believe that there is now general acceptance in the House of the principle that underlines the need for rules, registration and declaration of Members' financial interests. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Speaker Weatherill rightly said that there is a presumption that all Members are honourable Members. The register is not intended to cast doubt on that presumption; indeed, it is intended to reinforce it.
  The House agreed to the introduction of the register in 1974–75 not because it believed that there was a significant problem of corruption among Members, but because of the belief in the need for openness or transparency in a representative democracy. In the absence of that openness, rumour and innuendo can flourish, particularly in the media.
  Our behaviour and sense of integrity are important to all hon. Members, but the public perception of Members' interests and behaviour is also important. Nobody enjoys filling in the form and remembering to keep the register up to date, but I am confident that almost all Members now acknowledge the need for these procedures.
  The register is a valuable protection for all hon. Members and it provides information that the public and fellow hon. Members have a reasonable right to know.
  Against that background, I should like to look first at the larger of the two reports under discussion, which deals with the rules of registration and declaration. The origin of the report was the unhappy case that the House debated in March 1990. At the end of the debate, the House instructed the Select Committee on Members' Interests to review some of the general issues that the case had highlighted. When we conducted the review, we found, above all, that many hon. Members were uncertain what should be registered under the different headings laid down by the original Committee and the House in 1975.
  At the same time, we were made aware of the feeling among outside commentators that the register is less informative than it should be and that there is some inconsistency of approach between Members when compiling entries. The Committee's primary objective has been to clarify the rules and to give hon. Members more explicit guidance on the registration of their interests in the future.
  Some of the guidance is incorporated in the new and more detailed registration form proposed in annex 1 of the report. More detailed advice is contained in the body of the report. In part, our aim has been to standardise best current practice. I will give one example. One or two hon. Members already include in their entries a brief indication of the business of a company with which they are associated, but many do not. The consequence is that a
  214
  Member may register that he is a director of, say, Jones plc, but the reader of the register is no wiser unless he is told what Jones plc does. We propose that it should become standard practice for all hon. Members to include an explanation of that sort in their entries, and our recommendation about the registration of Lloyd's syndicates has a similar objective.
  The Committee was concerned to make the rules more precise and thus to assist the Registrar in advising Members on the content of their entries. For example, the Committee proposed that detailed financial limits should be stipulated above which gifts, benefits or hospitality should be registered so that Members should not be obliged to register every trifling courtesy which sometimes comes their way.
  There are relatively few proposals in the report which I would regard as substantial modifications of the rules, but I will draw the House's attention to one or two which some may think come into that category. We propose that the leading sponsors of an early-day motion should be required to draw attention to any relevant pecuniary interest by means of a note on the notice paper.
  We also propose a change to the rule about the registration of shareholdings. Under the current rules, hon. Members are required to register only shareholdings in excess of 1 per cent. of the issued share capital of a company. The consequence is that substantial holdings in very large companies generally escape registration. The Committee therefore proposes that, in line with proposals made by the Government for local councillors, hon. Members should also be required to register any shareholding which has a nominal value in excess of £25,000. There are also other modest proposals in the report which I shall not itemise because this is a short debate.
  As the minutes of our proceedings revealed, we were not able to avoid divisions entirely. Two issues caused us particular difficulty, but the Committee's discussion took place in the run-up to the general election when political tensions in the House were running high. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Committee—I am delighted to see that a considerable number are here tonight—for the constructive and co-operative spirit in which the discussions were conducted despite the distractions.
  The first issue to cause us difficulty was the category of the existing form headed "Sponsorship". The 1974 Committee seems to have intended that category to apply only to the institutionalised arrangements whereby trade unions sponsored the candidacies and constituency parties of Labour Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, it did not attempt to define the term "sponsorship". Labour hon. Members now feel, with some justification, that that particular playing field is not entirely level and that there are other forms of regular financial support which are equally worthy of disclosure. The formulation in paragraphs 48 to 51 of the report is a compromise. Like most compromises, it is unlikely to satisfy anyone completely, but it is fair and it is an advance on the present vague heading.
  The other issue to provoke disagreement was whether amounts of remuneration should be disclosed in the register. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may wish to pursue that issue later. The correct balance between the need for transparency and the individual's entitlement to a reasonable degree of privacy

  215
  is a difficult one to strike. The majority of the Committee saw no advantage in the disclosure of amounts of remuneration. They thought that it was not a reasonable guide to the influence that a financial interest may exert on an hon. Member because a sum that is significant to one hon. Member may be relatively insignificant to another. In any case, we must always bear it in mind that, unlike Ministers or local authority councillors, hon. Members do not have direct executive responsibilities. Therefore, on balance, we considered that the change would be an unjustified intrusion into privacy.
  I stress that, although some members of the Committee would have liked certain issues to be included in the report which were not included, there was widespread agreement about what is in the report. Taken as a whole, the proposals represent a distinct step forward, and I hope that the House will support them on that basis.
  I deal now with the report relating to Select Committees. Is there any reason why the Chairman and members of Select Committees should be subject to different and more rigorous rules than other hon. Members in respect of their financial interests? There is. We already accept that principle in the case of Ministers. The rules which regulate the financial interests of Ministers are, of course, Government rules rather than House rules, but their existence has served as a reassurance to the House and to the country that Ministers are not able to abuse their positions for personal financial gain.
  Unlike Ministers and their Departments, Select Committees do not have powers of executive decision or action, any more than individual hon. Members. However, they perform an increasingly significant role. They have privileged access to information; Committee inquiries are regularly featured on television and individual hon. Members—and especially Committee Chairmen—enjoy a high public profile. I have no criticism of any of those developments—they help the House and do it credit—but, at the same time, they entail a need for particular vigilance to avoid any possible conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived. We consider that a positive code of conduct is now required, as it is, for example, for members of local authorities.
  Taken together, the proposals in this report are intended to constitute such a code. That is why we propose that a member of a Select Committee should withdraw from any proceedings where he might reasonably be thought to be in a position to influence any decision from which he or any firm or organisation employing him might obtain a financial benefit. We also propose that anyone elected to the chairmanship of a Department-related Select Committee or the Public Accounts Committee should be required to divest himself of any pecuniary interest which might reasonably be thought to influence his judgment or be advantaged by his position as its Chairman.
  In matters of that sort, the House has traditionally been content to rely on the good sense and discretion of individual hon. Members. Generally that is good enough, but not invariably. Clear guidance from the House on what is acceptable and unacceptable, where it can sensibly be given, is preferable to the uncertainties of personal judgment. The limited area of Select Committee activity is one where we think guidance can sensibly be given, and that is the purpose of the report.
  216
  To conclude, I shall say one or two words about the implementation of the two reports, which primarily lies within the gift of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The debate by itself will settle nothing and will change nothing. The report on Select Committees may be of some value as guidance to the Committee of Selection and others in the weeks and months ahead, but unless the report is positively endorsed by the House, that value will be limited: Select Committee Clerks will not be able to call it in aid when asked for advice or a ruling, nor will the Members' Interests Committee be able to call it in aid if confronted with a complaint.
  The same is true of the general report on registration and declaration. The existing rules and form of the register were laid down by a resolution of the House which approved the report of the Willey Committee in the Session of 1974–75. Our new report has no status or validity unless or until it is approved to supersede the existing rules.
  Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I have listened to the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) but, in view of the importance of the report, why is there no resolution before the House so that we can vote at the end of the debate to give the report's recommendations the necessary status and to enact them?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Lady was a member of the Committee and I am aware of the great contribution that she made to its work. I understand the reasons for her intervention, but her question could be better answered by the Leader of the House.
  Although the report has no status unless or until it is approved to supersede the existing rules, much time and trouble has been devoted to it. I hope that with the positive encouragement of two of the Leader of the House's predecessors, it will prove not to have been wasted work. I welcome the debate as far as it goes—this is my best effort to try to meet the hon. Lady's request—but I should welcome it even more if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were to make it clear that it is no more than a first stage in the process of implementation. These are difficult and sensitive issues and there is every temptation not to face up to them. My right hon. Friend is widely respected by hon. Members of all parties. I am sure that he will not succumb to that temptation, although, as he is new to his present office, I can understand that he may wish to proceed with caution.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Leader of the House, I must tell the House that Madam Speaker wishes it to be known that she has appealed for short speeches.
  8.50 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I can respond to some degree to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) just said and to Madam Speaker's appeal. I am glad to have been able to repond to the concerns expressed by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who pressed me for a debate on these matters. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bradford, South

  217
  expressed some concern about the length of the debate in some exchanges earlier today. At any rate, we have this opportunity, which is important and valuable.
  I am also glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, who opened the debate in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the previous Parliament. The whole House will want to join me in paying a warm tribute to his effort and to the painstaking work that he has put into that role in preparing these and other reports.
  As the House understands and as I suggested in business questions last week, the background is in part the anxiety to make progress in setting up the departmental Select Committees for this Parliament. Apart from any other issue, it was sensible to give the House the chance to express its views on the report on the interests of select Committee Chairmen before that process went much further. It clearly is also right to set out consideration of the issues in that report in the wider context of the system for registering and declaring Members' interests as a whole, which is the subject of the other and rather larger report we are debating.
  As the purpose of this debate—this comes directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden—is to allow for a general expression of views in the House before bringing forward any resolutions that may be appropriate, I hope that the House will feel it right for me to speak early and briefly so that we have the maximum opportunity for the expression of those views.
  I make it clear that tonight I am essentially in a listening mode. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden did not think it right to go over every detail of the reports, although for slightly different reasons, I do not propose to attempt to give a firm view from the Dispatch Box on every proposal, which would pre-empt the purpose of the debate.
  On the first report, it is right to say that, with regard to improving the system for registering Members' interests, anything that clarifies the working of the register and makes it easier for hon. Members to register their interests in a clear and consistent way is to be welcomed. The new form for registering Members' interests is the most obvious example of that, but I also see much merit in the proposal to invite hon. Members to say briefly what the firms in which they declare an interest are and what they do. Are they, for example, insurance brokers or building surveyors? That will be thought to be sensible by hon. Members of all parties and will be in keeping with the principles underlying the register.
  As a minimum, the House will wish to see those proposals carried forward in the shape of resolutions. By saying that, I do not mean to suggest that there are not other aspects of the report—perhaps all of it—which would need to be carried forward in that way. However, I believe that it is right before deciding between the two main options—a resolution, recommended in the report, to implement the whole report and the possibility of a more complex series of resolutions reflecting doubts expessed by some hon. Members about specific recommendations—for us to have this debate. I make it clear—I hope that this will be some encouragement to the hon. Member for Bristol, South—that I have no doubt that the House will wish to see a resolution of one kind or the other.
  Ms. Primarolo: Perhaps the Leader of the House can enlighten us. I do not understand why a debate that will have no conclusion has been allowed. Why did the Government not allow those who had reservations to table amendments to the substantive report in the normal way? We could then have had this debate and made some decision at the end of it. Instead, we shall be left with nothing at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Lady's point. Obviously a judgment has to be made case by case in such matters. It is neither unfamiliar in the House nor unreasonable—often it is the most sensible way to proceed—to test the water generally in such matters before coming forward with a set of detailed propositions. I thought that that was the most sensible way in which to proceed in this case.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make some effort to implement the recommendations regarding the setting up of Select Committees, bearing in mind that one report has that specifically in mind? Departmental Select Committees are on the point of being established. Would it not be foolish to have a limited and narrow debate with no conclusion, when, next week or the week after, the Select Committees will be established? The rules, which the Select Committee spent a great deal of time in amending, should be brought into operation before that.
  Mr. Newton: I was coming directly to referring generally to the second report on Select Committee Chairmen for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden made an eloquent case. It seems clear, both from some of the comments made subsequent to the report and from some of the comments made by those concerned with Select Committees in their evidence to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, that there is the possibility of rather greater controversy on some aspects of those proposals and perhaps an even stronger case for giving the House a general opportunity to express a view before deciding precisely how we should proceed.
  I hope, incidentally, that all hon. Members would want to make it clear that, in expressing support for any of the specific proposals, no criticism is intended of Chairmen of Select Committees in the previous Parliament or in earlier Parliaments. I make three comments. First, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden agrees that the objective of his Committee's proposal is not to remedy cases of clear abuse or cases that fall short of the standard to be expected, but rather to make an already impressive system of safeguards through the Register of Members' Interests even safer and even more clearly defensible against adverse public comment in the case of Select Committee Chairmen.
  Secondly—I am glad to note the attendance in the House tonight of some of those whom I have in mind—it is right to think that the views of those who have been Chairmen of Select Committees will be of special interest to the House. I look forward to hearing their comments on the report.
  Thirdly—I offer this as a tentative thought to the House —there is one question which the House may wish to consider, which was almost hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden in his use of the word "guidelines". We could end up with some extremely complicated resolutions which were difficult to draft and

  219
  which, even so, contained vague words such as "reasonable". In light of comments in the report and this debate, might it not therefore be better to consider proceeding by drawing up more formal guidelines—perhaps that could be done by the Liaison Committee—rather than going down the track of having resolutions? I raise that only as a point that should be considered. I do not suggest that I have already reached a conclusion or that others have done so. However, the thought necessarily occurs on reading the report.
  I shall reply briefly to the hon. Member for Bradford, South by saying simply that as we move forward in the appointment of Select Committees for the new Parliament, as I hope that we shall, all those involved will undoubtedly wish to bear in mind both what was said in the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the views expressed in the House tonight.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I begin in a sensible way by ingratiating myself with the audience, having noted that many members of the Select Committee are about. I can say unreservedly that the reports are important and contain some useful recommendations. I hope—from what I heard from the Leader of the House it seems that it is not a hope without expectation of realisation—that formal resolutions will soon be presented to the House so that the recommendations in the report can be implemented.
  I should first like to make some comments by way of an overview. I find it pleasing that the ethos of the House seems to have changed since registration of Members' interests was first suggested. When the proposal was first made, it was controversial that registration should happen at all. There is now almost universal agreement compared with when the proposal was first made in 1974. At that time, there was a great deal of debate in central and local government about registration of interests.
  I remember one local authority in Bromsgrove, of which I am particularly proud, introducing a voluntary register of interests in 1972, two years before the proposal was first made in the House. I might say that that is not recognised in the Select Committee's report. There was much controversy at that time, but now it is universally acknowledged that we need a register of interests.
  It is acknowledged in both of the Select Committees' reports that the register needs to be clarified, to be tougher and to ensure that the integrity of the House and Members of Parliament has respect among the public. That must be of interest to all of us. I welcome the changes in the mood of the House since registration of interests was first debated.
  I also welcome the fact that both of the reports repeatedly state that if Members are in doubt they should register. If any Member of Parliament has any doubt about whether to register, or if there is any ambiguity, the onus is on that Member to ensure that the interest is registered.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, more than anything else, the activities of the so-called parliamentary lobbying organisations have made many of us who at the beginning
  220
  had doubts about the register realise that there is a need for transparency? Does he agree that we should not lose sight of that as the debate proceeds?
  Mr. Grocott: That is an important point. Whatever the reasons for the change, I am glad that the mood of the House has changed and there is universal acceptance of registration.
  I begin with the report on Chairmen and members of Select Committees. We can certainly accept unequivocally what the report says. It raises issues which some of us were perhaps surprised to see spelt out. It highlighted the wide variation in practice between Select Committees in what should be declared and what should not. It accepted the need to clarify and tighten the rules. It acknowledged that there was a clear difference between the responsibilities of Chairmen of Select Committees and those of members of Select Committees. That is an important acknowledgement. It was spelt out well by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) in his evidence to the Select Committee.
  The report also stressed the need for resolutions of the House to implement the findings of the report. That ought to be fairly simple now. We have identified a problem, and the Select Committee has come up with the solution and made recommendations on how to implement it. All that remains is to find parliamentary time to make resolutions to implement the report and give it the status that it needs. I urge the Leader of the House rapidly to find a date when that can be done.
  The report on Select Committee Chairmen is in a way the easier report. The other report has at its heart the provision of a new form for the registration of Members' interests. I welcome much of the report, but in two or three areas common sense seems to have failed to prevail. As I said, the heart of the report is the new registration form which, by and large, makes things clearer. It is a form which we can commend to the House. I expect that a resolution will be proposed rapidly so that we can have such a form.
  I welcome the recommendation that Members should be more specific about the nature of the work that companies do. That seems to be a common-sense suggestion. Moving on to the declaration of interests, it is also highly desirable that early-day motions should be included among the matters in which Members' pecuniary interests need to be declared.
  I shall use my remaining time to concentrate on three areas of the report where common sense has not prevailed as it might. First, the report does not acknowledge as it should the huge discrepancy—in the public eye and that of any reasonable observer—between the way in which local government and the House are treated.
  I know all the arguments that are rehearsed about local councillors making executive decisions when we do not, but I profoundly dislike the almost patronising manner that the House—or some Members; I hope that many of us are exempt—adopts towards local councillors and what they do. Councillors' work is extremely important and they are rightly subject to stringent regulations. I have no objection to that. However, the public cannot understand why councillors should be strictly regulated when there is a more relaxed regime here.
  The distinction between what is and what is not executive power is not easy to sustain. The Chairman of a Select Committee and its members have power and

  221
  influence in areas of our national life which put them in a special category—akin to a local authority committee. The Select Committee does not make executive decisions, but it has power, influence and access. Influence and access are power in the same way as making an executive decision is power.
  Any member of the public would recognise that Members of Parliament have more potential to exercise their influence than local councillors. We should look more to local government as a model for the way in which interests are recognised and registered. We should be prepared to learn from councillors rather than lecturing them as we so often do.
  Secondly, the part of the report dealing with the declaration of the sums of money involved requires examination. The key quote, which I do not think would commend itself to the man on the Clapham omnibus, or the current equivalent, is in paragraph 33. The former Speaker of the House is quoted as saying:
  "it is the nature of the interest, not the actual sum of money, that is important."
  It is not common sense to say that the interest is the significant factor rather than how much it is worth. For example, one could not say that someone who worked full-time on the railways had exactly the same interest in transport as someone who worked for a preservation society on a Saturday afternoon.
  Mr. Adley indicated assent.
  Mr. Grocott: The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) seems to agree. Clearly, it is the degree of interest which is important, and that can be measured only in financial terms.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend may wish to note page xxxv of the report on financial interests. When paragraph 33 was debated in Committee, I tabled an amendment proposing that the amount of money received by Members should be declared. That issue was raised in Committee, but unfortunately the amendment was defeated.
  Mr. Grocott: I read the Committee proceedings with care and I saw my hon. Friend's amendment and also that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
  The Committee is arguing that an ice-cream salesman is the same as someone who runs a multiple food store. It does not make any difference, provided that they are both running something, what part of their total income is represented by income from their business. The Committee does not think that that is of interest to the House, and that is not common sense.
  The third matter, to which I shall devote the strength of my feelings, is the Committee's apparent obsession with trade union sponsorship. I am not sponsored by a trade union, but if I were I should certainly be proud of it. No Labour Member is in the least bit embarrassed by, or has any difficulty whatsoever with, sponsorship by a trade union. We are proud of the support that we get from our trade unions. It is clear and distinct that there is no direct financial interest behind a donation to a constituency party by a trade union. It would he proper that that should not be a matter for declaration in the register. However, I am happy that it is and that it has been included, but clearly there must be a level playing field in such matters.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is another point. I was kicked out of the House because I said that Norman Tebbit was lining his pockets when he became a non-executive director of British Telecom. What about Peter Walker? He had been in the Cabinet but 18 months after he left it he received about 10 directorships. Moreover, would not it have been handy if we had had a register that said, "You must include the amount of money that you have received from companies or other bodies"? In that case, Peter Walker would have had to declare the several hundreds of thousands of pounds that he received from Maxwell for being the chairman of a company for a few short months, the Mercedes car and his £100,000 golden handshake. All that would have been in the register, and it is conceivable that he would have had to walk the plank with Maxwell had that been declared.
  Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I read the register of interests—I will be corrected by members of the Select Committee, who have been through all the detailed arguments, if I am wrong—if I as a member of the National Union of Journalists were to receive a regular contribution to my constituency party of £500 a year, which I do not, that would be declared in the register. If another hon. Member received a donation from, for example, a wealthy newspaper proprietor to the constituency party fund of, say, £100,000 in a single year, that would not be subject to the declaration of interests. That is absolutely ludicrous. It defies all common sense.
  Although I was not party to all the discussions in the Committee, I suggest that we are talking not about the financial interests of Members of Parliament, but about the financing of political parties. I, for one, would be delighted if a Select Committee inquired into the financing of political parties. I would love to know the details about where the Conservative party receives all its money from. I know that it certainly has much more money '.o spend at a general election than any other party. The figures that I have seen for the 1987 general election show that the Conservative party spent about £9 million and the Labour party spent £4 million, while £1 million was spent by whatever the other lot were called at the time.
  There is no doubt that the Conservatives 'lave much more available money, so perhaps we should consider the financing of political parties. That is indirectly related to the interests of hon. Members. It is in all of our interests to get elected, and the way in which we are elected depends, in part at least, on the way in which our political parties are financed.
  It is most peculiar that there is an obsessio,, with the way in which financing in local constituencies takes place. There are strict rules over expenditure in individual constituencies and they have been in place since the 1880s, but there is no control or regulation over the national expenditure of political parties. However, we all know perfectly well that we are far more dependent for our position in this place on the national expenditure by political parties than we ever are on what is spent locally in individual constituencies.
  It is perfectly legitimate for the Select Committee to consider, not the direct financial interests of hon. Members, but payment to constituency parties ir order to make them function, but it should do it fairly and on the basis of a level playing field. If that consideration needs to be extended into an inquiry as to how political parties are

  223
  financed so that we are a little more frank about how that takes place—something that I would welcome—let us do that as well.
  To avoid sounding churlish and sour, I assure the House that I have no difficulty with the contents of the report, which I commend to hon. Members. I join my hon. Friends in urging the Leader of the House to accept that the issues involved are important and need to be acted on. There is agreement, at least at a minimal level, about how they should be acted on, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to bring resolutions before the House as a matter of urgency.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Terrence L. Higgins: I welcome the debate and, for reasons that I shall explain, it is important that it is taking place before the Select Committees are re-established. In that connection, the Leader of the House will understand when I say that that is becoming a matter of the greatest urgency. I gather that many of the problems have been solved, but it would be totally wrong for the House to rise for the summer recess without the Committees having been established, so allowing them to organise their programmes, with the Government being held accountable.
  I shall concentrate on the report concerned with Select Committees and their Chairmen, but I wish at the outset to make it clear that in my view it is important for Members to have outside interests, the corollary being that they are fully declared and understood by the House. I therefore welcome the other report and hope that its recommendations will be accepted.
  The Select Committee was kind enough to invite me to give evidence as Chairman of the then Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Liaison Committee. The oral evidence that I and the other Chairmen gave was rather unstructured because the Committee seemed preoccupied with members of Select Committees having a contractual relationship with or doing business with a Department. That is a narrow point which is covered in paragraph 27, and I say no more about it.
  I come to what I believe is the right approach for members and chairmen of Select Committees. In that context, it is crucial that members should declare their interests fully and that the Committee should be well aware of the position in that respect. But I agree with those who say that Chairmen of Select Committees are in a different position, so that stronger and more stringent rules should apply to them.
  To a considerable extent, a Select Committee's Chairman determines the agenda of that Committee, he has a relationship, if not confrontational, in many respects close to the Department concerned, and he drafts the Chairman's report. That itself is an influential factor because, although it may be amended subsequently, it is rarely totally transformed. So Chairmen are in a special position. But it would be wrong for the House to insist that Chairmen should have no outside interests whatever. That would be to impose on them a penalty that is not imposed on any other Members of the House.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Select Committee did not say that.
  Mr. Higgins: That is right, so I am supporting what the Committee said in that respect. It would, as I think the Committee recognised, deter some able Members from playing the role of Chairmen of Select Committees. It would also inevitably lead to the argument that Chairmen of Select Committees should be paid.
  I have long taken the view that the moment I ceased to be the Chairman of a Select Committee, they would be paid. Should they be paid in the future, they must be paid above the level of Minister of State because the duties are very onerous indeed. I would not wish to see Chairmen of Select Committees paid, and I go along with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that they should not be precluded from having outside interests. On the other hand, it would be wrong for them to have interests which were clearly likely to cause conflicts with the business of the Committees of which they were Chairmen.
  A problem is that some Select Committees are narrow while others are very broad. For instance, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health should not be a director of a pharmaceutical company, but I see nothing wrong in his being a director of a heavy engineering company. Some Select Committees, such as the Treasury Select Committee, virtually preclude the Chairmen from having outside interests. Chairmen should not hold interests that are in conflict with their duties. By and large, the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests recognise that.
  Although it is difficult, we must at this stage consider what is a relevant interest of a Select Committee Chairman. I firmly believe that the right group to judge that is the Select Committee concerned. If full disclosure is made, Select Committee members are in the best position to judge whether a candidate for Chairman has interests which should preclude him from becoming Chairman.
  The Select Committee was kind to me in saying that it was particularly attracted by my suggestion that, before a Select Committee first meets, the Committee Clerk should circulate to members a list of interests of the various Committee members. When they first meet to decide who to select as Chairman, they would then know the various interests and could decide whether those should preclude a candidate from becoming Chairman. That is the right approach to adopt.
  I doubt whether the proposed resolutions would make much difference. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, they would inevitably involve words like "reasonable", and would not make much difference. I hope that we are on the eve of setting up the Select Committees, so it is important that the procedure that I suggested should proceed. The Committee should know in advance of its first meeting what members' interests are, and should then make the appropriate decision on the Chairman.
  If that happens, it seems unnecessary to have the proposed resolutions. The House often proceeds more flexibly and effectively in dealing with such matters if we do not try to spell out matters in closely defined words, but rely on the approach that I suggested. My approach would require far more detailed scrutiny of the real problem than a tightly worded resolution, which would be ineffective or defeat the object of the exercise.

  225
  I hope that we can proceed in that way. If we do so, there should be no reason for criticism—there has been little criticism until now—of the position of Chairmen or members of Select Committees.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a very short and unsatisfactory debate, and we have been unable to pick up extra time from the curtailment of earlier debates. The whole debate is limited to one and a half hours, whereas it would have been preferable to have a motion allowing us to finish speaking one and a half hours after 10 o'clock.
  The House is extremely indulgent with Select Committee members. The new rules that we recommend on the proposed registration form were meant to make matters absolutely clear. Some hon. Members had difficulties in grappling with the complexity of the registration form, so the House decided that we should have another look at it to make it clear "beyond peradventure", as lawyers say. It allows simple-minded Members of Parliament to get the financial information down so that they are not confused. If it were then discovered that Members had financial interests that they had not declared, they could not make the excuse that they had been confused.
  That contrasts starkly with the House's attitude towards people in receipt of unemployment benefit, income support and a range of benefits. We do not give an inch. If those people do not provide the information because of an oversight or for some other reason, we do not say that we will make a new set of forms to make it easier for them. Instead, they are generally prosecuted. That is not good enough, especially when the House often passes statutory instruments to enforce criminal penalties without adequate scrutiny, and often without a vote.
  If there was any doubt in anyone's mind, the new rules are a bit clearer. They now require the declaration of information about Lloyd's syndicates. There was quite a discussion on that subject in Committee, a vote was taken and it is now a requirement. That change is important in view of the background to the affair over the past 12 months in which Lloyd's has been rocked by dissension and scandal. Hon. Members have said in the Chamber that Lloyd's insurance market and its chairman are either incompetent or corrupt or both. Those are not my views but I echo them—I happen to share them, but I have not pronounced them. That shows how important it is to have an adequate declaration of interests. The Committee rightly came to that conclusion.
  Page 35, paragraph 33, of the Committee's proceedings shows that there was a debate and a vote on the issue of declaring the amount of money that a Member of Parliament receives. It is no good running away from the subject. I and people outside the House believe that the amount of money received by a Member of Parliament reflects the measure of influence received. If a Member of Parliament receives £25 from a mothers' union for expenses, no one will say that his or her vote was influenced by it. But if an hon. Member receives £25,000, people will look askance if that hon. Member's vote benefits the people giving him the money. Everyone recognises that, but no one will say that it is necessary for hon. Members to declare the amount of money that they receive.
  226
  There will be pressure from outside the House as soon as a scandal breaks. I and other Committee members—but not a majority—thought that we should not wait for a scandal outside the House to push us into taking action. Before I entered the House in 1974, most hon. Members thought that the system was perfectly adequate. When I was elected, I said that we should have a register of Members' financial interests. Labour Members said to me, "Don't worry, we know the wrong 'uns in here and how to deal with them." That did not last long as the pressure which resulted from the Poulson scandal shoved the House into producing a register to clarify the position, but it did not go far enough.
  Following pressure over a period of time, it has become clear that the register should be improved, which could be done by Members declaring their financial interests. The salaries that we receive are enough for us to live adequately. We receive more than most of our constituents and should not need outside interests. People who take the contrary view say that the House would be a dull place if it were full of professional Members of Parliament and would not benefit from the richness of outside interests. That argument is never used to say that people should work outside in mental hospitals for poverty wages, clean out lavatories, work in engineering shops or down mines to enrich their work in the House. The jobs that people say would enrich the House are always those associated with large sums of money. That argument simply is not true. A vast number of people wish to enter the House. Plenty of them are prepared to work here for our basic salary of £30,000 a year plus office expenses. We should not have to depend on outside sources. People would respect this place far more if we did not do so.
  The recommendations of the Committee do not meet all my requirements, but I am prepared to support them because they represent an improvement—they are a step in the right direction. I hope that there will be more public pressure to ensure that financial receipts are recorded. Things have come to a pretty pass when the following story can take place. A public relations representative came before the Select Committee on Members' Interests knowing that he had been paying thousands of pounds to Members of this House for introducing work to his company. The money was paid as a commission, but it was never declared and the matter came to light by chance. That individual told the Committee, supposedly the High Court of Parliament and duly appointed by this House to make a report, that he would not tell us how much money he had paid to Members. This is not good enough; the House must tackle the problem and agree to a Standing Order which requires Members to declare their financial interests.
  The report on the Chairmen of Select Committees was embarked on as a result of a complaint by a Select Committee about an apparent conflict of interest. The press did not present those involved as having behaved decently, honourably or nobly. The press reports said that the Chairman of a Select Committee was involved in a conflict of interest that he had failed to declare. That Committee took up the matter and wrote to the Select Committee on Members' Interests asking for an investigation. Pressure from outside was brought to bear as well.

  227
  Our Committee recommends that resolutions be laid by the Leader of the House obliging a Member elected to be Chairman of a departmentally-related Committee or of the Public Accounts Committee to ensure
  "that he or she owns no financial interest in conflict with his or her duty to the committee and to the House. We further recommend that Standing Order No. 128 be amended to enable your Committee to consider any complaint based on non-compliance with that resolution."
  This sort of work is not very attractive but someone has to do it. It is downright distasteful to deal with complaints of this nature, but we had to look into the complaint by the Defence Select Committee. The Leader of the House should let us know whether he intends to table the necessary amendments to change Standing Orders.
  We further said:
  "We consider it … advisable, in the public interest, for the Chairmen of departmentally-related select committees and any chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to divest themselves of any direct personal pecuniary interest or benefit which might reasonably be thought to influence their judgment; or from which the Chairman might reasonably be thought to benefit directly from his or her position as Chairman. And we recommend that the House should place this requirement upon the Chairman of these committees by a further resolution."
  An hour and a half is not long. These resolutions should be included on the Order Paper before the summer recess so as to ensure that we can vote on them and put them into action immediately, thereby avoiding future conflicts of interest in our Select Committees of the sort that arose in the story that I have outlined.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—I hope that I can do so on behalf of all hon. Members—for his unfailing courtesy, patience and tolerance with all of us who participated from time to time in the Committee's deliberations. He did not have an easy job, but he always bent over backwards, if any of us were late, to ensure that we were not left behind because we had missed the Committee's earlier discussions.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) talked about obsessions, and referred to the Committee's obsession with trade union matters. I do not propose to discuss that. I think that one of the obsessions of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is that this place is full of corrupt or neo-corrupt individuals. I do not believe that that is true. I do not believe either that that opinion is held by more than a tiny number of people outside the House. The press has done a great deal to generate interest in some activities and I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) who made the point that during his weekend surgeries in his constituency he is not constantly invaded by people coming to complain about the corrupt activities of hon. Members.
  Mr. Cryer: I shall intervene only briefly because the hon. Gentleman referred to me. I did not make such a comment nor imply that. I say only that I think that people outside the House are entitled to make a judgment. I think also that the declaration would raise the standing of this place, not diminish it.
  Mr. Adley: I shall not argue with the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point.
  I wish to take up two matters with which the Committee tried to deal during its deliberations. I categorise the first as transparency and the second as the perversion of the House. It is important that we should do everything that we can to ensure that there is transparency, so that there is every opportunity for people inside the House and outside to know to whom they are talking and from whom they are receiving telephone calls and correspondence.
  No mention has been made this evening of the register of the interests of Members' secretaries and of their research assistants, which I use as an example. It is a fascinating document. Virtually all the major public relations and parliamentary consultancy companies in the country have someone in the House working for a Member. I suggest that those of my colleagues who have not read the register would be well advised to do so.
  As you well know, Madam Speaker, the House is a funny place. We pass laws and tell everyone in the country to improve his or her methods of trading and methods of business and, indeed, to improve everything that he or she does, but the amount of training, assistance, advice and guidance that is given to new Members when they enter the House is virtually nil, particularly on the subjects that we are now discussing.
  During the 22 years that I have been in the House, the activities of lobbying companies have transformed its affairs in many ways. It would have been unnecessary and, I think, unthinkable 22 years ago to have to refer to the pressures that Members might face from commercial and professional lobbying organisations outwith the House. That is no longer the position. I think that one of our recommendations in due course will be that new Members should be made aware of the pressures that they might face from lobbying organisations and, for example, from polling organisations. Long ago, I stopped taking telephone calls from polling organisations, but they are being made all the time. I am sure that new Members will be asked whether they can spare half an hour or an hour for one of these organisations, which will charge their clients huge fees based on the time that they have extracted, as it were, from hon. Members. It is right that people should know about these things. New Members should be made aware of the pressures that will be brought to bear on them, which they now accept whereas we never did.
  I shall refer briefly to some of the comments that are contained in the report. I shall not quote at length because time is short but merely quote one or two paragraphs. First, I turn to paragraph 58, which is headed:
  "Visits and benefits for Members' staff".
  How many of us in the Chamber know how many times our secretaries and research assistants are contacted by commercial lobbying organisations? The paragraph refers to visits and benefits for our staff, but do any of us really know what pressures some of those who work long and hard for us are under from some of the professional lobbying organisations? It might be worth while for new Members especially to ask their secretaries or research assistants what approaches they have received from some of those organisations.
  I do not always agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but he has some original ideas on

  229
  the subject. He gave ample evidence to the Committee. I refer hon. Members to two sentences that appear on page 28. They are as follows:
  "The whole business world that has grown up around influencing Members of Parliament is staggering. I throw away 95 per cent. by weight of my mail every day, all of which is paid for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it is a legitimate business expense to send annual reports to hon. Members. The Palace of Westminster is crowded with lobbyists."
  Many of us know that that is true.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), giving evidence to the Committee which appears at page 52, refers to his mailbag. He said:
  "I am very aware from my own mailbag and the high and growing proportion of the letters and communications I receive which are generated quite obviously from lobby groups of one kind or another."
  Many of them are entirely legitimate, but they are part of the pressure that is applied to Members about which we should know more.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) —I am not sure whether he is still chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—referred at page 63 to the grey area of
  "PR companies where you do not know who they are actually representing."
  There is a clear area for a lead for more transparency.
  I commend to those of my colleagues who have not read it the final paragraph on page 83 of Professor Norton's memorandum as an example of the pressures that we are up against.
  We have done our best to provide the House with a little guidance. I do not know whether we have done a perfect job, but I echo the views expressed already to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We hope that in due course he will come forward with some proposals which result in the House being able to take action.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I spent nine years as a member of the Select Committee and I have spent the past six years angling for the inquiry that has now taken place into registration and declaration.
  I have always believed that the rules were deficient. I do not believe that the House is full of corrupt people, but I do believe that there are people in the House who abuse the House. They abuse our procedures and they have to be restrained.
  I want to start by referring to a resolution carried on 22 June 1858. It might be for the House to reflect on whether we fulfil the terms of that resoluton some 140 years later. That resolution says:
  "That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its Members should bring forward, promote or advocate in this House, any proceedings or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward."
  That resolution has been breached on perhaps thousands of occasions during the past century—most recently over Lloyd's, where we know that Members have made statements in the House of Commons when they knew that a pecuniary fee or reward was a consideration arising from their interventions.
  We raised a number of issues in the report which, in the main, deals with the problems that concern me, but there are one or two areas where we have not satisfactorily dealt with the problems. One of them is on the question of
  230
  spouses' interests. In Committee, when discussing spouses' interests, we used to refer to what I called the Shirley Porter amendment. That referred to the unlikely scenario where I, the Member of Parliament for Workington, was married to Lady Porter. The question that I put repeatedly to the Committee was whether her shareholdings in Tesco might reasonably be thought by others to influence my actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. My view is that, in the unlikely event of my being married to Lady Porter, those shareholdings would be an influence on my judgments, and that I would have to declare them. The moment one goes down that route, spouse interest must be taken into account by the House of Commons—insofar as in many circumstances, due to the very nature of marriage, they are inseparable from the interest of the Member of Parliament concerned.
  Gifts and hospitality are another aspect that cause me concern. The offer of visits abroad, tickets and hospitality abroad by outside organisations is widespread. I know to my certain knowledge of innumerable examples in this place where tickets and hospitality have neither been registered nor declared. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that to be true. I hope that the way in which the form has been rephrased will catch people out who previously thought that they should not reveal to Parliament or to the public that their visits abroad—often for the most legitimate reasons—were paid for by outside organisations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) referred to sponsorship, which historically has been a debate about trade unions. Following the 1974 resolution of the House, Hastings agreements on trade union sponsorship were always registered and declared. I have argued repeatedly in the Committee that other forms of sponsorship exist. I refer to sponsorship by companies, where the benefit is equally indirect—being conferred not on the Member of Parliament but on his constituency party or association; professional bodies; partnerships; and industrial organisations, to which I shall refer later.
  My hon. Friend referred to the need for a level playing field, but I believe that one does not exist in the application of the rules—and has not done so since 1974, with the exception of two Conservative Members who registered sponsorship of their Conservative associations by companies.
  I draw the attention of the House to examples of company sponsorship. Stanley Kalms of Dixons paid £100,000 to local Conservative associations and to Conservative Central Office. None of that money was ever declared or registered by Conservative Members in the register, on the Floor of the House, or in Committee. Meanwhile, Labour Members are declaring and register-ing trade union sponsorship to the value of £600.
  Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like to do so, but the time is 9.48 pm, and there are only 15 minutes left for this debate.
  Tony Clegg, a business man, paid £20,000 to local and national Conservataive associations; and the constituency association of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) received a lump sum of

  231
  £10,000 from Wallace Mercer, a property developer in Scotland whose company is named Dunedin Properties. I believe that he is also a director of the Hearts football club.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is an honourable man, and I do not question his integrity; but does he think it fair that a trade union-sponsored Member of Parliament receiving £600 a year for his constituency association should have to register and declare that money, while the hon. Gentleman's constituency association is not required to do so, although the implications in terms of influence are exactly the same?
  In 1989, and again in 1990, the Boddington group of companies, which specialises in health care, paid £5,000 to Conservative associations. I submit that the payment of those moneys is indistinguishable from the payment of moneys by trade unions to constituency parties; both benefit the hon. Members concerned.
  The Vaux group paid £12,000 to, I believe, an industrial council, which then passed it on to Conservative constituency associations. During one inquiry, I produced the accounts of a company called Hall and Woodhouse Brewers, which contributed to Conservative associations in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. The people who worked in the plant were members of the Transport and General Workers Union. Hon. Members sponsored by that union were declaring and registering the £600 per annum that was paid to their constituency parties, while the constituency associations that received moneys in those four years were not required to declare the receipt of the moneys through the hon. Members concerned, or to register it in the House of Commons.
  British United Industrialists also pays money to constituency associations. In a single year-–1989–16 companies paid £186,000 to local Conservative associations, and industrial councils paid £169,000 to such associations. That money came from 14 companies.
  I am merely arguing for a level playing field. If moneys are going from companies, at local level, directly to constituency associations—exerting exactly the same influence as trade union sponsorship on the operation of those associations—why should hon. Members who receive £600 a year from unions have to register it?
  I am sorry if I have been provocative. As members of the Committee know, I have supported many proposals and amendments from Conservative Members, but I believe that we have not dealt with some issues properly. Let me quote from some documents from Conservative Central Office. A note from the North West Industrial Council reads as follows:
  "I know that some to whom I am writing have said that they arc unable to send company donations for one reason or another. In such cases, it would be very much appreciated if your Directors who are Conservative supporters would kindly send a joint or individual personal contribution. When considering this request, I am sure the significant reductions in personal taxation by the Conservative administration—and the well-publicised intentions of Labour to increase top marginal rates"—
  that is all nonsense, by the way—
  "will be borne in mind."
  Another document explains
  "how to make your donation".
  We are not talking about tenners and fivers. The document states:
  "Please tick the appropriate box below and fill in details of your name and address".
  232
  Donations of £200, £250, £500 or £1,000 are requested from business men for Conservative associations—sums far in excess of the money paid to the majority of Labour constituencies under the Hastings agreement. We know that such contributions are often made.
  I have a document from the Conservative and Unionist party treasurer's department. It says:
  "We are always grateful for any amount received, but in view of the high cost of running the Party Organisation these days, we hope that as many corporate donations as possible will be in the four figure bracket or at least in the hundreds from smaller concerns … Cheques should kindly be made in favour of either the 'North West Industrial Council' or"
  to the Conservative party. I do not object to the principle of registration or declaration, so long as there is an equal obligation on Conservative Members to register and declare. Tens of thousands of businesses and business men pay sums to Conservative associations far in excess of the £600 that constituency parties receive annually under the Hastings agreement.
  I refer Conservative Members to what the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) admitted during a "World in Action" interview. I have the transcript. On the question of influence, he said:
  "One representative of a brewer made it clear to me in oblique terms that if I didn't back the brewers in what they were saying, then of course, perhaps, some money might be withdrawn from the Conservative Party".
  In other words, he was saying that pressure can be brought to bear, yet Conservative Members persist in arguing that the register is necessary because of unions' ability to influence Labour Members. There is an admission of influence, made by a Conservative Member on a national programme.
  Finally, I draw an analogy between an industrial council and an industrial union. If an industrial union sponsors a constituency party, it pays £600 a year which is used to run the constituency party.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: It sponsors a Member.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: But the money goes to the constituency party; the Member sees none of it.
  That industrial union is, in effect, a combine—a combination of members who have an objective: to pay moneys to a constituency Labour party. That is what they believe in. An industrial council is a combine. It has members just like trade unions and they collectively put their funds together and pay them in one sum to a constituency association because, again, they want to give their money to the Conservative party. What is the difference? I am able to identify the difference. An industrial council combine does not have to register or declare, but an industrial union combine must do so. Yet they can pay exactly the same sum of money annually.
  I believe that that is unreasonable. The great majority of people in this country will agree with me. If it were possible to televise our proceedings tonight, the noise that has come from the Conservative Benches during my speech would show the public who is right. I am right, and they know that I am right. They know that there is an inconsistency and that we are right to argue for a level playing field.
  9.58 pm
  Mr. John Bowls: The debate is about influence. We have just heard a speech which underlines the fact that if money is given to a Labour hon. Member,

  233
  influence is bought whereas if money is given to a Conservative party association, there is no influence bought because there are no votes bought in the Conservative party by any contribution.
  The question of influence is important and relates to what has been said by my former colleagues on the Select Committee about declaring amounts. Certainly when I was a member of that Committee, there was an interesting debate, which I am sure has continued since, about the extent to which the money received by an individual hon. Member could influence him. Perhaps inadvertently, but fairly, members of Labour's Front Bench made the point that the extent to which a donation may influence an hon. Members's actions depends on his or her financial standing. There might have been a case for suggesting that a declaration should be made if the money received was above a certain proportion of total income, but that case was not made in Committee and has not been made tonight, so it is a matter for another day.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his chairing of the Committee and on the recommendations made to the House, and I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his reception of them. I look forward to steady progress on these issues and on the recommendations made by the Select Committee of which I was a member. They will enhance the standing of the House and reassure the members of the public who are watching the debate that the overwhelming majority of Members are honourable Members and that they try to look after their constituents' interests and put aside any other pressures that may he placed on them by outside bodies. In that spirit, we should welcome the report and the results that will flow from it.
  10 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The debate certainly shows the weakness of the Select Committee system because, once again, sloppy consensus is at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he and other Labour Members of Parliament tried to move some resolutions, but they were flattened. They wanted to ensure that the money received by hon.
  234
  Members who had directorships and who made money in the law courts was mentioned in the register, but they got done. Sloppy consensus prevailed.
  We are not talking about the real issues because the fact that some hon. Members get directorships means that they are away from the House. Under the previous Government, 200 or so Tory Members of Parliament had directorships, consultancies and God knows what else, which is why we meet here at half-past two in the afternoon. They had 500 or so directorships between them, and there is a pairing system in the House so that Tory hon. Members can make money outside—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order 19 June].
  Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put the remaining motions together.

  ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Simon Hughes, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. David Lightbown, Mr. George Mudie, Mr. Ray Powell and Sir Donald Thompson be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

  ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Madcl, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mrs. Marion Roe and Mr. William Ross be members of the Administration Committee.

  CATERING
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. John Townend be members of the Catering Committee.

  INFORMATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Spencer Batiste, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Andrew Hargreaves, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Andrew Miller and Mr. Gary Waller be members of the Information Committee—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selction.]

  Heathrow
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Boswell.]
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter which may not be as interesting as the item which we were just discussing but which is important to me and my constituents. It relates to the future development of Heathrow airport.
  In case anyone does not know or is interested to know, I shall give some facts about the world's busiest international airport. It employs 50,000 people directly and about 20,000 indirectly. It handles more than 50 million passengers each year and about 380,000 aircraft movements a year. It uses two runways, running from east to west. That compares with Gatwick, with one runway, and Stansted, with one runway. Heathrow has four terminals to go with the two runways. Two runways for one terminal is the usual basis.
  Some 72 per cent. of Heathrow lies within my constituency, including terminals 1, 2 and 3, and part of terminal 4. All of the proposed terminal 5 will lie within my constituency. With the recommendations from the local government boundary commission still to be enacted, I anticipate having the whole of Heathrow in my constituency, perhaps by the end of the year.
  Increasing demand has led to expansion and there has been an increased contribution to the national and local economy from Heathrow. Expansion has led also to increases in noise, pollution, traffic congestion and environmental damage. There must be a balance between the development of Heathrow airport and the lives and livelihood of my constituents.
  The development of the terminals came about primarily because demand in the 1970s led to proposals for terminal 4. That terminal came into being in the mid-1980s. At the public inquiry, there were suggestions that when terminal 4 came on line, Heathrow would be at maximum capacity. During the inquiry, it was said clearly in several quarters that there would be no need for a fifth terminal. Indeed, during the passage of the Airports Act 1986—I was a member of the Standing Committee, which sat for more than 100 hours, throughout its deliberations—the information coming to us from the British Airports Authority was that it wanted Stansted to be expanded. BAA believed that the future development of airports and airport capacity in the south-east would lie primarily at Stansted. At that time, BAA was not readily interested in the development of Heathrow and certainly was not interested in a fifth terminal.
  Interestingly, when the Bill became law, one of the first things that BAA did, within days of the enactment, was to advocate the coming on to line of a fifth terminal. The application for terminal 5 went against the views of the inquiry and against the case made for the development of Stansted. We should also bear in mind that Stansted now handles about 1.8 million passengers and that it can take many millions more before it is anywhere near maximum capacity. It has one runway at present.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether my constituents can now believe any of the information they are getting about the development of terminal 5 and about the implications that flow from it. Several questions need answering. Should there be improvement in the
  236
  infrastructure and surface access to Heathrow before terminal 5 is developed? Should there be a complete ban on night flights? Should restrictions be placed on the type of aircraft allowed into Heathrow because of noise? Should aircraft movements be restricted by reducing some domestic flights? Should a third runway at Heathrow be ruled out for all time?
  The response that my constituents want to hear—I support them in that wish—is as follows. There needs to be a vast improvement in the infrastructure and surface access to the four terminals already in place at the airport. Traffic congestion in and around the airport is not good at the best of times and can be almost unbearable at peak hours. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what occurred on a Friday afternoon just a few weeks ago. Because of a burst of sunshine, the motorway began to break up between junctions 3 and 4 in my constituency—junction 4, of course, leads directly into the terminal—and there was chaos right back to Cromwell road because of that. I am convinced that many people missed their flight or that flights were delayed to ensure that passengers could get to the airport in time. The surface access available now and the infrastructure do not provide an adequate means by which to get to the airport with just four terminals. God help us if there is a fifth terminal without a massive increase in infrastructure and surface access.
  There must he a ban on all night flights and on the use of engine test-beds at night at the airport. The number of night flights is small—between 5,500 and 6,000—in relation to the total number of flights, which is 380,000 a year in and out of Heathrow. However, they cause a great deal of disturbance and a ban would be welcomed by most people living nearby. I am told by British Airways that it needs the night flights because aeroplanes may get a following wind and arrive early. I know of no aeroplane which does not have brakes of some kind to slow it down. So it is beyond me to understand why they have to fly in at 5 am.
  I am told by the same people that night flights are necessary because of time changes. I know of no airline that is aware of time changes and cannot fly in at normal times. The airlines' argument is really that they must have night flights to cope with their arrangements with other international airlines. But if one aircraft came in from the far east—say, Japan—and was re-directed because it came in too early, an airline would soon learn its lesson and realise that flights could not come in early. It would be aware of the implications of coming in early if we took that position.
  There should also be restrictions on the type of aircraft that fly into Heathrow. Only modern aircraft with much reduced noise levels should be allowed to fly into the airport. Airlines should he made aware of their responsibilities on noise. They should not expect concessions to be made, whatever the technical and financial reasons. It is no good airlines saying, "We are doing our best to have quieter aeroplanes. They are just around the corner." That does not help the person who is kept awake by noisy aeroplanes tonight. tomorrow night and the night after that. Airlines have to learn that if they want access to the world's busiest international airport, they must take some action on noise levels. They are making some progress on noise, but I do not believe that it is enough.
  There is an even stronger case for restricting aircraft movements at Heathrow. General aviation should be

  237
  banned altogether and some domestic services should be severely cut. We should reduce the approximately 90,000 domestic flights by at least half. I see no justification—I am sure that colleagues will disagree—for flights carrying only 18 people flying from Plymouth to the world's busiest international airport. Often an aeroplane carries only 18 people. I am told that there are interlining implications. Only 1.8 persons on average are likely to take another aeroplane at Heathrow to fly elsewhere.
  Nor do I see the justification for flights from East Midlands airport to Heathrow. It is almost quicker to go by road. Although airports such as Leeds-Bradford are important locally, why should passengers believe that they have a God-given right to fly into the world's busiest international airport from there? Not only is it nonsense, but it affects the movement of aircraft. Such flights take not a slot but a slot and a bit when they come into Heathrow because of the vortex. Fewer aircraft move because of the nonsense of smaller aeroplanes coming into that airport.
  Of course, I accept that we must have domestic flights from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester and Newcastle to Heathrow, but there must be a limit to the number of domestic flights that we allow to come into Heathrow. If we controlled those flights, 40,000 to 45,000 more movements would be available for larger international aircraft; or, if we did not want to increase the number of international flights, we could reduce the number of movements by that figure.
  I am told that it is not fair to reduce the number of domestic flights to Heathrow and that a reduction would affect local economies. I simply do not believe it. We must take tough action if we are to ensure that Heathrow maintains its international position.
  The point which I want to make more forcefully than all the others together is that the Government should state now loudly and clearly, for the benefit of my constituents who have been used and abused and tossed aside by the Labour party, that there will be no third runway. The Labour party worked up that fear in people's minds. I condemn my local Labour party and the local Labour candidate. They had people in fear ringing me up saying, "Mr. Dicks, if you win the election, the villages of Harlington and Sipson will he knocked down. I shall be homeless next week because your Government will have a Cabinet meeting to agree on a third runway". That campaign was pursued throughout the election. It was an appalling way to behave.
  It is not true that there is to be a third runway. But I should like the Government to say clearly that there is no possibility whatever of a third runway at Heathrow today, tomorrow or at any time in the future. They must say that clearly because that is the only way in which we can kill the nasty rumour which is upsetting and affecting many of my constituents.
  Those who seek more aircraft movements, more night flights, additional runway capacity and a fifth terminal at Heathrow must realise that Heathrow exists within the wider local community. My constituents' interests need to be protected when the expansion of Heathrow is considered. I look to the Government to support me in protecting those interests. I am aware of the Government's responsibility for the wider implications for the national economy and the economics of aviation. They must be aware also that people living in and around Heathrow are
  238
  worried about the continual expansion of the airport. They question the limit of the expansion. They ask what will happen next and about the blight to their properties.
  BAA and the major airlines consider aviation first, last and always, but they must take off their blinkers and get away from their tunnel vision. If they want the international airport to continue to operate, they must consider how to go about it and bear in mind the impact on local residents. They must also bear in mind that it is nonsense that there can be no second runway at Gatwick because of a planning guarantee given years ago. That is stupid. Gatwick is the second largest international airport and it has one runway.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) shook his head earlier in my speech. Stansted has one runway, which is vastly underused. One can walk into that airport and see three men and a dog waiting for an aeroplane—the rest is just empty space. We must encourage people to think about using Stansted rather than Heathrow. I am the last person in the world to support direction. I am happy to let the market decide, but one must not skew the market to encourage more people to go to Heathrow. The idea of a fifth terminal at Heathrow without the conditions which I have laid down is nonsense. The idea of a third runway is nonsense and will skew the market to encourage more people to fly from Heathrow and stop them from having to go to Stansted. Stansted airport has good infrastructure and an adequate rail service. Gatwick also has a good rail service and could be developed with a second runway.
  I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the fact that Heathrow is almost at its peak. Expansion must be considered in the context of the national economy and of local constituents. Please, will my hon. Friend consider two of the five conditions which I laid down which are of overriding importance? First, will he consider imposing a complete ban on night flights? The number is so small that it does not matter to the airlines and the airport. Secondly, will he tell us now, if possible, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow in the foreseeable future? I appreciate that he cannot say, "Never".
  10.17 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on securing this debate on an important subject. We came to the House on the same day in 1983 and he has managed to stay here ever since. I rested for a while—as we actors say. It is a great pleasure to rejoin him again.
  My hon. Friend is well known for the way that he has constantly fought to protect the interests of his constituents around Heathrow. He has expressed admirable concern for the affairs of Heathrow and various aspects of it that impact on the lives of his constituents.
  I also note that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) is in his place. He also has a constituency interest, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who has been a frequent contributor to debates on this subject.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: While thanking my hon. Friend for what he has said, I emphasise that aircraft noise is a curse and a pestilence which ruins people's quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens. The number of flights every day from Heathrow is now more than 1,000

  239
  —one every couple of minutes—and hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow do not want the noise to be contained; they want a substantial and permanent reduction in it. They do not want a fifth terminal. We stopped it in 1985 and we mean to stop it again.
  Mr. Norris: I shall touch on that matter. I am still pleased to see my hon. Friend here this evening, and I am glad that he was able to make his inimitable contribution to our proceedings.
  I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) here. He is not merely the Whip on duty but is well known as one of the few Members who can officially say that he has a night flying rating. Perhaps he joined us for that reason, but none the less he is most welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall), whose interest in aviation matters is well known, is also present. I also appreciate the support of my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), whose keen interest in matters avionic is also extremely well known. The extraordinarily packed House that attends the debate is evidence of the fact that the subject of it is serious and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has raised some serious points.
  Perhaps I may supply some of the background to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is right—Heathrow represents a vital national and local asset. It is Europe's busiest airport, the world's busiest international airport and a major employer locally. It is a key gateway into this country for passengers and air cargo alike and many of my hon. Friend's constituents, as he knows, will be numbered among the 50,000 people who work at Heathrow, either for the airport company itself or for one of the many other businesses there. Of course, many other jobs are generated by Heathrow indirectly.
  The subject is important, too, because of the impact that Heathrow has on the lives of those living and working within its orbit. There is no denying that major airports are generally awkward neighbours. It is right that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members with constituency interests should bring to BAA, to Ministers and to the House the concerns of their constituents and that we should address them properly.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the announcement by BAA last month that it was opening consultations with local authorities with a view to bringing forward a planning application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow towards the end of the year. The forecasts suggest that the demand for air travel will continue to grow, and that by the end of the decade perhaps twice as many passengers will want to travel through the London airports as do so today. Against that background, it is clearly right that the aviation industry should address itself to how that demand from consumers might be met.
  I naturally welcome the fact that, before seeking to finalise its planning application, BAA is to carry out extensive consultation with local authorities on the option that it sees as the most appropriate to pursue. I know that the airport is also going to considerable lengths to make those living nearby aware of its proposal, through leaflets and a telephone information line. All hon. Members will welcome that because it is vitally important that
  240
  constituents understand what is being proposed, and that their concerns and comments are not formed on the basis of half truths and half remembered statements and facts.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is it not true that a lot of people living around airports, particularly Heathrow, work at them and that they are fully aware that if that airport reduced its capacity, they might well be out of a job?
  Mr. Norris: The importance of Heathrow to the local community cannot be over-emphasised. My hon. Friend is right to point out that many people who will be affected by the airport's activities as residents are also employed by it. That is a simple matter of fact.
  Mr. Jessel: Not all of them work at the airport.
  Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham says, many of them are not employed in the airport. As ever, he is right.
  I wish to consider how BAA is approaching the application. It is entirely right that it should seek to ensure that information is available to those who are concerned about the development of the airport so that they discuss the issue on the basis of the facts and not on suppositions. Let us be in no doubt, the fifth terminal is a significant development. BAA is right to keep its neighbours in touch with its thinking.
  I stress that, if and when a planning application is submitted, there is the possibility of it coming for ultimate decision to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, acting in concert with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. For that reason, my hon. Friend, who is an experienced Member, will appreciate that I am constrained in what I might say tonight about such a project and he will understand the position that I and my right hon. Friend are in. But I can say that there is no pre-judgment of the matter on the part of the Government. Any application for a fifth terminal, in whatever form it is proposed, will need to be considered on the merits of that specific proposal, and everyone with views will have the opportunity to put them forward.
  My hon. Friend referred to the implications of a fifth terminal for night noise at Heathrow, and the general question of noise was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham in his intervention. BAA explained, in the material accompanying its announce-ment, that its proposal would not require any increase in night flights. But my hon. Friend wants to go further than that: he wants to see any further terminal development made conditional on a complete ban on movements at night.
  Because one might reasonably expect aircraft noise to be a subject addressed in the context of a planning application for terminal 5, and because, as I say, my right hon. Friend will, in effect, be acting in a quasi judicial capacity in due course when he comes to consider the application, I will not comment tonight on my hon. Friend's proposal. But I tell him and the House, in the context of aircraft noise, which I recognise is a particular concern to many of those living around busy airports, that, happily, modern jet aircraft are considerably quieter than their predecessors. Their development has brought substantial benefits. As my hon. Friend knows, the figures are striking. Between 1978 and 1989, there was a reduction

  241
  of almost 70 per cent. in the number of people exposed to aircraft noise around Heathrow, despite the increase in activity. Arrangements which have now been agreed to phase out so-called "Chapter Two" aircraft will bring further benefits.
  As ever in such matters, one must strike a balance between the interests of those wishing to fly and of those living and working around airports. As my hon. Friend implied, that balance is not necessarily easy to find. It should not be assumed, for example, that night movements are simply movements that cannot be squeezed into the daytime. He was right on some points, but a night departure or arrival may be dictated by where the aircraft is flying to or from, and other night movements will be carrying time-sensitive goods such as newspapers, mail and perishable items.
  Responsibility for the regulation of noise at Heathrow, as at other BAA London airports, rests with the Government, and we have sought to strike a reasonable balance in the night noise restrictions now in place at the airport. Hon. Members will know that that regime is due for review in the autumn of this year, and we shall be consulting widely in framing the new arrangements.
  My hon. Friend also spoke of a fifth Heathrow terminal in relation to a possible third runway. I am grateful tor this opportunity to comment on that because I know that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the relationship between the two propositions. There need not be such misunderstanding because, in the material that it has made available about its proposal, BAA has emphasised that the terminal would not require a third runway. Indeed, the notion of a fifth terminal at Heathrow has been a matter for debate for many years, not least in the House, without any suggestion attaching to it that it implied the need for further runway capacity.
  I believe that the confusion has arisen because a third Heathrow runway was one of 10 options for meeting long-term demand identified by the Civil Aviation Authority as looking feasible in air traffic control terms when the authority advised the Government in 1990 on our future runway capacity needs. As such, it is one of the notional developments being addressed by the working group, chaired by my Department, which is taking forward and broadening the CAA's advice. That group, which has a working assumption that existing runway capacity will need to have been substantially exhausted before new capacity is justified, is looking well ahead. It is not concerned with airport development to serve existing runways.
  The working group will offer advice in due course on the implications of providing additional runway capacity at the various locations. There are those who argue that the benefits of additional capacity, to users and to United Kingdom industry generally, would be greatest if it were provided at Heathrow. My hon. Friend is doubtless aware of those arguments. But the Government are conscious, too, of the strength of view in some quarters that a third Heathrow runway should not be built, for reasons of environmental impact, pressure on infrastructure, or aircraft noise.
  242
  Clearly all the factors have to be assessed. I think that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will accept that the Government cannot simply ignore the advice that they have from the CAA on future need, nor the identification by the authority of a number of possible locations for additional capacity. It is right that the implications of developing capacity at each of those various locations should be looked at, dispassionately and without commitment, so that a properly informed view can be taken.
  Heathrow local interests are involved in the work of the group, both directly through the representation of the local authorities via SERPLAN, through the Heathrow airport consultative committee, and through the Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups; and indirectly, through a parallel written consultation that has taken place. Once the working group has published its views, there will be a further period of consultation on its report. And it is worth emphasising that the working group is not a substitute for the normal planning processes. Before there could be any major runway development, at whatever site, a specific proposal would need to be worked out, with an opportunity for those with views to bring them forward.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, in the context of what I can say tonight, I cannot give him an absolute assurance about the linkage between the announcement of an application in respect of a fifth terminal by BAA and the elimination of the third runway option simply because there is no linkage between the two.
  Mr. Dicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Norris: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but it is 10.31 pm and I have only a minute in which to finish my reply.
  Clearly no demand for a third runway is implicit in the application for the fifth terminal. I know that that will reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents.
  This has been a useful debate, on an important subject, and one to which I am sure the House will return. Heathrow is a great British success story and a national asset, but of course a development of that size brings its difficulties, and these need to be addressed and solutions found. I hope what I have said this evening gives my hon. Friend confidence that, if and when BAA formally seeks permission to build a fifth terminal, there will be every opportunity for full discussion of its proposal. I hope, too, that I have been able to make it clear that the examination of possible further south-east runway development is a quite separate matter—a difficult but necessary exercise, the outcome of which I look forward to seeing in due course.
  I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to tell all his constituents that, as ever, he has made an important representation on this vital subject of interest to them. My assurances will be paralleled by the attention which BAA, as applicants, will give to the representations that he makes.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. G. Burrows
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the complaint of Mr. G. F. Burrows, details of which have been sent to him, made to the London fire and civil defence authority, was dealt with in accordance with regulation 5 of the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the London fire and civil defence authority gave full consideration to the allegations which were made to it by Mr. G. F. Burrows that certain senior officers had committed breaches of the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985. I have no reason to believe that the authority failed to comply with the procedures set out in the regulations for the investigation of alleged disciplinary offences.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are currently employed per head of population(a) in England and Wales, (b) by the Thames Valley force and (c) in the Milton Keynes police area of the Thames Valley force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The table shows the ratio of police officers to population. These ratios are calculated on the basis of population figures as at June 1990 and police strength as at 31 March 1992.

  Police-population ratio

  England and Wales (provisional forces)

  1:450

  Thames Valley Police

  1:526

  In addition to officers posted to the Milton Keynes division, other police units, such as child protection and traffic units, contribute in part to the policing of Milton Keynes. It is not therefore possible to provide a precise estimate of the police-population ratio for Milton Keynes.

  Lee White
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the death of Lee White, aged 18, of Canvey island and the subsequent deaths at Feltham remand centre.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I share the widespread concern which has been expressed about the tragic deaths of four young prisoners at Feltham young offender institution and remand centre between August 1991 and March 1992, including the suicide of Lee White. That concern is also deeply felt by the management and staff of Feltham., and 108
  we are deeply conscious of the sadness caused to the families concerned. My reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 17 June, at column 520, described a number of measures which are being taken at Feltham to control acts of bullying, improve the care of vulnerable prisoners and so reduce the risk of any further tragedy occurring.

  Piara Lal
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now answer as a matter of urgency the letter from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East dated 15 April regarding the case of Piara Lal.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I expect to reply to the hon. Member in the near future.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he is considering to bring about a settlement in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the efforts of the United Nations, of Lord Carrington's conference and of the EC monitoring mission to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Yugoslavia.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues he expects to discuss at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The agenda for the 20 July Foreign Affairs Council is likely to include the following items:follow up to the Lisbon European Council, including enlargement and future financing;
  Uruguay round;
  relations with former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe;
  EC/Turkey;
  Yugoslavia

  In the margins we intend to hold an EC/Egypt Co-operation Council.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the conflict in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have long urged all sides to reach a negotiated settlement. We condemn the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for breaking off talks and resorting again to violence in June 1990. We support the Sri Lankan Government in their efforts to defeat terrorism, while pressing for its counter-insurgency campaign to be conducted responsibly and with full respect for human rights.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy with regard to, and extent of, the commissioning of research projects in universities and polytechnics by Government communications head-quarters.
  109
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  GCHQ, in common with other Government Departments and private industry, commissions research from universities or polytechnics when they are able to offer a particular area of expertise. Research is confined to unclassified subjects and the results may be published by the university or polytechnic if it wishes for the benefit of the academic community as a whole. Over the last four years, research projects totalling £506,953 have been placed by GCHQ with seven institutions.

  China
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the People's Republic of China on the recent deaths in police custody of Roman Catholic bishops Joseph Fan Xueyan, Paul Shi Chunje and Paul Li Zhenrong, and on the continued imprisonment of bishops Chen Jianzhang, Peter Liu Guandeng, Liu Shuke, Shi Enxiang, Julius Jia Zhigino, Liu Difen, Casimir Wang Milu, Yang Libo and Joseph Li Side; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In our dealings with the Chinese authorities on human rights issues we have stressed that Chinese attitudes towards religious believers are of particular concern. Several of the individual cases raised by my hon. Friend were mentioned in the Prime Minister's revised list handed over during his meeting in January with Chinese Premier Li Peng in New York. Others were included in the list of 40 Roman Catholic cases of concern handed over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) during his own visit to China last year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  EC Taxes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with Mrs. Scrivener, member of the European Commission responsible for economic policy, concerning the decision of the Commission of 13 May to introduce a minimum rate of carbon/energy tax effective from 1 January 1993 on a tax-neutral basis; and what provision he will make for compensatory alterations in(a) public expenditure and (b) other taxes to achieve tax neutrality.

  Sir John Cope
  None. Mrs. Scrivener is the Commissioner responsible for taxation policy. The Commission have recently prepared a draft directive on carbon/energy taxation for the Council's consideration. No new agreement on tax policy can be made without the unanimous agreement of all 12 member states.

  National Economic Development Council
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he consulted trade unions before deciding to eliminate NEDO and NEDC.

  Mr. Portillo
  No, but of course the normal courtesies were observed by informing the General Secretary of the TUC and the Director General of the CBI of my decision.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when NEDO or NEDC were last involved in pay bargaining.
  110
  Mr. Portillo
  NEDC and NEDO have never been directly involved in pay bargaining. Pay issues have been discussed regularly in the NEDC throughout its history.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often he meets trade union leaders.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has not met trade union leaders recently other than at meetings of the NEDC. The existence of NEDC may have inhibited greater informal contact between Government and unions.

  Diesel Cars
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the changes in the car scale charge for diesel-run cars, as stated in the March 1992 Budget, will take effect.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The new income tax scale charges for the benefit of diesel fuel provided by employers for private use by employees in company cars are included in the current Finance Bill. On enactment the new scales will apply from the beginning of this tax year. Matching scales for VAT purposes were brought into force by Treasury order from 6 April 1992.

  EC Trade Balance
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, on the commencement of the European single market on 1 January 1993, he will continue regularly to publish statistics on the balance of trade with EC member states.

  Mr. Lamont
  Yes. But there will be some delay initially while the new collection system, Intrastat, becomes established. Further information about Intrastat has been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Inheritance Tax
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account is taken by his Department of payments received by landowners, including those for management agreements for sites of special scientific interest or set aside, in assessing the suitability of land for inheritance tax exemptions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The heritage advisory agencies take all relevant factors into account when considering the eligibility of land for conditional exemption from inheritance tax.

  Entitlement to payments under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1991 management agreements or for environmentally sensitive areas under the Agriculture Act 1986 may be affected if land is conditionally exempted.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria his Department uses to assess the benefits of inheritance tax exemptions for the granting of public access to land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In return for conditional exemption from inheritance tax, landowners are required to give undertakings to maintain the heritage property, preserve
  111
  its character and give reasonable public access to it. The heritage advisory agencies advise the Inland Revenue as to what constitutes reasonable public access: each case is considered individually on the basis of its own facts.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the procedure by which his Department informs local planning authorities of land where inheritance tax exemptions have been agreed for the granting of public access to land; how planning authorities are expected to take this into account when dealing with planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Where inheritance tax exemption is being considered, a land management plan is prepared by the landowner. The appropriate heritage advisory agency consults the local authority or national park authority on the proposed plan. The planning authority is, therefore, aware of the exemption.

  Planning applications are considered by the planning authority in the normal way, but the landowner is required to inform the heritage advisory agency of any proposed development of land which has received inheritance tax exemption. If the proposed development would lead to a breach of the undertakings given in return for the tax exemption, the agency discusses the position with the landowner and if a satisfactory outcome—for instance appropriate revised arrangements for public access—is not secured, a deferred inheritance tax charge will be triggered. To date, there has been no occasion on which such a tax charge has arisen.

  Bishopsgate Investment Management
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation report covering Bishopsgate Investment Management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: It is for the Securities and Investments Board to consider IMRO's review in the first instance.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: In accordance with the policy set out in "Competing for Quality" a review of the scope for market testing services in the Treasury has been carried out. Touche Ross provided the private sector input to that review.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Recycling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps he is taking to(a) maximise the recycling of envelopes received by lion. Members and (b) provide that hon. Members' parliamen-tary question forms are recycled after use.

  Mr. Beith
  It is understood that all non-confidential waste paper collected in the Palace of Westminster is sent 112
  for recycling; and that the appropriate domestic Select Committees include among their responsibilities advice on measures to increase the use of stationery containing recycled paper and on its disposal. In addition, I am advised that the Serjeant at Arms' stores holds stocks of economy labels designed to facilitate the reuse of envelopes. These labels are listed on Members' stationery order forms.

  It is also understood that investigations are being carried out into the feasibility of introducing reusable packets for the transmission of quantities of Members' mail. If these studies are successful, the Administration Committee will be invited to consider their introduction to the range of House of Commons stationery.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Solicitors (Rights of Audience)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his plans to allow solicitors rights of audience in the higher courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct has recently given the Law Society its initial advice on its application for extended rights of audience for solicitors. It is now for the Law Society to decide how to take the application forward in the light of that advice. When the application is sent formally to the Lord Chancellor, he will seek the advice of the advisory committee and of the Director General of Fair Trading. The decision whether to approve the application is taken in the light of that advice by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor.

  Tribunals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of social security appeal tribunals are from the visible minority communities.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Responsibility for the recruitment of people to serve as members of social security appeal tribunals lies with the president of the independent tribunal service, his honour Judge Holden and the hon. Member may wish to contact his office directly to obtain this information.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals. Advice and assistance, but not representation, are already available under the legal aid "green form" scheme.

WALES

  Nasal Polyps
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those hospitals in Wales that carry out surgery for the removal of nasal polyps.
  113
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following NHS hospitals have carried out surgery for the removal of nasal polyps during the last two years:

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  Ysbyty Maelor

  Bronglais General

  West Wales General

  Royal Gwent, Newport

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Bridgend General

  East Glamorgan

  Porth and District

  Prince Charles

  University Hospital Wales

  Children's ENT, Ely

  Singleton

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the toxic waste disposal sites in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the district councils, which are responsible for licensing such sites.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) children and young people, (b) adult and elderly volunteers and (c) residents are not precluded from participation in catering and cooking at residential homes and sheltered accommodation for the elderly in Wales when such participation is aimed at creating a homely or community atmosphere for the residents.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Nobody in residential or sheltered accommodation is precluded by food hygiene legislation from taking part in the preparation of food. The extent to which they actually do so is a matter for them and for those directly responsible for their care.

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

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on elderly people living in non-registered residential homes is not held centrally.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a separate estimate for the appropriate allowance for price inflation in civil engineering for each year since November 1988 for the construction of each of(a) the Cardiff bay barrage, (b) the foreshore promenade beneath Penarth Head, (c) the outer harbour, (d) the breasting dolphins and (e) the alternative feeding grounds for wading birds specified as works 1–5 in the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The appropriate allowance for price inflation in civil engineering, according to the PSA civil engineering cost indices, for each year since November 1988 is:

  Per cent.

  November 1988—November 1989

  9.2

  November 1989—November 1990

  7.6

  November 1990—October 1991

  5.5

  114
  These are applied to each of (a) the Cardiff bay barrage, (b) the foreshore promenade beneath Penarth Head, (c) the outer harbour, (d) the breasting dolphins and (e) the alternative feeding grounds.

PRIME MINISTER

  Recycling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the new plans for recycling at 10 Downing street he announced during his recent visit to Rio de Janeiro.

  The Prime Minister
  I gave a pledge, as part of the Tree of Life initiative that bottles at No. 10 would be recycled. A collection point for bottles has been established, from where they will be taken to a bottle bank as necessary.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 June.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what record is kept of paintings donated to the nation in lieu of capital transfer or inheritance tax but left in their previous location in the care of their previous owner; what public access to the paintings is made available; what sums of tax have been forgone as a result of such donations during each of the past 10 years; and if he will list the paintings donated in this way during each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The records of all acceptance in lieu cases, including those accepted "in situ" are kept centrally by my Department. One of the conditions of items accepted in lieu of tax in situ is that public access must be available for a minimum of 30 days a year. The total amount of tax forgone in the last 10 years on in-situ paintings are as follows:

  £

  1981–82

  702,635

  1982–83

  —

  1983–84

  138,423

  1984–85

  —

  1985–86

  —

  1986–87

  —

  1987–88

  —

  1988–89

  260,717

  1989–90

  —

  1990–91

  20,000

  1991–92

  404,544

  The paintings accepted in this way are as follows:

  Sir Anthony Van Dyck, 'The Betrayal of Christ'

  Sir Joshua Reynolds, 'The Earl and Countess of

  115

  Mexborough and their son Lord Pollington'

  Sir William Beechey, 'Portrait of Admiral George Campbell'

  Francis Cotes, 'Portrait of Pryse Campbell'

  Francis Cotes, 'Portrait of Sarah Campbell'

  Francis Cotes, 'Portrait of Elizabeth Adams'

  Francis Cotes, 'Portrait of John Campbell Hooke'

  Francis Cotes, 'Portrait of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Campbell'

  Sir Thomas Lawrence, 'Portrait of John Frederick, 1st Earl of Cawdor'

  Sir Thomas Lawrence, 'Portrait of Elizabeth Cawdor'

  Sir Thomas Lawrence, 'Portrait of Laday Caroline Cawdor'

  Attributable to Sir Joshua Reynolds, 'Portrait of Patrick Home'

  Sir Joshua Reynolds, 'Portrait of John Frederick Sack ville, 3rd Duke of Dorset'

  Sir Anthony Van Dyck, 'Portrait of Lady Frances Cranfield'.

  Ozone-Depleting Chemicals
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will outline his Department's policy on recovery and recycling of 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 HCFCs.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 22 June, Official Report, column 95.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions his Department is having with the Sports Council or others on restricting the use and trading of anabolic steroids in gymnasiums for sporting or other purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 19 June 1992]: My Department has regular discussions with the Sports Council and other Government Departments about the misuse of anabolic steroids in sport. Anabolic steroids are prescription-only drugs in the United Kingdom and it is already an offence, under the Medicines Act 1968, to sell steroids or to possess them for the purpose of sale without a licence. The Government plan to introduce legislation at the earliest parliamentary opportunity to prohibit the supply of steroids to minors, and the Department of Health is currently conducting research into the extent of anabolic steroid use.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of occasions on which the Minister for Overseas Development appeared at the Dispatch Box in Foreign Office questions to answer questions relating to overseas development and assistance to developing countries during the 1987–92 Parliament.
  116
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Minister for Overseas Development appeared on 48 occasions.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been received about the effects of the civil war in the Sudan and the number of refugees who have left the country; what arrangements have been made by the Government to assist with the relief effort; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The civil war has had a devastating effect on southern Sudan. United Nations reports indicate the cash economy is non-existent; infrastructure, including communications systems, has broken down and transport is not available. Access to clean water, health and sanitation services is very limited. There are large numbers of internally displaced people.

  Refugee movements in the south are complex. Last year 300,000 Sudanese refugees returned to southern Sudan from Ethiopia. This year about 20,000 refugees have crossed into northern Kenya.

  Since 1989 we have provided £17.8 million to Operation Lifeline Sudan, the United Nations programme to provide relief assistance to the south. This year, Sudanese refugees will benefit from the £7 million we have pledged to help refugees in the Horn of Africa.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much official development assistance was given to developing countries in 1991 as a percentage of gross national product.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom official development assistance in 1991 was £1,841 million, which represented 0.32 per cent. of GNP. This maintains our average aid-GNP over the last five years at 0.30 per cent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has of the existence of deliberate discrimination in Northern Ireland employment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Fair Employment Tribunal is the body charged with the determination of cases of alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. Similarly, industrial tribunals determine cases of alleged sex discrimination. The findings of these tribunals are a matter of public record.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners were charged with disciplinary offences and which offences following disturbances at Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry on 23 March.

  Mr. Mates
  There were no disturbances at Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry on 23 March.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of strip searches
  117
  made on female prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry monthly since July 1971; what was the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; what prison contraband, smuggled items, or illegal correspondence were discovered in any search; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and what were the reasons for each search.

  Mr. Mates
  The hon. Member's question is incapable of answer, since Her Majesty's prison Maghaberry was not opened until March 1986.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Environment Research Programmes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to make the RRS James Clark Ross, the RSS Discovery, the RSS Charles Darwin and the RRS Challenger environmental research programmes available to schools.

  Agency

  Launch date

  Staff1

  Accounts Services Agency

  1 October 1991

  90

  ADAS Agency

  1 April 1992

  2,500

  Building Research Establishment

  2 April 1990

  700

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  1 April 1991

  230

  Central Office of Information2

  5 April 1990

  670

  Central Science Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  370

  Central Statistical Office

  19 November 1991

  1,090

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  2 April 1990

  590

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment3

  1 April 1991

  600

  Civil Service College

  6 June 1989

  230

  Companies House2

  3 October 1988

  1,070

  Compensation Agency4

  1 April 1992

  150

  Defence Research Agency

  1 April 1991

  12,150

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts3

  1 April 1991

  2,130

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2 April 1990

  4,580

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency4

  1 April 1992

  250

  Driving Standards Agency

  2 April 1990

  2,080

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  1 April 1992

  100

  DVOIT

  1 April 1992

  590

  Employment Service

  2 April 1990

  38,400

  Fire Service College2

  1 April 1992

  160

  Forensic Science Service

  1 April 1991

  600

  Historic Royal Palaces

  1 October 1989

  330

  Historic Scotland

  1 April 1991

  630

  HMSO2

  14 December 1988

  3,250

  Hydrographic Office3

  6 April 1990

  860

  Insolvency Service

  21 March 1990

  1,470

  Intervention Board

  2 April 1990

  980

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  30 October 1989

  340

  Land Registry

  2 July 1990

  9,800

  Medicines Control Agency

  1 July 1991

  300

  Meteorological Office

  2 April 1990

  2,390

  Military Survey3

  1 April 1991

  1,300

  National Engineering Laboratory

  5 October 1990

  390

  National Physical Laboratory

  3 July 1990

  830

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  18 April 1989

  50

  Natural Resources Institute

  2 April 1990

  440

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation3

  1 April 1992

  1,510

  NHS Estates

  1 April 1991

  120

  Occupational Health Service

  2 April 1990

  100

  Ordnance Survey

  1 May 1990

  2,380

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland4

  1 April 1992

  210

  Patent Office2

  1 March 1990

  1,080

  Planing Inspectorate

  1 April 1992

  630

  Public Record Office

  1 April 1992

  440

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  6 July 1989

  60

  Queen Victoria School

  1 April 1992

  60

  Radiocommunications Agency

  2 April 1990

  520

  RAF Maintenance3

  1 April 1991

  13,300

  Rate Collection Agency4

  1 April 1991

  270

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  1 April 1991

  240

  Registers of Scotland

  6 April 1990

  1,280

  118
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Natural Environment Research Council arranges guided tours for school parties around its research vessels, during the limited time they are in United Kingdom ports. The tours include an introduction to the environmental research programmes supported by the particular vessel.

