Sitting of 19 May 1992

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

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To he read a Second time on Thursday.

  PITTENWEEM HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes he intends to make in regard to the opting-out procedures for schools.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The current arrangement by which schools apply to the Secretary of State for grant-maintained status following a favourable ballot of parents is proving very successful. We have no plans to change it. The latest approval of Chatham grammar school for girls brings the total of grant-maintained schools to 250. The rate of GM applications has doubled since the general election.
    Mr. Ashton: If the arrangement has been so successful, why have only 1 per cent. of schools in Britain applied? Four years ago, Mrs. Thatcher said that by now 50 per cent. of schools in Britain would have opted out. Why have only 1 per cent. done so? Have there not been serious problems at opted-out schools in Stratford, with allegations of racism? Is it not a fact that the Catholic bishops are not happy about the random selections? Is it not also a fact that governors in some of those schools have far too many powers which they have abused? The whole system has become a flop.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must contain his impatience. Although 10 per cent. of secondary schools have applied for grant-maintained status, we are in the early stages of an exciting departure in our education policy and in the history of education in this country. If there are any difficulties in GM applications, they have probably arisen because sour and negative Labour-controlled local authorities have placed every possible obstacle in the way of schools trying to get out from under them and deliver a proper quality of education to their pupils. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is, "Watch this space."
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference between Conservatives and the Opposition is that we believe in parents and families being allowed to choose schools while they believe in bureaucrats?
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The key difference is that we truly believe that we must correctly look to parents and governors for care and concern for children's education. The recent history of education has shown that many local education authorities have neither the will nor the capability to give our children a proper education. That is what grant-maintained status brings. That is the promise for the future.
    Mr. Enright: Why have the Catholic bishops in their Low week meeting continued their opposition to opting out? Will the Minister give special consideration to Catholic schools in that respect?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in a very important sense. As they are entitled to, the

    131
    Catholic bishops are asking searching questions about the nature of our policies and the direction in which we wish to go. However, there is no one better placed than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to commune with the Catholic bishops to satisfy them about the direction in which we are going and to ensure that we all move forward in the way that we want and on the basis of our election manifesto. I promise the hon. Gentleman that.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend accept that we on the Conservative Benches fully support the procedures for achieving grant-maintained status? Indeed, we go further and support the grammar schools, the city technology colleges, the assisted places scheme, the Church schools and anything that maximises parental choice. That is in direct contrast to the socialist Opposition parties.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I fought the recent election campaign on the basis of very clear and explicit undertakings about the future of education. Our election victory endorses that view. It is sad but predictable that Opposition Members still cannot accept that and that they even now seem to want to resist the inevitability and the desirability of the movement towards grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Straw: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He referred to searching questions asked by the Catholic bishops. When will he give some straight answers to those searching questions, in particular the question about when the current level of bribes—what the Government call preferential funding—of opted-out schools will end?
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will write to the Catholic bishops within the next few days. The bishops asked the questions of my right hon. Friend and it is to them that he will give the reply. As to the rest of the questions that no doubt are burning in the hon. Gentleman's mind, our White Paper, which will be published in July, will answer them all and will, I am sure, satisfy him completely.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Dorset schools have now opted for direct funding by his Department.
    Mr. Forth: I am pleased to report that there are six grant-maintained schools in Dorset.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend realise that, although we talk about only 10 per cent. of schools having applied for grant-maintained status, the other 90 per cent.—and in fact all the schools in my constituency—that have not applied for grant-maintained status now have a tool that they can use to go to the education committee and say, "Please give me what I need for my school through the education authority, or I will opt for grant-maintained status"? Therefore, 100 per cent. of schools now have far more control over their finances than was the case before that excellent policy was in place.
    Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for the spirit of his question. He has emphasised a key point. It is now for parents and governors in each school to look at how they want their school to develop. If they are persuaded that grant-maintained status is the future, it is for them to demonstrate that through the balloting procedure and then to present their proposals to my right hon. Friend the
    132
    Secretary of State. He will obviously want to consider each case on its merits, but he will look positively at the applications.

    Special Educational Needs
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that young people with special educational needs beyond the age of 19 years are provided with continuity of provision.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): The further education funding councils and local education authorities will have the duty, under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, to ensure that appropriate special needs provision is made in further education for all age groups including adult students.
    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and thank him for that answer. Is he aware that, although there is a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure that handicapped students get the necessary education past the age of 19, many local authorities, including mine in Devon, are not providing that funding for those students? Will my hon. Friend examine that matter and ensure that that statutory responsibility, which was clearly enunciated in his answer, is carried into effect?
    Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind opening remarks. As chairman of the all-party disablement group, he will know that the issue he raises is essentially a matter for local education authorities and, in future, for funding councils. The Government believe that disabilities should not be a barrier to access to further education. The duties under the Act are quite clear, in that they carry forward earlier duties which were enshrined in the Education Act 1944. I shall certainly look carefully at my hon. Friend's important points.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications for grant-maintained status he has received since 10 April.
    Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out the Government's long-term plans for the expansion of the grant-maintained schools sector.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): Thirteen schools have applied for grant-maintained status since 10 April, about twice the number of applications receive the month before. The number of grant-maintained approvals reached 250 today, as the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) announced earlier this afternoon, including 24 approvals since 10 April. I expect the number to continue to rise as more and more parents seek the clear advantages of grant-maintained status for their schools. The rate of growth will continue to be decided by parental wishes in school ballots. In time, I expect grant-maintained status to become the natural organisational model, particularly for secondary education throughout England.
    Mr. Paice: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his long-overdue appointment to the Cabinet and to his