  Agencies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names, date of creation and numbers of staff employed by the independent executive agencies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is as follows:
  119

  Agency

  Launch date

  Staff1

  Royal Mint2

  2 April 1990

  1,020

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1 April 1992

  140

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  1 April 1991

  210

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)3

  1 April 1991

  2,300

  Social Security Agency4

  1 July 1991

  5,350

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  1 April 1991

  63,100

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  1 April 1991

  8,000

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  2 April 1991

  4,000

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  24 May 1989

  520

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  1 April 1992

  300

  The Buying Agency2

  1 November 1991

  110

  Training and Employment Agency4

  2 April 1990

  1,670

  Transport Research Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  580

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  2 April 1991

  1,250

  Valuation Office

  30 September 1991

  5,200

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2 April 1990

  80

  Vehicle Inspectorate2

  1 September 1988

  1,820

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  2 April 1990

  80

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  20 April 1989

  310

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  1 September 1991

  30

  72 in number

  210,960

  Customs and Excise5 (30 Executive Units)

  1 April 1991

  26,800

  Inland Revenue5 (34 Executive Offices)

  1 April 1992

  62,100

  TOTAL6

  299,860

  TOTAL CIVIL SERVANTS7

  290,490

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

  2 Trading Fund.

  3 Defence Support Agency.

  4 Northern Ireland Civil Service.

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

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

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

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Government response to the Transport Select Committee's second report, Session 1991–92, "Preparations for the Opening of the Channel Tunnel" N.C. 12–1, will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government welcome the Committee's report. My right hon. Friend has today published the Government response—Cm. 1987. Copies have been tabled in the Journal Office and the Clerk of the Parliaments' Office. Copies have also been placed in the House Libraries.

  Thames River Services
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what forecasts have been made of the likely growth in(a) commuter traffic and (b) tourist traffic using river passenger services on the Thames; and what discussions his officials have had about an application for section 56 grant to invest in piers and vessels to accommodate growth in demand.

  Mr. Norris
  Forecasts provided to us by the Riverbus Partnership showed a projected growth in demand for Riverbus services from 400,000 per annum in 1991 to a120
  peak of 750,000 per annum in 1993 with a gradual decline thereafter until 1997, when the demand is forecast to level off at about 400,000 per annum. I know of no forecasts of tourist traffic using other river services.

  Ministers and officials have had several meetings with the Riverbus Partnership to discuss a possible application for a section 56 grant. Preliminary discussions were also held with another company contemplating setting up a service. Both have been told that grant would not be available in 1993–94.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of encouraging the development of river passenger transport in London; and what action he has taken in the last year to promote river passenger transport.

  Mr. Norris
  I should like to encourage greater use of the River Thames for both freight and passengers. I should welcome proposals from operators and others to develop services, including the means of financing them.

  My officials have had discussion with river users and their representatives to explore the potential of the River Thames and its associated facilities. I intend that such discussions should continue.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he plans to take to safeguard the Riverbus services in the light of the impending withdrawal
  121
  of its operating subsidy by Olympia and York; and what information he has on the numbers using the service daily (a) overall and (b) to London city airport.

  Mr. Norris
  I have looked at the possibility of providing an operating subsidy to Riverbus. I have concluded that such a subsidy would not represent good value for money in transport terms. I understand that 228,000 passengers used Riverbus in the first five months of 1992. Of these, 14,000 travelled to the London City airport.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received and what discussions he has had about the future of the Riverbus services.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received representations from the owners of the London City airport, from the airport's managing director, from two airlines, from the Riverbus Partnership, from the Port of London Authority, from the Chelsea Reach Association, and from 14 hon. Members enclosing a letter from the chairman of Mowlem, owners of the London City Airport. There have been no formal discussions about Riverbus.

  South Circular Road
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the planned start on site and finish dates for the A205, south circular. Catford town centre relief road.

  Mr. Norris
  Until land acquisition is completed. it would be premature to forecast the timing of construction work.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve consultation arrangements between his Department and the London borough councils through which the A205, south circular road passes, regarding all types of highway work and pedestrian safety.

  Mr. Norris
  I consider the present arrangements satisfactory. Frequent contact takes place between officials of the Department and individual boroughs on matters of mutual interest, including improvements to the roads for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state(a) the current projected cost of the Jubilee line in current and 1989 prices, (b) the length of time over which private sector contributions are to be paid and from what source, (c) the proportion of the current cost, and 1989 cost that is now proposed to be covered from such contributions when discounted to a common base year and (d) the methods and assumptions on which the private sector contributions have been discounted.

  Mr. Norris
  The current projected cost of the Jubilee line extension is £1,420 million in 1989 prices and £1,828 million in current—cash—prices. Private sector contributions were promised by Olympia and York—O and Y—Heron Quays Developments Limited—HQDL—and British Gas—BG.

  O and Y was to have contributed £400 million cash, comprising £40 million on 31 March 1992; £60 million on
  122
  31 March 1993; and a stream of payments over 24 years, or a single discounted payment, once the extension was opened. At the time the company went into administra-tion, it had not completed its funding agreement with London Underground Limited—LUL—setting out the terms under which its contributions were to have been made.

  HQDL was to have made a single payment of £2.4 million at November 1989 prices, uplifted by 10 per cent. per annum and payable in June 1992. The company, which is a joint venture company owned partly by O and Y and partly by Regalian Homes Limited, has told LUL it cannot proceed now that O and Y has gone into administration.

  BG is to make contributions in cash and kind, estimated in 1989 to be worth £24.7 million. Some of those contributions are to be uplifted at 12 per cent. per annum to the dates on which they are paid. The detailed terms under which the contributions are to be paid, including the length of time over which they would be paid, is to be specified in the funding agreement with LUL, which is still to be negotiated.

  We continue to look to the private sector to make these contributions so that the line may proceed. If the contributions were all forthcoming, the proportion of the extension's total cost covered would be just over 12 per cent. in 1989 prices or 24 per cent. of the current—cash—price. The HQDL and BG contributions have not been discounted as they were originally expressed in 1989 prices. The O and Y contribution has been discounted at 8 per cent. per annum.

EDUCATION

  Schools (Effectiveness)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions his Department is having concerning the most appropriate criteria to include in league tables when measuring schools' effectiveness.

  Mr. Patten
  Comparative tables will this year cover public examination results; next year we plan to include national curriculum assessment results, truancy rates and information about the educational and other routes taken by older pupils. We consulted widely on plans for 1992 and will do so again for 1993.

  Butlers Hill Infant School, Hucknall
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the Butlers Hill infant school, Hucknall.

  Mr. Forth
  Nottinghamshire LEA has submitted a bid for a supplementary credit approval to enable the school to be replaced. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement soon about SCAs for the current year.

  Teachers
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had regarding the number of teacher posts for September 1992.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had regarding teacher redundancies for September 1992.
  123
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received letters from a number of sources relating to the employment of teachers; a proportion of these refer to changes in numbers of teacher posts for September 1992.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with the National Association of Head Teachers regarding standard assessment tasks at key stage 1.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects standard assessment tasks to be taken in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We are currently consulting about the arrangements for assessing both seven and 14-year-olds in 1993, including about the timing of the national tests. My right hon. Friend expects shortly to reach final decisions about the testing arrangements for 1993 in the light of the consultations.

  English Curriculum
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from the National Curriculum Council regarding the content of the English national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with the National Association of Advisers in English and the National Association for the Teaching of English following their recent report on the English curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the subject of grant-maintained status from primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive views from numerous bodies and individuals on grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what modifications he has sought to the proposed admissions policies of schools seeking grant-maintained status in Essex; and what are the reasons in each case for the modifications.

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the information she has requested.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the impact of local management of schools on local authority-wide music provision: and if he will make a statement on the Government's future plans in this respect.
  124
  Mr. Forth
  There is no direct relationship between the introduction of local management of schools and the level of music provision.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to announce the outcome of his Department's inquiry into student unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  I plan to bring the current consultations on student unions to a close in the near future.

  Expenditure (Examination Results)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the relationship between spending by local education authorities and examination results.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no straightforward relationship between spending by local education authorities and examination results; higher spending does not, of itself, guarantee better results.

  Hendon School
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils applied to enter Hendon grant-maintained school in 1992–93 and in 1988–89.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not collect centrally information on applications for admissions to grant-maintained schools. However, I understand from Hendon school that it has received 420 applications for admission in September 1992. The school admitted 103 pupils in 1988.

  Assessment
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he plans to review the arrangements for the assessment of pupils in the light of the proposals for Scotland.

  Mr. Forth
  No, we have no intention of abandoning a system that works.

  School Governors
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken to encourage parents to stand for election as school governors.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is playing its part in efforts to attract new school governors this autumn, including parents. My right hon. Friend launched the "Schools Need Governors" campaign on 28 April. I have followed this up at a number of events designed to raise awareness of school governor issues and the satisfaction which membership of governing bodies can bring. We have appointed Mrs. Ann Holt to support and co-ordinate local authorities' recruitment plans. We have paid for the production of a leaflet and poster—translated into eight ethnic minority languages—for distribution to all schools and libraries in England and Wales. We are spending around £300,000 on the campaign, which I am confident will be successful.

  Nursery Education
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to ensure that adequate resources will be made available for nursery education provision throughout England and Wales for 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 19 May,Official Report, column 107.

  Parents Charter
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the parents charter have been distributed to parents.

  Mr. Forth
  Some 5.3 million copies, in English and ethnic minority languages, were requested by individuals and by the two thirds of schools which distributed copies direct to parents. More than 1 million further copies were distributed through main post offices and public libraries.

  Pupil:Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the average pupil:teacher ratio since May 1979; what was the October 1974 to May 1979 average: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The average overall PTR for the period January 1980 to January 1991 inclusive, the latest date for which full information is available was 17.7. For the period January 1975 to January 1979 inclusive the average overall PTR was 19.6.

  Higher Education Funding Councils
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what study he is making of the number of Scottish students attending English universities after the establishment of higher education funding councils.

  Mr. Forman
  My Department is making no such study. Places for home students at higher education institutions in England will be funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England irrespective of domicile. The same principle will apply to funding for places at institutions in Scotland and Wales by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Single-Sex Education
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children of school age receive single-sex education in(a) Romford, (b) the London borough of Havering and (c) England and Wales generally; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which this provides adequate choice for parents in the state sector.

  Mr. Forth
  Information for schools in Romford is not available centrally. Information on schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales. In January 1991, the percentages of children of compulsory school age receiving education in maintained single sex schools in Havering local education authority and England as a whole are 9.2 and 4.7 respectively. It is for each local education authority to determine the demand for single sex education in its area.

  Statementing
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the arrangements for the statementing of children with special education needs; and what discussions he has had on the provision of medical services to children attending special education establish-ments in the Wigan metropolitan borough.

  Mr. Forth
  On 11 June my noble Friend the Minister of State said in another place that the Government had undertaken a fundamental review of the Education Act 1981. and announced the Government's proposals to legislate to improve present arrangements for assessments and statements. We shall consult widely on the detail of our proposals.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has ministerial responsibility for the provision of medical services.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many children in(a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster and (c) Rotherham are currently diagnosed as suffering from dyslexia;

  (2) how many curriculum support assistants are currently employed for special needs children in (a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster and (c) Rotherham;

  (3) how many people qualified in dealing with dyslexia are currently employed in (a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster, (c) Rotherham and (d) nationally;

  (4) how many children are currently classed as remedial in (a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster and (c) Rotherham; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of the national average;

  (5) how many children are currently undergoing the statementing process in (a) Barnsley, (h) Doncaster and (c) Rotherham expressed as specific numbers and as a percentage of the national average;

  (6) how many children are assessed as having special needs in (a) Barnsley, (b) Rotherham and (c) Doncaster; and what amount of resources is currently allocated for children with special needs in each of these areas.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Training Grants
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the local education authorities who have claimed grant for education, support and training at 65 per cent. on the full cost of funding the initial training of an educational psychologist in circumstances where the individual involved in such training has contributed 35 per cent. of the costs.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities may only claim grant under the grants for education support and training programme in respect of eligible spending which they themselves incur. They may not claim grant in respect of costs met by the individual being trained. The Department has asked local education authorities to confirm that their claims have been prepared on this basis, but has not yet received all replies.

  Psychologists
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many educational psychologists are employed in(a) Barnsley, (b) Doncaster and (c) Rotherham expressed as a specific figure and as a percentage of the national average.

  Mr. Forth
  The table gives in column 1 full-time equivalent numbers of educational psychologists em-ployed by the local education authorities in question in January 1992. Column 2 expresses these as a percentage of the average number employed per English LEA. The figures are provided in the form requested, but are not weighted to take account of variations between LEAs in the numbers of children of school age for which they are responsible.

  Shire counties 1989–90

  Net institutional expenditure per secondary pupil 1989–90(£)

  Percentage of leavers with five or more GCSE/O/CSE grades A to C

  Rank (passes)

  Derbyshire

  1,975

  26.9

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  1,955

  24.7

  38

  Cleveland

  1,915

  27.3

  31

  Hertfordshire

  1,900

  36.1

  6

  Leicestershire

  1,900

  28.4

  27

  Shropshire

  1,855

  32.4

  12

  Buckinghamshire

  1,850

  41.2

  1

  Cumbria

  1,845

  29.6

  23

  Suffolk

  1,820

  26.6

  34

  Bedfordshire

  1,815

  27.3

  31

  Lancashire

  1,810

  29.4

  25

  Oxfordshire

  1,810

  29.8

  21

  Norfolk

  1,810

  27.8

  29

  Essex

  1,800

  30.9

  17

  Avon

  1,800

  30.2

  19

  Hampshire

  1,790

  32.8

  11

  Staffordshire

  1,790

  26.6

  34

  Warwickshire

  1,770

  30.9

  17

  East Sussex

  1,765

  36.5

  5

  North Yorkshire

  1,760

  37.6

  4

  Humberside

  1,760

  23.4

  39

  West Sussex

  1,745

  39.6

  3

  Somerset

  1,745

  31.4

  16

  Gloucestershire

  1,735

  34.3

  7

  Berkshire

  1,735

  32.4

  12

  Durham

  1,735

  26.3

  37

  Cheshire

  1,715

  33.3

  10

  Devon

  1,710

  29.5

  24

  Wiltshire

  1,700

  30.1

  20

  Cornwall including Scilly

  1,690

  33.8

  8

  Northamptonshire

  1,685

  27.8

  29

  Surrey

  1,675

  40.7

  2

  Northumberland

  1,645

  33.4

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  1,640

  29.8

  21

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,635

  32.1

  14

  Dorset

  1,635

  31.5

  15

  Lincolnshire

  1,630

  26.6

  34

  Isle of Wight

  1,575

  28.1

  28

  Kent

  1,570

  28.9

  26

  England

  1,855

  28.6

  Note: Per pupil expenditure figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department for the Environment and their pupil numbers to the Department of Education. Figures are for 1989–90, the latest year for which actual spending information is available. Net institutional expenditure covers spending on salaries and wages, recurrent premises costs, books and equipment, and certain other supplies and services. It excludes spending on LEA administration, home to school transport, school meals and financing costs of capital expenditure.
  128

  Number of1 Educational Psychologists (FTE)

  Percentage2 of National Average Percentage

  Barnsley

  4.5

  32.6

  Doncaster

  9.0

  65.2

  Rotherham

  10.3

  74.6

  England

  1,505.2

  —

  School Expenditure
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list in rank order the shire county education authorities' spending per pupil in secondary schools, relative to the proportion of secondary school pupils achieving five GCSEs at grades A to C, and the national averages for the most recent year available.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows school-based spending per-secondary pupil in shire counties in financial year 1989–90, and the average percentage of school leavers obtaining five or more grades A, B or C at GCSE in 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

DEFENCE

  Gulf Medal
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the metal specification of the Gulf medal; when it was authorised to be made; when the first issue to recipients was made and when the issue will be completed; if he will make a statement about the quality of the production and speed of issue; and whether he intends to seek competitive tenders for future issues of medals and awards.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Gulf medal is made of cupro-nickel. The Command Paper for the Gulf medal was approved by Her Majesty the Queen on 10 August 1991, and it was published and laid before Parliament on 20 August 1991. The order for the manufacture of the medals was placed later that month; the first medals were produced by the Royal Mint in October 1991 and the first issues made in November 1991. The initial dispatch rate of 1,000 medals per week has now been more than doubled, and it is expected that the bulk of issues of the medal will be completed by the end of July 1992. The Government have been satisfied with the quality of the medal produced by the Royal Mint. The possibility of seeking competitive tenders for future medal issues is under consideration.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a study of cataracts in British nuclear test participants will be undertaken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The National Radiological Protection Board considers it to be impracticable to undertake a study of cataracts in all 20,000 test participants. It has, however, agreed to carry out an investigation on a small group of volunteers from the test veterans associations.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a study into potential genetic effects of nuclear contamination in the families of British nuclear test participants.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A study is to be undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board in conjunction with the Childhood Cancer Research Group, and other organisations into cancer in the children of radiation workers included in the National Register for Radiation Workers. In the light of this study MoD will consider whether to commission such a study for British test participants.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many body scans have been undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board as part of its follow-on survey dealing with British nuclear test participants.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what period the Blue Books, recording radiation exposure in British nuclear test participants, have been compiled.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Blue Books record radiation exposures of test participants in the United Kingdom nuclear weapons test programme, both atmospheric and underground, for the period 1952–67.
  130
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what authorisation has been given by individuals, who served as participants in British nuclear tests, for their Blue Book entries to be made available to the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts have been made to inform British nuclear test participants of their Blue Book entries and of their rights to access these personal records.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As the vast majority of test participants received a zero dose, it would be inappropriate to contact each service man individually. Test participants are entitled under suitable privacy arrangements to receive the information on their dose records. held in the Blue Books.

  RAF Tain
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will halt the use of the air weapons range at RAF Tain by USAF F-111E aircraft until such time as he has received and published the findings of the inquiry into the recent inadvertent dropping of five practice bombs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United States Air Force F-111E temporarily ceased using RAF Tain range from the afternoon of 11 June, after an incident in which four practice bombs were irregularly released. This followed the irregular release of one practice bomb on 4 June. USAF investigations into the two incidents found that they had been caused by unrelated technical malfunctions. All F-111E aircraft were checked for both types of fault and were cleared to begin using the range again on 17 June.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual salary range applicable to the Head of the Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Mr. Aitken
  The present Head of Defence Export Services, Mr. Alan Thomas, is on secondment from Raytheon Europe, Ltd., which pays his salary and is reimbursed by the Ministry of Defence. His current salary is £123,220 a year, subject to annual review, and Mr. Thomas is eligible for a performance bonus within an annual maximum of £30,000.

  Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what was the budget for development of Battlefield IFF for each of the last five years; and what is the budget for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have funded a number of technology programmes within the Defence Research Agency which are applicable to a range of potential equipments, including Battlefield IFF, although the expenditure applicable solely to Battlefield IFF cannot be separately identified. The Defence Research Agency is now undertaking a research programme aimed at assessing short-term solutions as well as options for the longer term for such a system.

  We have not commenced the development of a Battlefield IFF because it has not yet been possible to

  131
  identify a secure and effective solution which would match the complexities of the modern battlefield. As far as our budget for the next five years is concerned, it is not our practice to reveal the details of our forward programme.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Finance, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total debt in the housing account of the Harrogate borough council and the servicing costs for the 1991–92 financial year.

  Mr. Baldry
  No information is held centrally on a split of total authority debt which relates to housing, nor of the split of servicing costs. Local housing authorities are however required to maintain a housing revenue account where debt servicing costs are charged for housing. These costs are based upon debt figures calculated by formula.

  The estimated average debt used in the formula for charging servicing costs to the housing revenue account of Harrogate borough council for 1991–92 is about £18.1 million. The provisional debt servicing costs for the same year are £2.46 million.

  Table A—running costs at current prices

  CAT

  1987–88 (£000's)

  1988–89 (£000's)

  1989–90 (£000's)

  1990–91 (£000's)

  1991–92 (£000's)

  Nottingham/Leicester/Derby

  n/a1

  183

  183

  183

  271

  Liverpool

  204

  204

  204

  204

  223

  London

  190

  254

  226

  226

  299

  Tyne and Wear

  132

  132

  165

  242

  242

  Leeds/Bradford

  n/a1

  121

  146

  176

  215

  Birmingham

  40

  106

  127

  137

  177

  Manchester/Salford

  127

  124

  118

  155

  191

  Cleveland

  40

  38

  62

  71

  90

  Table B—running costs at 1987–88 prices

  Nottingham/Leicester/Derby

  n/a1

  119

  119

  119

  186

  Liverpool

  140

  140

  140

  140

  150

  London

  125

  171

  150

  150

  198

  Tyne and Wear

  90

  90

  113

  166

  166

  Leeds/Bradford

  n/a1

  83

  100

  121

  147

  Birmingham

  27

  73

  87

  87

  121

  Manchester/Salford

  87

  85

  81

  106

  131

  Cleveland

  27

  26

  43

  48

  60

  1 Leeds/Bradford and Nottingham/Leicester/Derby CATs were launched in March 1998.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure on each city action team by his Department for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Responsibility for city action teams transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of the Environment in December 1989. City action teams expenditure from 1989 has been as follows:

  TABLE A

  Current prices

  City action team

  1989–90 £'000s

  1990–91 £'000s

  1991–92 £'000s

  Nottingham/Leicester/Derby

  870

  895

  888

  Liverpool

  1,356

  1,118

  1,234

  London

  1,057

  1,230

  1,129

  Tyne and Wear

  1,372

  1,118

  1,298

  Leeds/Bradford

  800

  1,006

  846

  Birmingham

  690

  895

  982

  Manchester/Salford

  572

  1,006

  908

  Cleveland

  784

  1,342

  1,442

  Cumbria
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 342, whether he will publish the recommendations of the report by Cambridge Economic Consultants into the south and west Cumbrian economies.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  City Action
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure showing the running costs of each city action team, excluding the funding programmes, for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The running costs for city action teams are shared by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment. These are estimated as follows:

  City action team

  1989–90 £'000s

  1990–91 £'000s

  1991–92 £'000s

  TOTALS

  17,501

  8,610

  8,727

  1 A total of 63 per cent. was spent after the transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of the Environment (from 19 December 1989 to 31 March 1990).

  TABLE. B

  1987–88 prices

  City action team

  1989–90 £'000s

  1990–91 £'000s

  1991–92 £'000s

  Nottingham/Leicester/Derby

  629

  647

  642

  Liverpool

  981

  809

  893

  London

  765

  890

  816

  Tyne and Wear

  992

  809

  939

  Leeds/Bradford

  578

  728

  612

  Birmingham

  499

  647

  711

  Manchester/Salford

  414

  728

  657

  Cleveland

  567

  971

  1,043

  TOTALS

  15,425

  6,229

  6,313

  133
  1 A total of 63 per cent. was spent after the transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of the Environment (from 19 December 1989 to 31 March 1990).

  Newsletter
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of his Department's environmental protection group research newsletter, issued in March, were printed; to which organisations or individuals it is circulated; what assessment he has made of its effectiveness based on experience gained from the 1991 newsletter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  More than 400 of the 1992 environmen-tal protection research newsletters have been printed to date. It is circulated to private industry, public corporations, including local authorities, environmental publications, research councils, educational establishments and individuals.

  Judgment of the effectiveness of the newsletter is based on the significant number of inquiries received by the Department, and the consequential expressions of interest in applying for inclusion on the tender list for contracts listed in the newsletter.

  My Department considers the newsletter an effective device for bringing the formal environmental protection programme of the Department to the attention of the research community.

  Enterprise Zones—Compensation for Rates Revenue forgone

  Costs (£'000s)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  (a) = (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  England

  Allerdale

  423

  585

  627

  905

  1,034

  Corby

  3,464

  4,344

  4,658

  4,711

  5,384

  Dudley

  4,141

  4,607

  4,940

  7,570

  8,651

  Glanford

  111

  275

  295

  486

  555

  Hartlepool

  871

  1,116

  1,197

  1,455

  1,663

  Isle of Dogs

  6,463

  7,763

  8,324

  12,938

  14,786

  Middlesbrough

  741

  846

  907

  1,142

  1,305

  North East Lancs

  916

  1,556

  1,668

  2,438

  2,786

  North West Kent

  2,175

  3,171

  3,400

  4,361

  4,984

  Rotherham

  1,205

  2,535

  2,718

  2,553

  2,918

  Salford/Trafford

  5,747

  7,782

  8,344

  9,790

  11,189

  Scunthorpe

  1,320

  2,881

  3,089

  3,683

  4,209

  Speke

  2,015

  2,414

  2,588

  2,919

  3,336

  Telford

  1,890

  2,332

  2,501

  4,173

  4,769

  Tyneside

  10,067

  10,455

  11,210

  14,586

  16,670

  Wakefield

  1,399

  1,572

  1,686

  1,828

  2,089

  Wellingborough

  1,810

  1,869

  2,004

  2,035

  2,326

  Wales

  Delyn

  607

  622

  667

  826

  944

  Milford Haven

  582

  631

  677

  779

  890

  Swansea

  2,249

  2,653

  2,845

  3,777

  4,317

  Scotland

  Clydebank

  2,753

  2,595

  2,783

  2,747

  3,139

  Inverclyde

  —

  (c)

  (c)

  Invergordon

  366

  209

  224

  n/a

  Tayside

  1,448

  1,214

  1,302

  1,902

  2,174

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  1,304

  1,640

  1,759

  1,989

  2,273

  Londonderry

  677

  733

  786

  804

  919

  (a) actual outturn

  (b) 1987–88 prices

  (c) included in Clydebank total

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure on the urban programme broken down into economic, environmental and social categories and cross-referenced to standard regions, showing Greater London as a separate region, for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure from his Department, to each enterprise zone, including tax reliefs, for each year from 1987–88(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows annual costs for rate revenue forgone in United Kingdom enterprise zones from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1990. No comparable figures are available for other enterprise zone allowances.

  City Grant
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table of expenditure on city grant, cross-referenced to 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. Robin Squire
  City grant was introduced in May 1988. Details of expenditure by region and financial year after that date are as follows:

  Amount of city grant approved by region— prices at date of approval.

  Region

  1988–89 £ million

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  West Midlands

  5.34

  19.34

  14.22

  15.84

  North West

  2.65

  24.33

  15.85

  27.67

  Northern

  1.50

  6.45

  2.39

  9.01

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1.03

  5.07

  16.60

  11.87

  London

  5.57

  5.66

  2.56

  7.58

  East Midlands

  9.33

  4.34

  1.73

  8.23

  South West

  —

  —

  0.26

  4.83

  25.42

  65.19

  53.61

  85.03

  Amount of City Gram approved—1988–89 prices

  Region

  1988–89 £ million

  1989–90 £ million

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  West Midlands

  5.34

  18.14

  12.33

  12.84

  North West

  2.65

  22.82

  13.74

  22.42

  Northern

  1.50

  6.05

  2.07

  7.30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1.03

  4.76

  14.40

  9.62

  London

  5.57

  5.31

  2.22

  6.14

  East Midlands

  9.33

  4.07

  1.50

  6.67

  South West

  —

  —

  0.23

  3.91

  25.42

  61.15

  46.49

  68.90

  Travellers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in 1991–92 local authorities reported difficulties to his Department as a result of the occupation of land in their ownership by gipsies and other itinerants.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities in England submit to the Department a biannual statistical return showing the numbers of gipsy caravans camped illegally on private and publicly owned land within their areas. Copies of the latest return, for January 1992, are in the Library. Authorities are not required to report to the Department individual cases of unauthorised camping by gipsies and other travellers.

  Local Government Officers (Pensions)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average annual pension paid to retired local government officers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Based on available data as at 31 March 1991, the average annual pension paid to retired local government officers in England and Wales, under the local government superannuation scheme, was £2,562.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his decisions on final caps for the authorities which he has designated for capping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have laid before the House a draft order, under section 104 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, setting out my decisions on the final caps for the eight authorities which have challenged my proposed caps and put forward higher alternatives. For the two authorities—Langbaurgh and Middlesbrough—which accepted the caps I originally proposed for them I have confirmed their caps at the level originally proposed.

  For each of the challenging authorities, I have considered all the available relevant information, including the case made to me by those authorities in support of a higher cap, before taking my decisions. For Cheltenham, Gloucester, Greenwich, Hillingdon and Lambeth I have decided to confirm the caps which I initially proposed.

  In the case of the other three authorities I consider that some relaxation would be justified. I have decided to increase Basildon's cap by £1.95 million, Gloucestershire's by £2.59 million and Warwickshire's by £4 million. The caps that I have now decided are, in my view, reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of the authorities concerned.

  The caps for each of the designated authorities and the resulting reductions in charges are as follows:

  Authority

  Final Cap £million

  Reduction in charge £

  Basildon

  22.10

  41

  Cheltenham

  9.91

  12

  Gloucester

  10.15

  3

  Gloucestershire

  320.50

  18

  Greenwich

  220.04

  56

  Hillingdon

  166.27

  5

  Langbaurgh

  16.50

  18

  Lambeth

  328.79

  23

  Middlesbrough

  20.20

  14

  Warwickshire

  296.99

  8

  UNCED
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the official United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 9 June, [Official Report, column 147.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Employment Status
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy to allow hon. Members to revert to self-employed status.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.
  137
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received about allowing hon. Members to regain their self-employed status.

  Mr. Newton
  None, other than those implied by my hon. Friend's questions.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Residential Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 136, what studies his Department has undertaken of the proportion of income support for people in residential care required for (a) living support, (b) housing support and (c) care.

  Mr. Burt
  None. No study has been made by the DSS of specific items of expenditure within income support. The Price Waterhouse survey commissioned by the Department and published in October 1990 did make a distinction between running costs and capital costs. A copy is in the Library.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he could give an estimate of the annual amount and category of social security benefits which are not claimed; and what measures will be taken to make people aware of what benefits they are entitled to.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is contained in the estimates of take-up of income-related benefits for 1987, copies of which are in the Library. The Department tries to ensure that people are in a position to make informed choices on whether to claim, but does not have a legal duty to advise people to follow one course rather than another. Social security legislation clearly places the onus of claiming on individuals. One of the major priorities of its Benefits Agency is to enable people to establish their eligibility by making available information which is comprehensive, accurate and easy to understand. and to seek to ensure that claims are handled helpfully and efficiently.

  Young People
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he will take in response to the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding the needs of young people.

  Mr. Burt
  We have read and are carefully considering the SSAC report in respect of administrative arrangements. The Department has already implemented a number of initiatives aimed at easing access to benefit for young people and at ensuring help is available to those at risk. Benefit arrangements are monitored on a continuing basis and are always under review.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual cost to the Exchequer of unfreezing the retirement pensions of those now resident overseas but entitled to receive such 138
  pensions so that they are eligible for that same sum they would have received had they remained in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated additional cost of paying United Kingdom retirement and widows pensions to beneficiaries living abroad at the same rate of benefit which they would have been paid had they remained in the United Kingdom is £275 million a year at 1992 rates. A separate figure for retirement pensioners only is not readily available.

  Disability
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the claim by Florence Muriel Marshall, NI No. ZS 506176D for disability living allowance was submitted: when it is to be resolved: and if he will make a statement.

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

  Residential Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants for(a) residential care and (b) nursing home care there were in each region in May 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  Information in the form requested is not available. Such information as is available is in the table. taken from the May 1991 annual statistical inquiry, published on 19 June 1992.

  Residential care (thousands)

  Nursing homes (thousands)

  England

  123.3

  75.8

  Scotland

  8.4

  9.1

  Wales

  7.1

  8.8

  Great Britain

  138.8

  93.7

  Personal Pension Plans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the annual sums paid to providers of personal pension plans under the Social Security Act 1986 in respect of rebates and subsidies for contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme in each of the financial years including 1991–92 that the Act has been in force.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Payments in respect of personal pensions used for contracting out of SERPS

  Year of payment

  NI rebates £ million

  Incentives £ million

  Tax refund £ million

  Total £ million

  1988–89

  295

  1—

  37

  332

  1989–90

  1,712

  685

  205

  2,602

  1990–91

  1,492

  512

  172

  2,176

  1991–92

  1,777

  599

  204

  2,580

  Totals

  5,276

  1,796

  618

  7,690

  139
  1 First payments of the incentive were made in April 1989.

  Source: Contributions Agency: 100 per cent. count of payments made.

  Water Charges
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy for assisting with water charges claimants with dependent children.

  Mr. Burt
  For most people expenditure on water is one of many items to be taken into account when managing a budget. Movements in the cost of water are incorporated in the index used to uprate the income-related benefits, including income support.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of households in England are dependent on housing benefit; and how this has changed since the current system of housing benefit was introduced.

  Mr. Burt
  'The most recent estimate, for May 1991, is that 17 per cent. of households in England receive some of their income from housing benefit—rent rebates and allowances. The corresponding figures for previous years are 18 per cent. for 1988 and 17 per cent. for both 1989 and 1990.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the year end balance of the national insurance fund in each year from 31 March 1985 showing the effect of payments made to the fund under section 16 of the Social Security Act 1990 and section 13 of the Employment Act 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The table details the year-end balances of the national insurance fund from 31 March 1985. Figures for 1991–92 are not yet available.

  Under section 16 of the Social Security Act 1990, payments were made to the fund from 1 April 1990 and amounted to £1,268 million for the year ending 31 March 1991.

  Section 13 of the Employment Act 1990 abolished the former redundancy fund on 31 January 1991 and transferred its assets and liabilities to the national insurance fund on that day. This resulted in a one-off payment to the fund of £914.5 million for the year ending 31 March 1991.

  Those sums were employed in the day-to-day running of the fund, together with its other income, and have contributed to the end-of-year balance shown.

  Year

  Balance at end of year £'000s

  1984–85

  4,977,510

  1985–86

  5,293,024

  1986–87

  5,706,966

  1987–88

  7,287,620

  1988–89

  10,368,808

  1989–90

  10,307,139

  1990–91

  11,791,856

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made with the investigation into the position of family credit applications by self-employed persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The research being undertaken by the social policy research unit at York university into family credit and the self-employed is a multi-staged exercise. The draft report on that part of the study relating to the method of the assessment of income from self-employment is expected during the summer. The draft final report of the whole study is expected in spring 1993.

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contributions have been made to the trust fund set up by his Department for the benefit of Maxwell pension fund members.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The formal arrangements for establishing the trust fund are currently in hand and we shall be announcing details of the first contribution shortly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 315, if he will list the number of people, other than those in the Maxwell pension schemes, whose pensions are threatened because the assets of these schemes are not able to meet the pension payments and future commitments; how many schemes are involved; and what examination has been made of how far problems have arisen because of ineffective management, improper management or some other reason.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not routinely available, in the form requested, from the 300,000 occupational pension schemes currently in operation. Safeguards exist in trust law to protect the interests of members of schemes. The trustees have a duty to act at all times in the interests of all the beneficiaries of the scheme in accordance with the trust deed.

  In addition, in the case of a scheme that is used for contracting out of SERPS, the Occupational Pensions Board is required to satisfy itself that the schemes' resources are sufficient to meet the guaranteed minimum pension liability to members. To satisfy themselves that this is the case the board relies on certificates signed by actuaries and submitted to them every three and a half years. Additionally, in the case of self-administered schemes, an annual statement, signed by the scheme administrator, auditor or trustees, is required concerning the audit of scheme accounts, the receipt of contributions, and any self-investment or concentration of investment.

  A detailed analysis of scheme management is not normally carried out by the Department but the exceptional nature of the problems surrounding the Maxwell pension schemes has led to close links being established between this Department and those schemes.

  Age Allowance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to implement the proposed increase from 25p to £1 per week in the age allowance for pensioners aged over 80 years.
  141
  Miss Widdecombe
  The age addition of 25p which is awarded to all those aged 80 or over and receiving a state retirement pension remains unchanged. From April 1992 those receiving income support aged 80 or over—or younger disabled pensioners—benefited from an increase in the higher pensioner premium of £1 for single people and £1.50 for couples. We believe that increasing the premium in this way, and thereby helping pensioners on low incomes, is a more effective use of resources than increasing the existing 25p age addition for all pensioners aged 80 and over regardless of individual need.

  Registered Disabled
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total number of registered disabled people in the United Kingdom with(a) disabilities in one arm and (b) a missing upper limb for the last year in which figures are available.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally and is not available in the form requested. Information on the prevalence of different types of disability is given in the reports published in 1988–89 on the survey of disability carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Copies are available in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Environmental Contract
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department issued the most recent edition of its "Environmental Contract: A Guide for Business Directory"; how many copies were printed and what cost; and what is his assessment of the effectiveness of the directory based on experience gained with the 1991 edition.

  Date of appointment

  Company name

  Date of report

  25 July 1980

  Dunlop Holdings Ltd.

  10 March 19812

  12 November 19813

  4 September 1980

  Euroseas Securities Ltd.

  5 March 1985

  24 August 1981

  Riafield Ltd.

  30 December 1983

  11 November 1981

  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.

  24 September 1986

  8 March 1982

  Euroflame Holding plc

  27 June 1987

  25 March 1982

  Pharmaceutex (IV Fluid) Ltd.

  4 June 1986

  Drivehouse Ltd.

  Furdrove Ltd.

  10 May 1982

  Cubar Construction Ltd.

  28 August 1984

  19 November 1982

  Signal Life Assurance Co. Ltd.

  16 November 1988

  11 March 1983

  Graylow Holdings Ltd.

  28 November 1989*

  Link Service Stations Ltd.

  British Anzani plc

  28 November 1989*

  4 October 1983

  Bank Street Securities Ltd.

  28 November 1989*

  Pennine Commercial Holdings plc

  28 November 19891*

  25 February 1983

  Hartley Baird plc

  21 December 1983

  16 February 1984

  Medway Secondary Metals Ltd.

  21 October 1987*

  9 May 1985

  Hartley Baird plc

  23 May 1986

  28 November 1986

  Guinness plc

  24 November 19881*

  20 October 1988

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc

  13 January 19891*

  5 April 19892*

  26 May 1989

  Blue Arrow plc

  4 June 1991*

  142
  Mr. Leigh
  The second and most recent edition of "Environmental Contract: A Guide for Business" was published mid-March 1992. A total of 27,000 copies were produced at a cost of £43,000.

  The guide has been welcomed by representatives of business. All 30,000 copies of the 1991 edition were distributed and as a measure of its success to date more than 11,000 copies of the second edition have been requested.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with industry over the publication of annual environmental reports for companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department maintains close contact with industry on a range of environmental issues including the reporting of environmental performance. I welcome the growing trend for companies to report on their environmental performance. Companies are best placed, in the light of individual circumstances, to determine the frequency and scope of environmental reports.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, columns 154–55, if he will list the reports which remain unpublished and those he intends to publish.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The table lists all reports set out in my answer of 20 May,Official Report, columns 154–55 which remain unpublished. A substantial interim report on Dunlop Holdings was published on 17 February 1981. The decision whether to publish the reports marked with an asterisk remains under consideration and the reports of all inspectors appointed since 1 January 1986 have either been published or remain under consideration.
  143

  Date of appointment

  Company name

  Date of report

  23 June 1989

  The Bestwood plc

  26 March 1991*

  Atlanta Fund Managers Ltd.

  1 Interim.

  2 Second Interim.

  3 Final.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on sharing information on specific export licences with(a) his Department's counterpart offices in other EC member states, (b) its counterpart offices in other COCOM countries and (c) its counterpart offices in NATO nations.

  Mr. Needham
  Information contained in applications for export licences is treated as commercially confidential. However, contact is regularly made with other Governments in cases where we wish to ensure effective enforcement of export controls.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to require companies in their annual accounts to show the percentage of turnover spent on research and development.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. Under SSAP 13, large companies already show spend on research and development in their accounts and the Accounting Standards Board's recently published proposals that companies should include an operating and financial review in annual reports build on this.

  Profit Forecasts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to require large public limited companies to publish profit forecasts in their annual accounts.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Statutory Definitions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to provide a statutory definition of asset;

  (2) what plans he has to provide a statutory definition of profit.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Joint Disciplinary Scheme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will appoint an independent commission to examine the workings of the joint disciplinary scheme.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Cadbury Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he submitted to the Cadbury committee on corporate governance.
  144
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have not submitted any written evidence. However, a representative of my Department has attended meetings of the committee as an observer.

  Bonus Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to require shareholders to be informed of the bonuses paid to company executives.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  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. In addition, aggregate details of directors' emoluments, with individual figures for the chairman and most highly paid director, have to be set out in the notes to the annual accounts. I do not propose legislation requiring further disclosure of individual directors' emoluments.

  Accounting Practices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to prevent companies from capitalising interest paid as an asset in their balance sheets.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This issue is best dealt with through an accounting standard.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint an independent commission to investigate the impact of accounting practices on short-termism.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. The Accounting Standards Board's recent discussion paper proposing the inclusion in annual reports of an operating and financial review, in which managers might discuss in a structured way some of the main factors underlying the performance and financial position shown in the financial statements, makes a useful contribution to this debate.

  Directors (Misconduct)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints about the unfit conduct of directors were submitted to the Insolvency Service in 1990 and 1991; in how many cases legal proceedings were undertaken; and in how many cases disqualification orders were made.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In the calendar years 1990 and 1991 there were, respectively, 4,235 and 5,744 reports identifying aspects of unfitting conduct submitted by official receivers and insolvency practitioners; 488 and 633 proceedings were authorised against individuals and 286 and 322 disqualification orders were made.

  Regional Air Links
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the importance of air links between the regions and Heathrow to the local economies concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department recognises the importance air links to London can have for the local economies of the regions. This view is shared by the Department of Transport.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Office of Fair Trading has completed its investigation of the purchase of the British Manufacturing and Research Company by British Aerospace; and when he expects to receive the advice of the OFT.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading is continuing his inquiries into this acquisition and I expect his advice in due course.

  Insolvency Act 1986
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of The Board of Trade how many companies went into receivership under the Insolvency Act 1986, in each year since 1986 and in the current year to the most recent available date; how many

  Table C2 Liquidations and receiverships notified, 1986–87 to 1990–91

  Number of companies

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Apr-Jun 1990

  Jul-Sep 1990

  Oct-Dec 1990

  Jan-Mar 1991

  Apr-May 1991–92

  Great Britain

  Compulsory liquidations

  5,163

  3,911

  3,789

  4,511

  7,043

  1,342

  1,047

  2,512

  2,142

  9,210

  Creditor's voluntary liquidations

  9,412

  7,064

  6,011

  6,981

  10,610

  2,118

  2,365

  2,697

  3,430

  14,124

  Total insolvencies

  14,575

  10,975

  9,800

  11,492

  17,653

  3,460

  3,412

  5,209

  5,572

  0

  Members' voluntary liquidations

  5,115

  2,834

  4,063

  4,215

  4,172

  1,088

  835

  1,053

  1,196

  0

  Total liquidations

  19,690

  13,809

  13,863

  15,707

  21,825

  4,548

  4,247

  6,262

  6,768

  0

  Receiverships notified

  1,971

  1,384

  1,252

  2,423

  5,580

  967

  1,102

  1,509

  2,002

  8759

  Administrator appointments

  3

  156

  187

  160

  237

  67

  57

  49

  64

  0

  Company voluntary arrangements

  1

  27

  52

  49

  75

  9

  15

  18

  33

  0

  England and Wales

  Compulsory liquidations

  4,882

  3,667

  3,554

  4,289

  6,786

  1,286

  985

  2,439

  2,076

  8,911

  Creditor's voluntary liquidations

  9,198

  6,863

  5,837

  6,783

  10,378

  2,070

  2,316

  2,628

  3,364

  13,808

  Total insolvencies

  14,080

  10,530

  9,391

  11,072

  17,164

  3,356

  3,301

  5,067

  5,440

  0

  Members' voluntary liquidations

  4,882

  2,657

  3,809

  3,984

  3,941

  1,025

  788

  989

  1,139

  0

  Total liquidations

  18,962

  13,187

  13,200

  15,056

  21,105

  4,381

  4,089

  6,056

  6,579

  0

  Receiverships notified

  1,769

  1,202

  1,133

  2,266

  5,327

  925

  1,045

  1,430

  1,927

  8,503

  Administrator appointments

  0

  144

  179

  162

  222

  65

  56

  41

  60

  0

  Company voluntary arrangements

  0

  26

  52

  49

  75

  9

  15

  18

  33

  0

  Scotland

  Compulsory liquidations

  281

  244

  235

  222

  257

  56

  62

  73

  66

  299

  Creditors' voluntary liquidations

  214

  201

  174

  198

  232

  48

  49

  69

  66

  316

  Total insolvencies

  495

  445

  409

  420

  489

  104

  111

  142

  132

  0

  Members' voluntary liquidations

  233

  177

  254

  231

  231

  63

  47

  64

  57

  0

  Total liquidations

  728

  622

  663

  651

  720

  167

  158

  206

  189

  0

  Receiverships notified

  202

  182

  119

  157

  253

  42

  57

  79

  75

  256

  Administrator appointments

  3

  12

  8

  8

  15

  2

  1

  8

  4

  0

  Company voluntary arrangements

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  146
  directors of companies were prosecuted under the Act or similar statutory provisions over the same periods and (a) acquitted or (b) convicted; and what was the nature of the sentences passed on those convicted.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of receiverships notified in each year beginning with 1986–87 and ending with January-March 1991 are published in "Companies in 1990–91" laid before Parliament in accordance with section 729 of the Companies Act 1985. A copy of table C2 from that publication follows, with available figures for April 1991 to March 1992 added.

  Tables follow listing sections of the Insolvency Act 1986 creating offences in connection with companies, numbers of directors convicted and acquitted of each offence and the range of sentences passed. Similar tables show offences prosecuted under the Companies Acts 1948,1976 and 1985 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  The tables relate to offences detected by official receivers dealing with companies in liquidation, and a small number detected by companies investigation branch, and prosecuted by investigations division of the Department of Trade and Industry. Separate tables are given for the calendar years 1988 to 1991. The figures include cases referred by investigations division to other agencies. They do not include cases investigated by police forces with no investigations division involvement. Bankruptcy offences prosecuted under the Insolvency Act 1986 have not been included whether or not the bankrupt had been a director of a company.

  147

  Insolvency Act 1986

  Calendar year 1988

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 216

  1

  —

  Fined £750

  Companies Acts

  Calendar year 1988

  Year and Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  1948

  S 161

  1

  —

  Fined £500

  S 187

  15

  —

  Sentence ranged from six months in prison, fines up to £500 and 40 hours community service.

  S 328

  1

  —

  Fined £500

  S 330

  1

  —

  Nine months suspended two years.

  S 331

  1

  —

  Nine months imprisonment.

  S 332

  14

  2

  Sentences ranged from four months imprisonment suspended to three years in prison.

  1976

  S 12

  47

  —

  Fines ranged from £50 to £1,500 and from a conditional discharge to six months imprisonment.

  1985

  S 34

  2

  —

  Fined £75

  S 221–223

  26

  3

  Sentence ranged from a con-ditional discharge with fines up to £1,600.

  S 241

  1

  —

  Fined £500

  S 287

  1

  —

  Fined £25

  S 302

  8

  —

  Fines up to £500 and up to 3 months imprisonment.

  S 458

  4

  2

  Sentences ranged from fines up to £250 and 18 months in prison.

  S 624

  1

  —

  Six months imprisonment.

  Company directors Disqualification Act 1986

  Calendar year 1988

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 11/13

  2

  —

  Conditional discharge and fines up to £100.

  Insolvency Act 1986

  For 1989

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S207

  1

  —

  Six months imprisonment suspended two years.

  S208

  —

  1

  —

  S216

  6

  1

  Conditional discharge to fines up to £1,000.

  Companies Acts

  Calendar year 1989

  Year and Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  1948

  S 187

  23

  —

  Sentences ranged from a con-ditional discharge to 12 months imprisonment with fines up to £1,000.

  148

  Year and Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 332

  7

  1

  Sentences ranged from fines up to £2,000 and suspended prison sentences up to 18 months.

  1976

  S 12

  20

  —

  Sentences ranged from a con-ditional discharge to 12 months imprisonment and fines between £50 to £1,000.

  1985

  S 34

  1

  —

  Fined £200.

  S 221/223

  60

  5

  Sentences ranged from a conditional discharge to three months imprisonment and fines between £100 to £500.

  S 302

  12

  2

  Sentences ranged from commun-ity service up to 180 hours, fines between £400 to £1,000 and nine months imprisonment.

  S 351

  3

  —

  Fined £50 to £100.

  S 389

  1

  —

  Fined £500.

  S 458

  11

  —

  Sentences ranged between 9–30 months imprisonment.

  S 626

  2

  —

  Fined £400.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

  Calendar year 1989

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 11/13

  2

  —

  Fined between £75 and £750.

  Insolvency Act 1986

  Calendar year 1990

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S206

  2

  1

  Nine months suspended prison sentence.

  S216

  4

  1

  Fines up to £1,000 and up to four years disqualification from acting as a director.

  Companies Acts

  Calendar year 1990

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  1948

  S 187

  9

  —

  Fines ranged from £500 to £1,500 and suspended sentences up to 12 months. Disqualification up to five years.

  S 221

  1

  —

  Fined £500.

  S 323

  1

  —

  Four months imprisonment, suspended.

  S 332

  4

  —

  Sentences ranged from suspended sentences to three and a half years imprisonment.

  1976

  S 12

  3

  —

  Fines ranged between £500 to £1,500 and suspended prison sentences of three months.

  S 13

  1

  —

  Fined £500.

  1985

  S 28

  2

  —

  Fined £250.

  S 34

  2

  —

  Fined up to £400.

  149

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 221–223

  65

  4

  Sentences ranged between a conditional discharge, 3–18 months suspended prison sentences and fines up to £2,000. Disqualification orders up to six years.

  S 287

  1

  —

  Fined £200.

  S 302

  13

  1

  Sentences ranged between suspended prison sentences and six months imprisonment.

  S 351

  2

  —

  Fines up to £1,000 and 160 hours community service, up to five years disqualification.

  S 389

  1

  —

  Fined £100.

  S 458

  15

  3

  Sentence ranged between two to six months suspended and three years imprisonment, fines up to £10,000, and disqualifications up to seven years.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

  Calendar year 1990

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 11/13

  17

  1

  Sentences ranged between a conditional discharge and 12 months suspended prison sentence. Fines up to £1,500 and disqualification from acting as a director up to 10 years.

  Insolvency Act 1986

  Calendar year 1991

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 206

  1

  —

  Conditional discharge.

  S 207

  1

  —

  Six months imprisonment, suspended for two years.

  S 216

  6

  1

  Sentences ranged from absolute discharge, fines up to £750, imprisonment up to three months and disqualification as acting as a director for two years.

  Companies Act

  Calendar year 1991

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  1976

  S 12

  2

  2

  Fines of £150 and disqualification from acting as a director of 10 years.

  1985

  S 28

  1

  —

  Fined £500.

  S 34

  1

  —

  Fined £400.

  S 64

  1

  2

  Fined £150.

  S 187

  7

  —

  Sentences range from 12 months imprisonment suspended for two years, fines up to £300 and disqualification of up to five years.

  S 221–223

  40

  13

  Sentences range from an absolute discharge, fines up to £1,000, 200 hours community service, suspended prison sentences of two years and disqualification of up to five years.

  150

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S302

  12

  —

  Sentences range from a conditional discharge, fines up to £50, suspended prison sentences of nine months and disqualification up to 18 months.

  S 389

  1

  —

  Fined £200.

  S 458

  8

  3

  Sentences ranged from suspended sentences to three and a half years imprisonment and disqualification up to seven years.

  S 624

  1

  —

  Fined £1,000.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

  Calendar year 1991

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 11/13

  33

  —

  Sentences ranged from 240 hours community service, fines up to £5,000, suspended prison sentences and up to six months imprisonment and disqualification from acting as a director for up to 10 years.

  Insolvency Act 1986

  To end May 1992

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 206

  3

  —

  Sentences up to 12 months imprisonment suspended for two years and disqualification as acting as a director for three years.

  S 208

  1

  —

  Conditional discharge.

  S 213

  2

  —

  Sentences included imprisonment up to 21 months, and disqualification up to 10 years.

  Companies Act 1985

  To end May 1992

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 34

  1

  —

  Fined £25.

  S 221–223

  25

  —

  Sentence ranged from a conditional discharge, fines up to £1,500, community service orders of 150 hours, suspended prison sentences and disqualification up to 10 years.

  S 302

  2

  —

  Conditional discharge and a suspended prison sentence of 2 months.

  S 389

  1

  —

  Fined £1,000

  S 458

  2

  4

  Up to nine months imprisonment, suspended for two years and disqualification of five years.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986

  To end May 1992

  Section

  Convicted

  Acquitted

  Sentence range

  S 13

  14

  —

  Sentences ranged from a conditional discharge, fines up to £1,200, 15 months suspended prison sentence and disqualification as acting as a director of up to five years.

  British Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those individuals and organisations who responded to his consultation about the privatisation of British Coal; and if he will place copies of the documents in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following organisations and in-dividuals have sent me their views on the form and timing of coal privatisation:

  AMCO Corporation plc.

  Association of British Mining Equipment Companies.

  Association of County Councils.

  British Association of Colliery Management.

  Caledonian Mining Group.

  Chamber of Coal Traders.

  Clay Colliery Company Ltd.

  Coalfield Communities Campaign.

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Council for the Protection of Rural England.

  Domestic Coal Consumers Council

  WMS Dugdale

  Federation of Small Mines.

  The Lord Forrester.

  GMB/APEX Partnership.

  Health and Safety Commission.

  Institution of Mining Engineers.

  Mining Association of the UK.

  Monktonhall Mineworkers Ltd./Alex Morrison and Co.

  NACODS.

  National Power plc.

  National Rivers Authority.

  National Union of Mineworkers (C.O.S.A.).

  National Union of Mineworkers (Scotland).

  North Nottinghamshire Training and Enterprise Council.

  Nuclear Electric plc.

  PowerGen plc.

  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

  Scottish Trades Union Congress.

  J. J. Sheridan.

  J. S. Sumnall.

  Town and Country Planning Association.

  Trades Union Congress.

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers.

  United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group.

  E. H. L. & J. G. C. Wallace.

  I have placed the full list of the organisations to whom I wrote in the libraries of the House.

  It is a matter for the organisations and individuals concerned whether they wish their correspondence to be made public.

  Steel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of steel production in 1971, 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The level of United Kingdom crude steel production was 24.2 million tonnes in 1971, 15.6 million tonnes in 1981 and 16.5 million tonnes in 1991.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the steelmaking centres in Wales in 1971, 1981 and 1991.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Centres of crude steel production in Wales are as follows:

  Regional Financial Assistance

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  North West Region at current prices

  DA

  121.2

  93.6

  127.4

  64.2

  62.3

  52.2

  41.1

  30.4

  IA

  3.1

  4.3

  6.0

  7.1

  10.0

  10.8

  8.4

  8.7

  152

  1971

  Port Talbot

  Llanwern

  Cardiff

  Shotton

  Ebbw Vale

  Wrexham

  Panteg

  Briton Ferry

  Llanelli

  1981

  Port Talbot

  Llanwern

  Cardiff

  Wrexham

  Panteg

  1991

  Port Talbot

  Llanwern

  Cardiff

  Panteg

  Newport

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many were engaged in steelmaking in 1971, 1981 and 1991 in(a) Wales and (b) Great Britain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Approximate numbers engaged in crude steel production were as follows:

  1972

  1981

  1991

  Wales

  61,000

  25,000

  17,000

  Great Britain

  201,000

  88,000

  45,000

  Note: Comparative figures for 1971 are not available.

  Bankruptcies, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the number of bankruptcies in businesses employing fewer than 50 people in the Leeds, West constituency for each of the past five years; and, in each case, how many redundancies occurred.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department does not maintain such statistics.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Thurnham
  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 intermediate area in the north-west 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 north-west region broken down into development areas and intermediate areas from 1984–85 at current prices and at 1984–85 prices is set out in the 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.
  153

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  North West Region at 1984–85 prices

  DA

  121.2

  88.7

  116.9

  55.9

  50.6

  39.7

  28.9

  20.0

  IA

  3.1

  4.1

  5.5

  6.2

  8.1

  8.2

  5.9

  5.7

  Note:—The table comprises expenditure on Regional Development Grants, Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grants.

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

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: The Government encourage recycling wherever it makes economic and environmental sense by setting the right legislative framework and stimulating both the recovery and take-up of recyclable materials. The Department also seeks to alert business through literature, and other promotional activity, to the benefits of recovering and reusing ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: The Department has already ceased to purchase some goods manufactured with ozone-depleting chemicals and will continue to reduce purchases of such goods and substances
  154
  as and when suitable alternative technologies and products become available. The Department has also introduced control measures to eliminate the unnecessary release of these substances to the atmosphere.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: The information is not available. However my Department is committed to eliminating its use of ozone-depleting substances where suitable alternatives are available. The DTI, along with other Government Departments, has adopted the "Environmental Action Guide for Building and Purchasing Managers" published in 1991—ISBN 011 752 3119—which aims for a high quality of environmental performance in the public procurement of goods and services.

HEALTH

  Chiropodists
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chiropodists are employed by the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool health authorities at the present time and for each year since 1988.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  NHS Chiropodists Whole-Time Equivalent

  Hartlepool

  Sunderland

  Durham

  1988

  3.4

  12.6

  10.5

  1989

  5.1

  16.1

  7.6

  1990

  5.6

  16.4

  8.4

  1991

  5.6

  16.4

  7.0

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapists were employed in the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool health authorities each year since 1988.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  NHS Physiotherapists Whole-Time Equivalent

  Hartlepool

  Sunderland

  Durham

  1988

  24.2

  32.4

  64.2

  1989

  28.2

  66.0

  32.4

  1990

  30.5

  34.1

  67.1

  1991

  22.0

  58.64

  42.0

  Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many suspected cases of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease have been(a) identified and (b) confirmed as actually suffering from this disease in the past two months;

  (2) how many people have been identified as having contracted Creutzfeld-Jakob disease from the most recently available figures.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures are produced on a yearly basis by Dr. R. G. Wills, consultant neurologist at the national Creutzfeld-Jakob disease surveillance unit, Edinburgh. Copies of his latest report "Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease surveillance in the United Kingdom" have been placed in the Library. Dr. Wills has confirmed that there has been no change in the incidence or distribution of CJD, and no evidence to show that it is increasing. The study into the incidence of CJD will continue for a decade or more to monitor any change in the pattern of the disease.

  CJD can be confirmed only by post mortem. Between 1 April 1992 and 31 May 1992 four suspect cases of CJD were identified. One of the patients has been confirmed as suffering from the disease; two other patients remain alive and a post mortem result on the fourth patient is awaited.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and nurses currently work for the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 September 1990, the latest date for which figures are available centrally, there were 44,900 156
  (whole-time equivalent) doctors and 402,100 (whole-time equivalent) nurses employed by national health service health authorities and trusts. These figures are rounded to the nearest hundred whole-time equivalents and include all permanent paid and honorary medical staff in hospital and community health services, hospital practitioners, part-time medical officers and agency nurses.

  Dentistry
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide annual statistics on the number of dental practitioners in the Wirral and the volume of treatments they have given for the last five years, broken down into the standard categories used by her department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Wirral family health services authority

  Financial year

  Number of dentists

  Number of courses of treatment

  Children

  Adults

  All patients

  1987–88

  113

  79,280

  164,940

  244,220

  1988–89

  117

  80,810

  173,620

  254,430

  1989–90

  125

  76,935

  165,559

  242,494

  1990–91

  130

  60,381

  162,284

  222,665

  1991–92

  136

  24,651

  178,510

  203,161

  Notes:

  1. The number of dentists includes principals and assistants as at 30 September in each year.

  2. The apparent decline in the number of courses of treatment provided for children is misleading. Under the new general dental service contract introduced in October 1990, most child treatment is undertaken under capitation and, as such, these courses of treatment cannot be separately identified or counted.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide the latest statistics on the level of dental health amongst the population of the Wirral.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The most recent surveys, co-ordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD), (in 1989–90 and 1988–89 respectively) showed that five and 12-year-olds in Wirral health authority had respectively 2.25 and 1.77 decayed, missing or filled teeth. Wirral ranked 151st in a list of 178 health authorities for five-year-olds and 115th in a list of 154 for 12-year-olds.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long waiting lists for orthodontic treatment in the Wirral are currently; and what the waiting list has been in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were no patients waiting for orthodontic treatment with Wirral Hospital NHS Trust at 30 September 1991. Wirral district health authority had no patients waiting for this treatment at 30 September in each of the last five years. (Source: KH07 returns).

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the actual earnings of dentists have been(a) in the Wirral and (b) nationally in each of the past five years; and how this earnings information is calculated within the existing payments system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  157

  Average gross fee earnings per dentist (£)

  Financial Year

  Wirral

  England and Wales

  1987–88

  55,052

  55,971

  1988–89

  61,210

  64,377

  1989–90

  60,681

  64,008

  1990–91

  66,090

  70,410

  1991–92

  84,906

  84,833

  These averages relate only to earnings through fees and to dentists in the dental rates study group population. They exclude maternity payments, sickness payments, postgraduate education allowances, reimbursed business rates and other such allowances, and they relate only to those dentists who, for the year in question, were in contract for the complete financial year.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have ceased to practise in the national health service by switching exclusively to private work since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available. There are currently 29 per cent. more dentists practising in the general dental services in England than there were in 1979.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the dental treatments given on the national health service in the last financial year cost over(a) £200 and (b) £600, expressed as both a number and a percentage of the total treatments administered.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data for 1991–92 are not yet available. The information for England and Wales in the calendar year 1991 is shown in the table:

  Cost of treatment

  Number of treatments

  Percentage of total number

  Greater than £200

  625,960

  2.2

  Greater than £600

  38,178

  0.1

  Note: Figures are provided by the Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were(a) the numbers employed by and (b) the total operational cost of the Dental Practices Board and its predecessors over the last three financial years together with an estimate of (b) for the current year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  1Staff

  Cost (£ million)

  1989–90

  1,268

  16.8

  1990.91

  1,220

  21.2

  1991–92

  1,126

  22.6

  1 Average number of whole time equivalents.

  The present budget allocation for 1992–93 is £24.1 million. We are at present discussing with the board the implications of any additional work that might fall to them from proposed amendments to the level at which dentists should seek prior approval from the board for courses of treatment to be undertaken. The costs of the Dental Practice Board are shared between the Department of Health and the Welsh Office on a proportional basis.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received about the safety of women in psychiatric hospitals;

  (2) what measures are being taken to ensure the safety of women in psychiatric hospitals; and what guidance is provided to health authorities on the procedures and policy that they should follow to prevent and deal with sexual assaults and harassment in mental health settings.

  Mr. Sackville
  No representations about the safety of women in psychiatric hospitals have been received. It is the responsibility of individual health authorities and local managers to develop strategies which will help to provide a safe and secure environment for patients and staff. All health authorities were asked in 1982 to develop comprehensive security strategies and to keep them under review.

  A new national health service security manual, which provides excellent advice on all aspects of hospital security, has been issued to health authorities and trusts. A copy of the manual is available in the Library.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are taken to ensure that women who have experienced sexual assault or harassment in psychiatric hospitals are encouraged to make a complaint.

  Mr. Yeo
  The hospital complaints procedure is available to all patients who are unhappy about aspects of their care and treatment. Health authorities have been asked to include information about how to make a complaint in admission booklets, leaflets and notices. In the case of a complaint about a potential criminal offence, the district general manager must be consulted, and if the allegation is serious and substantial the police must be notified immediately.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated annual cost to the national health service of having agency nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  The summarised accounts of health authorities in England for 1990–91 (the latest available) record total expenditure on the employment of non-National Health Service (agency etc.) nursing staff as £120.7 million (cash). This represents some 2.2 per cent. of total nursing and midwifery pay costs. The comparable figures for 1989–90 were £135.0 million (cash) and 2.7 per cent. respectively.

  Romanian Adoptions
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether her Department sought the removal of the condition relating to the number of children in a prospective adopting family imposed on prospective adopting parents wishing to adopt a child from Romania(a) in discussions between her Department and the Romanian Committee for Adoptions between January and March and (b) when a team of officials from her Department visited Romania and conducted direct negotiations prior to 19 March;

  (2) whether her Department sought the removal of the age condition for prospective adopting parents wishing to

  159
  adopt a child from Romania (a) in discussions between her Department and the Romanian Committee for Adoptions between January and March and (b) when a team of officials from her Department visited Romania and conducted direct negotiations prior to 19 March.

  Mr. Yeo
  The conditions contained in the draft agreement prepared by the Romanian Committee for Adoptions were the subject of negotiations between the Department and the committee from January to March this year.

  The conditions in the draft agreement relating to an upper age limit of prospective adopters and the number of children who were already members of a prospective adopting family were two of the many issues where the Department of Health sought removal or, failing that, some measure of flexibility.

  Name

  Grade

  Post

  Michael Brennan

  Principal

  Policy for adoption, including inter-country adoption

  Miss Julia Ridgway

  Social services inspector

  Professional adviser on adoption issues

  Dr. Susan Shepherd

  Senior medical officer

  Paediatric adviser on all aspects of adoption, including overseas adoption

  Census
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the timetable for the publication of the 1991 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 18 June at column 672.

  GPs (Staff Pay)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the percentage rise offered to general practitioners for reimbursement of staff wages in 1992 by each family health services authority.

  Average electorate per parliamentary constituency in Hertfordshire

  Area

  1962

  1972

  1982

  1992

  Hertfordshire

  Number of electors

  551,240

  655,592

  723,810

  745,795

  Number of constituencies

  8

  9

  9

  10

  Average electorate per constituency

  68,905

  72,844

  80,423

  74,580

  Note: There have been changes since 1962 in the boundaries of Hertfordshire; but local authority changes are not immediately reflected in changes to constituency boundaries.

  Source: Population estimates unit, OPCS.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that(a) children and young people, (b) adult and elderly volunteers and (c) residents are not precluded from participation in catering and cooking at residential homes and sheltered accommodation for the elderly when such participation is aimed at creating a homely or community atmosphere for the residents.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 19 June at column 708.
  160
  The negotiating team continued to pursue amendments to these and other conditions with the committee on their visit to Romania in March. On the specific conditions referred to, the committee agreed to relax the limit on the number of children already members of a family in respect of the adoption of a Romanian child joining their brother or sister. The committee also agreed to relax the upper age limit only for the adoption of children with special needs.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the(a) names, (b) grades and (c) posts held in her Department of the officials who visited Romania in March to negotiate with the Romanian Committee for Adoptions.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is as follows:

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Electorate
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out in tabular form the average electorate per constituency in Hertfordshire for 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is as follows:

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 479, if she will list the health benefits which people claiming disability working allowance are entitled to by virtue of receiving the allowance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Fertility Treatment
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for health how many women who received fertility treatment in the last year were in their late 30s or early 40s; of these, how many were in low income brackets; and whether she has any plans to improve the availability of fertility treatment.
  161
  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the age groups and income of women who received fertility treatment during 1991 is not available centrally. The Government are aware of the position of childless couples and the national health service provides a wide range of services to help them. However, decisions about the priority and resources to be given to fertility services must be left to individual health authorities.

  Average electorate per parliamentary constituency England and Wales

  1962

  1972

  1982

  1992

  England

  Number of electors

  29,589,260

  33,316,464

  35,363,733

  36,435,873

  Number of constituencies

  511

  516

  516

  524

  Average electorate per constituency

  57,905

  64,567

  68,534

  69,534

  Wales

  Number of electors

  1,804,483

  1,997,400

  2,127,935

  2,218,551

  Number of constituencies

  36

  36

  36

  38

  Average electorate per constituency

  50,125

  55,483

  59,109

  58,383

  Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  Dentists Remuneration
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the remuneration of NHS dentists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to the reply, 2 June 1992, Official Report, columns 466–67]: I have today authorised an amendment to the statement of dental remuneration to implement changes to the dental fee scale from 8 July 1992. We anticipate that this will not only deliver the increase in the target average net income to £35,815 which the review body recommended but that dentists should on average receive some £5,000 in addition.

  I have also increased the allowance for expenses to £47,228, an increase of 11.6 per cent.

  I shall be laying regulations to amend the NHS (General Dental Services) Regulations to reduce to £200 the threshold of treatment costs above which dentists must seek prior approval from the Dental Practice Board before carrying out treatment. This will improve our monitoring of costs of general dental services. Only some 3 per cent. of courses will be covered by this adjustment but it is right that dentists should seek approval for these costly treatments.

  Taken together, this means that dentists will receive an average gross income of around £88,000, including expenses.

  My decisions were made in the light of all the available considerations. We have taken into account the points put to us by dentists and their representatives. In some respects —for instance in the field of orthodontics—the fee scale has been amended to take account of their representations. This will mean that most of the work done by orthodontists can be carried out without prior approval.

  There will be a consequent reduction in the charges paid by patients.

  These changes are fair and reasonable and strike the right balance between the needs of patients, dentists and other health service workers.

  We have made good progress in dental health in recent years. This was recognised by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body in recommending an increase in pay of 8.5

  Electorate
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out in tabular form the average electorate per constituency in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales for 1962, 1972, 1982 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested for England and Wales is shown in the table. Information relating to Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  per cent.—far more than that recommended for any other large health group. I remind dentists that our proposals mean that they will receive £5,000 over and above that.

  Dentists should think long and hard before taking any action which jeopardises this progress, and which could discourage people from seeking dental care in the future.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are on the waiting lists for youth training places in south London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken part in youth training schemes in each year since 1988 in south London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Available information on entrants to youth training in south London is given in the table.

  Number of young people taking part in youth training schemes in south London

  First time entrants during the financial year

  Inner London south and south London area offices3

  South Thames TEC and SOLOTEC3

  1987–88

  6,895

  *

  1988–89

  6,252

  *

  1989–90

  5,718

  *

  1990–911

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–922

  *

  4,119

  Notes:

  1 Reliable data not available at this level.

  2 Estimated—subject to revision and includes reentrants.

  3 The geographical areas covered by the previous Area Offices and the current TECS arc not coterminous.
  163
  Sources: 1987–88 to 1989–90: SPECTRUM Management Information System.

  1991–92: OSMOSIS Management Information System.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response she has made to the findings of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the extent of the delivery of the youth training guarantee.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We take the matters raised in the recent Social Security Advisory Committee report very seriously. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has written to the chairman of the committee underlining the Government's commitment to making the youth training guarantee work. Along with the training and enterprise councils, we shall be monitoring the operation of the system very closely over the coming months.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average amount left over from the youth training unit price after the allowance has been deducted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training places there are in the London borough of Newham; and what were the comparable figures last year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information regarding the number of youth training places available in the London borough of Newham is not collected.

  Since 1 April 1991, training in Newham has been the responsibility of London East training and enterprise council, LETEC. At 29 March 1992, there were an estimated 4,800 people in training on youth training in the LETEC area.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the unit price of youth training places in(a) London East training and enterprise council and (b) West London training and enterprise council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information regarding unit prices is commercial in confidence and a matter for the relevant training and enterprise councils to answer.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in employment or education are not currently on youth training programmes in Cheltenham.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the local careers service which covers the Cheltenham area that there are currently 132 young people in the area who are registered with the service as not in employment or education who are not in YT.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training scheme places have been lost due to bankruptcies in businesses employing(a) fewer than 50 people and (b) more than 50 people in each of the last five years; and how many of these youth training schemes have been replaced.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available.

  Youth Unemployment
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds in south London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on unemployment by age is available only on a quarterly basis. The latest information relates to April 1992 and shows that on the unadjusted basis there was a total of 362 claimant unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds in the area covered by the 33 London parliamentary constituencies located south of the River Thames.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she intends to maintain trade union representation at the present level on the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have no plans at present to change the level of trades union representation on the Health and Safety Commission.

  Tyneside Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 9 June Official Report,column 139, if she will give the equivalent figures for employment training and youth training, in 1991–92 and 1992–93 for the Tyneside training and enterprise council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Tyneside TEC's budgets for 1992–93 are £17,041,993 for YT and £20,110,963 for ET. This compares to £21,454,645 and £23,270,176 respectively for 1991–92

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence she has received of incorrect advice being given by unemployment benefit office staff to unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds regarding their entitle-ment to income support.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will provide a table of the number of employees in employment in January 1979 and January 1992 by standard region, showing Greater London separately, and showing the percentage change.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of employees in employment by standard region are available on a quarterly basis. Separate figures for Greater London were not produced before September 1981. The available information is as follows:
  165

  Employees in employment

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Region

  December 1978

  December 1991 (000's)

  Percentage change

  South East (including Greater London)

  7,450

  7,156

  -4

  Greater London

  1n.a.

  3,196

  n.a.

  East Anglia

  693

  791

  14

  South West

  1,565

  1,719

  10

  West Midlands

  2,252

  1,954

  -13

  East Midlands

  1,558

  1,567

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,006

  1,855

  -7

  North West

  2,696

  2,369

  -12

  North

  1,246

  1,088

  -13

  Wales

  1,022

  958

  -6

  Scotland

  2,075

  1,985

  -4

  1 In September 1981 there were 3,567,000 employees in employment in Greater London.

  n.a. = Not available.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in(a) the textile and clothing industries, (b) the aerospace industry, (c) the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, (d) the construction industry and (e) the machine tool manufacturing industry in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what percentage of the total employed work force each of these figures represents in that year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employment estimates are classified according to the standard industrial classification 1980—SIC 80. The available information is in the tables.

  Employees in employment—Unadjusted for Seasonal Variation Great Britain

  Textiles and Clothing (Class 43, Groups 453/456, 455)

  Motor Vehicle Manufacture (Class 35)

  Thousands

  Percentage of all industries

  Thousands

  Percentage of all industries

  December

  1981

  515.2

  2.4

  336.7

  1.6

  1982

  483.9

  2.3

  302.5

  1.4

  1983

  476.7

  2.3

  283.6

  1.3

  1984

  476.7

  2.3

  273.1

  1.3

  1985

  486.9

  2.3

  269.2

  1.3

  1986

  477.3

  2.3

  255.6

  1.2

  1987

  477.8

  2.2

  264.5

  1.3

  1988

  471.7

  2.1

  271.1

  1.3

  1989

  438.7

  2.0

  247.7

  1.2

  1990

  412.0

  1.9

  239.6

  1.1

  1991

  390.6

  1.8

  222.7

  1.1

  Construction (Division 5)

  Thousands

  Percentage of all industries

  December

  1981

  1,041.1

  4.9

  1982

  1,030.3

  4.9

  1983

  1,025.7

  4.9

  1984

  1,015.8

  4.8

  1985

  978.6

  4.6

  1986

  967.7

  4.6

  1987

  1,004.8

  4.8

  1988

  1,022.2

  4.8

  1989

  1,058.2

  5.0

  1990

  1,010.6

  4.8

  1991

  878.0

  4.2

  166

  Employees in employment Great Britain

  Unadjusted for seasonal variation

  Aerospace and other transport equipment (Groups 362–365)1

  Other transport equipment including aerospace (Class 36)1

  December

  Thousands

  Percentage of all industries

  Thousands

  Percentage of all industries

  1981

  231.4

  1.1

  347.8

  1.6

  1982

  217.1

  1.0

  328.3

  1.6

  1983

  204.6

  1.0

  305.3

  1.4

  1984

  199.3

  0.9

  284.7

  1.3

  1985

  197.7

  0.9

  272.0

  1.3

  1986

  191.7

  0.9

  257.2

  1.2

  1987

  185.5

  0.9

  241.7

  1.1

  1988

  177.0

  0.8

  224.3

  1.1

  21989

  197.1

  0.9

  240.4

  1.1

  1989

  n/a

  n/a

  243.2

  1.2

  1990

  n/a

  n/a

  244.0

  1.2

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  223.7

  1.1

  1 Aerospace employment is not separately identifiable. From September 1989, information is only available for class 36 as a whole.

  2 September 1989. Latest available and comparable.

  Metal working machine tools and engineers' tools (Group 322)1

  Mechanical engineering including machine tools (Class 32)1

  December

  Thousands

  Percentage of all industries

  Thousands

  Percentage of all industries

  1981

  93.2

  0.4

  877.0

  4.2

  1982

  82.9

  0.4

  803.3

  3.8

  1983

  75.4

  0.4

  755.2

  3.6

  1984

  75.9

  0.4

  753.3

  3.6

  1985

  78.0

  0.4

  757.4

  3.6

  1986

  73.3

  0.3

  733.8

  3.5

  1987

  74.2

  0.4

  746.4

  3.5

  1988

  73.9

  0.4

  778.6

  3.7

  21989

  72.6

  0.3

  757.4

  3.4

  1989

  n/a

  n/a

  761.2

  3.6

  1990

  n/a

  n/a

  723.7

  3.4

  1991

  n/a

  n/a

  673.1

  3.2

  1 Machine tools employment is not separately identifiable. From September 1989, information is only available for class 32 as a whole.

  2 September 1989. Latest available and comparable.

  Crown Notice
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who is reviewing the current Crown notice procedure; what are the remit and requirements of that review; and when she expects it to be completed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive is reviewing the procedure of serving Crown notices for
  167
  infringement of health and safety legislation by public bodies, as required by the principles set out in the "Immunities" section of the citizens charter, page 46. It will report in due course to the Health and Safety Commission which will, if appropriate, make recommen-dations to Ministers.

  48-hour Week
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of male and female workers who would be prevented from working more than 48 hours per week under the working hours directive; in which industries they work; and what evidence she has on whether their health and safety has been jeopardised by working more than 48 hours a week.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The EC directive on working time as currently drafted would prevent employees in most industries from working more than 48 hours a week on average over a three-month period. The latest available statistics for employees usually working more than 48 paid hours a week in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Industry1

  All employees

  Men (000's)

  Women

  All industries

  2,416

  2,145

  271

  0. Agriculture, forestry, etc.

  79

  71

  —2

  1. Energy and water supply

  94

  93

  —2

  2. Mineral extraction, etc.

  114

  112

  —2

  3. Metal goods, etc.

  315

  302

  14

  4. Other manufacturing

  258

  231

  27

  5. Construction

  212

  208

  —2

  6. Hotels, distribution, etc.

  410

  343

  67

  7. Transport and communication

  335

  314

  21

  8, Financial services, etc.

  187

  166

  21

  9. Other services

  403

  297

  106

  Source: United Kingdom Labour Force Survey 1991.

  1 By Standard Industrial Classification Divisions. Figures for 'all employees' include those whose industry is unknown or whose workplace is outside the United Kingdom.

  2 Denotes sample too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  The directive as currently drafted excludes from its scope air, sea, road and rail transport, and sea fishing. If these exclusions are adopted certain employees in divisions 0 and 7 would not be prevented by the directive from working more than 48 hours a week. The EC Commission has said that it will introduce specific proposals on working time for any sectors excluded from the working time directive.

  I have no evidence that the health and safety of workers who work more than 48 hours a week has been jeopardised. Nor has the European Commission or any other member state provided any. During the survey reference week on which the statistics are based 4.9 per cent. of employees who usually work up to 48 hours a week were reported as absent due to sickness or injury, whereas only 3.9 per cent. of workers who usually work over 48 hours a week were absent for this reason.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the average earnings of those working more than 48 hours a week, by distribution of trade or profession, together with the estimate of the fall in earnings which would result from a reduction to 48 hours.
  168
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The 1991 new earnings survey provided information on the average weekly earnings of employees who work more than 48 hours per week. The results for the nine major occupational groups of the standard occupational classification are as follows:

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence and who worked for more than 48 hours per week

  Occupation

  Average weekly earnings (£)

  Managers and Administrators

  382.4

  Professional Occupations

  519.2

  Associate Professional and Technical Occupations

  460.3

  Clerical and Secretarial

  305.1

  Craft and Related

  369.5

  Personal and Protective Service Occupations

  281.3

  Sales Occupations

  271.4

  Plant and Machine Operatives

  309.5

  Other Occupations

  288.2

  All Occupations

  333.0

  Source: New Earnings Survey 1991.

  A memorandum presenting estimates of the initial cost of compliance with the draft directive on working time has been placed in the Library. This memorandum estimates the total wage cost of paid hours currently worked in excess of 48 hours a week to be £7 billion. Half of this cost is assumed to be borne by employers through increased labour costs. The other £3.5 billion is assumed to be borne by affected employees either through lower weekly earnings or through working harder for no financial reward. The pay packets of up to 2.5 million employees could be affected.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what grounds the EC is considering a 48-hour maximum working week.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A draft directive on working time has been put forward by the EC Commission on the basis of article 118a of the treaty of Rome, which concerns the health and safety of workers; this is unacceptable to the Government. The Commission's original proposals did not include provision for a maximum 48-hour working week. This provision was introduced subsequently because some member states assert that it is necessary to place a maximum limit on weekly working hours in order to ensure the health and safety of Community workers. I am not aware of any evidence to support this claim, nor for the choice of 48 hours as the limit.