    133
    responsibility for this important policy area. As grant-maintained status becomes the norm for schools throughout Britain during this Parliament, will he make it absolutely clear that while it is perfectly valid and, indeed, desirable for schools to form consortia after they have become grant maintained, he will not accept applications from great swards of schools trying to become a consortium before the fact and to become some form of self-perpetuating local education authority?
    Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Although I understand that there may be distinct advantages in some schools—for example, a secondary school with several feeder primary schools—opting out together to achieve better management, I am simply not prepared to countenance the recreation by the back door of old-style, obstructive local education authorities.
    Mr. Foster: I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware of anxiety throughout the country about the large number of educational changes that have taken place in recent years and the lack of consultation about them. Will he give us an assurance that there will be adequate time for consultation on the new legislation that he proposes? Furthermore, will he give an assurance that consultation will not take place mainly during the school holidays?
    Mr. Patten: In due course I shall publish a White Paper. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give full and whole-hearted support to the two excellent grant-maintained schools in his constituency.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be particularly beneficial if secondary schools that obtained grant-maintained status were accompanied by their feeder primary schools? Does he further agree that clusters of such schools in rural areas or denominational schools would be even more appropriate?
    Mr. Patten: Both the examples that my hon. Friend gives are good ones. In the next year or so, we may well see schools adopting different ways of promoting their own movement to grant-maintained status. So much interest has there been in schools that have led the movement, such as the excellent Great Barr school in Birmingham—the biggest secondary school in the country, grant maintained or not—that they have been inundated by people ringing the self-starting helpline for advice on how to achieve grant-maintained status in the way that those schools did.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will refuse grant-maintained status to any school that does not pledge to admit students with special needs?
    Mr. Patten: I shall examine, as I have to by law, every proposal—
    Mr. Morgan: Answer the question.
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman shows that he can do joined-up shouting. He certainly cannot do joined-up thinking. I shall consider—[Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) welcomes the incursions and support from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I shall consider, as any Secretary of State from any party would have to do, every proposal put to me on its merits, as I am enjoined to do by law.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give a more positive response to the supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) about the importance of junior and infant schools applying for grant-maintained status? I thank the Department, my right hon. Friend and his predecessors for granting grant-maintained status to Kettleshulme Church of England junior school, as it was then—Kettleshulme St. James' as it is now—which assumed grant-maintained status on 1 April.
    Mr. Patten: I apologise to my hon. Friend if he thought that I was not warm enough in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). What it would be like if I got my hands round his throat, I do not know. I warmly accept the thanks to my Department and my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary, who did so much to forward the cause of education in Britain during his 15-month tenure. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency, if I am invited, and paying a state visit to the school which has just opted out there.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that the main reason that schools have applied to opt out is the level of financial inducements which give them, to quote the Prime Minister's words, an advantage of at least £150,000 in running costs in a year and twice the level of capital grants. In view of that high level of bribe offered to schools to opt out, why do the Secretary of State and his colleagues continue to dodge the question, "Will those bribes continue?"
    Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at this time of year anyone concerned with a future expenditure programme will consider the whole programme. I, along with the rest of my Cabinet colleagues, will present plans for future public expenditure at the right time. In the grant-maintained schools that I have visited, the freedom that grant-maintained status has bestowed on them has been foremost in the minds of the governors and head teachers. Nothing could have been clearer when I visited Small Heath grant-maintained school in central Birmingham last week. Those parents, governors and head teachers, who had had to face the bullying of Birmingham local education authority, which tried to prevent them from opting out, presented a good picture of the real benefit, which is freedom in education.

    Further and Higher Education
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on participation rates in further and higher education.
    Mr. Forman: Participation in further and higher education is at record levels and rising. This year, provisional information indicates that 87 per cent. of 16-year-olds and 74 per cent. of 17-year-olds are participating in some form of education and training, including both schools and colleges. That compares with 67 per cent. and 52 per cent. respectively in 1979. The participation rate for young people in full-time higher education has doubled since 1979, from one in eight to one in four. We expect it to be one in three by the end of the decade.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the Government's great success stories has been the tremendous increase in the number of students going on to further and higher education? Will he arrange to give more publicity to the access funds that the Government have made available to assist students with their studies? Will he also consider discussions with the Secretary of State for National Heritage, to find out whether some of the national lottery funds could be made available to students pursuing a career in the arts, for example opera, so that they can sing the praises of the Government's educational policies to Opposition parties?
    Mr. Forman: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to the Government's success record in expanding further and higher education. He will know that access funds cover about 90,000 students in further and higher education and that three out of four applications for help are successful. As for his ingenious proposal for support from the national lottery, it is far too early to say anything about that. As he showed by his question, he knows that that is essentially a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
    Mr. Turner: Does the Minister agree that participation rates in higher and especially in further education would be greatly helped, first, if the Government had not cut funds to colleges this financial year and, secondly, if there were not such heavy constraints on unemployed people, who are exempt from taking higher and further education courses under the 21-hour rule?
    Mr. Forman: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman takes that line, given that nine out of 10 of our 16-year-olds, and about three out of four 17-year-olds are in further education and training. Our record compares favourably with that of other countries.
    Mr. Brooke: Although the participation rates that my right hon. Friend described are gratifying, is he satisfied with the number of people securing qualifications for higher education in mathematics and scientific subjects?
    Mr. Forman: One can never be satisfied with the rate of qualification and one would always wish to see even greater progress made. However, I believe that the reforms of the national curriculum and the changes that we made in the Further and Higher Education Act all create a valid framework that will assist greater progress.