  Training
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will provide a table of expenditure on each of her Department's training programmes broken down by programme and cross-referenced to 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. McLoughlin
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  169

  Table 1

  Programme expenditure 1987–88

  Expenditure £ million

  Region

  OJTS

  TFE

  AIT

  LGE

  SSWP

  TLCP

  CP

  NJTS

  YTS

  South East Cash

  22.76

  1.60

  0.14

  3.06

  1.35

  0.18

  —

  —

  80.94

  London Cash

  16.90

  2.66

  1.00

  2.64

  4.05

  0.61

  —

  —

  39.29

  South West Cash

  12.38

  1.86

  0.08

  1.86

  1.67

  0.73

  —

  —

  63.61

  West Midlands Cash

  10.69

  2.16

  0.08

  4.53

  2.84

  0.48

  —

  —

  106.29

  East Midlands and Eastern Cash

  8.59

  1.92

  0.02

  3.12

  1.34

  0.44

  —

  —

  95.56

  Yorkshire and Humberside Cash

  9.48

  1.75

  0.12

  2.31

  2.18

  0.22

  —

  —

  88.63

  North West Cash

  15.62

  3.10

  0.12

  3.56

  2.68

  0.68

  —

  —

  132.94

  Northern Cash

  8.15

  1.49

  0.10

  2.04

  1.18

  0.60

  —

  —

  67.79

  Wales Cash

  8.60

  1.03

  0.05

  1.79

  1.17

  0.61

  —

  —

  51.77

  Scotland Cash

  12.36

  1.90

  0.13

  3.36

  1.74

  0.61

  —

  —

  93.42

  LCU Cash

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  115.89

  RTC Cash

  GB 9.45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  134.98

  19.47

  0.94

  28.25

  20.19

  5.16

  1,109.57

  64.7

  1,796.11

  Source: FMAS.

  1. YTS represents Scheme Costs only, other schemes AT 17.

  Notes:

  1. Regional breakdown of CP and NJTS is not available.

  2. Large Companies Unit (LCU) is based centrally and holds contracts for major companies who provide training throughout Great Britain.

  3. Information is only provided for the larger programmes. There were other smaller programmes in operation for which expenditure is not readily available.

  Table 2

  Programme expenditure for 1988–89 at current and at 1987–88 prices

  Expenditure £ million

  Region

  ET

  YTS

  OJTS

  TFE

  AIT

  LGE

  SSWP

  TLCP

  NJTS

  CP

  South East cash

  10.47

  75.89

  11.94

  1.19

  0.01

  2.91

  1.08

  0.12

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  9.77

  70.81

  11.14

  1.11

  0.01

  2.72

  1.00

  0.11

  —

  —

  London cash

  16.05

  38.21

  9.99

  2.45

  0.01

  3.14

  3.39

  0.51

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  14.97

  35.65

  9.33

  2.28

  0.01

  2.93

  3.16

  0.48

  —

  —

  South West cash

  11.05

  61.08

  6.39

  0.94

  0.01

  1.71

  1.17

  0.46

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  10.31

  56.98

  5.96

  0.88

  0.01

  1.59

  1.09

  0.43

  —

  —

  West Midlands cash

  20.39

  96.78

  6.42

  1.01

  0.01

  3.38

  1.87

  0.16

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  19.02

  90.30

  5.99

  0.95

  0.01

  3.15

  1.74

  0.15

  —

  —

  East Midlands and Eastern cash

  12.64

  92.85

  5.75

  0.98

  0.00

  2.14

  1.27

  0.24

  —

  —

  170

  171

  Region

  ET

  YTS

  OJTS

  TFE

  AIT

  LGE

  SSWP

  TLCP

  NJTS

  CP

  1987–88 Prices

  11.79

  86.63

  5.37

  0.91

  0.00

  2.00

  1.19

  0.22

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside cash

  25.02

  92.57

  6.60

  1.07

  0.00

  1.49

  1.42

  0.10

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  23.34

  86.37

  6.16

  0.99

  0.00

  1.39

  1.33

  0.09

  —

  —

  North West cash

  25.54

  131.78

  9.02

  2.09

  0.01

  3.01

  1.79

  0.31

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  23.83

  122.95

  8.42

  1.95

  0.01

  2.80

  1.67

  0.29

  —

  —

  Northern cash

  20.12

  72.46

  4.93

  0.94

  0.01

  1.59

  0.85

  0.21

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  18.77

  67.61

  4.60

  0.88

  0.01

  1.49

  0.79

  0.20

  —

  —

  Wales cash

  12.40

  52.92

  4.42

  0.67

  0.01

  1.86

  0.86

  0.40

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  11.57

  49.37

  4.13

  0.61

  0.01

  1.73

  0.80

  0.37

  —

  —

  Scotland cash

  25.87

  102.45

  6.71

  1.03

  0.01

  3.24

  1.02

  0.36

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  24.14

  95.59

  6.26

  0.97

  0.01

  3.02

  0.95

  0.33

  —

  —

  LCU cash

  42.19

  163.30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  39.36

  152.36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RTC cash

  —

  —

  9.49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  —

  —

  8.85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GB

  221.72

  980.38

  81.67

  12.35

  0.04

  24.46

  14.70

  2.86

  46.96

  676.85

  206.87

  914.69

  76.19

  11.52

  0.04

  22.82

  13.72

  2.67

  43.81

  631.50

  Source: FMAS

  Notes:

  1. Large Companies Unit (LCU) and Large Contractors Unit (LCU) are based centrally and hold contracts for major companies who provide training throughout Great Britain.

  2. Regional breakdown of CP+ NJTS is not available.

  3. YTS represents schemes costs only.

  4. London is Greater London.

  5. Information is only provided for the larger programmes. There were other smaller programmes in operation for which expenditure is not readily available.

  Table 3

  Programme expenditure for 1989–90 at current and at 1987–88 Prices

  Expenditure £ million

  Region

  ET

  Residual AT

  YTS

  BGT

  SFS

  EAS

  BEP (Outside ET)

  WRFE

  TVEI

  South East cash

  31.21

  1.65

  74.55

  1.56

  0.41

  12.55

  0.45

  19.22

  26.57

  1987–88 Prices

  27.31

  1.44

  65.23

  1.37

  0.36

  10.98

  0.39

  16.82

  23.82

  London cash

  46.11

  3.54

  38.78

  1.80

  0.20

  14.82

  1.06

  14.28

  12.27

  1987–88 Prices

  40.35

  3.10

  33.93

  1.58

  0.18

  12.97

  0.93

  12.50

  10.74

  South West cash

  25.60

  1.42

  59.39

  0.87

  0.27

  12.32

  0.34

  9.66

  8.19

  1987–88 Prices

  22.40

  1.24

  51.97

  0.76

  0.24

  10.78

  0.30

  8.45

  7.17

  West Midlands cash

  43.23

  1.86

  87.65

  1.32

  0.25

  12.52

  0.35

  11.49

  13.06

  1987–88 Prices

  37.83

  1.63

  76.69

  1.16

  0.22

  10.96

  0.31

  10.05

  11.43

  East Midlands and Eastern cash

  33.08

  1.66

  91.14

  0.98

  0.36

  12.81

  0.33

  12.40

  12.17

  1987–88 Prices

  28.95

  1.45

  79.75

  0.86

  0.32

  11.21

  0.29

  10.85

  10.65

  Yorkshire and Humberside cash

  50.97

  2.20

  87.11

  1.03

  0.29

  12.69

  0.34

  9.68

  9.99

  1987–88 Prices

  44.60

  1.93

  76.22

  0.90

  0.25

  11.10

  0.30

  8.47

  8.74

  North West cash

  56.11

  3.65

  120.94

  1.70

  0.52

  19.75

  0.83

  15.38

  13.80

  1987–88 Prices

  49.10

  3.19

  105.82

  1.49

  0.46

  17.28

  0.73

  13.46

  12.08

  172

  173

  Region

  ET

  Residual AT

  YTS

  BGT

  SFS

  EAS

  BEP (Outside ET)

  WRFE

  TVEI

  Northern cash

  42.10

  1.31

  69.44

  1.01

  0.21

  7.72

  0.24

  4.51

  9.07

  1987–88 Prices

  36.84

  1.15

  60.76

  0.89

  0.18

  6.76

  0.21

  3.95

  7.94

  Wales cash

  32.74

  1.75

  50.75

  0.47

  —

  8.95

  0.20

  5.31

  7.50

  1987–88 Prices

  28.65

  1.53

  44.41

  0.41

  —

  7.83

  0.18

  4.65

  6.56

  Scotland cash

  60.70

  3.24

  102.69

  0.91

  —

  10.97

  0.33

  —

  11.54

  1987–88 Prices

  53.11

  2.84

  89.85

  0.80

  —

  9.60

  0.29

  —

  10.10

  TNPU cash

  109.30

  —

  181.34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  95.64

  —

  158.67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RTC cash

  7.37

  1.75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  6.45

  1.53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GB

  538.52

  24.03

  963.78

  11.65

  2.51

  125.1

  4.47

  101.93

  124.16

  471.23

  21.03

  843.31

  10.19

  2.20

  109.46

  3.91

  89.19

  108.64

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure excludes training allowances and other costs administered centrally.

  2. The TECs and National Provider's unit (TNPU) is based centrally and holds contracts for major companies who provide training throughout Great Britain.

  3. Figures given for residual AT include Voluntary Projects Programme (VPP), Community Programme (CP) and New JTS.

  4. Figures quoted are as at end March 1990 and some minor adjustments may have been made when the end year definitive statistics were produced.

  5. London is greater London.

  6. Information is only provided for the larger programmes. There were other smaller programmes in operation for which expenditure is not readily available.

  Table 4

  Programme expenditure for 1990–91 at current and at 1987–88 prices

  Expenditure £ million

  Region

  Block 1

  ET

  HTNT

  EAS

  BGT

  SFS

  LENS

  TPS

  LDPs

  Mark-eting and LIF

  WRFE

  TVEI

  South East cash

  64.76

  30.48

  1.49

  15.33

  3.90

  0.34

  0.06

  0.57

  —

  1.90

  19.06

  21.18

  1987–88 Prices

  52.46

  24.69

  1.21

  11.59

  3.16

  0.28

  0.04

  0.46

  —

  1.54

  15.44

  17.16

  London cash

  32.90

  47.10

  3.29

  16.35

  4.72

  —

  0.11

  0.89

  0.02

  0.65

  15.48

  12.17

  1987–88 Prices

  26.65

  38.15

  2.80

  13.25

  3.83

  —

  0.09

  0.72

  0.01

  0.53

  12.54

  10.00

  South West cash

  48.62

  24.31

  2.23

  12.36

  3.53

  0.19

  0.02

  0.69

  —

  1.59

  7.83

  8.83

  1987–88 Prices

  39.39

  19.69

  1.81

  10.01

  2.86

  0.15

  0.01

  0.56

  —

  1.28

  6.35

  7.15

  West Midlands cash

  71.95

  39.85

  1.70

  13.26

  4.26

  0.21

  0.03

  1.13

  0.04

  1.20

  11.48

  19.05

  1987–88 Prices

  58.28

  32.28

  1.38

  10.74

  3.45

  0.17

  0.02

  0.92

  0.03

  0.97

  9.30

  15.43

  East Midlands and Eastern cash

  76.15

  28.77

  1.45

  13.71

  3.51

  0.64

  0.02

  1.13

  0.02

  0.88

  12.59

  12.69

  1987–88 Prices

  61.68

  23.30

  1.18

  11.11

  2.85

  0.52

  0.02

  0.91

  0.01

  0.71

  10.20

  10.28

  Yorkshire and Humberside cash

  78.57

  48.72

  3.12

  13.68

  3.89

  0.41

  0.03

  1.00

  0.02

  1.46

  9.53

  10.93

  1987–88 Prices

  63.64

  39.46

  2.53

  11.08

  3.15

  0.33

  0.02

  0.81

  0.01

  1.19

  7.72

  8.86

  North West cash

  108.34

  53.18

  1.75

  21.71

  5.12

  0.50

  0.04

  1.54

  0.02

  1.92

  15.80

  14.39

  1987–88 Prices

  87.75

  43.07

  1.42

  17.59

  4.15

  0.40

  0.03

  1.24

  0.01

  1.55

  12.80

  11.66

  Northern cash

  57.68

  44.36

  1.88

  8.41

  2.32

  0.14

  —

  0.28

  0.13

  1.60

  4.62

  5.89

  1987–88 Prices

  46.72

  35.93

  1.53

  6.81

  1.81

  0.11

  —

  0.23

  0.10

  1.30

  3.74

  4.77

  Wales cash

  42.62

  29.65

  0.98

  9.13

  3.11

  —

  0.02

  0.81

  0.05

  0.86

  5.24

  7.77

  174

  175

  Region

  Block 1

  ET

  HTNT

  EAS

  BGT

  SFS

  LENS

  TPS

  LDPs

  Mark-eting and LIF

  WRFE

  TVEI

  1987–88 Prices

  34.52

  24.02

  0.79

  7.39

  1.71

  —

  0.01

  0.66

  0.04

  0.70

  4.24

  6.29

  Scotland cash

  94.42

  61.10

  3.03

  12.48

  4.75

  —

  0.06

  1.93

  0.09

  0.71

  —

  12.08

  1987–88 Prices

  76.48

  49.49

  2.46

  10.11

  3.85

  —

  0.05

  1.56

  0.08

  0.58

  —

  9.79

  TNPU cash

  125.29

  79.93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  101.49

  64.74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GB

  801.30

  487.4

  20.9

  136.4

  38.12

  0.24

  0.39

  10.75

  0.35

  12.77

  101.63

  124.99

  649.05

  394.8

  17.0

  110.5

  30.87

  2.00

  0.32

  8.69

  0.28

  10.35

  82.32

  101.24

  Source: FMAS

  Notes:

  1. Total Block 1 expenditure includes UPA Compacts, YT and Residual area office expenditure.

  2. Total ET payments include Energy & Top up Grants.

  3. Total BGT payments include WCL.

  Table 5

  Programme expenditure for 1991–92 at current and at 1987–88 prices

  Expenditure £ million

  Region

  ET

  HTNT

  EA

  1YT

  Comps

  WRFE

  EBP

  TPS

  BET

  EAS

  Block 4

  TVEI

  South East cash

  29.93

  2.24

  0.74

  91.51

  —

  19.85

  0.57

  0.10

  8.93

  11.35

  7.07

  29.78

  1987–88 Prices

  22.63

  1.69

  0.56

  69.18

  —

  15.01

  0.43

  0.07

  6.75

  9.19

  5.73

  24.12

  London cash

  44.63

  3.08

  0.89

  48.19

  0.89

  16.51

  0.30

  —

  9.46

  12.80

  5.26

  12.86

  1987–88 Prices

  33.74

  2.32

  0.68

  36.43

  0.67

  12.48

  0.23

  —

  7.15

  10.37

  4.29

  10.41

  South West cash

  21.99

  154.116

  0.53

  63.52

  0.20

  9.79

  0.26

  0.02

  7.02

  9.62

  8.37

  11.30

  1987–88 Prices

  16.63

  1.16

  0.40

  48.02

  0.15

  7.40

  0.20

  0.02

  5.31

  7.79

  6.78

  9.15

  West Midlands cash

  37.61

  1.55

  0.55

  84.59

  0.61

  11.15

  0.34

  0.09

  6.30

  9.91

  7.83

  18.15

  1987–88 Prices

  28.44

  1.17

  0.42

  63.95

  0.46

  8.43

  0.25

  0.06

  4.76

  8.02

  6.34

  14.70

  East Midlands and Eastern cash

  32.42

  1.43

  0.89

  98.88

  0.20

  12.28

  0.36

  0.13

  6.73

  10.62

  6.25

  16.95

  1987–88 Prices

  24.51

  1.08

  0.67

  74.75

  0.15

  9.29

  0.27

  0.09

  5.09

  8.60

  5.06

  13.73

  Yorkshire and Humberside cash

  48.88

  3.30

  1.10

  95.75

  0.89

  9.93

  0.32

  0.01

  4.39

  11.15

  6.03

  11.07

  1987–88 Prices

  36.95

  2.49

  0.86

  72.39

  0.67

  7.50

  0.24

  0.01

  3.32

  9.03

  4.89

  8.96

  North West cash

  53.43

  2.51

  1.10

  121.92

  1.42

  15.31

  0.45

  0.16

  8.90

  16.43

  13.02

  17.17

  1987–88 Prices

  40.39

  1.90

  0.85

  92.17

  1.07

  11.58

  0.34

  0.12

  6.73

  13.31

  10.55

  13.91

  Northern cash

  41.12

  1.87

  0.76

  70.52

  0.57

  4.62

  0.15

  0.03

  5.84

  6.05

  5.11

  8.42

  1987–88 Prices

  31.08

  1.41

  0.57

  53.31

  0.43

  3.49

  0.11

  0.02

  4.42

  4.90

  4.14

  6.82

  Wales cash

  26.22

  0.86

  0.61

  48.90

  0.42

  6.83

  0.16

  0.01

  4.34

  7.14

  4.68

  9.21

  1987–88 Prices

  19.82

  0.65

  0.46

  36.97

  0.32

  5.17

  0.12

  0.01

  3.28

  5.78

  3.79

  7.46

  TNPU cash

  3.66

  —

  —

  7.00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88 Prices

  2.77

  —

  —

  5.29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GB

  339.88

  18.36

  7.20

  730.76

  5.18

  106.29

  2.90

  0.54

  61.92

  95.07

  63.67

  134.90

  256.95

  13.88

  5.50

  552.55

  3.92

  80.36

  2.19

  0.40

  46.81

  77.00

  51.57

  109.27

  Source: FMAS

  Notes:

  1. EAS + BET Expenditure includes WCL.

  2. ET expenditure excludes ET allowances.

  3. Block 4 includes LIF, Advertising & Publicity, Evaluation & Research, Youth Development Projects and residual area office expenditure.
  176 177
  4. Information for Scotland is not available.

  5. TECs & National Providers Unit (TNPU) is based centrally and holds contracts for major companies who provide trainng throughout England and Wales.

  1 Including credits.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the training and enterprise council schemes and projects receiving grant under the Employment Directorate's national development prospec-tus for 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A total of 211 projects has been approved under the training and enterprise council national development prospectus for the financial year 1992–93. A catalogue giving brief descriptions of each approved project and indicating which training and enterprise council will be carrying out the work is to be published on 23 June 1992. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library and for a copy to be forwarded to the hon. Member.

  Hazards (Emergency Plans)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give, for each county, region and fire civil defence authority area(a) the number of sites

  Health and Safety Executive area office

  Number of sites for which an off-site emergency plan is required

  Number of safety reports awaited

  01. SouthWest

  14

  5

  02. South

  9

  2

  03. South East

  15

  7

  05. London North

  12

  6

  06. London South

  4

  —

  07. East Anglia

  23

  5

  08. Home Counties North

  7

  5

  09. East Midlands

  8

  1

  10. West Midlands

  7

  2

  11. Wales

  28

  6

  12. Marches

  16

  1

  13. North Midlands

  14

  3

  14. South Yorkshire and Humberside

  25

  4

  15. West and North Yorkshire

  12

  7

  16. Greater Manchester

  12

  5

  17. Merseyside

  30

  12

  18. North West

  6

  4

  19. North East

  16

  1

  20. Scotland East

  23

  2

  21. Scotland West

  8

  3

  Of the 81 safety reports awaited, 80 were not required to be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive until either 24 March 1992 or 1 June 1994 in order to comply with the first and second amendments to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the minimum, the maximum and the average period of employment training of people who join employment training and who are in employment or self-employment within three months after leaving.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Trainees leaving employment training in Great Britain in the period April to August 1991, the latest date for which information is available, who were in employment or self-employment three months after leaving had spent a minimum of one day and a maximum of about 18 months in training. On average such trainees spend about six and a half months on ET.
  178
  notified to those authorities as requiring an off-site emergency plan under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 and (b) the number of such notified sites for which the Health and Safety Executive is still awaiting the production of a safety case as specified by the regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The table shows the number of sites notified to each Health and Safety Executive area office as at 31 December 1991, and which are required by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 to provide information to the relevant local authority so that it may prepare an off-site emergency plan. The table also shows, by area, the number of safety reports required to be submitted to the Health and Safety Executive in accordance with regulation 7 of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations and which were outstanding at 31 December 1991.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for every 100 people who join employment training, how many are in employment or self-employment six months, nine months and 12 months after leaving, respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. Of those trainees leaving employment training in Great Britain in the period April to August 1991, the latest date for which information is available, 30 per cent. were in employment or self-employment three months after leaving and 31 per cent. after six months. Information is not available on leavers' status at nine and 12 months after leaving.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training places there are in the London borough of Newham; and what was the comparable position last year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information regarding the number of ET places available in the London borough of
  179
  Newham is not collected. Since 1 April 1991, training in Newham has been the responsibility of London East training and enterprise council, LETEC. At 29 March 1992, there were an estimated 3,600 people in training on ET in the LETEC area.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom health and safety at work figures and those of other EC countries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A study published by the Health and Safety Executive for May 19911 contains a comparison of accident statistics showing that British rates of fatal injury were substantially lower, both for main industrial sectors and for all industries combined, than in Italy, France and Spain, apart from agriculture where rates were roughly similar to those in Britain, and lower than in west Germany in manufacturing and services. It also suggests that a similar position applied for non-fatal injuries.

  1 "Workplace Health and Safety in Europe" HMSO 1991 (ISBN 0–11–885614–6)

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she will take to ensure industry in the United Kingdom follows the EC directive to combat industrial deafness.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Noise at Work Regulations 1989 came into force on 1 January 1990 implementing the EC directive on the protection of workers from noise.

  Since the introduction of the regulations, health and safety inspectors have given priority to a wide-ranging programme to promote awareness of and compliance with the regulations, through advisory and enforcement action. They have been widely publicised through a series of free leaflets and other guidance, including industry specific advice. Regional campaigns have emphasised the risks to health and the need for action. The HSE expects to publish an assessment of the impact of the regulations during 1993.

  Offshore Industries
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional funding or staffing is to be made available to the Health and Safety Executive in Edinburgh to enable it to investigate potential disasters in offshore industries; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive's offshore safety division has no plans to base any of its operations or staff in Edinburgh. Its operational base for the northern basin of the United Kingdom continental shelf is in Aberdeen. On 1 June 1992, however, HSE's field operations division had 95 staff located in Edinburgh.

  Fairground Safety
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents at fairgrounds including fatalities have occurred in each of the past 10 years; what percentage of fairgrounds are inspected annually by Health and Safety inspectors; how many enforcement 180
  notices on rides which required improvement or closure have been issued in the past 12 months; and if she will make a statement about fairground safety.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following table shows the number of fatal and other injuries, to employed persons and members of the public at fairgrounds and pleasure parks reported to the Health and Safety Executive from 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1991:

  Year1

  Employed persons2 Severity of injury

  Members of the public4Severity of injury

  Fatal

  Major/over 3days3

  Fatal

  Major

  1986–87

  1

  24

  1

  70

  1987–88

  1

  26

  4

  107

  1988–89

  —

  41

  2

  169

  1989–90

  —

  29

  —

  107

  1990–91

  —

  38

  3

  108

  1 1 April to 31 March.

  2 Employees (including trainees) and self-employed persons.

  3 Major injuries as defined in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR); over three-day injuries which cause absence from work for over three days.

  4 Over three day injuries to members of the public are not reportable under RIDDOR.

  Injury data for the years prior to 1986–87 are not available.

  Information is not available as to the percentage of fairgrounds which are inspected annually by Health and Safety Executive inspectors.

  Between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1992 the Health and Safety Executive issued a total of five improvement notices and 12 prohibition notices in connection with fairground safety.

  Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 place responsibilities on employers and the self employed to ensure the health and safety of those at work and also others who might be affected by the work activity. At visits to work activities, including fairgrounds and pleasure parks for which they have responsibility for the enforcement of health and safety legislation, Health and Safety Executive inspectors seek compliance with the provisions of the Act and take whatever action is appropriate to ensure that those responsible comply with their legal duties.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what talks she has had with the British Safety Council about safety in fairgrounds.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have had no such talks.

  High Peak TEC
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the engineering training placements for youth training currently provided through High Peak training and enterprise council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not collected centrally or readily available and is a matter for the training and enterprise council. However, if the hon. Member wishes to approach Stockport and High Peak TEC direct, the chief executive may be able to make arrangements to accommodate this request.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what investigations her staff have made
  181
  about the amount of public money being spent in administrative costs and staffing by High Peak training and enterprise council.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All training and enterprise councils are subject to a schedule of regular reviews by Department officials in which the financial and performance aspects of training and enterprise council activity are considered. Further ad hoc reviews can take place if appropriate, though at present none is planned for Stockport and High Peak training and enterprise council.

  Toxic Sprays
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the typical speed of response by the Health and Safety Executive to complaints that toxic material has been sprayed on property as a result of agricultural operations by a third party.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The priority afforded by inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive to the investigation of complaints, including those that allege that toxic material has been sprayed on property as a result of agricultural operations by a third party, is determined by the apparent gravity of the complaint. Most complaints are cleared within a month of receipt and matters which are considered serious are dealt with more quickly.

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the background paper on travel-to-work areas and question-naire being sent to local authorities; if she will give details of the aims and plans of her review of travel-to-work areas; when she expects the review to be completed; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on 19 May 1992,Official Report, column 136, in which I stated that new travel-to-work area boundaries will be calculated from the community patterns contained in the 1991 census of population special workplace statistics. These statistics are expected to become available in the second half of 1993 and revised travel-to-work areas should follow six to nine months later. Part of this review involves liaising with users and it is planned to send a background paper and questionnaire on this topic to local authorities shortly. I will arrange for copies of the background paper and questionnaire to be placed in the Library when they are finalised.

  Syringes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received and what studies she has made concerning the problem of injuries sustained to individuals by discarded syringes; and if she will take action to require that such equipment shall be disposed of responsibly.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am not aware of any specific representation on discarded syringes nor of any studies 182
  made of injuries in this particular context. In view of the controls already in place, and the detailed guidance which is available, I do not believe there is a case for further action, but the position is kept under review.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Domestic Pets (Poisoning)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has on the incidence of poisoning of domestic pets by substancess containing strychnine.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  No information is available on the incidence of poisoning of domestic pets by substances containing strychnine.

  Whaling
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he uses to assess whether whales can be killed in an acceptable and humane manner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Although there are no criteria in United Kingdom legislation, we believe that whales should be killed by methods which render them insensitive to pain or suffering until death supervenes. A special workshop, established by the International Whaling Commission to review humane killing methods, met recently in Glasgow and the results of the workshop will be considered by the Commission which meets on 29 June to 3 July. I look forward to receiving the advice of the Commission on these matters.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his scientists(a) have carried out into the cruelty aspects of killing whales and (b) are conducting into methods of killing whales humanely; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  None. The United Kingdom has issued no licences for commercial whaling since 1963.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will list the resolutions the United Kingdom Government intend to(a) propose and (b) support at the International Whaling Commission meeting at the end of June.

  Mr. Gummer
  It would be premature and inappropriate to list the resolutions which the United Kingdom intends to formulate, put forward or support at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission on 29 June to 3 July in advance of receiving the report of the IWC's scientific committee, the outcome of many working groups meeting between 24 and 27 June and our discussions within the Commission on an extensive range of agenda items.

  Dumping at Sea
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences for the dumping of materials at sea were issued by his Department in(a) 1990 and (b) 1991; what materials they were issued for; what quantities were involved; what areas of sea were used; and if he will make a statement.
  183
  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  Number of licences

  Licensed quantity '000 tonnes

  Number of licences

  Licensed quantity '000 tonnes

  Liquid industrial waste

  5

  228

  2

  205

  Solid industrial waste

  9

  6,575

  8

  5,625

  Sewage sludge

  14

  8,554

  14

  8,373

  Dredged material

  135

  63,984

  105

  53,746

  Details of the disposal sites used in 1990 will shortly be published in the aquatic environment monitoring report series issued by the Ministry's directorate of fisheries research. However, it is unlikely that the pattern of disposal either for 1990 or 1991 will vary much from that for 1988–89 which is set out in report No. 26, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The two liquid industrial waste licences are due to be phased out by the end of this year, as is one for power station flyash which is classified as solid industrial waste. The other licences in this category are for colliery by-products. Disposal of these materials on the beaches will end in 1995 and at sea by 1997 unless application of the planning system demonstrates that no practical alternative means of disposal exist. Sewage sludge dumping will end in 1998.

  Draft response collectively for PQ Nos 322,123, 324, 326. 327, 328

  1991

  1992

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Porcine Intestinal Adenomatosis

  7

  7

  9

  8

  11

  10

  3

  7

  9

  7

  6

  7

  3

  4

  2

  Non-Specific Colitis (Pigs)

  4

  7

  6

  5

  2

  5

  9

  1

  4

  7

  2

  0

  4

  2

  4

  Swine Dysentry

  26

  23

  16

  24

  16

  17

  21

  11

  19

  18

  26

  18

  19

  41

  11

  Swine Influenza

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  15

  26

  Streptococcal Meningitis (Pigs)

  15

  20

  21

  21

  18

  14

  13

  12

  12

  12

  15

  3

  11

  12

  9

  Mycoplasma Synoviae1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mycoplasma Meleagridis1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Rhinotracheitis1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  1

  0

  Marek's Disease2

  8

  3

  3

  4

  3

  2

  2

  6

  4

  6

  4

  6

  2

  4

  2

  Broiler Ascites Syndrome2

  9

  20

  21

  21

  6

  4

  5

  8

  7

  13

  19

  4

  8

  4

  10

  Egg Peritonitis2

  6

  6

  8

  21

  9

  14

  13

  9

  6

  5

  6

  5

  7

  4

  3

  Infectious Bursal Disease2

  10

  10

  10

  15

  17

  9

  23

  18

  19

  31

  9

  13

  6

  12

  14

  Duck Viral Enteritis

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Note:

  1 In turkeys: related to synoviae and sinusitis

  2 In fowls, turkeys, ducks and geese figures for April and May are not yet available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cases of birds, by species. whose cause of death was from ingesting grain which had been treated with pesticides in each month since January 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested, based on confirmed incidents in England and Wales reported through the wildlife incident investigation scheme, is as follows:

  Pheasant

  One case

  January 1991

  One case

  May 1991

  One case

  March 1992

  Jay

  One case

  January 1991

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many cases there have been of porcine intestinal adeomatosis, non-specific colitis and swine dysentry in pigs in each month since January 1991;

  (2) how many cases there have been of swine influenza in each month since January 1991;

  (3) how many cases there have been of meningitis in pigs in each month since January 1991;

  (4) how many cases there have been of sinusitis and synovitis in turkeys in each month since January 1991;

  (5) how many cases there have been of (a) Marek's disease, (b) broiler ascites, (c) egg peritonitis and (d) infectious bursal disease in commercial poultry in each month since January 1991;

  (6) how many cases of duck viral enteritis there have been in each month since January 1991.

  Mr. Soames
  None of the diseases listed is notifiable and comprehensive data is not maintained. The numbers of cases recorded by veterinary investigation centres for the months concerned are as noted:

  Jackdaw

  One case

  May 1992

  Rook

  One case

  March 1992

  Woodpigeon

  One case

  January 1991

  Feral/Racing pigeon

  One case

  May 1991

  Three case

  November 1991

  One case

  December 1991

  One case

  January 1992

  Robin

  One case

  January 1992

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

  Mr. Curry
  Proposals for expanding our existing market testing programme are still under consideration.

  Set-Aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have received payment under the set-aside scheme in 1991 in each county

  Set-Aside Agreements 1988–90

  1Horse based activities

  Golf courses

  Game cover for commercial shoots

  Sports grounds

  Other recrea-tional facilities

  Other uses under non-agricultural use option

  Avon

  19

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Bedfordshire

  18

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Berkshire

  19

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  36

  1

  1

  3

  —

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  24

  5

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Cheshire

  15

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  14

  1

  l

  —

  1

  —

  Cumbria

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Derbyshire

  10

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Devonshire

  19

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  9

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Durham

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  45

  3

  1

  1

  —

  5

  Gloustershire

  30

  2

  3

  3

  —

  1

  Greater London

  6

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Greater Manchester

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  29

  —

  4

  1

  —

  3

  Hereford/Worcestershire

  17

  3

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Hertfordshire

  16

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Humberside

  6

  5

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Isle of Wight

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Kent

  44

  5

  6

  1

  —

  4

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  22

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  12

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Merseyside

  9

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  Norfolk

  17

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  14

  3

  1

  2

  —

  2

  Northumberland

  9

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  3

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Oxfordshire

  42

  5

  1

  3

  1

  2

  Shropshire

  10

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Somerset

  18

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Staffordshire

  15

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Suffolk

  33

  2

  —

  4

  —

  2

  Surrey

  16

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  East Sussex

  15

  2

  4

  —

  1

  5

  West Sussex

  24

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Tyne and Wear

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  22

  6

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Wiltshire

  27

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  23

  1

  3

  —

  1

  11

  South Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  749

  70

  40

  29

  17

  78

  1 (Livery stables, riding schools, stud farms, hay for horses, grazing for horses, horse riders)

  186
  in England for (a) horse-based activities, (b) golf courses, (c) game cover for commercial shoots, (d) sports grounds, (e) other recreational facilities and (f) other; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following table list the number of agreements under the non-agricultural use option of the set-aside scheme for those who entered the scheme in 1988. 1989 and 1990. Payments will have been made under all these agreements in 1991. No payments have yet been made to participants who entered the scheme in 1991.

SCOTLAND

  Cockle Fishing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about cockle fishing by Dutch boats in the Solway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Under EC legislation, fishing within the zero to six-mile zone of United Kingdom territorial waters is permitted only for United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels. Cockle fishing in the Solway takes place only within this zone. No reports have been received of fishing boats not registered in the United Kingdom taking part in the cockle fishery.

  I have just received a scientific assessment of the Solway firth cockle stock which recommended that conservation measures were necessary to protect that stock. This is of concern to me and I have issued today a consultation paper proposing a seasonal closure of the fishery during the first half of the year. This can be introduced by order under section 1 of the Inshore Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1984 and would limit fishing vessel activity. I am aware that land-based dredges pulled by tractors fish for cockles as well. On shore, local authorities have the power to promote byelaws to control the use of vehicles including tractors, on the foreshore. My officials have written to them today, drawing their attention to these powers.

  Fish Directives
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the guidance his Department is issuing to authorities in Britain enforcing the EC fish and shellfish hygiene directives on how to advise Scottish producers and processors in applying for derogations for the directives provisions.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 May 1992]: Application forms for derogations, accompanied by explanatory memoranda, were sent to district and island authorities in Scotland by my Department on 30 April. District and island council environmental health depart-ments are issuing this material to those in the fish and shellfish trade known to them and to other interested parties on application. My Department will also supply copies of the forms and memoranda on request arid I am arranging for copies to be deposited with the Library of the House.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of houses owned by each district council and islands council and the number of these equipped with central heating.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: The latest available information on local authority housing stock was published in table 14 of the statistical bulletin HSG/1991/7. Copies were sent to all Members representing Scottish constituencies and are available in the House Library.

  Information on the proportion of local authority housing stock equipped with central heating is not collected centrally.

  Urban Partnership
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reviewed the success of the four Scottish urban partnership initiatives; if he has any plans to extend such initiatives to the Foxbar Rivers area of Paisley and the Johnstone west area of priority treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The four Scottish Office-led urban partnership initiatives announced in "New Life for Urban Scotland" in 1988 were conceived as pilot initiatives designed to demonstrate the benefits of a comprehensive, strategic approach to the problems of severely disadvantaged communities in our cities and towns. The partnerships bring together, in a co-ordinated fashion, the activities of all relevant public sector organisations. In addition, both the local communities and the private sector are fully involved in the partnership process.

  Given the intensity of the problems faced in these areas, it was recognised at the outset that regeneration would require long-term commitment—possibly up to 10 years. Formal monitoring and evaluation procedures have been built into these initiatives since their conception. Although it is too early to draw firm conclusions, there are a number of encouraging signs of success. In economic terms, more than 5,000 jobs have been found for local residents and more than 1,700 training placements have been made. Substantial physical progress has been made with improvements to more than 4,000 houses and the construction of 1,000 new homes completed, under way or planned.

  There are no plans at present to increase the number of Scottish Office-led urban partnership initiatives, but I am confident that the lessons learnt through careful monitoring and evaluation of the partnership initiatives will be very relevant to the regeneration of other disadvantaged areas in urban Scotland.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency as an agency; and whether the cost was borne by the parent department or the new agency.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]: The official launch ceremony for the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency was cancelled because it coincided with the general election.

  The occasion was marked by an informal reception for staff including a tree-planting ceremony at a cost of £1,133.

  This cost was borne by the agency from within existing budget resources.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the maximum salary payable, including performance related element, and the length of time of the contract, of the chief executive of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 June 1992]6: The maximum salary payable is £46,122 and the length of the contract is five years.

  Conservation Organisations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the names of those persons who have sat on the advisory panel for the Scottish Heritage Trust and the former Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland since 1987.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 May 1992]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Nature Conservancy Council's committee for Scotland which existed prior to the establishment of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland on 1 April 1991, which itself became part of Scottish Natural Heritage on 1 April 1992. The information is as follows:

  Nature Conservancy Council Committee for Scotland

  J. M. S. Arnott

  R. W. G. Cameron, RIBA, MRTPI

  J. C. Compton, BSc

  Professor P. S. Corbet, DSc, ScD

  Professor R. I. Currie, CBE, FRSE, FIBiol

  A. D. M. Farquharson

  J. L. Goodfellow

  J. R. Johnston, CBE

  Dr. R. C. Kirkwood, BSc, PhD, FRSE

  Sir John Lister-Kaye, Bt

  Mrs. E. Macdonald, MBE BSc

  Councillor D. J. McPherson

  M. Magnusson, KBE MA FRSE FRSA

  Professor A. W. G. Manning, DPhil, FIBiol, FRSE

  Professor J. B. L. Matthews, MA, DPhil, FRSE

  Professor I. Parsons, PhD, BSc, FRSE

  Professor W. Ritchie, BSc, PhD, FRSE

  J. H. Scott

  Professor T. C. Smout, MA, PhD, FRSE

  Dr. E. A Smith, CBE

  Lt. Cmdr. E. F. B. Spragge, FRSA RN (Retd)

  Professor D. E. Sugden

  Miss V. M. Thom, BSc, (Agric)

  A. R. Trotter

  Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland

  B. Cowe, MBE

  The Earl of Dalkeith

  Professor G. M. Dunnet, OBE

  D. L. Laird

  Sir John Lister-Kay, Bt

  Professor A. D. McIntyre

  Councillor D. J. McPherson

  M. Magnusson, KBE, MA, FRSE, FRSA

  Dr. P. Monaghan

  Dr. W. E. S. Mutch, OBE

  Professor T. C. Smout, MA, PhD. FRSE

  Professor D. E. Sugden

  190
  Scottish Natural Heritage

  A. Blackshaw

  Mrs. Nan Burnett

  B. Cowe, MBE

  R. Dennis, MBE

  The Earl of Dalkeith

  Professor G. M. Dunnet, OBE

  D. L. Laird

  Sir John Lister-Kaye, Bt

  Councillor D. J. McPherson

  M. Magnusson, KBE, MA, FRSE, FRSA

  Dr. W. E. S. Mutch, OBE

  Professor T. C. Smout, MA, PhD, FRSE

  Buccleuch Estate
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of grant allocated by the Nature Conservancy Council or associated bodies to the Buccleuch estate connected with the establishment of a site of special scientific interest.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 May 1992]: No grant as such is payable to an owner or occupier for the establishment of a site of special scientific interest. Where a management agreement, which may involve financial compensation, has been entered into between the former Nature Conservancy Council or its successor bodies and the owner for the conservation of such a site, the details are confidential to the parties. The Buccleuch estate contains various sites of special scientific interest.

  Ancient Woodlands
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it part of his planning policy to prevent any further loss of ancient semi-natural woodland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 May 1992]: The felling of woodland is not development under the town and country planning system. The protection of ancient woodland will, however, be a material consideration in preparing development plans and determining planning applications. Felling which is undertaken other than for development purposes is effectively controlled through the felling licence system administered by the Forestry Commission. Sites of special scientific interest which may include ancient woodland are given particular protection and development in or near them is strictly controlled.

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.

Earth Summit: UK Contribution
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contribution they are to make to enable third world countries to put decisions reached at the Earth Summit in Rio into effect.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Government have made clear that we are ready to help the developing countries implement the Earth Summit conclusions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for asking two Questions on the same day. I hope that she appreciates that the second one was fixed too late to alter the first.
Will the Minister clarify one issue about which there seems to be some confusion? As I understand it, the British Government objected to the target of 0.7 per cent. agreed at Strasbourg last month. However, is not the 0.7 per cent. pledge included in Agenda 21? Therefore, can the Minister say whether or not the Government are pledged in their undertakings at Rio to attain that target in payment to third world countries for their carrying out the obligations into which they entered at the Rio conference?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as many noble Lords are aware, the target of 0.7 per cent. has long been a target accepted by this Government and by previous governments. However, we have not agreed a timetable for its achievement. It is true that some members of the European Parliament and others have pressed for the 0.7 per cent. target to be achieved by the year 2000. But only one EC country will achieve it by that time, if not before. It is doing so as part of its overall programme currently involving its help to the dominions and other overseas territories.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not true that most members of the Community would, both now and in the past, have been prepared to set a target date for achieving 0.7 per cent., but that Her Majesty's Government were reluctant to do so? Will the noble Baroness accept that the Question asked by my noble friend is an important one and that the Answer she gave, while generous in its spirit, was non-specific with regard to helping the developing countries to fulfil their responsibilities entered into at the Rio Conference?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the House that the United Kingdom is not alone in not accepting a timetable for reaching the 0.7
374
per cent. target. We were not alone at Rio; we have not been alone in discussions on this matter before. The level of our programme will continue to be reviewed annually as part of our public expenditure planning. I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to anticipate decisions yet to be taken for the future.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that, if we do not make certain that rapid assistance is given by the rich countries to the poor countries, neither side will gain anything?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not simply a question of money. As I have said many times in this House, it is a question of targeting the applicability of the aid given and the ability of the country receiving the aid to use it. Our aid is now the fifth largest in volume. Because that is so and because it has grown, and grown sensibly, it is receiving praise throughout the world for its application.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that in a significant speech at Rio our Prime Minister himself called for additional resources to implement the convention on biodiversity, the convention on climate warming and the forest principles? He also called for additional resources for energy efficiency, population planning and sustainable agriculture. The 0.7 per cent. target is the means of reaching the required resources. How can we pay for what we are advocating if we do not accept the target?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I have already said, we accept the target but do not accept the timetable for reaching it. On 15th June in another place my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that we have made sure in recent years that the aid programme has increased 8 per cent. in real terms since 1987–88. Indeed, we know that those matters outlined by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister need to be tackled. But to insist on doing it regardless of the capacity of the country, let alone its willingness to pay for it, would indeed he a foolhardy promise.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider setting up within her department, if she has not already done so, a special section to deal with the transfer of clean technology to developing countries? I am thinking particularly of power generation—small hydro-electric schemes, solar generation of power and so forth. Does the Minister agree that, if that is left entirely to market forces, it is likely that the cheaper and dirtier forms of technology will be adopted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my engineering advisers in the Overseas Development Administration have recourse to experts in universities and other places to give us that information on technology transfer which we need. We are seeking to ensure that that kind of technology in power generation maximises the efficiency of existing plant without going to the enormous expense of building huge new power stations. We are mindful in all we do of the environmental aspects of that investment.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is not so much a question of how much money we are giving but whether it goes to the right people? Does she further agree that this House is very much concerned that whatever money is given—I understand that this country's record is as good as any —we want to make sure that the right people get it instead of it being absorbed in the corruption and filth which is taking place?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that one of the matters on which my department has a good record is seeking not only to plan ahead in such a way as to ensure that the money goes to the right end, but also monitoring its expenditure. After the building of a power station, or whatever infrastructure it may be, my department evaluates it. Of course, mistakes have been made in the past, but we learn from them. We now have in operation systems to prevent mistakes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that when she speaks about increasing our overseas aid programme she is arbitrarily starting from a point which is much lower than when the present Government first took office. Is she aware that since 1979 the percentage of our GNP allocated to overseas aid is about one half of what it was in 1979? Perhaps I may draw the noble Baroness's attention to my original Question? To what extent is the 0.7 per cent. tied up in the treaties that we signed at the Rio Conference?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can be specific with the noble Lord now. I shall answer at greater length later when we debate his Unstarred Question. The language which has been adopted is to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. as soon as possible. That was the language also used by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his speech at Rio. We have to make sure that we have the resources to do that. I remind the noble Lord that in 1979 we were in hock to the IMF and we had huge debts. The majority of those debts have now been repaid; this country can hold its head high once again.

Media Ownership: Takeover of ITV Companies
2.46 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will extend the moratorium on takeovers of British ITV companies until the end of 1995 to allow time for the harmonisation of European rules on media ownership.
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very brief response. But I can assure him that I am by no means reassured or encouraged by it. Does he agree that at the end of next year—that is to say, in 18 months' time—anyone in this House may wake up to find that their local ITV station and its
376
service are wholly owned by an Italian, a German, a Frenchman or whoever else it may be? Does he further agree that those countries which are our European partners have perhaps wisely protected themselves against such an occurrence in their countries and that no British national is allowed to take over other European stations? I ask my noble friend very seriously to confirm that that is the Government's belief and their intention.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if any ITV licence is taken over, the obligations and conditions attached to it will remain in force. Where discriminatory measures appear to exist in the EC, it is the Government's intention to raise the matter with the European Commission in order that it can take the right action. I understand that Central TV has already approached the Commission.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not know whether to congratulate the Minister or commiserate with him on taking over the prickly thorn of broadcasting. But is he aware that, despite the efforts which have been made, particularly from this side of the House, the disastrous Broadcasting Act 1990 leaves us totally exposed to takeovers from abroad after 1st January 1994? Can he confirm that the ITV companies are particularly vulnerable to foreign takeovers because they have to pay hundreds of millions of pounds to the Treasury, which is money that could otherwise be used to ensure financial stability, while, incidentally, British Sky Broadcasting, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, is subject to minimum regulations and pays no money at all to the Treasury? Can he say whether the Government intend to do something about our lamentable position during the UK Presidency of the EC which starts on 1st July and which would seem to give us an opportunity to try to put some of these matters right?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am delighted to accept the congratulations of the noble Baroness as opposed to commiserations. She is right to say that the Government were persuaded during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill by the many strong arguments to provide a period of stability at the start of the new licence period from January 1993. That was done. But takeovers are an important market discipline. After the initial moratorium period it would not be right for the Independent Television Commission, a regulatory body, to interfere with issues of ownership over and beyond the restrictions in the Act.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I wake up in the early hours and switch on the television I see programmes that are so sick and repulsive that I wonder whether our TV would be any worse if it were taken over?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the content of ITV programmes is a matter for the ITC and the regulations, not for the Government.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is saying that the Government intended to introduce a period of stability after the passage of the Act, has he any comment to make on the takeover of

377
Tyne Tees Television by Yorkshire Television during the moratorium period? Secondly, if the Government are to take up the matter of discriminatory provisions within the European Community which prevent British companies bidding for European companies, surely it would be possible in the course of those negotiations to extend the moratorium, as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, has suggested, to protect British companies from the unequal terms on which they are competing.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, primary legislation would be necessary to extend the moratorium. On the matter of Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees Television, it was for the ITC to decide whether to use its moratorium powers that are set out in the Broadcasting Act. It decided that the merger would be in the interests of the viewers in the area and of both companies. With regard to the noble Lord's point about the EC, obviously we believe that member states should not treat their own nationals more favourably than those of other member states. We believe that such action would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome. As I have said, we shall be getting in touch with the European Commission regarding some of these points.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the general assumption behind the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, is widely held among the people who really understand broadcasting and who have been intimately connected with it since this country first had commercial broadcasting?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Broadcasting Act lays down a number of restrictions about the ownership of television companies. I take my noble friend's point about EC broadcasters' ownership of such companies but, as I said earlier, they are subject to all the licence conditions that were given out originally.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, do the Government take the view that the means of public information are a special case and that the extension that they made was the proper thing to do? Indeed, it would be proper to extend the moratorium on a permanent basis. Do they accept that there are certain areas which the market should not be allowed to penetrate without safeguards?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, no, we do not believe that the moratorium should be extended. We believe that takeovers are important and we would not wish to produce a framework that is so rigid that it prevents them, as has happened recently with the Yorkshire/ Tyne Tees takeover.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I wonder whether we should move on.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I shall be brief. May I ask my noble friend to take on board the question of the EC and the lack of parity? I knew that the debate would become confused by the Yorkshire/ Tyne Tees matter; but will he recognise that it has
378
nothing to do with the Question? We are on an unequal footing. Britain is at a disadvantage. If my noble friend were old enough he would realise how worried some of us might become. Is this not analogous to waking up in September 1939 and finding that BBC radio services were owned by Lord Haw-Haw?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I take very seriously the points that my noble friend has raised. As I have said, this is a matter that we shall be taking to the Commission. I shall bring the points that he has made today to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Maastricht Treaty
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to renegotiate the Maastricht Treaty during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this House will recall from the Statement of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on 8th June on the meeting in Oslo that the Government have no such intention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and, in consequence, I ask her whether the treaty falls if the Twelve do not ratify it by the end of the year. My other question is will EC enlargements go ahead if the Maastricht Treaty is not signed and ratified?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if all 12 nations do not ratify the treaty, the treaty will fall. All 12 must do so. There is no earthly reason why enlargement cannot proceed. We have had enlargements before Maastricht and I am quite sure that there will be enlargements after Maastricht.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while we on these Benches have expressed reservations about Maastricht, we wholly agree with her that the first priority now is to ratify the Maastricht Treaty and thereafter to make changes in the constitution of the Treaty of Rome, such as strengthening the powers of the European Parliament in dealing with certain matters at the Council? That must follow the ratification, which must be our first priority as of today.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point very well, but there are a lot of other things to do besides the ratification of this treaty with which we shall proceed in due time. It is important that we address the questions of enlargement. It is vitally important that we complete the single market and that we take those steps forward, such as the complete air liberalisation that was achieved yesterday, which are so vital for the citizens of Europe.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as one who with some reservations agrees with the ratification of the treaty,

379
perhaps I may ask this question. Would it not be better for the Government to concede at this stage that some member states, including Britain very likely, will not be able to meet all the criteria for, for example, a single currency? Indeed, was that not why we opted out?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that we have not opted out. What we negotiated at Maastricht last December was a procedure whereby we could opt in if we wished, and we would not be forced into a corner by other members of the Community. That was the right way to leave the choice with both Houses of the British Parliament, and that is the way in which we shall proceed.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that far from renegotiating the treaty, we should hold fast to the very considerable achievements that there were for Britain in that treaty? However, so far as concerns one of the most important of those achievements—subsidiarity—it is desirable that some copper plates should be nailed to the bottom of the treaty because how it will operate in practice is a little uncertain. Will the presidency enable us to firm it up a bit?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my answer to the first question of my noble friend Lord Marlesford is yes, indeed. The answer to his second question is that during the British presidency we shall indeed work hard on the question of subsidiarity. In fact, it will be discussed at the Lisbon summit this Friday and Saturday. I know that the leaders of all 12 nations, as well as the Commission, are considering how to put the principle into practice so that subsidiarity is a guarantee against the spread of Community action and against worries about the encroachment of bureaucracy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's assurance that the Government's plans for enlargement will go ahead whatever happens to the Maastricht Treaty, perhaps I may ask her this. Has the attention of the Government been drawn to a report in yesterday's edition of The Times, which was made on the basis of documents in its possession, to the effect that the President of the Commission is organising among the 10 remaining member states to lay down conditions for the admission of further members—the conditions being that the Maastricht Treaty be ratified and that the budget be agreed? In the light of that, will the Minister advise her right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his discussions with M. Delors, which I believe are taking place sometime today, that such action in conjunction with the 10 remaining member states against the interests of two other member states is not conduct becoming to the President of the Commission?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, were the accusation just made by the noble Lord true, or were indeed everything that was written in The Times or any other newspaper true, the Prime Minister would
380
need no prompting from me to take the matter up. I am quite sure that it is not true, and I am quite certain that the Prime Minister will take up all the matters of concern to the British Parliament when he meets the President of the Commission later today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Baroness said earlier that the Government would take some action on the Maastricht Treaty in due course. Can she explain to the House precisely what that means? Does it mean that the Government will take action when this country assumes the presidency; and if so, what initiative do the Government have in mind?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his gentle question. All I can say to him is that "in due course" is really when the time is right.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that is a very skilful reply but it is not an adequate one. Will the noble Baroness be good enough to say precisely what action the Government have in mind? Are they proposing, for example, to proceed in Parliament with the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, or has that now been abandoned?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that if a decision has not been taken about the exact timing of the taking of later stages of a Bill which has had its Second Reading in another place I cannot presume to judge in advance of that decision when that decision will be taken.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not well known that the expression "in due course" is good parliamentary English for "not now"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has put it far better than I can.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the Maastricht Treaty will not be put through Parliament unless and until the very important definition of subsidiarity has been achieved? If it is put through without that definition, many people will be worried, as was the case in Denmark. We have to get that straight first.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite sure that the definition of subsidiarity and the rules that will apply to it will be put forward very soon indeed. Work on that is already going on.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that enlargement will go on. I am sure she is aware that many British organisations are somewhat concerned on this point. If that concern grows would it not be wise to consult groups within the National Health Service, and organisations such as the British Veterinary Association and the police, and make explanations to them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will take note of what the noble Lord has just said. I expect that we shall have a good discussion on enlargement at the Lisbon European Council, and I am quite certain that everyone's views will be heard.

Wheel Clamping and Private Security Firms
3.3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether further regulation is intended for private firms plying for business in security or the clamping of vehicles
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, steps are being taken to develop self-regulation of the private security industry. The position of firms offering wheel clamping services is being considered in the light of the recent Scottish judgment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Apart from the question of the legality of private clamping, the subject of a recent ruling in Scotland, should not firms be fully tested as to whether they are fit and proper for this and security work, which are tempting cover occupations for crooks and cowboys?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I explained, there has been a move towards self-regulation in the security industry, with regard in particular to the manned guarding of cash in transit and intruder alarms. Wheel clamping is a different matter. There is no connection between wheel clamping on private land and the private security industry.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend know whether private wheel clampers are in any sense paid by results? If that is so, can the practice be ended forthwith?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not privy to any contract which a private wheel clamping firm has. As far as I know, they make their own contracts with the people for whom they work. I cannot tell my noble friend more than that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue my noble friend. I have never asked a second question before but this is a serious matter. I have reason to believe that they are paid by results. Will my noble friend look into the matter and, if that is so, give an assurance that this abominable practice will be ended forthwith?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think this is the first occasion on which your Lordships or anyone else have considered that payment by results is a bad thing. On the whole, most people believe that it is a good thing to be paid by results. Whether that is the case over wheel clamping on private land is a different matter from wheel clamping on public roads. That of course is covered under public legislation where it is done by the police or their agents.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at least to many Members of this House the obtaining of payment by results in regard to wheel clamping is utterly abhorrent? Will he indicate to the House what monitoring has been undertaken by the
382
Government since the regulations on wheel clamping came into effect? If there has been no monitoring, what are the Government proposing to do about it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the public wheel clamping of vehicles is covered by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The result of clamping has been that the level of illegal parking has dropped by a factor of 50 per cent. Noble Lords may find it very inconvenient if their car happens to be one that is clamped, but it happens to be quite convenient for those who are trying to make progress through the streets. That is why clamping has been introduced. As to what progress has been made or whether the conditions have altered with regard to the clampers, I shall find out.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend take counsel with his advisers as to whether the Scottish decision may not also be applicable in criminal law to England? Even if it is not, is not the private clamping of a vehicle inherently a trespass in English civil law, being a trespass to chattels?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to take issue with my noble and learned friend, who is so expert on these matters. But in so far as it may be a trespass, the original trespass occurred when the vehicle was improperly parked on someone else's land. For all that, the judgment of the Scottish courts and its application or otherwise to the English system are being considered.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 20,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 21 to 35,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 36 to 43,

Schedules 4, 5 and 6,

Clause 44.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dioxins) (England) (No. 2) Order 1992
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this order made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 is to prevent the entry into the public food supply of animals and animal products from a farm in Derbyshire because of dioxin contamination. The order maintains the restrictions imposed by a previous order which lapsed on 2nd June.
Dioxins are ubiquitous environmental contaminants produced as unwanted by-products in incinerators, other combustion processes and certain industrial processors. The problem in this area was first identified by the extensive programme of surveillance which my department has been carrying out as a follow-up to the publication of a government paper Dioxins in the Environment in 1989. The results of the testing programme showed that exposure to dioxins in food for the population as a whole were well below international safety limits. Those results were published in full as a food surveillance paper in January this year.
The programme focused on milk as the major potential route of dietary exposure and a useful monitor of dietary contamination. In June 1991, it revealed levels of dioxins present in the supplies of milk from two adjacent farms near Bolsover in Derbyshire which, if consumed continuously over a long time without being bulked with other supplies, could prove a risk to human health. The Milk Marketing Board took immediate action to prevent the milk from those farms (which was, of course, always bulked with other milk from that part of Derbyshire) entering the public supply. Further testing in the area identified a third farm where levels were also high. However, in that case the farmer was operating a suckler cow herd and no milk was sold for public consumption. Noble Lords will therefore appreciate that, so far as milk was concerned, it was not necessary to place a prohibition order on any of the three farms since there was no question of public health being at risk.
It was decided immediately to undertake a comprehensive research programme on milk, meat, herbage and soil from the area so as to provide the most expert and detailed possible assessment of the situation. The farmers, incidentally, agreed not to move livestock from their holdings while the research was being carried out. Payments have been made to them for their co-operation in the research programme and in recognition of the considerable disruption that their participation has involved.
The results of the research programme were published on 20th March. They revealed unusually high levels of dioxin in the samples of meat from one farm—the third farm which I have just mentioned. The Department of Health advised that meat from that farm was unsuitable for public consumption and hence an order was placed on the farm to prevent the movement of animals or animal products. The order replaced voluntary arrangements that had been in place while the evidence was being obtained and
384
assessed. The order lapsed on 2nd June and is replaced by the (No. 2) order now before your Lordships' House.
The levels of dioxin in the meat from the other two farms did not constitute a health risk. Therefore, it was not necessary for sales of livestock to be prohibited in those cases. Results from the analysis of soil samples supported the general picture that one farm was highly contaminated whereas contamination on the other two was lower. The publication of those results was in line with the firm commitment of Her Majesty's Government to make all results public as soon as they become available, a commitment which we have met fully and which we will continue to meet.
I should like to emphasise the prompt action which my department has taken to prevent any risk to public food supplies. My right honourable friend the Minister visited the two farmers whose milk was first withdrawn from public supply last July as soon as he became aware of the problem. Officials have had frequent discussions with all three farmers who have had explained to them in detail the implications of the research programme and the effects of this order. ADAS has provided free advice to the farmers on their future farming options. The farmers concerned have faced much disruption and uncertainty. I am sure that everyone would wish to see their problem resolved as soon as possible. I would wish to record the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government for all the help and co-operation that they have given.
All the studies completed so far have indicated that the contamination is highly localised. The research undertaken by my department has been complemented by the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the National Rivers Authority. None of those studies indicates that there is any risk to public health. But the potential problem remains. It has been necessary to place a ban on the breeding of food animals and the movement of such animals and crops and of any food from those animals and crops off the farm which is the subject of the order. The other two farms involved are still showing levels of contamination which prevent their producing milk for public consumption. But the expert scientific and medical advice we have been given does not preclude them from producing meat. We shall continue to keep the situation under the closest surveillance and will revoke the order when we are certain that there is no longer any risk to public health.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 2nd June be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the detailed statement he has given in explaining the contents in this important order. I wish also to express our sympathy to the farmers who have been affected by the contamination and acknowledge their co-operation—as, indeed, the Minister did—with all the inquiries that took place after contamination was first discovered.
It is significant that we are dealing with an order which is already in force. As the noble Earl pointed out, it supersedes a previous order which lapsed on 2nd June. Can the Minister tell the House when action

385
became necessary along those lines; whether it is contemplated that such action will be taken on a continuing basis; and, if so, for how long is it likely to last? Can the noble Earl also tell the House whether possible sources of contamination have been discovered?
From the report that the noble Earl gave, it is obvious that a number of highly important scientific bodies at a very high level have been involved. It seems strange that while confirmation of contamination is not now in doubt—necessitating the action contained in the order—the Minister did not give the House any indication as to whether or not there was a possible source of contamination in the area around Bolsover.
Can the Minister also tell the House about compensation? He said that compensation had been paid to the farmers in consideration of their co-operation. However, we have now passed that stage. As the movement order contained in the SI is of such a stringent character, it would seem to us on this side of the House that there is an ongoing necessity for some form of recognition that the farmers in question have been virtually deprived of a living. Is that fact acknowledged by the Ministry? Further, is it proposed that compensation should continue?
In the course of wide reading, I noted in the report for last year of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council a statement to the effect that, while in 1991 the council was generally satisfied with the level of solid fuel prices, it took exception to what it regarded as excessive increases by a company named Coalite. I wonder whether the Minister saw the report and, if so, whether he has any comments to make upon it. We support the order because we recognise its importance and its necessity.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a number of important points. I welcome the opportunity to respond to them. The problem has been a long and difficult one, even if confined to a very small area. It is regrettable that restrictions have had to be placed on one particular farm, especially as they may prove to be long term. In answer to the noble Lord's question, we do not know how long term that is likely to be. Dioxins are notoriously persistent and they are present in the soil. We shall have to see how events progress. However, it is reassuring that we have had no evidence that there has been any threat to public health. In answer to another of the noble Lord's questions, we took action immediately a threat to public health was discovered; and that, as I mentioned earlier, was in June 1991.
The noble Lord asked about the sources of the contamination. I am given to understand that the owners of the major industrial plant in the area are apparently in discussion with the farmers involved. However, the outcome is a matter for those directly concerned. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the question of any liability. As my honourable friend Mr. Baldry said in his statement in another place in November of last year:
"Concentrations measured in the current emissions would probably account for only a part of the dioxins which have been found in the milk on the affected farms. The company is
386
not in breach of the law in the manner in which it has operated the incinerator".—[Official Report, Commons, 61/11/91; col. 443.]
The noble Lord mentioned payment of compensation. There is no provision in the Food and Environment Protection Act for compensation to be paid. This was considered in 1984 and 1985 when the Bill was debated and again in 1990 when my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley sought to introduce a provision for compensation in certain limited circumstances where, as is not the case here, a mistake had been made and no risk to health existed.
Let me stress again that, as was emphasised on those earlier occasions, that the purpose of the Food and Environment Protection Act is to protect consumers from contaminated food. The guiding principle in cases of this kind is that it is the polluter who pays. There is no case for the Government to accept financial responsibility for contamination for which they were in no way responsible. The Government have however made certain payments to the farmers concerned for their participation in the research programme that has been carried out on those farms and in recognition of the disruption that this has caused. The farmers have also benefited from the free advice from ADAS on their future farming options.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is testing for dioxins in soil samples taken at various distances around the Coalite plants to complement the work already undertaken by MAFF. This should establish the extent, distribution and magnitude of dioxin contamination in surface soils in the vicinity of the plants concerned. The results will be published in the summer.
I am convinced that the Government have done everything possible as soon as it was required and that we have demonstrated our commitment to the highest standards of food safety. We extend every sympathy to the farmers concerned and are doing our best to assist them in making plans for the future. As I said earlier, the restrictions will be lifted as soon as it is safe to do so. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it seems to me coming to this completely from the outside that certain questions have still not been answered. The Minister mentioned that the polluter pays principle operates but earlier he said that the Government have given compensation to the farmers affected. If it is found that the local chemical plants concerned have been causing the pollution, will the Government ask to be recompensed for the money that they have given to the farmers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, no. The money paid to the farmers was, as I said, in recognition of the co-operation that they have given in connection with the inquiry and in lieu of the disruption caused to them by virtue of that inquiry. It was not compensation for the damage caused to them by the pollution.
Lord Rea: Nevertheless, my Lords, the disruption was originally caused by the fact that the contamination occurred. Therefore it would seem that the taxpayer is bailing the company out.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is making an assumption about the liability of the company concerned. We shall keep the matter under regular review and I take note of his comments.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I should like to make two observations based on experience and ask two questions. First, I take it that the milk from the first two farms which went to the suckler cow herd was not actually consumed on the farm and therefore there is no damage to the health of the farmer's family and the people who work on the farm, because sometimes that does happen. Secondly, I should like to say that I am very impressed with the amount of work that has been done by the ministry in this connection. It is an horrendous experience.
But I should like to ask two questions. First, the order ceased on 2nd June and today is 23rd June. Can we have the Minister's assurance that meat has not gone into the food chain in the intervening 21 days? It is probably not necessary to answer that but I am slightly worried about it. Secondly, do we have an assurance that dioxin is not on the increase in the other two farms and that the meat from those two farms, in turn, will not be found to be contaminated to such a level that it cannot go into the meat chain? I do not know much about dioxins and how they increase or whether they do increase in the soil, but it is a possibility. I would like the assurance of the Minister on that point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her complimentary comments. As far as concerns the health of the family who live on the farm which is the subject of this order, the levels of dioxin found in their bloodstreams have not proved to be dangerously high. Although the levels are somewhat elevated, the advice from the Department of Health is that the family is highly unlikely to suffer adverse health effects as a result of this.
It is quite true that the date of this order is 2nd June. There are 28 debating days in which to ratify it. There was no disruption in continuity from one order to the next in terms of food moving off any of the farms. No food has moved off a farm which is the subject of this order. As I said earlier, the farmers concerned adhered to the ban to the letter.
I take note of the noble Baroness's question on continually monitoring the levels of dioxin in the other two farms. I can assure her that this is continuing. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1992
3.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move. The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a
388
further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together, as your Lordships know, provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements of all three services. The idea of annual parliamentary approval of the special legal position of the serviceman, who, as your Lordships also know, is subject to the constraints of military discipline as well as to the rule of civil law, is a long-established one in British constitutional practice. Every five years the service disciplinary system is reviewed in depth and an armed forces Act is passed making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. Such an Act, your Lordships will remember, was passed in July last year and is known as the Armed Forces Act 1991.
The Select Committee in another place which considered the Armed Forces Bill made a number of recommendations in its report published in April last year. With the leave of your Lordships, I suggest therefore that it would be an ideal opportunity in this debate on the three service discipline Acts to try to respond to the committee's principal recommendations, as was done by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place on 17th June.
Undoubtedly the most controversial issue discussed by the Select Committee related to homosexuality among members of the armed forces. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the Ministry of Defence's policy that homosexuality or homosexual activity is incompatible with service life. Your Lordships will also be aware that the Select Committee acknowledged this policy and agreed that the armed forces should not be required to accept homosexuals. However, it recommended that homosexual activity of a kind that is legal in civilian law should not be an offence in service law. After very careful consideration by the service personnel authorities both they and Ministers have concluded that the recommendation should be accepted.
This announcement has of course been the subject of a good deal of publicity and comment, as your Lordships will be aware. For these reasons, if no other, I feel it is important that I should give a careful explanation of the effects of the decision that the Ministry of Defence has taken. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 which allowed homosexual acts between consenting males over the age of 21 in private, many provisions of which were initiated and debated in your Lordships' House, did not extend to the armed forces, and it has been possible, though rare, for service prosecutions to be brought for offences which are not illegal in civilian life. The Government's view now is that such prosecutions should not be brought and that the special provisions of Section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 relating to the armed forces should not apply. Action will be taken to repeal that part of the Act as soon as the legislative programme allows. The ministry regards that as a sensible measure of decriminalisation which will align service and civilian law more closely.
However, that does not mean that the policy of the Ministry of Defence towards the acceptance of homosexual activity within the armed forces has changed or that no serviceman or servicewoman can ever be prosecuted for a sexual offence which involves

389
a homosexual relationship. Your Lordships will be aware that military life has particular characteristics. It is the Government's view that homosexuality remains incompatible with service in the armed forces, and men and women who are involved in homosexual activity will continue to be discharged administratively, whether or not they are charged with any offence. Where a serviceman or servicewoman has committed an act that is a criminal offence in civil life, or has committed an act which is a breach of service discipline, then a service prosecution will still remain possible. It is important to be aware that in service life, especially when homosexual acts may take place between two people of different rank, an element of coercion is always possible. That is something of which the monitoring authorities must be aware and against which they must guard.
I should like to turn now to the related subjects of ethnic monitoring, racial harassment and racial discrimination. The Select Committee recommended that the MoD considers how best to identify incidents of racial harassment in the armed forces and to keep records accordingly. It also recommended that the Ministry should reconsider its opposition to the ethnic monitoring of service personnel. On that latter point, I am happy to repeat the announcement made on 14th May in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in which he stated that we shall be extending to service personnel our present practice of monitoring the ethnic origin of applicants to the three services. The announcement I made at a press conference soon after that announcement was made in another place has been well received in a number of quarters, especially by listeners to ethnic minority radio stations and programmes. It is important that we follow up that initiative as soon as practicable.
On the questions of racial harassment and discrimination, I remind your Lordships that it is the armed forces' clear policy that no form of racial discrimination is tolerated. In view of recent publicity, it is essential that I underline that point. Any complaint of discrimination or harassment by a serviceman or servicewoman will be investigated fully under the redress of grievance procedures laid down in the Service Discipline Acts. When the committee considered the recording of the incidents of racial harassment, it recognised the difficulty of identifying cases of bullying or ill-treatment in which race was the determining factor. In common with civilian law, the Service Discipline Acts do not contain any specific offence of racial harassment. However, the Army records centrally all complaints of assault or other ill-treatment, and records separately those cases in which there is clearly racial motivation. The Navy and the RAF will introduce similar central recording arrangements in September and August this year respectively. I need hardly say that, apart from any question of racial abuse, bullying is itself regarded as a serious matter. It has been made clear throughout the services that bullying and ill-treatment will not be tolerated.
There are two other matters addressed by the Select Committee to which I shall draw attention. One
390
relates to the detention of service personnel. The committee recommended that a timetable be announced for the closure of RN Detention Quarters at Portsmouth and the transfer of the facility to the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester. I can confirm that, as is usually the case, a rigorous investment appraisal is being undertaken to establish the costs and benefits of such a step. I hope that that appraisal will be completed by the end of July this year. Were the transfer to take place, a certain amount of building work at Colchester would be required. For that reason, the existing detention quarters at Portsmouth will continue to be used until 1994 or early 1995.
The committee also recommended that the services ensure equality of sentencing between men and women. That followed a visit to the Colchester centre where detention facilities for women are now available. I can assure the House that it has always been the intention of the armed forces to follow an equal sentencing policy. The provision of those specific facilities for women gives added practical effect to that policy.
Secondly, I wish to mention two recommendations about the employment of young people which are receiving careful consideration within the MoD. First, the committee expressed the view that people under 18 should not be sent on active service unless there was an overriding requirement for their skills or the threat to national security warranted the conscription of minors. All three services believe that their deployment of under-18s is broadly consistent with the Select Committee's view, but the matter remains under consideration and constant review. Secondly, the committee also recommended that the MoD examines the terms of enlistment for under-18 year-olds and brings forward proposals for change within 12 months. We are also carefully considering that recommendation.
I am conscious that I am taking up a great deal of your Lordships' time, but there is a series of important matters which I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention. There are other matters of which anyone who reads the Select Committee's report will be aware and which I have not mentioned. I should welcome it if your Lordships wish to speak to any of them. It is the MoD's intention to deal with those outstanding matters in writing. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will therefore write to the Leaders of both Houses as soon as possible.
I should like to conclude my remarks by paying a heartfelt tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the men and women who serve in our armed forces. It is universally recognised that we are extremely fortunate that the traditions and skills of our armed services are without parallel. I have no doubt that that effectiveness which is constantly improving is enhanced by the fair and equitable system of discipline that operates in the Navy, Army and Air Force with the consequent high morale that that engenders. That system of discipline is founded upon the three Service Discipline Acts. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Cranborne.)
3.39 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for the trouble he has taken in presenting the order and for the full explanations he gave. He will know that there was a general welcome in the other place on all sides of the House for the order. However, that does not mean that there are no questions. On matters such as harassment and bullying the committee would have liked to have been given an indication of the figures in the period, 1991 to 1992.
In his speech, the Minister tended to separate the two, harassment being racial harassment and bullying being different. Perhaps that is not the case. I believe that there is a difference but it applies not only to the ethnic minorities. A point was raised in another place on the figures for ethnic minorities. Whereas 5 per cent. of the population of this country are from ethnic minority groups, only about 1 per cent. of the personnel in the forces are from that group. I suppose that we and the Minister must hope that time will overcome the problem.
Another point which the Minister did not mention which was raised in another place is the presence of senior NCOs at courts martial. There seems to be a feeling of slight disbelief that the mere fact that junior officers are officers overrides the need for NCOs to be present at their courts martial. The feeling was well accepted, I believe, that as senior NCOs have a far greater knowledge of the men immediately under them, they should be able to make an invaluable contribution to courts martial.
These are the only points about which I have been asked. From what we have heard, I believe it would be helpful if these matters could be dealt with in future discussions when the time comes for revision.
Lastly, can the Minister give an indication as to when legislation on decriminalisation of homosexuality will be possible? As he said, that was the aspect which received headlines in the newspapers, and I am sure that it is important to many people in the armed forces.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I believe that my noble friends would wish me to congratulate the Government on the positive way in which they have reacted to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Defence. I should have liked to hear that the Government were also reacting to points made in this House over many years. I have no doubt that we also influence the Government, albeit in a smaller way. Not only do we make these points year after year, but in some cases we made them before the recommendations of the Select Committee.
The order gives us on these Benches the chance to pay tribute to the servicemen and servicewomen of all ranks who have continued for another 12 months to give this country their dedicated professional service.
392
We gladly support the order, knowing that discipline and good order are essential to effective and rewarding service life.
I wish to ask only a few questions of the noble Viscount. Decriminalisation of homosexuality has been debated many times in this House and is a familiar subject. I do not know what excuse the Government will produce for not introducing such legislation soon in view of the empty months ahead in the Government's legislative programme. No doubt when the legislation comes before the House, we shall go more deeply into the subject of homosexuality in the forces. It is not simple; in my view not even as simple as the noble Viscount indicated.
Whereas open homosexuality and homosexual practices are not to be tolerated in the forces any more now than in the past, it is not clear to me that the non-practising homosexual predisposition is not also a barrier to service life. It is more difficult to decide whether homosexual orientation should be a barrier to service. It is debatable and should be discussed when the Bill comes before the House.
The Select Committee was against even that modest reform. Probably those who have had experience of service life, especially active service, will agree with the Select Committee on the point. Perhaps when he replies the noble Viscount could comment further on it.
The Government deserve congratulation on their handling of bullying since the matter was last debated in the House. It is a fact that steps have been taken and bullying is not as bad as it was. I do not understand why the RAF and the Navy have to wait for the Army on this. Admittedly, I believe that the Army has a bigger problem, but I am surprised to hear from the noble Viscount that the Navy and RAF are only now beginning to address the problem on which the Army has achieved results.
I am also grateful to the noble Viscount for accepting a point made several times over the years in this House, and by the Select Committee, that there should be an extension of racial monitoring. Yet the results are still dismal; I believe that only 1 per cent. of the armed forces are black. I wish the Minister could say more about it. Why are we so far behind the United States on this? It is not only through conscription; the United States has done brilliantly with the racial mixture in its armed forces. Has the Ministry of Defence examined that? Have people been to the United States to investigate the situation? Why can the United States, with much greater racial tensions, do so much better than us?
I wish to ask a further question. Yeltsin's extraordinary suggestion that there may be British prisoners of war in the Soviet Union is hard to believe. It is a terrible thought and the Government must find out whether it has any substance. I have given the noble Viscount notice of the question and I should like him kindly to tell us what the Government are doing to clear up the matter. I am not saying it is true; it seems incredible. However, whether or not it is true, the matter must be cleared up without delay.
From this short debate on the order there emerges again the importance of the Select Committee on

393
Defence of another place to the welfare of the services and to the proper conduct of our defence. Its report has been the foundation of the changes and the committee has done extremely well. It is sad that this House is not represented on it; I suppose that that cannot be allowed. There is a sad contrast between the stringent and disinterested inquiries made by the committee and the work of our own All-Party Committee on Defence in this House.
However, there is some indication that the Government listen to what we say in this House as well as to the Select Committee. We are grateful for that and hope that it will continue.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would further clarify exactly what the Government propose to do on the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the forces. He will correct me if I am wrong; but, as I understood him, at the moment it remains an offence against military law, although it is intended to introduce amending legislation at some unspecified date in the future. In the interval, while such acts remain criminal, is it intended to issue a statement that the law will not be enforced? If that be so, has my noble friend considered that in principle if the policy is carried out for any length of time, it will be an unfortunate state of affairs?
If an act is criminal under the law, for the Government to say they do not propose in any case to prosecute would be, from a lawyer's point of view, quite a serious matter. I hope my noble friend will deal with that matter. If I understand him aright, when the amending legislation comes, it will provide that most military law, and the law of the other services, will be the same as the law applicable to civilians. That is to say, the same age limit for such acts —I believe it is 21 —will apply. In the cases where a prosecution would take place if the persons concerned were civilians—that is to say, if they were under 21—a prosecution would still take place. But in the case where, because of the amendment, although homosexual acts have been committed there has been no prosecution, if I understood my noble friend aright it would be intended to dismiss from the services both the parties. Is that right?
If that is right, I put to my noble friend a problem which it seems to me will arise. If the penalty for these acts is to be dismissal from the service, we must be sure that the evidence supporting the charge is adequate. If there were a prosecution, that is secured by the ordinary working of the law, but if there is just to be dismissal without a prosecution, will my noble friend say what steps will be taken to ascertain the truth of the allegation that such acts have been committed? To many serving members of all three services, dismissal from the service is a serious penalty. I hope my noble friend can take this matter further. Does dismissal in these circumstances involve forfeiture of pension rights? I hope my noble friend can clear that point up.
I have a further question of a totally different nature. How far does the present law and its proposed changes apply to the Gurkhas? Are they subject to
394
exactly the same military law as the rest of the forces or is there some special separate provision in respect of them? I am unaware of the answer to that question; but in view of the special habits and customs of members of that fine regiment, some aspects of the legal system may be different.
I was glad to hear my noble friend pay a proper and nicely expressed tribute to the serving members of the forces generally. I would add that this good demeanour, this acceptance of a situation and courage in facing difficulties is all the more important in the light of the real problems being imposed, particularly on the Army, by the reduction in numbers. A number of units, including a unit in which I once served, are losing their second battalion. That is an immensely serious matter for any unit. Apart from involving redundancies for a number of people, it means that the number of appointments of commanding officers, adjutants and others is halved. The Army is being subjected to great stresses. I have always had my doubts as to whether the Government were not going too far in this respect. I doubt that the world situation is all that safer than it was, but in any event—I do not think my noble friend will dispute this—this action which the Government are taking is imposing considerable stress and a good deal of unhappiness upon a great many units. It is therefore all the more justifiable and right to pay tribute to the courage, devotion to duty and sense of discipline which the units are showing.
3.55 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall try to answer the points which various noble Lords have made in this debate. I must say how grateful I am to those who have spoken for their welcome of the main thrust of the Government's response to the Select Committee in another place. It was remiss of me—I freely admit this to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—not to acknowledge that perhaps the Select Committee in another place is merely going where, as is so often the case, your Lordships' House has gone before. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing something out that I should have pointed out during the course of my remarks.
Noble Lords raised a number of points. First, I shall address myself to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. My noble friend and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked when the Government would be able to introduce the legislation to which I referred. The short answer is —I apologise for its imprecision—as soon as is practicable. I hope this means precisely what it says because it is clearly unhelpful if the law in existence does not reflect the action that is taken in everyday life in respect of the matter to which it addresses itself.
I must also say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that at present in changing the law we are doing no more than catching up with what is in effect existing practice. The present system in so far as is possible is that practising homosexuals are administratively discharged. Such a fact is registered on the officer's discharge papers, if the case concerns an officer. I believe the phrase for other ranks is