    Trinity School, Leamington
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about Trinity comprehensive school in Leamington budgeting to raise £30,000 a year from parental contributions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. Legislation specifically forbids parents from being required to pay for such things as books, equipment and school activities during the school day. But parents can and always have been able to make voluntary contributions. The manner in which such contributions are sought is a management issue for governors and head teachers.
    Mr. Mullin: I put it to the Minister that this is the thin end of a very large wedge and that, all over the country, parents are now being asked to contribute to their children's education. I put it to him that the principle of free state education has been abandoned. Before the Minister expresses hurt at that suggestion, may I ask him to tell us what he is doing to put a stop to that?
    Mr. Forth: That question displays a typically mean-minded attitude—not so much of the hon. Gentleman, but of other Labour Members. I remind the House—it seems necessary to repeat this until it sinks in with Labour Members—that spending per pupil in schools increased by more than 40 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and this year. Against that background, I believe that it is quite acceptable—indeed, laudable—that parents are prepared to come forward and to give voluntarily of their time and of their efforts for fund raising to help their child's school. I see nothing wrong with that. I believe that it helps the team spirit, which is developing in our schools, thanks partly to grant-maintained status and the local management of schools, which encourages parents to work together with governors and teachers to improve the quality of education. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, but I am not surprised about that.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister totally unaware of the anger and dismay with which parents face this issue? Rather than being complacent, will the Minister address the concerns of parents who want a good education for every child, whether or not they can afford that? It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that that is available.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady is about five or six weeks too late. The truth is that parents have perceived correctly that the standards of education are increasing, that their young people are getting better opportunities and that the quality of education is improving. That is at least in part due to the fact that parents are coming forward to give of their time and efforts to help schools improve. That is the opposite of the attitude of Labour Members who cannot see past the local education authorities. Parents want to see past those authorities, which is why schools are opting out.

    Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will indicate the amount of university research funding which relates to treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis.
    Mr. Forman: Universities Funding Council support for research is distributed by reference to a range of broad cost centres. There is no specific funding for research into ME or chronic fatigue syndrome. The UFC allocated £673 million for research in 1992–93, of which £78 million related to clinical medicine.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the interim results be circulated to general practitioners?
    Mr. Forman: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern for and great knowledge of this subject. He will know that the Institute of Psychiatry's study of chronic fatigue syndrome is a project funded by the Medical Research Council, a body which is no longer the responsibility of my Department. However, I understand that no interim

    137
    results have been submitted either to the MRC or to Ministers. Whether an interim result is circulated to GPs, when it is available, will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that any student taking advantage of that research funding would have to belong to the National Union of Students? Will he confirm that he intends to abolish that iniquitous closed shop?
    Mr. Forman: I can confirm to my hon. Friend, whose long-standing interest in the subject is well known, that my Department is looking closely at the subject. We are urgently reviewing the matter.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the funding of the teachers' pay award; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: I have received a number of representations.
    Mr. Madden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Bradford, for example, the failure of the Government fully to fund the teachers' pay award last year and this year has plunged the education service into a financial crisis with the prospect of 150 lost teaching posts and consequential damage to the quality of education received by our schoolchildren? Will he consider meeting a delegation of the local education authorities affected, through the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and urgently consider making additional funding available to avoid teaching posts being lost?
    Mr. Patten: Rather than taking up time with such a meeting, I urge the hon. Gentleman to pass on the information that in the current year the Government have given an extra £60 million to bridge the gap between the money allocated to local education authorities and the level they need fully to fund the pay award, and that many education authorities, such as Bradford, could greatly improve their performance by cutting out central administrative waste, by removing surplus school places and by extending the range of services put out to compulsory competitive tendering. Such measures result in more teachers in the classroom. The hon. Gentleman might also pass on to the AMA the news that it will be seen from figures to be announced shortly that last year's threats of cuts have turned out to be totally false.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under pay review body arrangements he expects the teaching profession to be much better paid— it is already a great deal better paid than it has ever been —that he welcomes that and believes that it will help to raise standards in the profession, which in turn will raise teaching standards for the children?
    Mr. Patten: We are lucky to have our 400,000 teachers. Their professional status and standing has been enhanced by the pay review body and I know that that professionalism will increase in future years.
    Mr. Cryer: The Secretary of State shows remarkable ignorance of the difficulties that LEAs in general, and
    138
    Bradford in particular, face. Is he aware that Bradford's education authority is facing increasing school rolls, unlike many similar authorities, and that it has a massive problem of crumbling schools, all of which put pressure on educational funding? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will examine sympathetically, rather than in the arrogant fashion that he has displayed so far, the request by Bradford fully to fund the education award, which would be a decent and fair attitude for a sympathetic Secretary of State to take?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should realise that Bradford must put its own house in order. It is not exactly in the forefront of LEAs in Britain. It could do much more by cutting back on administration and by putting out more services to competitive tender, so getting children better taught by more teachers. We shall see, from announcements to be made by my noble friend Lady Blatch in another place shortly, just how last year's pandemonium and tumult about the onset of teacher redundancies turned out this year. Each year we get claims about there being great cuts in the teaching force and each year they turn out to be wrong.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the average salary of a classroom teacher is now 18,800 a year, which is 36 per cent. higher than it was under the last Labour Government, and that that is good reason why the number of applications for teacher training, at 28,800 is the highest it has been for the last 20 years? Does he agree that in view of the huge investment made in teachers' salaries by the Government, a rigorous system of assessment for teacher performance is absolutely vital?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. We have a better paid teaching profession than ever before, with more people wanting to enter the profession than at any time since the 1960s. I confirm that assessment will remain a firm part of the future way in which teachers are remunerated.

    Selection
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has proposals to introduce selection by examination for secondary school entry.
    Ms. Estelle Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to introduce selection by examination for secondary school entry.
    Mr. John Patten: We have consistently made it clear that the Government do not intend to impose any particular 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.
    We firmly believe in a diversity of provision of schools and in maximising choice for parents. We are ready to consider any application for a change in a school's character put forward by a local education authority or by the governors of voluntary schools or grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why cannot the Secretary of State see that the selective opt-out structure will not mean that

    139
    parents choose schools for their children, but that the schools choose the parents and children that they want? That will mean chaos, as many disappointed parents will appeal against the consignment of their children as an educational underclass forced to go to schools that have not opted out, which the Government deliberately fund less well than opted-out schools.
    Mr. Patten: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's serious interest in the subject. Unfortunately, toward the end of his question he slipped into the lingua franca of the early 1960s when so much damage was done to the education system. The grant-maintained school system is beginning to show parents the positive opportunities that can be given to them by having a range of schools from which to choose. The more grant-maintained schools there are, the more pressure there will be on schools that underperform to perform better.
    Ms. Morris: How will the Minister avoid the problems of entries to specialist or magnet schools by competitive examination, should the supply of places not meet the demand for them in any one specialism?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady comes to this place with a reputation for knowing a lot about education. I believe that to be so. Therefore, she knows as well as I do that today about a quarter of local education authorities have selection for a number of schools in their area. In addition, the excellent city technology colleges have spread across the country. I should like a number of schools to take the route of specialisation, developing a leading edge in technology, music, the arts or some other subject.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that selection has been retained in several areas? One of the problems in those areas is that pupils in junior and primary schools are often funded on a per capita basis at a lower level than pupils of the same age in middle schools. Does he agree that, if selection were to become more widely available, it would be wrong to maintain that differential? Will he take steps to eliminate the current differential?
    Mr. Patten: It is certainly open to local education authorities to change their funding formula within their counties. I shall look specifically at the point that my hon. Friend raises and write to him in greater detail.
    Mr. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend take a close look at the German secondary education system, where tripartite selection puts children into high schools, technical schools and grammar schools at the expense of the state? Does my right hon. Friend not think it regrettable that selective schools are now predominantly fee-paying, because many parents would like free access to selective state schools?
    Mr. Patten: The German education system has been praised by many educationists from right, left and centre of the political spectrum in this country, who have told us that we should take a look at those schools. Parents should have the widest possible choice of schools in their area, but parents and the local community should lay down the shape and pattern of that education, rather than its being done by diktat from my desk, attractive though that possibility is.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, if standards have risen and the stay-on rate of post-16 education has increased, it is the result of a system that is predominantly comprehensive, and the comprehensive revolution in this country has been a success? Why do Conservative Members and the Secretary of State want to turn the clock back to a system in which one child out of five was deemed to be a success and four out of five deemed to be failures? Why do the Government trade in failure and not try to build on success?
    Mr. Patten: That is the authentic voice of the early 1960s. The hon. Gentleman is refighting battles that the Labour party has long lost. It is no wonder that the Labour party lost the recent general election.

    Secondary Schools (Admissions)
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the impact of the Greenwich judgment on this year's secondary schools admissions systems.
    Mr. Forth: The great majority of local education authorities do not appear to have had any significant practical problems with school admissions following the Greenwich judgment, this year or last year. We are aware of some difficulties in the London borough of Bromley. The Department is due to meet that local authority shortly and we hope that the problems there will soon be resolved.
    Mr. Merchant: Is my hon. Friend aware that 300 out-of-borough children have been accepted so far into the London borough of Bromley and that that presents a problem? Is he aware that the director of education has written to parents in Bromley warning them that, as a consequence, he is as yet unable to place children from Bromley in schools? How far is that a problem in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Forth: I am conscious of the problem in Bromley and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. However, his figures are a little pessimistic. The latest information that I have is that a decreasing number of parents are encountering that problem, which is due to a number of complex factors, not least that parents who receive multiple offers from a number of schools often hold on to them for a long time, thus denying the opportunity to other parents. Such problems must be addressed, certainly at local education authority level. We hope that the boroughs, London education authorities and schools will find ways of resolving those problems satisfactorily. I am optimistic that they will.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is genuine concern among parents in Greenwich at their inability to obtain places for their children in popular local schools such as Thomas Tallis as a result of the judgment? Does he recognise that the issue of multiple choice, to which he referred, cannot be resolved by the local education authorities as they will generally be unaware of applications to other authorities, city technology colleges and opt-out schools? What will he do to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Forth: I accept that challenges emerge as the education system develops. We are considering the position extremely closely in order to establish what role

    141
    should be played by schools, perhaps acting cooperatively, and by local education authorities. Perhaps there is a role for my Department and the Government as a whole. So far, the scale of the problems that have emerged as a result of the Greenwich judgment is not as great in the country as a whole as it may appear to be when considering some specific London boroughs. We shall keep a close eye on the position to assess whether there will be long-term or damaging effects on children's education —the criteria against which the system must be judged.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the issue? His answer indicated that there is not a problem in many parts of the country, but there is. Is he aware that there is a real problem in Staffordshire, and will he agree to see me to discuss it?
    Mr. Forth: We are always willing to hear of the details of any problems that may arise on the ground and in specific local education authorities. The Department does not have a substantial amount of evidence of a real, practical and enduring problem, last year or this year, throughout the country, but I should welcome any further information that my hon. Friend can give me.

    Secondary Schools
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his assessment of the optimum size of secondary school and ratio of staff to pupils.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has no general view on the optimum size for a secondary school. That will always depend on local circumstances. Schools must, however, be able to deliver the national curriculum effectively. Similarly, the need to take account of individual school and pupil factors makes it impossible to set down centrally an optimum pupil:teacher ratio which has any real meaning.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister accept that Scottish Members feel that there is some irony in the fact that he is here answering questions on English education but that no Minister with a Scottish portfolio parallel to his is answering questions on Scottish education? What he has said may be reasonable, but in places such as the north of Scotland which are experiencing a rapid population growth we need some criterion whereby Government money will be provided for new schools to be built, since without that others will become so overcrowded that they cannot maintain the standards about which the Government boast.
    Mr. Forth: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I assure him that we always look carefully and systematically at the local circumstances surrounding an application for capital and at the local education authorities in question. Those labours are designed to ensure that resources are directed to where they are most needed. As money increasingly follows the pupil, schools able to attract more pupils will inevitably attract more funding. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that makes sense and will be highly productive. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down before Prime Minister's questions.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.
    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. Davies: The Prime Minister will recall the support given by all sides of the House and by the public at large to the British armed forces during the Gulf war. In recognition of that and following the verdict of a jury yesterday that nine of our soldiers were unlawfully killed, will the Government take all necessary steps to ensure that criminal proceedings are brought against those responsible? If his commitment to open government is serious, will he ensure that the full details of this incident are made available to the public, because this is not an occasion when there should be a cover up either by the American or the British authorities?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will answer a private notice question about this matter in a few moments. I sympathise with the anguish of the families and with their wish to find out exactly what went wrong. That has been our aim as well.
    The sad fact is that in war terrible accidents of this sort do sometimes occur. Clearly we must learn the lessons of this for the future; but I hope that we will not lose sight of the fact that these were American pilots risking their lives alongside our troops in the battle against a common enemy and to liberate Kuwait. I hope that that thought is not lost sight of: without American resolve and support the liberation of Kuwait would not have been possible.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that any minimum and legally binding rate of VAT imposed by the European Commission will be unacceptable to him as well as to the people of this country?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we are not in favour of minimum rates of VAT, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made that clear in his discussions with our European partners.
    Mr. Kinnock: Following the Prime Minister's response just now, may I put it to him that the House is united in its admiration of the risks taken by United States and other service men in the course of the Gulf war; and that the families whose sons are judged to have been unlawfully killed by allied fire are not seeking the identity of any United States personnel? They are seeking the truth about what happened to cause the death of their sons. In common with many others, I believe that they have the right to gain that truth. In addition to what he has already done, will the Prime Minister therefore use all the authority that he has to ensure that every available procedure is employed to see that the full truth is obtained?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. In many ways he expresses a view widely held across this country and elsewhere. The United States Government have acted in this case in the same way as they have acted in the case of friendly fire involving their

    143
    own forces and their own citizens. A great deal of information has been provided, including by the pilots themselves. They were assured by their authorities that their anonymity would be safeguarded, and they provided information to the inquest on that basis.
    This was a tragic accident and the whole House sympathises with the anguish and frustration of the families. The United States Government have shown their sympathy for the bereaved at the highest level. President Bush saw the families; he has responded to their requests to him for more information. But the United States Government also have to weigh up the anguish of the families of their pilots and their obligations to their own citizens. All the relevant considerations have been drawn to their attention, but the decision whether to send pilots to the inquest must be for the United States authorities to make.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry to press the Prime Minister, but I must do so. The anguish of which he speaks—the anguish being experienced by the pilots and their families—is obvious; but that anguish will not be increased or diminished if the British families are told the exact truth of the circumstances in which their boys were killed. Will the Prime Minister concentrate on that aspect of the matter, and set any possible legal proceedings aside for the concern of the appropriate authorities, while using his authority to gain the truth? That will not add to or—tragically—diminish the great sadness that we know must be felt by any service men who have been involved in any way in this horrific incident.
    The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, the inquest was provided with a great deal of information, including that provided by the pilots themselves. That information has been sought, and it has been provided. I am not in a position to provide any more information: that which is available has been provided.
    Sir George Gardiner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir George Gardiner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his publication today of the structure and membership of Cabinet committees. Does he intend to continue to blow the cobwebs of secrecy from Whitehall, and can he apply the same zeal to the antiquated procedures of the House by enabling hon. Members to reach decisions on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House before the summer recess, so that more sensible working hours can be adopted when we return in the autumn?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to both those points.
    As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the House last Wednesday, we plan to provide an early opportunity for the House to debate the Select Committee's report on the reform of our procedures. Obviously, hon. Members will want to have their own say on the far-reaching changes that are proposed; I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend knows my personal belief that the House needs to reform its procedures, and I hope that we shall be able to proceed to such reform as speedily as possible.
    144
    As for my hon. Friend's first point, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is looking across Whitehall and beyond, with the aim of incrementally removing unnecessary secrecy. I think that this is a way in which the Government can make their own information more accessible and more responsive to the citizens whom they serve.
    Mr. Ashdown: May we leave aside for the moment the clear mishandling of the Oxford friendly-fire inquest by both the United States authorities and the Ministry of Defence, and the clear duty that now lies with the Government—which I hope that the Prime Minister accepts—to pursue those unanswered questions directly with the United States authorities? Will the Prime Minister confirm that he would not permit British soldiers who had committed tragic but human errors in conditions of war to be required to face either inquest or trial on the basis that such mistakes would be made in time of peace? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should not require of the United States Government something that we would not permit ourselves?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the underlying point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but so much depends on the individual circumstances of the case. I think that the whole House will understand precisely why that must be so. Certainly, there might be circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion would be absolutely right.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: Given that the Prime Minister will seldom find himself in a better bargaining position in this regard, what assurance can he give the House that issues such as immigration, border controls, Britain's contribution to the European Community budget and its rebate and—this should not be forgotten—the European working time directive will be settled before he ratifies the Maastricht agreement?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a number of extremely important and, in many ways, tendentious issues. They are matters that relate to existing provisions of the treaty of Rome and they are not directly related to the Maastricht treaty. All the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred are extremely important and I give him the assurance that we shall fight to preserve British interests up to, during and after the ratification of the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pendry: In this season of maiden speeches does the Prime Minister recall his own in June 1979 in the Budget debate, when he expressed grave concern about the level of unemployment in his constituency? Since that time he has held high office—Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exchequer and now, of course, Prime

    145
    Minister. The level of unemployment in Huntingdon by the same count today is 5,483, a staggering increase of 393 per cent. What went wrong exactly?
    The Prime Minister: The strict answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I recall clearly my maiden speech, and I doubt whether any hon. Member is ever likely to forget it. It is often an extremely difficult occasion. As for employment prospects, the hon. Gentleman might care to consider how many of my constituents were in work. In my constituency and throughout the whole of the country we have a higher percentage of our population in secure jobs than in any other part of the European Community, with the exception of Denmark.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bowis: Now that my right hon. Friend has persuaded trade union leaders to accept democracy in the workplace, will he see what he can do about their attitude to democracy in this place? Perhaps they could start by abandoning their current practice of appointing the Leader of the Opposition.
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a question for the Prime Minister to answer.
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Quin: Is the Prime Minister aware that despite the welcome increase in dental treatment last year, Government policies are threatening the future of dentistry within the national health service? What action will the right hon. Gentleman take to resolve the dispute with the dentists, to reverse the ever-increasing cost of dental treatment and to ensure that dentistry will be available to the entire population within the NHS for the long-term future?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) referred a moment ago to the position over the whole period that the Conservative Government have been in power, perhaps I also could do so. There are now 27 per cent. more dentists in the general dental service than there were in 1979. Expenditure on the dental service in England alone exceeded £1 billion last year, an increase of 43 per cent. since 1979. On the vexed question of dental fees, which might have underlain the hon. Lady's supplementary question, a joint inquiry has
    146
    now concluded its meetings and will report to the dental rates study group. It would not be right for me to comment until conclusions have been produced.
    Mr. Rathbone: Might I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), welcome my right hon. Friend's publishing of the Cabinet committees and sub-committees? I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that the translation of the inter-ministerial group on drug misuse into a Cabinet sub-committee is additional Government accent for this important area of activity?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Trimble: May I refer the Prime Minister to the speech that he made on the Loyal Address, in the course of which he committed himself to strengthening the union between Scotland and England throughout this Parliament? In this Parliament will he show an equal concern about strengthening the union with Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to reaffirm the Government's commitment to respect the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That has been our position for a long time and there is no change in that. At the same time, the people of Northern Ireland and I believe that the whole of the United Kingdom wants the present political talks to succeed. I understand the difficulties of the talks, but I hope that all Northern Ireland political leaders will bear in mind their responsibility to help to make the talks successful in the interests of all the people who live in Northern Ireland. It is those political leaders and those talks that offer the best prospect of a secure and prosperous future for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom for all the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is fundamental that the basics of English are taught to children in schools? Is not that a vital part of the education policy of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that teaching the dialogue of soap operas will not raise the standards of education?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members and for many millions of people outside the House. The basics of education are clearly of fundamental importance. I suspect that the teaching of the classics is rather more valuable to children than the teaching of soap operas.

Soldiers' Deaths (Gulf War)
3.30 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the verdict of the coroner's inquest into the deaths by friendly fire in the Gulf war.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in extending its deepest sympathy to the families of the soldiers who died in this tragic incident.
The inquest sitting in Oxford into the deaths of nine soldiers killed when their two Warriors were hit by two Maverick missiles fired by United States A10 aircraft has returned a verdict that each of them was killed unlawfully.
The Government and relevant legal authorities are considering as a matter of urgency the implication of the jury's findings and verdict. The Director of Public Prosecutions has asked to see all the relevant paper held by the coroner and the Ministry of Defence and will consider all the circumstances of the case. The MOD is providing all its papers to the DPP. I understand that the DPP has pointed out in a press release that there is no power to prosecute a foreign national in England or Wales for any offence of murder or manslaughter allegedly committed abroad.
I should also like to take this opportunity to respond to a number of points made during the inquest. I am aware that there has been some criticism with regard to the provision of information by the MOD to the families. I can assure the House and the families that our intention has always been to provide as full an account as possible. It was not until 10 July of last year that General Johnston of the United States Marine Corps wrote to our joint headquarters at High Wycombe with statements from the pilots answering points raised during our own inquiry. The MOD wrote to the families on 23 July as soon as it was possible to provide an authoritative account based on the findings of our board of inquiry.
On the question of procedures in future military operations, our board of inquiry recommended that standard operating procedures for close air support operations must in future include instructions that a grid reference or a latitude and longitude is included in mission briefs and that this is always acknowledged by the pilots. Work on that recommendation is in hand.
The board of inquiry also recommended that a study be initiated to identify a suitable air recognition system for future use. The Defence Research Agency is undertaking a research programme aimed at assessing short-term solutions as well as options for the longer term. We are exchanging information on possible solutions and maintaining close contact with the United States and other allies.
We are also working closely with our allies to develop new procedures and training to ensure that, in any future operations, the risks of troops firing on their comrades is minimised.
These events were a tragic incident in the Gulf war. We must try to learn what lessons we can from them. We must at the same time continue to pay tribute to the remarkable achievements of British, American and other coalition
148
forces in the successful liberation of Kuwait, and salute the memory of all those who gave their lives, whatever the circumstances.
Mr. O'Neill: In thanking the Secretary of State, can I pay tribute to the persistence of purpose of the families of the service men who were so tragically killed on 26 February? Had it not been for their endeavours, yesterday's decision might not have been handed down. The verdict would seem to contradict the official report of the board of inquiry which stated:
"The Board did not establish whether the US Air Force personnel involved were at fault."
Does the Secretary of State recall that, in reply to an Adjournment debate on Fusilier Lee Thompson on 6 December 1991, his Minister of State said:
"It is of overriding importance, particularly in the case of injury or death, to establish the facts as quickly as possible. It is essential, therefore, that witnesses appearing before boards of inquiry should give their evidence in a full and frank manner."—[Official Report, 6 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 590.]
What does the Secretary of State propose to do to guarantee that our American allies provide that evidence in the full and frank manner that his Minister of State demanded on 6 December?
Finally, what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the families of British service personnel are never again subjected to the unnecessary exacerbation of their grief in the way that they have been subjected to it during the last few months?
Mr. Rifkind: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, our desire is to ensure that any sensitive response to the families of service personnel who are killed or injured in any conflict should be provided as fully and as quickly as possible. Of course there are occasions during a conflict when it takes time, particularly if other allies are involved in the conflict, for the full information to be known, but that is our intention and we intend to see that we achieve it.
On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom authorities have co-operated fully with the inquest with regard to the provision of any information or witnesses required by either the coroner or the inquest. It must be for the United States Government to come to a conclusion on what their response should be with regard to their own personnel.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the description of fire as "friendly" rests very uneasily with the verdict of unlawful killing? Will he confirm that one of the remarkable achievements of the coalition efforts in the Gulf war was the achievement of the military ends with the minimum of casualties? Was not a major factor the flying of up to 2,500 sorties a day? Although the whole House has the utmost sympathy for those British soldiers who died in the course of duty and, of course, for their bereaved families, and although I would not expect my right hon. and learned Friend to comment adversely on the coroner's verdict, in all the circumstances, would not a better verdict have been one of accidental death?
Mr. Rifkind: I first pay tribute to the personal contribution that my hon. Friend made when he volunteered for active service in the Gulf. That is something which I know has been widely acknowledged.

149
He was right to remind the House and the wider public of the enormous pressure under which all the allied pilots were operating at that time. Some 110,000 sorties were flown by allied pilots during the Gulf conflict. As my hon. Friend mentioned, that worked out at approximately 2,500 sorties a day. That is a factor which ought to be borne in mind.
Not only American pilots but pilots of all the coalition countries were acting under enormous pressure, and were exposed to the enormous risks of injury or death. Those who expose themselves to enormous danger in such circumstances ought to have that taken into account when tragic incidents—accidents, acknowledged by all as having been accidents—occasionally, regretfully, occur.
Sir Russell Johnston: Two of the soldiers came from my constituency and one from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Miss Lynne). Is the Minister aware that we both know that the parents did feel that they were given misinformation and that they were struggling against secrecy? Will the Secretary of State also note that the jury's verdict was returned after the coroner had most clearly and specifically told it that a verdict of unlawful killing should be returned only if it thought that the action was not simply careless but reckless? While I accept all that has been said about the heat of battle and the pressures to which pilots are subjected, surely it would be right for our Government to ask the Americans now to have a full and open inquiry into the affair.
Mr. Rifkind: In the first instance, the implications of the jury's verdict are something for the legal authorities to consider. In answer to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I certainly acknowledge that, in the first period after the Gulf war, there was some confusion and uncertainty as to precisely what had occurred on that day. The fullest information was available to the Ministry of Defence only at a later stage—in July, as I said earlier. As soon as we had acquired that information, we took steps to ensure that the families were informed. I accept, however, that it is desirable to try to find a more effective procedure for making information available at an earlier date and, if initial information turns out to be incorrect, special efforts must be made to correct it as soon as possible.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, despite the tragic and ghastly accident that led to the deaths of these fine young men, all British forces who served in the Gulf have reason to be grateful in particular to the pilots of A 10s, whose outstanding work in destroying Iraqi tanks contributed to our casualties from enemy action being minimal?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was one of the remarkable features of the Gulf war that so few coalition forces sustained injury or death, and it is a tribute to the professionalism and expertise of British, American and other coalition pilots and other forces that that proved possible.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not possible to drop this absurb military euphemism, "friendly fire"? All fire that kills or injures is hostile, even if it comes from an allied weapon. What discussions have taken place between Ministry of Defence officials—representatives of the British Government—and the pilots concerned?
Mr. Rilkind: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, our contacts have been with the United States Government, and it was as a result of those contacts that the United States Government sent the United Kingdom authorities full statements and affidavits from the pilots concerned, which were made available to the inquest.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: In view of the coverage in some of today's media, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it absolutely clear that there can be no question of bringing the American airmen to trial in Britain, not only because there is a world of difference between the accidental and mistaken killing of someone in the heat of battle and the deliberate or even reckless killing of the innocent in peacetime but because the only countries with jurisdiction to bring them to trial are the United States, which has granted them anonymity, and Iraq, where they would receive no justice?
Mr. Rifkind: I have heard what my hon. and learned Friend has said. He will be the first to appreciate that, in the first instance, these must be matters for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP has already pointed out the lack of jurisdiction that exists and has emphasised the point to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree with me, as a Member representing one of the families that were bereaved as a result of this tragic incident, that we all accept that no litigation and no monetary compensation can bring back the young men or compensate in any way for the loss of their future? Does he also accept, however, that the families have gone through 15 months of tears, turmoil and trauma to reach even this stage?
If I recall rightly, at Question Time the Prime Minister said that he was not in a position to release any more information. Does that mean that there is further information to be made available? When the Secretary of State refers to the information that became available on 10 July, is he referring to this documentation sent to all the families, substantial sections of which were blanked out and which was not very helpful to the families concerned? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that prosecutions could be forthcoming only in England and Wales. Was that deliberately to avoid the possibility of litigation in a Scottish context? Will the Secretary of State now agree to meet all the families concerned—preferably with the Prime Minister—as those families know how and when their youngsters were killed, but not yet why?
Mr. Rifkind: The reference to jurisdiction in England and Wales is a consequence of the fact that the inquest took place in England. However, I am not aware of any difference with regard to matters of jurisdiction even if similar events took place north of the border. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has of course already met a number of the families. I fully appreciate the difficult and tense period that this has been for the families in question. We are all anxious to ensure that, if any new information that might become available was relevant to explaining the circumstances in which their relatives lost their lives, that information should be made available to them. However, that will have to be judged in the light of any information that might arise. We are considering the evidence that was submitted to the inquest

151
to see whether it gives rise to the need for any further examination, and we will respond if it turns out that that is justified.
Mr. Bill Walker: Bearing in mind that some of the service men killed were Scots, my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise the feeling that exists in Scotland about the matter. However, we also hope that he will take a balanced view and recognise that there are no easy areas in the desert to identify one's position; that it is difficult in the desert in a fast-moving war when movement is rapid, and that the pilots operated under enormous stress. The operation of so many sorties a day in battle conditions are the circumstances in which mistakes can and will occur. It is nonsense for anyone to pretend afterwards that humans do not make errors, because they do. That is particularly true in the stress of battle conditions. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear it in mind that the A 10s were responsible for the massive destruction of Iraqi armour which would have caused irreparable damage to our troops if it had made contact with them?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Obviously the success of the coalition in achieving not just air superiority but air supremacy had a very material impact on our ability to win the Gulf war and on the minimising of casualties when that war entered its final phase.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State accept that, from the very time that the bereaved families learned that their beloved sons had died, they were concerned about the lack of sensitivity and information and the belief that there was a cover-up and that the truth was not being told? Should such tragedies ever occur in future, I hope that we will have learnt that lesson.
Would it not be useful if the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State told the American authorities that, although the House fully supported the war and the overwhelming majority of British people fully supported a justified war against criminal aggression, it would be unfortunate if the alliance built up at that time was marred as a result of a lack of American co-operation in telling the truth about what actually occurred? I hope that our American allies will be told that.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not believe that the alliance is being marred, or that there has been a failure to tell the truth. It is important to stress those points. Of course, it may prove impossible to understand exactly the detailed circumstances that led to the tragic deaths of those soldiers. What
152
happens in the midst of such conflicts can sometimes be very difficult to establish with precise detail at a later stage. However, we have no reason to believe that there has been any intent to withhold legitimate information or to do anything unreasonable. It is important that that point should be emphasised.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while our hearts go out to the families of the young soldiers, the hounding of the two American airmen and, by extension, the American air force, ought to stop? They risked their lives to save the lives of tens of thousands of ground troops, including many thousands of British lives that were potentially at risk.
In welcoming the various remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend about reconsidering standard operating procedures, may I ask whether he accepts that there is no way of avoiding accidents completely? Indeed, 15 Royal Marines were killed at Suez—a much smaller operation —as a result of an accident involving a British aircraft; and 110 British soldiers were killed by a Czech pilot on Salisbury plain during the second world war in a single accident. No one suggested that those people should be tried for manslaughter.
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely correct in reminding the House that in almost every example of war or conflict there have been tragic incidents of that kind. He is right also to emphasise the invaluable contribution that was made by American pilots and by pilots of all the countries of the coalition to ensuring an extraordinarily successful outcome to the Gulf war.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does it not show hypocrisy and double standards that, not so long ago, the Bush Administration were demanding that the two Libyans go to America and stand trial, and yet when the British people—[Interruption.] I thought that that would provoke some comments from the Tories. Whereas on the other hand, when the British people and the parents are demanding the same treatment for those Americans, this tawdry Government act like Bush's poodle.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is descending to a new level of repugnance in seeking to draw any comparison between an act of terrorism which led to the loss of lives of hundreds of people on a civil airliner and a tragic incident by courageous pilots in the middle of the Gulf war.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We will now move on. That matter has had a very good airing.

Points of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to ask whether you have received any requests from Ministers for a statement on the Government's intentions in respect of the pension cuts of 20,000 Maxwell pensioners. I believe that Parliament and the country have a right to know the Government's attitude to the return by the banks of stolen fund assets, to the lifebelt idea, to ensuring that the trustees can continue to pursue those funds, and to the underwriting by the Government of pensions in payment if there has been culpability on the part of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation or negligence on the part of the Department of Social Security in implementing the Social Security Act 1990. In view of the Government's silence on the matter for the past four weeks, has there been any such statement? If not, will you use your good offices to try to secure one?
Madam Speaker: I have had no request from a Minister to make a statement. I hope that the House understands that the Speaker does not indicate to Ministers or to any Government Department when a statement should be made. It is, rather, the other way round. The hon. Gentleman must try to find other means of pursuing his claims.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given notice of my point of order to you, the Leader of the House and the Foreign Office. You may recall that the House was concerned about what is known as the consolidated text of the treaty of Rome. I raised it at business questions on Thursday and received a reply from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is important. It reads:
"It is clear how the Treaty on European Union is intended to amend the Treaty of Rome when those two documents are read against each other. For this reason the Government have not prepared any consolidated version for their own use, nor are they yet preparing such a version for publication. An official version of the consolidated text of the Treaty of Rome incorporating the Treaty on European Union will he published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Community in due course. That will be the official text of the Treaty. The Government intend to wait for the Community's text to be finalised, and for the Treaty to enter into force, before publishing their own consolidated version."
You will agree, Madam Speaker, that some important matters arise from that. We will have a motion tomorrow —I am sorry, it is a Bill, which is little more than a motion —to approve a treaty, CM 1934, of more than 100 pages, which amends yet another existing treaty of more than 300 pages, to produce a third treaty, treaty C, through fertilisation and through progeny. We therefore have to decide on Thursday whether treaty C, from the point of view of the House, will emerge. However, on their own admission, the Government, even for the purposes of Privy Councillors protecting the realm, let alone for the House, do not have even for themselves a copy of that third treaty.
Furthermore, it is clear from the text of the letter which I have quoted and which is now in the