395
"services no longer required". The services take great care to try to ensure that this device does not leave a black mark on the records of ex-servicemen, particularly as they will be trying to find employment in civilian life. Many noble Lords who have had occasion to look at the remarkable encomiums produced by commanding officers for former servicemen will realise that, if anything, they tend to err on the side of over-praise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, will he also answer my question as to whether personnel discharged under that provision forfeit their pension rights?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as far as I am aware, that is not so. As regards my noble friend's question about the Gurkhas, I am advised that they are subject to the same rules under this head as the rest of the armed services. I also wish to add—this gives me an opportunity to reinforce a point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that morale during what is unquestionably a difficult period for the armed forces, with the beginnings of the draw-down as a result of the Options for Change paper, is in my limited experience remarkable. That factor more than anything else bears witness to the extraordinary professionalism of our armed forces. During these periods of great stress they are able to perform their duties with no apparent ill effects on the professionalism and standards which we have come to expect of them.
I should like now to address myself to a number of other points made by noble Lords. First, on the question of NCOs taking part in courts martial, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that the matter was last fully considered as long ago as 1985. The review concluded that the existing system commanded a high degree of confidence in the services among all ranks. In those circumstances perhaps the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", should apply. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is an argument here, but at present there is no proposal to change the system.
I turn now to the question of ethnic monitoring to which both noble Lords who spoke for their respective parties drew attention. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned the fact that the Army and the other two services have made considerable efforts to make sure that bullying will become a thing of the past. Perhaps it is worth my quoting the recent figures for allegations of bullying which have been substantiated by courts because your Lordships will be gratified by the trend that those figures reveal, particularly in the light of the amount of publicity which has been given of late to particular cases. I shall not weary your Lordships by going back a great many years. But in 1987 there were 31 cases; in 1988, 17 cases; in 1989, 25 cases; in 1990, 11 cases; in 1991, six cases; and in 1992 so far there have been two cases only. It would be nice if those two cases turned out to be the only ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, drew attention to the very low proportion of people from ethnic
396
minorities who are members of the armed services. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me notice of his question. He rightly said that only 1.4 per cent. of applicants come from ethnic minorities and that 1 per cent. of entrants come from the same group: why are the Americans apparently so much more successful than we are? I cannot speak for the United States except in so far as I was able to make observations when I lived there for an extensive period. If your Lordships will allow me a moment of speculation, I gained the impression that membership of the armed forces, and the army in particular, in the United States was seen by blacks very much as a means of social and professional advancement, perhaps rather more so than here. As a result there is the very gratifying result that the head of the American armed forces at present is someone who is not only from an ethnic minority but who was also born a subject of the Queen.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for allowing me to intervene. Before he leaves that point can he say why it is that blacks in America see the armed forces as a route to professional and social advancement when that is not the case here? Why do we not invite some of their excellent black generals and air marshalls over here to tell the Ministry of Defence what to do?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the relationship between the armed forces of America and the armed forces of this country are very close and that matters of almost every nature are discussed regularly between them. One of the principal reasons for our making the announcement to which I referred earlier is to try to make sure that members of ethnic minorities living in this country realise that there is a fine career for them in the armed forces and that the armed forces welcome them, not only as ordinary private soldiers or ordinary seamen but also see them working their way up the career ladder in exactly the same way as anyone else. I agree with the noble Lord that there are many talented people from the ethnic minorities who the armed forces could use.
I am conscious of the time, but if your Lordships will allow me I should like to refer to the question which the noble Lord raised concerning the possibility that British prisoners of war are still alive and in custody in Russian labour camps. We have seen no evidence to support such claims. There is a list of about 100 names of combatants in the Korean war of whom there is no trace. However, clearly the possibility of such an eventuality as the noble Lord suggested is so horrific that it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to make sure as far as is possible that no such prisoners are still alive and in custody.
I assure your Lordships that we are in touch with the American authorities in order to gather all the information that we can. We shall continue to co-operate in that way. I stress that we do not wish to raise false hopes. That would be cruel. However, we must examine with the greatest of care any material or evidence that comes to light and act on it as swiftly as

397
possible. The relative new openness in Russia can perhaps provide more information, if such information is available, and we intend to take full advantage of it.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for taking so much time. It has been a worthwhile debate. A number of important issues have been raised. There will he other opportunities to discuss them when the legislation to which I referred is brought before your Lordships' House. In the meantime I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1992
4.8 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne Viscount Cranborne rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 20th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for the fact that yet again the House has to endure a performance of mine from this Dispatch Box. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. The regulations we are considering effect straightforward amendments to the Companies and Business Names Regulations 1981.
The original regulations prescribe words and expressions which require the approval of the Secretary of State before they can be used in a company or business name. We have recently become aware that while the use of the terms as they appear in the schedule to those regulations requires approval that does not apply to their plural or possessive forms. Since the purpose of the regulations is to afford the public protection against the misuse of terms that imply a certain status or specific function, the regulations clearly should apply equally to the plural and possessive forms. The first amendment effected by the regulations before us achieves that.
The second amendment relates to the word "University". Before submitting an application to the Secretary of State for the use of that word in a company or business name applicants had to seek a letter of non-objection from the Department of Education and Science, which was the relevant body responsible for commenting on such applications. As a result of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 that responsibility has been transferred to the Privy Council. The present regulations therefore substitute "The Privy Council" for "Department of Education and Science".
The final amendment is to remove the expression "Building Society" from the schedule. As the use of that expression is already controlled by other legislation, namely the Building Societies Act 1986, there is no need for it to be prescribed as requiring the approval of the Secretary of State.
I hope that your Lordships will feel that the measure effects some minor but nevertheless useful consequential amendments to existing legislation and will feel able to approve the order.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 20th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the regulations. As he said, these are largely drafting points to change the 1981 regulations. There is one small matter which I should like him to clarify. Do regulations 2(2) and 2(3) imply that between 1981 and 1992, if a company or a business had a name in the plural and the possessive forms, that name was not legal according to the 1981 regulations?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The regulations are not retrospective. It would be unfair to try to impose them on companies or businesses which had lawfully been using a particular name prior to the passing of these regulations. Any enforced change of name for either a company or a business would perhaps be expensive and in certain circumstances even lead to its failure. It would be reasonable to leave sleeping dogs to lie.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Identity Cards Scheme
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley Lord Mason of Barnsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have plans to introduce a national identity card scheme.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in relation to the advent of the free movement of Common Market nationals under the Single European Act, the Commission contends that the Act will make it illegal for governments to check people coming from other Common Market countries from 1 st January 1993. If that principle is violated by the United Kingdom, we are likely to be taken to the European Court. Quite recently the Foreign Secretary said:
"We accept that Common Market citizens should travel freely but obviously we have to check that they are Common Market citizens".
He was making the point that it is essential to screen out drug traffickers, criminals, suspected terrorists and illegal immigrants. During the past year police raids discovered 400 illegal immigrants. It is estimated that hundreds more are breaching the immigration laws: they have outstayed their time, are working without permission or have entered the country by deception.
There may be a legal wrangle about border controls between Her Majesty's Government and the Commission. But constant pressure on border checks highlights the need for an EC mandatory identity card scheme. Most European countries have some form of such a scheme. Senior police officers in this country are convinced that before border controls are relaxed, voluntary ID cards should be introduced. They believe that such cards would be universally accepted and, that if border controls are abolished altogether, a mandatory ID card system should be introduced.
The seventh report of the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation records that the police service said in evidence that, if controls were to be reduced, it would like ideally to see the

399
introduction throughout the European Community of identification cards in a common format. One reason for that is the rapid changes in Eastern Europe, which have intensified the problem of illegal immigrants—economic migrants, many of whom live by crime.
Sir Leon Brittan, Vice President of the Commission, addressing a police gathering, said:
"There is one simple step that Britain could take to ease the task of controlling illegal immigration. This would be the introduction of optional identity cards…In the age of the credit card, is it really so unthinkable that British citizens should be given the option of an identity card, which would bring such advantages?"
Indeed, in December last year, the then Home Secretary said:
"There is much less hesitancy by people being asked to identify themselves. So there is a voluntary system of identification building up".
The issue of ID cards and the European Community will rumble on and keep alive the need for an ID card system. There are constant pressures on the Home Office. Within Europe, already Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain have either voluntary or mandatory national identity card systems. I understood that one of the controlling concepts behind the single market idea was harmonisation—harmony in manufacturing standards, environmental regulation, industrial regulation and so on. All governments were trying to achieve parity and uniformity. In a few years' time, the European citizen moving freely throughout the Community (just like goods and services) will need to know that what works or protects him in one member state will also work and protect him in another. In that context the lack of a national ID card scheme seems especially illogical. It could be a recognised passport, a Community card of recognition. The Government will have to face up to all that in due course.
At home there is undoubtedly a growing demand for a national identity card scheme. On 10th February 1989 an independent research company, Public Attitudes Surveys, published its findings from a survey which asked who was for and who against a national identity card for everyone in the United Kingdom. Of those questioned, 57 per cent. were in favour and 37 per cent. against. Of trade unionists, 53 per cent. were in favour. A person's political allegiance may determine his attitude to this matter: 65 per cent. of Conservatives were in favour; Labourites were split 47 per cent. to 47 per cent.; and Social Democrats (Liberals) were overwhelmingly in favour.
The most recent survey by Public Attitudes Surveys took place in March this year. It found that there were 62 per cent. in favour, 20 per cent. against and 15 per cent. "don't knows". So public opinion is increasingly in favour of the ID card. The Home Office has admitted that the majority of letters and representations to the Home Office are also in favour.
It is important to note the police evidence to the Select Committee. The question was put to the police service:
"Are you now saying that the police are moving to a more favourable view of a national EC identity card?"
400
Mr. Evans, Chief Constable for Devon and Cornwall, replied:
"Yes, we are".
Mr. Hayward, of the Police Federation, said:
"Yes, it is the policy of the Police Federation that we would support a mandatory ID card".
To Mr. Hadfield, Chief Constable for the West Midlands, was put the question:
"You have always said in evidence in the past that it did little to assist in the prevention or detection of crime. What has changed?"
He replied:
"Two things: one, we were persuaded by the argument and that argument was four years ago. We have listened to what people have said. Secondly, we have listened to the public".
Mr. Evans said:
"There is a third aspect. Two we have heard, hut the third is the massive rise in crime. It is another means we have to look at properly and seriously to see if it is a weapon in our armoury to try to tackle rising crime".
The annual abstract of statistics for 1992, which publishes notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales, shows that in every category since 1980, year after year, violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, robbery, fraud and forgery have increased noticeably. They are disturbing increases—hence, the police services' updated attitudes.
A number of major national organisations call for an ID system. Three years ago the Townswomen's Guild passed a resolution stating that ID cards should be introduced to combat the increasing problems of law and order. At that time a conference of old age pensioners similarly echoed that call: for the elderly crime is a very great cause of fear; fear is a killer and imprisons pensioners in their homes; something must be done to make them feel safer.
I believe that there is a major groundswell of opinion in favour of an identity card system. One has become conditioned to card use. The Association of Payment Clearing Services estimates that in 1991 39 per cent. of all adults in the United Kingdom had credit cards and 73 per cent. had some form of plastic card—credit card, store card, cheque card and so on. Many major companies already operate an ID system. The Civil Service has 554,000 card carriers, Barclays head office and Shell UK head office each have 5,000, British Gas has over 80,000, and so on. Most people accept such cards. We are now conditioned to them and are not affronted by them. In the Houses of Parliament 12,392 persons carry cards of identification. Even the Government encourage and participate in the use of such cards.
On 4th November 1991 the Department of Transport announced that photographs would be included on British driving licences. A total of 150 organisations were consulted. Of those responding, 86 per cent. were in favour of photographs on licences. One major reason was in order to tighten law enforcement and to help prevent much misery and suffering caused by theft. Indeed, a foolproof photo-licence system could deter much car crime activity. How much more effective it would be if we had a national identification card system. All self-employed building contractors working for the Government must have an identification pass with

401
their national insurance number, name and photograph. The pass has to be regularly checked by inspectors. I refer also to the vast numbers of Army, Navy and Air Force personnel, policemen and firemen who all have photo-identity cards.
The ID card could be a simple version containing basic facts for easy identification: name, sex, date of birth, residence, photograph and signature. Alternatively, it could be a high-tech, smart card containing basic information plus fingerprint, blood group, medical history, work history, financial state and so on. However, I am sure that the nation is not prepared to accept such a card.
I should like to see the introduction of a mandatory, simple identity card scheme. The voluntary phase is over. The vast majority of our people are so accustomed to carrying some form of identity card that I am sure the nation is ready for the next phase. If the starting age for carrying a card were 16, it could help deter young people from starting out on a course of crime. It would be easier to control truancy. In some London schools truancy among fifth formers approaches 50 per cent. of pupils. An identity card scheme would reveal persons involved in under-age drinking. It would certainly identify youngsters who tend towards criminal activity. The requirement for an ID card could instil in our young people a greater respect for citizenship and the responsibility that goes with it.
What else would such a scheme achieve? Obviously, it would make identification easier and more immediate. It would ease the policeman's lot, especially in accidents. It would be a further aid to law and order. The most overriding benefit would be the improvement of internal security. It would be an added weapon to help check social security and tax evasion and credit fraud. Police and special branch officers would welcome such a scheme in their constant endeavours to detect drug smuggling and illegal immigrants. It would help them to check the movements of suspected terrorists and give a tighter control over Irish republicans who flow into Great Britain for social reasons and for aiding and abetting the Provisional IRA.
A national identity card scheme would help many elderly people, including those living on estates which are gaining "no-go zone" reputations, since the police could more easily and quickly identify the regular trouble makers and ring leaders. Finally, it could help to lift the veil of fear from many people and allow them once again to walk our streets in safety.
What a reflection that is on our present-day society. Such a scheme might help to clear our city streets of beggars and layabouts. Identity cards would reveal their real residences. I refer especially to the professional scroungers. The saving of police time in many instances would be considerable.
The introduction of a mandatory scheme of identification cards to be carried at all times, just as one carries a credit card, would be a deterrent. It would have a successful impact on all forms of minor crime. It would be a positive aid to the police in the checking of major criminal activities. Its introduction would be an act of the greatest good for the greatest
402
number. Those who might be apprehensive would be the crooks, the criminals, the fraudsters and the constant fiddlers within our society. A national identity card scheme removes anonymity from those engaged in crime. The law-abiding citizen on lawful business has nothing to fear. I believe that our country now has the need for a national identity card system that will make the life of the criminal more hazardous and the life of the ordinary citizen safer. It is urgent that we begin that process.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, a former Lord Chancellor would use a building conveniently sited half way between this building and the Inns of Court for the purpose of relieving himself on his way to the Woolsack until it was pointed out to him that he may have been misled by the Victorian tiling of the internal arrangements and that he was in fact in the National Liberal Club. A plaque by the smoking room fireplace in that building commemorates a member of the club who 40 years ago tore up his national identity card and started the train of events which led to the courts declaring that there was no longer a state of emergency and that identity cards were illegal. He was an archetypal Liberal, and it was an archetypal Liberal action. I believe that he was right then. I do not believe that he would be right now if he were to oppose the suggestion raised in this important debate.
The law to compel citizens to have a national identity card with a name and number centrally registered lives in the dangerous no-man's land half way between Kafkaesque bureaucracy on the one hand and the uncontrolled jungle where criminals can disappear, frequently laden with ill-gotten gains, to the danger and impoverishment of Her Majesty's lieges. My blood slightly froze as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, refer to the scroungers and the beggars on our streets. Most of them do not have homes to go to or jobs to fulfil. However, I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, when referring to the criminal element.
In war time the case for identity cards was overwhelming and we had them. In the immediate post-war world the need grew weak and we did away with the identity card system, thanks to one Liberal. I believe that today, not least because of the apparent appalling inability of any government to deal with the problems of the under-class, there is again a strong need.
The case against such a scheme is based on the healthy distrust of giving power to a centralised state. However, although it is true that the state becomes ever more centralised, it is not true that that is a threat to civil liberties. The recent reversals of court convictions, horrifying though they are from some aspects, are reassuring from others. The rule of law appears to be firmly established in our society. In no society in which that did not obtain could such reversals of verdicts and sentences have taken place. The rule of law appears to be firmly established. Society no longer views those who wish to uphold civil liberties as dangerous Lefties, which was the atmosphere 20 or 30 years ago.

403
Of course, circumstances can change. But abuse of a universally accepted identity card system would be unlikely to be a danger in itself. The abuse of an identity card system would come only at a late stage in an attack on the civil liberties of citizens. Now is the time to produce an identity card system because our feelings of democracy and our understanding of what is happening are running at high levels. A period of respect for human rights is the best possible time for the introduction of an identity card system. It should not be left until another time.
The obvious advantages of an identity card system lie in its evident utility in fighting crime and in dealing with the problems raised by the European dimension. A less obvious but nonetheless real advantage is its nature as a universal and useful system for combating the growth of an under-class. It will enable people to be helped not by chasing them but by making it possible for voluntary societies to assist. How often is the Answer to a Question in this House—not least when the Question is put by someone such as my noble friend Lord Russell—that the Government "do not have the information in the form that is required?" The danger in our society is not that there is too much information in the hands of the state but that often there is too little.
I believe that an identity card system is inevitable. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, has underlined the fact that it is already prevalent and that many members of society must have such a form of identification. It is important, however, that a system should be brought into force as a whole and in a planned way. It must not be allowed to creep in by the back door. Only if a system is brought into force in a proper way by a government who believe in it and who know what they are doing will the necessary safeguards be built in. I am sure that there are a number of safeguards which must be built in; my noble friend Lord Winchilsea will, I believe, deal with that problem.
I do not under-rate the dangers of a national identity card scheme but I believe that the advantages are much more important. The dangers can be negated by the Government taking firm action and by Members of both Houses of Parliament processing the introduction of a scheme. I thank the noble Lord for introducing the debate, and I support the main tenor of his remarks.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I too am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has introduced a debate on this important subject. I speak as a newcomer to this House, but I believe that it is appropriate to debate the subject in this House. Here it is possible to do so in a more calm atmosphere than is sometimes possible in another place. There all too often those who take part in debates on what are to some extent moral issues must appeal to and appease party factions.
I start from the premise that in Britain the onus of proof must be for the introduction of a national identity card scheme. It is not something which should in any sense be introduced by a unilateral diktat by a
404
government. There should be the fullest discussion in Parliament before proposals are brought forward, and among the population as a whole after the proposals have been brought forward.
I believe there are two criteria for testing the need for identity cards. First is the prime obligation that there must be on any government to maintain law and order and to protect the population against terrorism with the least hassle to the citizen and the lowest cost to the taxpayer. Second is that in so doing government must make the best use of modern technology.
The time has come for serious thought to be given to the introduction of an identity card scheme because technology has advanced greatly in respect to the possibilities of such schemes. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the level of crime, particularly and sadly in relation to terrorism.
We now all have to endure a much greater security intrusion in our daily lives than was the case when I was young. People put up with that willingly when they see it to be necessary. I must admit that I never thought the time would come when I should not be allowed to dismount from my bicycle in Whitehall; but I am prepared to accept that there may be good reasons why I may not, and therefore I do not. We must now consider better methods for improving general security but with a lower intrusion or hassle level for the citizen.
If an identity card were introduced, several questions must be asked. First, would it be practical to have a voluntary card scheme? The noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred to the countries which have identity card schemes, and it is interesting to note the difference. As regards EC countries, it is mandatory to hold identity cards in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and Spain; and it is voluntary in France, Italy and Portugal.
If it is mandatory to hold a card, should it be mandatory to carry it? The only countries in the EC in which it is mandatory to carry a card are Belgium and Greece—a curious pair. Furthermore, who should pay for the cards? Should they he paid for by the generality of taxpayers or by those to whom they are issued, as in the case of passports and driving licences?
I now turn to some of the reasons why I believe we need to move towards a national identity card scheme. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, was putting forward the broadest case; but I too found myself shrinking a little at the reference to beggars and scroungers. To put them forward as a justification for the introduction of cards would disadvantage the case.
In the acts of terrorism it is necessary for the police to be able to ascertain the identities of as many people as possible who might be useful as witnesses in inquiries, not as suspects. After a terrorist incident it would be possible for the police to surround an area and record by the use of machine-readable identity cards the people who were there. It may be totally irrelevant, but it may be useful.
Secondly, there is a need to help police work in general crime and suspects. Already we have in Britain centralised computer records which not only cover criminals but also motorists with the vehicle and driving licence registration systems. We all know that

405
those are effectively used by the police and probably save a great deal of police time, which is extremely expensive. My noble friend who is to reply may correct me, but I believe that the working figure for the cost of police time is £25 a hour, including overheads. Computer records already save police time and make checking easier.
I was troubled to hear that it is proposed to incorporate photographs on driving licences. That would be an expensive project and an example of going off at half cock. I hope that it is not too late to at least delay consideration of the reissue of everyone's driving licence containing a photograph until the bigger question of identity cards has been more carefully considered.
Thirdly, the question of credit fraud. I am sure that my noble friend can give me a more accurate figure, but I understand that a conservative figure is in the region of £200 million a year arising from cheque and credit card frauds. We are aware that there can be extremely rapid misuse of stolen cheque and credit cards. Often little care is taken by shops or banks in checking the use of stolen cards.
It is possible for people to choose to have incorporated on their cheque or credit card, the letter "I". That could be done on a voluntary basis. Then when the card is presented in person, there would be an obligation on the person accepting it to make also a print of the identity card—they would thus check that the identity card was held by the person presenting the card. If that check was not made when the card contained an "I" then there would be no recourse for those accepting the card. If it were done then the person holding the card would have a smaller obligation in regard to restitution in the event of misuse of the credit card. That would be a fairly simple system.
There is then the question of serious and violent crime. I should like to refer specifically to sex crimes and offences such as rape, and mention the possibilities raised by the use of the DNA profile. That is something further in the future than identity cards; but is closely related to it. As your Lordships are aware, the DNA technique produces a relatively unique profile of any individual. It is only likely to be repeated in the case of identical twins.
Forensic scientists do not claim more uniqueness than one in several thousands. But shortly, with the fuller DNA profiles being produced, that figure will be one in several millions. In any case, in many criminal cases one only needs a probability factor of one in several thousands for the evidence to be crucial in deciding whether or not a person is guilty. It is interesting that in December 1990 the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons said that a DNA database for the whole male population,
"would provide considerable benefits for the police".
The present cost of carrying out a DNA test is around £160. It is likely to fall to below £50 within the next two years with the introduction of new techniques known as polymerase chain reaction techniques for taking DNA specimens. The specimen required is small. Blood does not need to be taken from a vein; a small prick in the thumb is sufficient.
406
There is no doubt that such a database would make rape, at least, almost certainly detectable in terms of knowing who had committed it. That would be a significant deterrent for many would-be rapists. It is a factor which we should hesitate to ignore in the context of the obligation of the Government to fulfil law and order and to protect the citizen.
We have heard civil liberties arguments—but not in this debate—against the use of identity cards. One would expect them because the onus is to show the need for cards. However, I believe that there has been a considerable change of view. I have spoken to many of my friends, some of whom in the past would have been strongly opposed to the idea. One such person will be known to many noble Lords and is the kind of person who, some years ago, I would have expected to oppose the concept. I am speaking in preparation of a debate in your Lordships' House. I refer to Ben Whitaker, a former Labour Member of Parliament. He was active in the whole civil rights area and has authorised me to refer to his view as an example.
There are other advantages to identity cards. Travel has been mentioned and is extremely relevant. Already we have free access to this country by Community countries with identity cards, and for many people cards would make passports unnecessary. For many people travel within Europe is all that they may wish.
As we have already heard, public opinion is in favour of the cards. That is important. I was disappointed, as no doubt were other noble Lords, at the reaction of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in a recent response to a question on identity cards. That is why I mentioned the different atmosphere when these matters are dealt with in another place.
All I ask of my noble friend when he replies is that at least he indicates that the Home Office and the Government be willing to study the issue carefully, and that the time for such study has come. We should not introduce such an identity card in a rush; it must be done carefully with full consideration and public debate. The time has come for the Government to undertake such a study and perhaps publish the findings as a Green Paper.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I too favour the introduction of a mandatory national identity card and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mason, for introducing the subject for debate. But I say that with certain reservations. Other noble Lords have expressed their fears and worries and some of their thoughts on the subject. I shall confine my remarks to a few points that perhaps have not been mentioned.
The first point that concerns me is how the cards will be used. Presumably they will be used to check on immigrants. A number of people feel that the word "immigrant" is a code word meaning "black" or "Asian". If so, it may be those groups which will be stopped and checked and their right to be here challenged. It will not be the white group. That is one of my anxieties.

407
Another is how ID cards can be made counterfeit-proof. I suspect that there is no easy answer. I ask also whether it will be an offence not to carry an ID card were they to be introduced. I understand that within the EC the only country in the Schengen Agreement which does not have ID cards is the Netherlands. I understand that they are working on that.
Provided that strict controls limit the information about individuals to the barest minimum, I should have no objection to the introduction of ID cards; in fact, I can see benefits resulting in, for example, the identification of accident victims or the identification of missing persons, and in the possible reduction of retail fraud—an important subject mentioned by the previous speaker. I should not object to carrying an identity card at all times. But I can see how such a national compulsory scheme may be abused. It may be helpful for the card to carry the individual's blood group; to state whether he or she is allergic to, for example, penicillin; and also for it to state whether or not the bearer was on regular medication, in addition to the basic information it already contains.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful for the opportunity given to us by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley to discuss the question of national identity cards. The subject has been discussed in recent months. The Government's present thinking is still by no means clear to us on these Benches. So this is an excellent occasion to elicit from the noble Viscount a clear and unequivocal response on the Government's thinking on this issue at this time. I look forward to hearing that.
I speak as XGAQ 122/3, which was my national identity card number achieved at the age of eight. I suppose that, theoretically, I did not relinquish that appellation until 1952 at the age of 21. But by that time I had already become 22128477 on my AB64 when I commenced National Service, and later 412291 upon receiving my commission in the 41st and 69th Regiment of Foot. It has been pointed out that the average citizen of today is perfectly accustomed to using a wide range of identification documents for special purposes. On that my noble friend has spoken most eloquently and he is obviously quite right. I suppose that most of your Lordships commonly carry credit cards, bank cards, store cards and travel passes, and possess driving licences, passports and security passes which are often worn like ties or jewellery closely around one's throat.
The onus of proof might seem to lie on those who would claim that one more card would make a significant difference and that the remembrance of it would be grievous unto us and the burden of it would be intolerable. Recent parliamentary attempts to place this additional straw on the camel's back do not give aid and comfort to those who now propose it. Mr. Tony Favell's Bill in 1988, which claimed, inter alia, that identity cards would control football hooliganism, was notably unsuccessful. In February 1989, Mr. Ralph Howell introduced a National Identity Card
408
Bill, but the data protection registrar then issued a strong statement opposing it on the grounds of data protection and the safeguarding of privacy. That seems to have been influential in persuading Her Majesty's Government to oppose it as well and so the matter proceeded no further.
Yet the issue seems reluctant to go away. My noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley has this afternoon made a most cogent and powerful case in its favour. He seems to have received support from all those who have spoken. One preconception and prejudice can, I believe, be cleared away to advantage before we weigh the true arguments. It is fallacious to propose that, because we all now carry certain identification documents, a national identity card would be no great additional burden. It is fallacious because the common feature of the cards we commonly carry is that we have voluntarily chosen to apply for them in order to obtain some benefit or service. Nobody forces us to have a Visa or Access card or one of those cards which allows us to get money from a hole in the wall. That would not be true of a national identity card. Any voluntary scheme would obviously be likely to develop into a de facto compulsory one, and the individual citizen would not be free to remain anonymous when he or she chose to be so. There are times when to be anonymous is good and helpful.
The Labour Party is not as yet wholly and completely convinced that a national identity card scheme, as my noble friend has proposed it, would solve the problems of terrorism and crime which, it has been suggested, could be controlled by such a scheme. Our notion of individual liberty is so strong that it applies even to my noble friend Lord Mason, who has a perfect right to express an opinion which is contrary to that of others of his political party. It is individual liberty which we believe might conceivably be threatened here. Nobody in the Labour Party needs an identity card to express contrary views.
We have a proud tradition in this country of protecting and supporting civil liberties in certain senses: that of the citizen, sitting in his or her house; walking down the local street or driving a car. They cannot now be tapped on the shoulder and asked to verify their identity unless they are suspected of committing an offence. We have an equally proud tradition of harbouring and giving succour to those of other countries where such rights are by no means self-evident. We should think hard before we sacrifice any part of it.
Yet, in recent years, and, it must be said, under a Conservative régime, we have seen a growth in the questioning attitude towards such freedoms. The Asylum Bill has attempted to restrict the rights of asylum seekers under international law when they apply for asylum here. Many influential figures in the Conservative Party have called for national identity cards. During recent years we have seen the Data Protection Act come into being, yet the same Government have tried to crack down hard on those who attempt to bring the public such truth as they see it about our secretive governmental processes. I think of such people as Clive Ponting, Sarah Tisdall and Peter Wright. We have seen the Government pay lip

409
service to the idea of opening up the processes of Government. We applaud their decision to publish the names of those who serve on Cabinet Committees.
Yet at the same time we have witnessed the Government's centralisation of power in a way which we consider as quite often threatening individual liberties. We on these Benches hope that the Government will unequivocally state their commitment to civil liberties now and at every conceivable opportunity in the future. But we fear that perhaps they will be more reluctant to do so than we would like. For that reason we find it difficult this time to support a national identity card scheme.
Perhaps I may now turn to the present proposal as it stands before us. As I have said, Britain had one experience of identity cards during the Second World War. These cards continued in use until 1952, I believe officially as an aid to rationing. But we had to produce the identity card for post office transactions. Quite often, rightly or wrongly, it was demanded by the police. I refer to those of your Lordships who are of an inquisitive nature to the book written by C. H. Rolph and Michael Joseph called Personal Identity. It points out:
"If you picked up a fountain pen in the street and handed it to a constable, he would ask to see your identity card to record your name as an honest citizen. You seldom carried it: and this meant that he had to give you a pencilled strip requiring you to produce it at a police station within two days".
The system was finally abolished when it had been seen to be properly absurd, after a motorist point-blank refused to show his identity card or to take delivery of that wretched slip.
The one great difference between those days and these is the existence of the European Community and the much greater movement between states, which will increase even more next year. There lies a strong case for the proposal which my noble friend is putting forward. However, we believe that at present frontier controls are very much preferable to identity cards. Internal checks—which we accept might have to be carried out if there were no border controls—would, in our opinion, lead to unnecessary tensions and in the long run probably to identity cards. We would reject any accusation that we are woolly-minded liberals, with a small "l", who are soft on crime and terrorism. We are none of those things.
However, we believe that there are better ways of combating crime than a general, national, compulsory, identity card scheme. We have consulted with the organisation Liberty on this matter which, as noble Lords will know, is opposed to national identity cards. We are in agreement with that organisation. There are very prescient reasons for not introducing them, at least yet. In this regard we should compare ourselves with other European countries. It may be that tomorrow when we read the account of what we have said at some speed this afternoon, we will detect some variation in the countries which various Members of your Lordships' House have said do or do not have compulsory, voluntary or no identity card schemes. That will be interesting to see.
As I am informed, there are no identity cards in Denmark. Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
410
or the United Kingdom. There are voluntary schemes in Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy and Lichtenstein. Cards are compulsory in Belgium, Cyprus, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain and Turkey. I hope that between us we shall arrive at the truth.
There is strong opposition, I believe, in the Scandinavian countries to the idea of identity cards, as there is in the Netherlands. Human rights workers in Belgium, where one must carry a card, claim that black people there are often stopped on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. There are fears expressed quite widely in Germany that the machine-readable cards used there will increase the use of state surveillance. In Turkey, Kurds, who are neither Moslem nor Christian, claim that they are harassed —if your Lordships will permit that old-fashioned pronunciation of a word that seems to be going the way of all flesh—because their cards indicate that fact. In France, the law relating to cards was changed in 1986, giving the police more rights to demand proofs of identity, and the police have quite often been accused of abusing their powers to harass young or black people.
Although this evidence may be somewhat piecemeal, we feel on these Benches that identity cards seem to create or exacerbate tensions implicit in society. One is forced to ask: how would the police use their powers in, for example, Brixton if they had the right to demand to see a proof of identity? In areas where the police are already mistrusted, what effect would such powers have on community policing policy? Sadly, it is widely accepted that serious criminals, bent on committing serious crimes such as terrorism, will forge identity cards—and there is no scheme which is forge-proof. This, I think, must be borne in mind when one thinks of the effect of an identity card scheme in the war against terrorism.
God forbid that anyone should accuse us on these Benches of being soft on terrorists who have no compunction about murdering and maiming the innocent. It is a great pleasure to me to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley whose career is living proof that he is no soft-headed woolly-minded liberal on matters of defence and terrorism. But we must approach terrorism pragmatically and logically. How best should we combat it? Powers already exist under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act for the police and the Army to require proof of identity at any time. In Northern Ireland the driving licence has become a de facto identity card in any case. Would it really be any more use to national security to set up and run—at great cost—a national identity card scheme for the whole of the United Kingdom when a de facto one seems to function perfectly well in Northern Ireland already and is threatening enough to civil liberties for the innocent civilian population?
As Liberty comments:
"The onus should he on those who propose a scheme to show that it would benefit society as a whole: the liberty of the individual should not be curtailed, unless it is necessary for the preservation of others".

411
I submit that the case has not been proven that such a scheme would crush terrorism. It might even serve to alienate the very people one needs to help in defeating terrorism.
Many countries do well without an identity card scheme. It is not good for democracy for the state to have unnecessary powers over its citizens. It has not been demonstrated in any evidential way that such a scheme would stop terrorism, and at present United Kingdom laws are barely adequate to safeguard the privacy of personal information.
Seldom has XGAQ 122/3 found himself arguing the case that a proposal is unnecessary because its objects can best be achieved by existing means. I normally leave that to Her Majesty's Government. Seldom have I argued from this Dispatch Box that the time is not ripe for a radical change but on balance and with reluctance—with real reluctance —I find myself unable at this time to support my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley in this matter.
5.4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for giving us the opportunity today to debate this issue which is of considerable interest to the public as well as to your Lordships.
Some people of course object to an identity card system on principle. It seems to be a manifestation of the police state—Big Brother and all that. However, Her Majesty's Government do not take such an ideological position and nor do we agree with those who take the contrary line and believe in identity cards precisely because they would tend to increase the power of the state over the individual citizen.
We have no bias for or against identity cards. Our view is that the introduction of a system of identity cards would inevitably involve a number of costs, both financial and social, and in return might offer a number of benefits. It is a question of assessing where the balance of advantage lies.
There is also the view that if one has an identity card one is numbered or marked and that authority knows about you. However, whereas that view might have been tenable 25 years ago, it is not the case now. We all have national insurance numbers, passport numbers and driving licence numbers and there are numbers on one's gas account or credit card. It goes on for ever and ever. Therefore, I do not think that a rational argument can be mounted that it is against the natural liberties of the individual to have a number. We all have stacks of them—and I never manage to remember any of mine.
Perhaps I may summarise the present position. A national system of identity cards could be either compulsory or voluntary. Either system would cost a great deal to set up and maintain, given the need for a high degree of security. It could be argued that a compulsory system might be advantageous for the state in a number of ways, but it would also have significant disadvantages which in our opinion might outweigh the benefits. A voluntary card would be a convenient means for the individual citizen to identify
412
himself in a variety of situations, but it would have far less to offer to the Government and to the police—not enough in our view to justify the expenditure of public money.
I am bound to tell your Lordships that we therefore have no plans at present to introduce an identity card —neither a compulsory one nor a voluntary one—but we intend to keep the matter under review.
I have listened with interest to the views which have been expressed in this debate. Many of them recall the points which were made in a debate in another place on the Second Reading of a Bill which was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for North Norfolk, Mr. Howell. Some of the points that we have heard today are new, in particular those which relate to immigration, which I shall come to shortly.
But, first, let me dispose of a red herring—the suggestion that our Western European neighbours have identity cards and that we should therefore follow their example. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, pointed out, we are not alone in not having identity cards. Ireland, Denmark and Sweden do not; and nor is there a uniform system in those countries that do have identity cards. Some are compulsory; some are voluntary; some are highly secure and sophisticated, while others are frankly very rudimentary.
Perhaps I may explain our position in more detail, beginning with what one might describe as the traditional justification for identity cards—that is, that they would help the police to deal with crime. It was on this basis that the wartime system of identity cards was retained until 1952, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. By that date there was a widespread public perception that the police were using the powers which had been conferred upon them in an oppressive fashion to demand and check identity cards. The system was therefore abolished and it proved to be then, I think, no great loss. I do not think that any noble Lord who has spoken would disagree with that statement of the position in 1952.
It was many years later, in 1988, that the idea of identity cards as a possible weapon in the police armoury was revived. The advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland was sought. It told us that there would be no clear advantage to the police. It pointed out that, if police officers were empowered to require citizens to produce their identity card —and without such a power, cards would be of limited value —there was a risk of creating the same kind of bad feeling which had existed up to 1952. The risk was particularly high in the case of young people and ethnic minorities, but it was not confined to them.
Your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, that the police have changed their minds since 1989. I would make two points. First, although we are aware of the evidence which the police service gave to the home affairs committee's inquiry into external borders, we have received no advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers to

413
supersede that which it gave us in 1989. If it were now to express a different opinion, we would of course consider it carefully.
Secondly, the arguments which were put to us by the Association of Chief Police Officers three years ago are cogent arguments which do not rely for their force on the fact that it was that association which expressed them. We could not disregard arguments which we have up to now considered powerful, simply because the police decided to abandon them or to change their view. In these circumstances we should need to take account of why the police had changed their view. Was it because they now thought that the advantages of identity cards were greater than before, or the risk of abuse less, or both?
This may be a convenient point to mention terrorism, a subject raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. It is sometimes argued that identity cards would be of value in combating terrorism. We have considered this aspect very carefully, but our conclusion was that they would not. I hope that your Lordships will understand if I do not go very much further on this subject.
It has also been suggested that identity cards would help to control illegal immigration. That is a perfectly tenable point of view, although the Government do not believe that the case for it has yet been made out. Unlike most of our Continental European Community partners, the United Kingdom maintains a mainly frontier-based system of control. The fact that we are an island, with limited points of entry, makes this feasible.
It is much easier, of course, to turn away ineligible people at the frontier than to find them and to remove them once they are here. I accept that there is a perfectly valid argument that there are, as we know, people here who should not be here and that is why the immigration service continues to be active. But, at the moment, there is no evidence to suggest that a system of identity cards would help in this effort. A voluntary card, or a card which is issued without checking people's nationality and immigration status, would not help immigration control.
The most important question, which would have to be addressed should we wish to introduce identity cards, is: what new powers would have to be created for enforcement agencies, for employers and for others in order to require people to identify themselves? We would have to assess how effective those powers would be. What implications would they have for people? Will people be stopped in the street and asked for their identity card or will the police officer have to have some reason to ask for an identity card? Will it be an offence not always to carry one --some might feel that that would be a tough imposition on the citizens of our country—or will one be able, as with a driving licence, to present it at a police station within three days, or, as used to be the case, within two days, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, reminded us. If you were an illegal immigrant without an identity card, you would presumably vaporise rather quickly rather than go to the nearest police station.
414
What new bureaucratic structure would be necessary to supply identity cards and control their use? Would they have our DNA profile, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Marlesford? What huge cost would that involve? It would be impractical to check the bearer's identity directly against his DNA profile. A DNA profile on a card raises difficult legal and ethical questions. My noble friend Lord Marlesford objected to the idea that driving licences should have photographs on the grounds that it would be expensive. This subject, about which a consultation paper was issued last year, is undergoing a feasibility study, but it is important not to confuse a driving licence, even one bearing a photograph, with a proper identity card, which would need a higher standard of security and would be much more expensive.
Several of our European Community partners have identity card systems. But I think that the experience which other countries have, although valuable, may not be directly relevant to this country. Countries with long land borders do not have the same opportunity as we do to maintain a strict entry regime. They have little alternative other than to rely on in-country controls.
The Netherlands is an example. Their government has proposed an identity card system to be backed by new police powers which will require people to identify themselves in certain circumstances. But the Netherlands, unlike the United Kingdom, is committed to the abolition of its internal border controls. The Government, of course, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed recently, do not intend to adopt a similar course of action. We do not accept that having internal border controls is incompatible with the completion of the single European market.
This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. We do not agree with the view of the European Commission that Article 8A requires the removal of all controls on persons at internal frontiers. The United Kingdom secured amendments to the article in 1985 to ensure that it applied only to EC nationals and a general declaration annexed to the Single European Act makes it clear that member states retain the right to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from non-EC countries and to combat terrorism, crime and drug trafficking. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's position on frontiers abundantly clear. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, seems to support our view.
We also need to look at the foreign experience in some detail. To what extent do the identity card systems of other countries actually contribute to immigration control; and how successful are those countries at detecting and removing illegal immigrants and overstayers? On the present information which we have, we see no reason to believe that the level of illegal immigration in this country is on the same scale as that which seems to exist in many other European Community countries.
Policing, immigration control and counterterrorism are the arguments which are most frequently put forward in favour of a compulsory system of

415
identity cards. But there are other arguments for such a system. It would, for example, help to discourage social security fraud and tax evasion. But these advantages have to be considered against the cost—and the personal intrusion—of such an identity card.
Three years ago, the cost of issuing a compulsory card, which the taxpayer would presumably have to meet, was estimated at £350 million in the first year, and there would be substantial running costs thereafter. Government departments, such as the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, which would be the most likely beneficiaries of the introduction of a compulsory card, told us, when this matter was last considered, that the advantage to them would not be worth the expense. The main problem in the Department of Social Security is not someone assuming a false identity but someone making false statements as to his circumstances. That could not be covered by an identity card.
There is a variety of functions, though, which could probably be performed by a compulsory card if one existed, but there are more arguments for a voluntary card than for a compulsory one. It is said that a card would be useful to the individual as a convenient travel document; for personal information such as certain medical details; as a means of establishing one's identity in cheque and credit card transactions, so helping to reduce fraud. In short, it could replace the assortment of cards and other documents which many of us carry with us. If that is so, then one has to ask two questions: who pays for it: and why should the Government be involved?
It may be that such a voluntary system would help to curb cheque card fraud. But the banks themselves are active in this field, and your Lordships may feel that that is as it should be. The idea of a card as a travel document, or as a replacement for one's bus pass, or whatever, may seem attractive, but it would not be possible to keep all the information on one card. One can imagine the chaos which would arise from putting on one card your Lordships' pass to come into the House, credit card details, a library card, a medical card, and so on. Even if we had an identity card I am sure that we would probably still be carrying around all the other cards that we carry around at the moment. It is clear that a heavy charge for identity cards from which the taxpayer would derive no commensurate benefit would still fall on the Exchequer.
Despite what I have said, the Government still have a relatively open and, of course, clear and unequivocal mind about the matter. I have addressed some of the questions that would need to be addressed if we were to move to an identity card system. Your Lordships have provided very helpful views on the arguments involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, said, the issue will rumble on. It is certainly interesting to note that most noble Lords who spoke today were in favour of identity cards—except, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who had to be the odd man out. He, indeed, has reservations about identity cards and I believe was not in overall favour of the idea.
416
However, to return to the issue. I have to say that we shall consider the arguments carefully but that, at present, the Government are not persuaded that the case for an identity card—whether a compulsory or a voluntary one—has been made.

Earth Summit: UK Initiatives
5.21 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new initiatives they intend to take following the Rio Conference on the Environment and Development.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been suggested, especially in government circles round the Rio Conference, that the conference should be considered as a beginning—that is, the starting point —rather than as an achievement. However, some of us have been engaged in preparing for the conference for over two years. I have been working for well over two years particularly with third-world governments. Indeed, only last year I travelled among the SADCC countries to assist them in preparing their case for Rio. We know that negotiations have been taking place in a variety of centres during that two-year period. We have been constantly saddened, and at times angered, by the failure of those negotiations to achieve the central purpose of the Rio Conference.
I fully admit that Rio had some positive aspects. Above all, it provided an extension of public consciousness and public awareness of the issues of the environment which many of us believe will dominate the next half century in all continents. But there is a worry in that connection. Noble Lords will remember that just over 10 years ago there was another such conference at Cancun in Mexico. It was based on the report of the Brandt Commission and also raised public consciousness and awareness. But what did it achieve? What has happened since that conference?
The object of Cancun was to bring together, as in Rio, the first and the third worlds in an attempt to bridge the gap between the two of them. However, since Cancun, that gap has widened; it has not been narrowed. As has been vividly illustrated in the past few weeks from the United Nations development programme report, if we look back over the past 30 years from 1960 it will be seen that in 1960 the richest 20 per cent. of countries had incomes 30 times greater than the poorest 20 per cent., but that in 1990 the richest were 60 times more wealthy than the poorest. Moreover, if one looks at people rather than nations, the gap between the richest 20 per cent. and the poorest 20 per cent. among the people in the world is now well over 150.
Cancúun provided us with fine phrases and fine words, as did Rio. But even before the Rio Conference met—and as I suggested in our debate before the conference took place—cracks had deliberately been developed in the pillars which were to bear the Rio Conference. I have in mind especially those in the climate treaty, a treaty in which I have a particular interest having worked with the climatologist at the

417
University of East Anglia for some years on that very issue. That treaty was emasculated. It was emasculated before Rio. It became quite clear that the British Government were playing a part in the emasculation process. The British Government were making it easier for the United States phraseology to be used in the treaty which removed the commitments, and the targets, that had been fought for over that two-year period of negotiation and substituted mere empty aims.
When the final negotiations were entered into, it was seen that it was the United States, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that were the main opponents to making commitments in the climate treaty. Why was that? It was because they were anxious to continue the use of oil, and in the case of the United States it was the use of oil and coal. That was borne out by President Bush in the statement that he made just before Rio when he said that the environment movement would not be allowed to shut down the United States. What short-term, blind myopic language to use!
Such language is short term because, by any test, a programme of energy efficiency, allied with the development of high technology, could very well increase economic progress, wealth and recovery in the United States. It is in their interests, just as it is in ours, to pursue the path of reducing energy waste, which surely is seen to make them especially uncompetitive and which has added to their national deficit. To follow the policy of energy efficiency would be in the economic self-interest of the United States and of the rest of the developed world. However, there is this constant obsession with market forces: in other words, leaving things to the free market. As the report to which I referred—namely, the United Nations development programme report—both states and illustrates, market forces always work for the benefit of the strongest; and the weakest go into the process weak, and come out weaker.
I welcome the fact that the British Government have stated that they will provide a new chance to assist the third world countries in developing without polluting. But there are questions that need to be asked. First, as I understand it—and perhaps the noble Baroness will either correct me if I am wrong or substantiate what I say—the secretariat of the conference has estimated that Agenda 21 would need 125 billion dollars a year. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have offered £100 million and the Germans have also offered something, and this is to be paid into the global environmental fund facility. Yes, that was a start in the internationalising of environmental aid, but unfortunately the global environmental facility has been placed in the maw of the World Bank. That is not only resented by the third world countries; it is also seen by them and by many of us to be a contradiction in terms.
The World Bank is part of the Western economic programme and strategy. It has become notorious for its spending of aid on large capital intensive projects. What the third world has been asking for during the period leading up to Rio to which I have referred is that a new fund be set up and that in it there shall be participation and influence from the third world over
418
how the money should be spent. Even Chancellor Kohl when in Rio called for an increase in the democratisation of decision-making within the World Bank so that the developing countries could participate in and influence the use of the money that was provided. To leave the World Bank as the sole repository of the money and the sole arbiter of how it is to be used is, I suggest, a contradiction in terms. The World Bank, as presently constituted, will not and cannot participate in what is, above all, the means of enabling third world countries to avoid the polluting patterns of the first world and at the same time to avoid coming under the control of those economic forces which are based in the Western world.
So what was the scenario to be discussed at Rio? What is the stage on which this drama is being played out? It can surely be seen as a world divided into two halves. On the one hand there is what we commonly call the South, half the world, characterised by spreading deserts, water deficiency, high population, low energy consumption, high illiteracy and diarrhoea, low employment and low industrial output, high debt and low income—the South, which owes the North 20 trillion dollars and has a net outflow of 50 billion dollars a year. It is a third world which naturally and inevitably therefore is looking first to development, because development is the only hope for the maintenance of life itself.
On the other hand we have the North, based now on wasteful production and wasteful consumption, on increasing pollution and on a growing consumption of resources. Many of its countries are occupied now by juggernauts spilling out their carbon dioxide, their nitrous oxide and their ozone fogs. There is increasing air traffic, and we know very little about what effect air traffic is having on our upper atmosphere. There is a proliferation of motor vehicles, and it is estimated that there will be a 75 per cent. increase in vehicle kilometres travelled by the year 2010. In this country we are spending £15 billion on road building so that we can increase the number of cars until we get to the point of one car per adult-50 million cars in this country alone. We have the increasing use of energy-guzzling appliances, with the inevitable consequence of the search for a new means of energy, turning again to nuclear energy and all the problems of nuclear accidents and the disposal of nuclear waste.
All this is taking place while the Western world is in recession. Yet during the recession pollution has increased. It is estimated that over the past two years in this country alone—during the depths of a recession —the emission of carbon dioxide has increased by 2 per cent. What will happen when there is an economic recovery? What effect will that have on the environment? Do we really consider that in the picture that I have painted the lifestyle of this country and of the Western world as a whole can be sustained and go on with its constantly upward movement? Can it be sustained—indeed should it be sustained? Should we continue to use the resources in this country and in other Western countries out of all comparison to our populations and, as the Brundtland Report showed 10 years ago, taking away from the poor of the world

419
their means of sustenance and development? Yet the third world has been encouraged and is being encouraged to follow our example.
What is going to happen when China and India follow the example of the industrialised world? Are we going to have 700 million more cars? If not, what is the alternative? Surely this is the context in which we are talking and have been talking about the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP aid. That is 0.7 per cent. of our massive national income, not just as charity but as investment in a new kind of world and a safer world. How is it that in this country we have not been able to approach the 0.7 per cent., even when members of the Government were claiming that they had achieved an economic miracle?
How is it that during the past 13 years, whether we have been in a depression or in a boom, the percentage of our income being spent on overseas aid has never reached above half of what it was 13 years ago? How is it that the Dutch, the Danes and the Swedes can achieve this aim? Are their economies so much stronger than ours? Are their governments so much wiser? Are their economic policies so much more constructive and positive than ours?
Why cannot we, even at this stage, set ourselves the target which was accepted 10 years ago? What was the point of agreeing a target 10 years ago when we have been sliding away from it ever since? Why cannot we accept the target, as we were asked to again in Rio, when the French, the Italian, the Dutch and the Danes have all agreed? Why is it that in this country—a country which is noted for its charity and where donations to third world charities have been rising, even during a recession—there is such a contrast between the generosity of the people and the paucity of the aid offered by the Government?
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some replies. I was glad to see that she was reported as being angry when she was in Rio because she was not allowed the resources for overseas aid that she would like. We shall back her in her anger, but we are entitled to know whether her anger has had any effect on her colleagues in government.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend in debating his Question. It is right that we should ask the Government what new initiatives they have in mind following Rio because the Prime Minister said that there should be a follow-up. I shall suggest a few initiatives that I believe the Government should take.
I follow what my noble friend said about providing 0.7 per cent. of GDP as aid. One of the initiatives that the Government can and should take is to name a date by which they will attain that objective. The objective has been accepted but we are failing to achieve it, as my noble friend said. At this stage, especially as the Prime Minister identified poverty as one of the issues that needs to be dealt with, we should undertake to reach that target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. I would set the end of this Parliament as the date, but I accept that we would probably not achieve it. Whatever date is
420
set, we should strive to reach it, because it is one of the contributions that every developed country can make towards bridging the gap between the haves and the have nots, which is one of the big issues of the world.
The Prime Minister spoke also of the reduction of debt. It is to his credit that it is not the first time that he has raised that issue. He has been responsible for initiatives designed to reduce the debt of the poorest nations. Another initiative the Government can take is to liberalise that approach. That is what is now required. Having agreed that the poorest countries should have their debts wiped out, we should now liberalise the definition of the poorest countries and gradually increase the amount that we wipe out in that way. That is another initiative that we could take following Rio.
The Prime Minister talked also about the expansion of trade and private investment. Since all Western countries without exception insist that the development of the third world must be undertaken through private investment, we should find a way to provide incentives to private investors to invest in the third world. That is another contribution that developed countries can make. I put that suggestion forward as an initiative that Her Majesty's Government can take. They can offer incentives for private industry to invest in the third world.
The Government are in a good position to do something about all those initiatives because of their membership of the G7, the European Community and the Commonwealth. They can use their influence in all those organisations to obtain action along the lines that I have suggested. I should like to hear that the Government are planning, thinking or considering the possibility—I do not care what words are used—of doing something along those lines, especially during the next six months, when this country has the presidency of the EC.
That brings me to another issue—the Iwokrama rain forest programme in Guyana about which I thought we should have heard more from the Government. The Government are contributing to it. The ODA is making a contribution. The Natural Resources Institute in Chatham is conducting a survey, but I have heard nothing about it. It is a Commonwealth initiative. The President of Guyana offered the project 900,000 acres on Guyana's border with Brazil. The core of the scheme is the establishment of an international centre which to begin with would conduct research and educational programmes. It would be responsible for developing co-operative programmes with other institutions in Guyana and internationally. Although it is a Commonwealth initiative, it is intended to be an international project.
There is widespread anxiety about the destruction of the world's tropical rain forests which is supposed to be an important factor in the so-called greenhouse effect and global warming. The Guyanan experiment is of the utmost importance. It is envisaged that academic institutions and other interested bodies will be associated with the project through different types of membership, including cash subscriptions or staff secondments. The research institute would be

421
international, and academic bodies all over the world would be associated with it. It would be a genuine attempt to investigate a problem in that area. The site of the project has many interesting features, apart from being breathtakingly beautiful. There is no human activity in the area except for a new road from Lethem, on the Brazilian border, to Georgetown, the Guyanese capital on the Atlantic coast. It is an area rich in tropical flora and fauna, with a good mix of forest species and terrain. Rivers and streams flow through the lush green hills and mountains. I have read in the literature that black cayman crocodiles, which are an indigenous species, can be found in the swamps. Thus it is a good area for the experiment being considered.
A large section will be set aside in its pristine purity as a wilderness reserve, to act as nature's evolutionary laboratory. That is an inviting project. It is hoped and expected that the international centre will start work by 1994, after legislation in Guyana and the receipt of extra funds. I gather that funds have already come from the UNDP, but they are small. I know that Her Majesty's Government have contributed through the ODA towards the survey of the site. As I said earlier, the Natural Resources Institute in Chatham plays a major part in the project.
I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to tell me that all the initiatives that I have mentioned are either being considered or are in hand. I believe that it is not enough merely to say that we wish to follow up what has happened in Rio. I agree with my noble friend that we must have initiatives aimed at gaining from what has been achieved in Rio. I know that my noble friend is disappointed, as are many people, but there is no doubt that Rio is a start. Everything is now on the agenda; therefore there is everything to play for. I know that the Minister's heart is in the right place and I hope that she will tell us that she has been able to persuade her colleagues that there can be action.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there can be no doubt that environmental problems spring in no small part from the activities of the developed world. There is the absurd excessive use of energy, the guzzling of petrol and unnecessary trips in unnecessarily large cars at unnecessarily low prices. There is the encouragement to use the road rather than to get the freight in the appalling juggernauts back on to the railways. These all contribute greatly to environmental depredation. It is within our power to deal with them if we are sufficiently prepared and mindful of the consequences.
I should be the last person to say that all, or even a major part, of the issues on the environment are to be found in the problems of the developing world. But the fact remains that many serious environmental problems are to be found in the developing world and are likely to become more, not less serious.
I wish to concentrate on certain aspects of the problems of the developing world. Basically, the problem is deep, grinding poverty. When people are so poor that the difficulty is how to survive not even for the next year but for the next month or, in many cases,
422
the next week, they are not interested in environmental matters. Why on earth should they be? They cannot get their heads sufficiently above the parapet to think of anything other than how they and their immediate family can keep going.
Thus, if we wish to deal with the environmental problems located in the third world, we must mean business about its poverty. Survival is an immensely powerful incentive and people there will be determined to raise their standards of living somehow. Wouldn't we all? Therefore, they will want to do what we have done in order to raise our standards of living. They will not be so concerned about what happens to forests when they need to clear ground in order to grow food or graze cattle or goats. They will not be so concerned about the future of the environment when they are worried about the future of their own immediate family the day after tomorrow.
If we want people to act in an environmentally friendly way —an over-used expression—in their own development, we must find ways to work with the grain of what they wish to do and what is beneficial both for them and for the environment. I thought that a recent article in the Econotnist summed up that approach very well. It stated:
"In many poor countries, inadequate environmental policies still kill people or make them ill, or leave them hungry. Dirty water, sooty air, the fumes from charcoal cooking fires, soil erosion and flash floods are all hazards that have long since been tackled in the rich world. Decent sewerage, safe drinking water, simple technology to control smoke and dust and farming methods that protect soil may not be environmental priorities with much appeal to the green lobbyists, but they are the reason why the governments of poor countries should he environmentally friendly".
That is so because it works in the direction in which they wish to go and does not demand sacrifices from those countries of the kind— though with far less excuse—we ourselves are not prepared to make.
Thus, to find ways in which, with our aid, we can develop the kind of projects which are beneficial and help both the prosperity of the developing countries and the environment must be one of the major objectives of our aid policies.
However, poverty expresses itself in many other ways. Where there is no security to fall back on, no old age pension, no national health service, no unemployment pay, people must have children. That is their only security against life's inevitable catastrophes. It is folly to talk about population control—important though that is—as long as grinding poverty makes it absolutely necessary that people should invest in the family. It is the only investment, as they see it, which is likely to give them a reasonable return in terms of security.
If we talk of population control—as I certainly do —and encouragement of the voluntary restriction of families, it must be linked with an increase in wealth and prosperity. It must be linked with education. I have talked about that before in your Lordships' House and shall not do so again tonight. As long as just over 20 per cent. of the women of India are illiterate and therefore cannot even read the instructions on the birth control pamphlets that are

423
given to them or on the equipment, it is not likely that they will be effective in controlling their families. Poverty underlines, and underlies it all.
Other speakers have talked of the poverty of the third world, of aid and debt. Those factors are important, but by far and away the most important is trade. That is what we must face. I am saddened as I believe no other speaker so far has mentioned the importance of trade. If we are serious about trade for the developing countries, that will cause problems for ourselves at home which are politically inconvenient for all political parties and all candidates in political elections.
I fought—as always, unsuccessfully—as a parliamentary candidate in Lancashire in the 1960s. The entire weavers' organisation was against me because I talked about free trade in a textile area. That was not a popular thing to do and it did me no good. It did no one any good but it gave me the opportunity to voice a point which needs to be made again and again if we really mean business about trade. If we are not serious about trade, it is not only the environment that will suffer, serious though that is, but it will also affect people as they will not stay in a country to starve. Despite the population increases in developing countries, we are asking them to stay put. They will find their way to other countries. That is happening already, and the racism that is developing on the north Mediterranean coast is a direct result of the fear that people in North Africa who have inadequate living standards will try their luck in the more prosperous parts of southern Europe. The consequences of that are already horrible to behold and they will become a great deal worse.
We must put the trade issue at the top of environmental issues. That means inevitably that we must address GATT. Where have we reached on GATT? Yet again, countries have experienced difficulties with GATT. I know the French farmers are roaring at the gates of Paris but they have roared before and they will roar again. Although they are worthy men in many ways, their problems are not to be compared in any way whatever with those of the people in developing countries. Surely it is time we learnt that. It is time too that those in the developed countries—if they are really to enable those in the developing countries to develop and to trade—decide where the price will be paid. It cannot just be paid by the people in the industries that will be badly affected. Of course those people will protest. They always have done and they always will. There must be a corresponding policy so that those who will lose out as we develop trade with the developing countries will in their turn gain the prospect of an alternative way of earning a living. These are big issues of policy and unless we face them, to a large extent it is humbug to talk about environmental issues.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, it is frankly intimidating to speak, even in a brief debate such as this, after such powerful contributions have been made by previous speakers. The whole House should be grateful to my
424
noble friend Lord Hatch for the particularly powerful way in which he introduced this Unstarred Question tonight. I have known my noble friend for many years as a personal friend. If I have come to respect anything, it is his moral obstinacy and his resolute commitment to social justice. Those qualities have not always won him friends, but I believe that the third world's poor have had no more consistent champion in British politics than my noble friend Lord Hatch.
It has been salutary to hear another consistent champion of the poor speaking tonight, my noble friend Lord Pitt. He, too, has brought his commitment to bear this evening. We also heard the characteristic contribution—I hope I may use that term—of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who, again, has a formidable mix of tough intellect with moral fervour which she deploys to such effect. My noble friend Lord Ennals had very much wished to be here but due to a longstanding commitment he found it was impossible to be here for the closing part of the debate. My noble friend had been in Rio and he asked me to stress how sad he was not to be able to participate in this debate.
Whatever the unrealistic expectations in some quarters, UNCED was never going to be the occasion that saved the world. Even such a prestigious gathering as that which assembled in Rio could not achieve that. It would have been naive to suppose otherwise. However, countless people across the world, both rich and poor, looked to UNCED to put sustainable development at the heart of economic and political strategy and decision-making. They looked to it to provide at last the impetus and resources which were necessary significantly to reduce global poverty and to prevent unnecessary and irreversible damage to the environment. For that words were never going to be enough. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Hatch has said, I fear that, to far too great an extent, words were largely what we got.
The outcome of Rio was rhetorically strong on ends but disappointingly weak on the practical means to secure the future. The watering down of commitments and the absence of firm timetables on issues such as aid flows, mean that it will be difficult to put in place effective and appropriate follow-up mechanisms. We can only hope that the Sustainable Development Commission will be given enough bite in the wranglings ahead to ensure that sufficient funds are provided to implement the list of good intentions spelt out in Agenda 21. But let us be clear on one point. Any obligation for this commission to work through the economic and social council of the United Nations will be the seal of cynicism. It is difficult to think of any UN body which, because of the absence of commitment by member governments, more lacks teeth than the economic and social council. The commission must have direct access to the General Assembly.
The Rio winners, at least in the short term, are undoubtedly the industrialised countries which, despite their rhetoric, can maintain the status quo. They generate 80 per cent. of global environmental destruction and consume 80 per cent. of the world's resources but they refuse to take responsibility for doing so.

425
World consumption patterns were not up for negotiation at UNCED; nor were the existing arrangements for world trade —the latter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—with all their inbuilt protectionist advantages for the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It is estimated that those trade arrangements cost third world producers some 75 billion US dollars. That is equivalent to 3 per cent. of their GNP. Nor was the European Community's common agricultural policy up for negotiation with its grotesque overproduction and export dumping, which so badly aggravate the trade and food security problems of poor countries.
Debt was not up for negotiation at UNCED, with the Prime Minister's much-heralded Trinidad terms still to be convincingly applied and still to win the backing of the US, let alone be extended. I know it will be argued—indeed my noble friend Lord Pitt has argued this tonight—that GATT, the Paris Club and the G7 are the places for these issues to be tackled. However, it is dismally clear to me that in those councils the powerful have not yet accepted that unfair exploitative trade policies, unfair agricultural competition and heavy debt burdens accentuate environmental degradation as the poor become more desperate in trying to survive.
UNCED, if anywhere, was the place to come to terms with those matters and to give the marching orders to the other institutions. Perhaps the biggest institutional winner of all is the World Bank representing, as in effect it does, the doctrines of the wealthy nations. As my noble friend Lord Hatch has reminded us, the bank is now set to implement most of what little emerged from Rio, with the additional resources contributed by governments, including our own, to the global environmental facility. While any additionality at all is to be welcomed, what is disturbing about the GEF is that, despite the improvements which have been made, it is still all too characteristic of the most serious developmental weaknesses in the hank's approach: those are a lack of openness and a lack of public accountability. In fact, more than half the GEF projects in the first and second tranches have been bolted on to existing World Bank projects, many of which in practice, environmentally and socially, leave a great deal to be desired and some may even be downright destructive. The bank now has new policy guidelines, which were much hyped at Rio, but at project level those reforms have yet to be convincingly applied.
Despite those criticisms, there was, as my noble friend Lord Pitt stressed, a vital, positive and even exciting side to Rio. The fact that the conference took place at all is a tribute to all those involved and especially to Maurice Strong, its indefatigable organiser. It was an important learning experience for governments and world leaders. It has strengthened and legitimised the partnership between governments and non-governmental organisations. Most important of all, for everybody with the wit to see it, it has established beyond doubt the inseparable link between development and environment.
Greatly to its credit, despite the sad, unimaginative intransigence of the United States, it has also inspired
426
the conventions on climate change and biodiversity, although their effectiveness will be undermined by the absence of the additional financial support for the third world to make a success of them. I hope that we shall see speedy action on negotiating their protocols and on their ratification and that during the forthcoming presidency of the European Community the Government will take a lead.
The forest principles are weak, but at least they provide a basis for further negotiation. I hope that the new funds pledged for forests will be used in a way which benefits the forest dwellers—poor rural people and indigenous groups —rather than being channelled mainly into the development of commercial plantations, costly scientific research or the establishment of biological reserves. All new forest projects should involve local people, especially poor women, in their design, implementation and monitoring.
Many of the aspirations of Agenda 21 are far sighted. That is what makes the failure to provide the resources to implement them all the more frustrating. The emphasis on empowering the poor in their own fight against poverty is salutary. The sections on poverty, primary health care, education, female literacy, human settlements and sustainable agriculture should become firm guidelines for implementing bilateral and multilateral overseas development assistance everywhere, not least our own. The sensitive issue of population was approached positively and sensibly in a meaningful social context, an achievement for which the noble Baroness and her advisers can certainly take a good deal of credit.
But what, more generally, of the United Kingdom's position at UNCED? Verbally the Government undeniably took a positive line on many of the substantive issues. The Prime Minister's idea of an international non-governmental organisation forum in 1993 to assess implementation of Agenda 21 is a good one. We should like to hear more about what exactly he has in mind. There was very little in the speech of the noble Baroness at Rio with which I would disagree. Her reported anger at the paucity of the United Kingdom's aid effort was also music to our ears. Her comments about raising awareness of environmental and development issues in the United Kingdom is a challenge to which I hope she will herself respond by re-establishing the commitment to development education so ruthlessly eliminated by her predecessors.
The noble Baroness's anger at the size of the aid budget was in stark contrast to the failure of the Prime Minister to announce significant new resources in his speech, despite his assertion that,
"Money is the root of all progress".
His call to make resources available for forestry conservation, biodiversity, energy efficiency, population planning and sustainable agriculture was timely. But what he totally failed to announce was any measurable additional resources to meet those goals. Instead, we gather that Peter is once more to be robbed to pay Paul.
The Government's obfuscation of precisely how much they are prepared to provide and when to fund the aspirations of Rio is frankly shameful. Their block

427
on the European Community initiative to commit member states to 0.7 per cent. of GNP is lamentable. The Government blame the recession for their refusal to budge. However, over the past 13 years the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom has outstripped the rate of increase in the aid budget more than fourfold. It may have gone up, as the Minister likes to remind us, since 1987–89 but it still has a very long way to go to recover the proportion of gross national product at which it stood in 1979, without the years of oil wealth which have followed.
My noble friend Lord Pitt referred to the need for a target date. Of course target dates can never be totally binding. It is impossible to foresee everything that lies ahead with accuracy but targets give something at which to aim and by which to judge performance. The absence of target dates from the Government's position gravely undermines credibility in their commitment. Even now, I hope that they will regard their European presidency as an opportunity to push ahead with agreeing a common European Community position on additional financial resources. By the same token I also hope that they will be firm in resisting temptations to play off the resource needs of Eastern Europe against those of the developing world.
Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland has described Rio as:
"an important notch on the learning curve that will bring sustainable development to the top of the electoral agenda".
I hope so. The most disappointing aspects of the Earth Summit were the inability of too many governments, of the rich countries in particular, to see beyond the next five years to future generations; to understand and realise that it is in their own countries' best interest, as the Secretary-General of the UN underlined, to implement sustainable development plans and provide substantial new resources for developing countries to do likewise; to recognise that while environmental abuse may cause poverty it is often poverty that causes environmental abuse; that social justice is a key element in sustainable development; that the environment is inescapably international and that the human species is part of that international reality; that we can no longer therefore manage human affairs in national isolation; and that effective arrangements for world governance have become an imperative.
That lack of vision by world leaders is likely to mean that the incidence of poverty will increase and that the degradation of our natural environment will continue apace. Perhaps it is only when the nightmarish results of that become more frighteningly evident that rich countries will be ready to strike a more far-reaching global bargain. Even if that were not to prove to be too late for the world, a terrible sacrifice will by then have been paid in poor people's lives and livelihoods.
The accelerating crisis for the future of humanity is far too grave for party political point scoring. If only the Government can turn their professions of good intent into rapid action—and that means providing the necessary resources for if we will the ends we must
428
will the means—if the Government can do that convincingly, they will without doubt have the positive support of all of us on this side of the House.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has asked the Question. It was quite right that both here and in another place there should be an opportunity to debate the achievements of the Earth Summit. Your Lordships will know that there will be such a debate in another place on Thursday this week.
I have no argument with the fact that the position of our environment is serious and will become much more so if it is not tackled. However, I hope that to this debate we can bring some realism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, most certainly did in her comments, and not always look at it in terms of the doomsday scenario which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, certainly applies to each of the debates on the subject.
I was sad that there was nothing from the noble Lord on the great achievements of British scientists which have brought a number of the issues to a head. I think we forget what a tremendous reservoir of international standard scientists we have in this country—in our universities, botanical gardens and even my own department and the Natural Resources Institute to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made generous reference. A great deal has been achieved by British scientists in the international field. It was their discovery of a hole in the ozone layer which allowed us to push forward for a conference on environment and development. It may have been a long while coming and many of us would like to have seen some of the advances very much earlier. But to make it a successful international conference—which it was—took time because we had to bring a lot of other nations along, too. But let us not forget the wealth that we in this country have of scientific knowledge which enabled us to see what could be done.
First, I should like to emphasise some of the achievements of the Rio Conference. Listening to previous speakers in this debate, one might think that there were no achievements. That is not so. The achievements are rather impressive, although that in no way means that the job is done. In fact what Rio has done is set an agenda for the 21st century and beyond, not for five or 10 years, although a great deal needs to be achieved early if Rio is to be a long term success. But it has to be planned realistically and carried out effectively, otherwise we shall find ourselves making errors on the way and not enthusing developing nations, and some developed nations, with the spirit and intention of Rio as summed up in that conference.
The conference heralded the signature by more than 150 nations of two legally binding conventions: one on climate change and the other on biodiversity. We have heard little directly of those conventions in this debate. But I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for what she said about emissions. I shall come to that point in a moment.

429
We agreed at Rio a declaration setting out clear principles for sustainable development. Some of those principles are not accepted by other developed nations, or were not accepted until Rio. They were all accepted by this Government. That was the Rio Declaration. We also agreed a declaration on the management of the world's forests. I shall return to that issue a little later.
In Agenda 21 we agreed a comprehensive action programme to tackle environmental and development problems into the next century. The conference agreed to establish a Sustainable Development Commission under the United Nations to oversee the implementation of Agenda 21. I believe the language on that was better than I dared to hope before going to Rio.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister launched three British initiatives at Rio. That is the subject of the question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch: what new initiatives? The first of them is the Darwin Initiative. That will place the experience of outstanding British institutions, such as the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew and at Edinburgh, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre at Cambridge, the Natural History Museum in London and many other institutions, at the disposal of other countries. They will be able to help developing countries conserve and manage the world's resources of biodiversity and natural habitat. The aim is to carry out further studies of available natural resources—to establish clear goals for research and monitoring, to develop more inventories of the most important species and to promote even better international co-operation and techniques for conservation.
I used the words "further", "more", and "even better" because a year ago my department published the book: Biological Diversity and Developing Countries—Issues and Options. It is perfectly true that the Government did not wait for the Rio conference to become thoroughly involved with developing countries in matters of biodiversity and conservation. We have never held back from that challenge.
The second important initiative announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at Rio was the promotion of the partnership in global technology —about which I was asked earlier today in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. We need to give developing countries better access to environmentally sound technologies to help them promote sustainable development as well. Information and interchange between British companies and the developing world are crucial to achieving that. As a first step the Government will organise a global technology partnership conference next summer to push it on its way.
The third initiative is the convening next year of a global forum of non-governmental organisations to assess and advise on the implementation of the Agenda 21 goals. Representatives of British nongovernmental organisations were advisers to the British delegation both before the conference and at Rio. It is of fundamental importance to us in this Government to share expertise and build on the NGOs' unique role in implementing environment and development projects.
430
As the Prime Minister said, we are committing new funds to help implement the agreements reached at Rio. He called for a replenishment of the Global Environment Facility of between two and three billion dollars which will be used primarily to assist the developing countries in implementing the conventions, and doing things which they might otherwise well not do. Britain's share will depend on the eventual size of the replenishment and the arrangements yet to be agreed for burden sharing between donors. But Britain's contribution will be about £100 million of new money.
During our presidency of the European Community over the next six months, the United Kingdom will give detailed attention to the follow-up to UNCED. Both environment and development ministers will be concerned with that implementation. We have to advance work on climate. There will be co-ordination of the initiative by the Community and member states to assist specific projects and programmes in key Agenda 21 sectors.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in Rio, we plan to make available substantial additional resources to assist forest conservation, biodiversity, energy efficiency, population planning and sustainable agriculture in developing countries over the next few years.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, tried to say that the results of the Cancun Conference, which in his opinion and that of many others were not very successful, would be replicated following Rio. I have to tell him that there are major differences between Cancun and Rio. First of all, from Rio we have the two conventions that I mentioned. We have an action plan for Agenda 21. We have the declaration of principles on forests and the Rio Declaration. We have the follow-up mechanisms: the Sustainable Development Commission and reporting on the conventions. We have the finance and the Global Environment Facility spelled out and we have further substantial resources. Moreover, we have political support at the highest level. There have never been more than 120 heads of government or heads of state at a single summit conference. Rio was indeed a summit, a summit of very major proportions, as those present knew. Never before have we had that degree of public awareness of the problems that we face and the challenges that we must live up to. I am delighted that, practically every time I am invited to speak anywhere at the present time, I am asked: "Tell us more about Rio." That is a measure of the very great difference between Cancun and Rio.
Many noble Lords mentioned resources. We spoke earlier today of the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. As I said at Question Time, Britain's aid programme in the 1991 calendar year was the fifth largest in the world. The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD compiled the volume of aid statistics for every member state. In 1990 we were the sixth largest. So we made some progress in 1991. That is where the fifth largest figure comes from.
I have already made reference to growth in real terms, and we have sought to make sure in recent years that the aid programme increased in line with our

431
economic growth. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 15th June in another place, the key point is that the benefits to developing countries in terms of value for money have grown even more. It is not just a question of the international recognition for the effectiveness of British aid. British aid is also highly concessional; and that helps many of those countries very greatly. All the poorest countries receive their aid from Britain on grant terms.
Perhaps I may return briefly to the 0.7 per cent. of GNP target. We reaffirmed our commitment to the target at Rio. We cannot accept a timetable for reaching it in conjunction with a number of other countries, not because we are not prepared to work towards it—that is why the words "as soon as possible" were in the final agreements—but because we must review our spending as part of overall public expenditure. No one would thank us for putting ourselves once again in hock to the IMF by such spending as is boasted about by some Members of the Labour Opposition. We shall continue to take account of the economic circumstances in this country and the many other calls on taxpayers' money. What we spend and how we spend it are the key points, and the points on which so many others reflect with us.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made reference to the great problem of debt. Although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was less than generous in his comments about the Prime Minister's proposal for the Trinidad terms, it is Britain, and it has been Britain repeatedly, that has made proposals for the official write-off of debt on an unprecedented scale. I am very pleased that our colleagues in the Paris Club recently began to implement the terms. More importantly, they committed themselves to reducing the debt stock of the poorest most indebted countries after three to four years of economic reform. That is an important step forward.
There is much still to be done. The United Kingdom has been pushing in the Paris Club, at Rio and elsewhere for further improvements in the relief available. Although it may not be felt by some noble Lords to be the right place, I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue to press in the G7 discussions that will take place next week.
In his speech at the Plenary Session of the Rio Conference, the Prime Minister took up both the point of debt and of the GATT round and trade referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I wish to quote one point that he made. He stated:
"Even with better trade and reduced debt the poorest countries will need concessional finance. Britain will therefore mobilise its aid programme in support of the goals of Agenda 21".
He referred to making available substantial extra resources to assist forestry conservation, biodiversity, energy efficiency, population planning and sustainable agriculture over the next few years. We shall also support a substantial Xth replenishment of the International Development Association during which we must consider a special increment.
Therefore the agenda has indeed been set—and a very tough agenda it is too. However, it is not an agenda for Government alone. I wish to refer to a
432
comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about incentives for private investment. Government have removed the obstacles to British direct foreign investment in the developing countries. Helping developing countries to create the right political and economical environment that can be conducive to foreign investment is a key target. The ECGD runs an investment insurance scheme and we supported the creation of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.We believe that British firms have to make their own commercial judgment about investments and that government subsidy is not the answer. However, I can tell the House that net British private investment in developing countries is very substantial indeed. In 1990 it amounted to £1,500 million. It is substantial in relation to the other OECD countries.
We heard little in the debate about the global environment facility. But it was important that that was considered, and that we had the commitment to help finance those incremental costs for countries which will benefit from the activities in the global environment but which would not benefit necessarily in national terms.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example. Fifty per cent. of China's natural gas is produced in the Sichuan Province. The project to which we are contributing, which will reduce global warming, is to carry out a diagnostic study of the methane emissions produced and then to rehabilitate existing equipment so that the emissions of that potent greenhouse gas are reduced. That is practical research and practical implementation. The cost to the GEF of that project is about 10 million dollars. But it is a significant demonstration to all other developing countries because it will show how investment can be made in antiquated gas distribution systems in order to bring them up to the standard of industrialised countries without losing the power from that natural resource which they have in their own country. I could quote many other examples. However, I pass on to forests to which reference has also been made. The Rio declaration, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, is a first step. It is the first international consensus on the value of conservation of the world's forests. I pay particular tribute to my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the German Minister for the Environment, Herr Töpfer, who between them made sure that we had principles on forestry. At one stage in the Rio Conference that looked a little doubtful, I must tell the House. However it is critical that we attain those principles because they recognise not only the need for the sustainable management of forests but also, and most importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, stated in his speech, the rights of the people who live in and around the forests. There is recognition of the need for trade in forest products but for it to be carried out in a sustainable way. There is a focus on policies to tackle the underlying causes of forest loss, and to improve the management of forest resources. There is a reference to the use of environmental impact assessment in assessing investment and other activities affecting forests.

433
The Overseas Development Administration has just revised and updated its manual of environmental appraisal. It has been copied by the German Government and lessons have been learned from the manual by many other nations. Britain has not been slow to put environmental appraisal to the very top of the agenda. Nor shall we he slow to take other initiatives when they are warranted, or to push them with other countries. We have led the way too in our forestry projects in the developing world with about 202 forest projects overseas, at a cost of £160 million to the British overseas aid programme. We shall support the international efforts in forestry. We shall continue to work for a successful reform of the tropical forest action programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, paid a kind tribute to the Natural Resources Institute in Chatham. He also asked me about the Guyana rainforests. It is a Commonwealth initiative. Indeed, my department is involved through the NRI. We are carrying out field surveys at a cost of about £165,000, Those are topographical surveys working with UNDP and the Commonwealth Secretariat. We hope and expect that that important project will provide many examples of sustainable management of forests for many years. We shall therefore learn lessons in Guyana that we can put to other countries which experience similar problems. The ODA and UNDP funding of that project, which is about 3 million dollars, will lead to the project being prepared for support from the GEF. We are leading up to undertaking further aspects on a global basis through the global environment fund. In addition, support is also being given to Brazil's pilot forestry project. A sum of about 250 million dollars is pledged to support that project, of which 25 million dollars is from the United Kingdom.
The forest principles were, therefore, an important step forward. But people have learnt from the forest people that the grinding poverty exists in the forests as well as in the urban areas. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that people struggling for survival from day to day will not understand the anxieties about the global environment. For that reason we have accepted the importance of the GEF. However, we must work at both levels: the global environment and the local environment.
I also agree with the noble Baroness that the problems of poverty as a result of population growth must be tackled. For that reason I have for the past three years made a particular effort to place the whole question of family planning high on the agenda. By
434
combining that with the education that men and women need, taking forward the issues of women in development, as we have described them in our pamphlet, in every forum that we can reach, we are beginning to make people understand that we mean business when we say, Children by Choice not Chance. I sincerely hope that some of the discussions that I have had with those in the Vatican will also be increasingly helpful. Of course, we must respect their beliefs but they too can have their own family planning programmes. I shall encourage them to do so, whether it be increased breast-feeding, a greater use of natural methods or better education. All those issues count and can contribute towards avoiding the horrendous problems that we shall face if population growth continues at the threatened rate which we see at the present time, particularly in the third world.
It would be easy to make this a long reply speech. I shall not do so. I shall not try your Lordships' patience by detailing how much we intend to do on Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration and with the non-governmental organisations to which I pay a most generous tribute. But when one returns from a conference involving 170 countries, 150 of which signed up to both the biodiversity convention and the climate-change convention, and when one is planning for the steps forward to be taken in the Sustainable Development Commission during our presidency of the European Community, one knows not only that a great deal is happening and that much is to happen but that there is a total commitment to seeing it through.
The priority now is to ensure that the agreements that were reached are swiftly put into action and are seen to be in action. That is why the Prime Minister has already written to the heads of the G7 countries and the EC countries proposing that they adopt an action plan for those purposes. Our own follow-up plans are being developed quickly but thoroughly. In my own department we have for many years been paying increasing attention to all the environmental aspects of our projects, not only at the present time. The progress to date is summarised in our latest publication Action for the Environment, which can be found in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House. A great deal is being done and there is a great deal still to do. I can assure your Lordships' House that this Government will make sure that it is done.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before seven o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 15th JUNE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 15th JUNE
  ALBANIA: UK DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  ALBANIA: UK DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
  DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
  DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
  BLUE-GREEN ALGAL BLOOMS
  BLUE-GREEN ALGAL BLOOMS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL OPENING: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL OPENING: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT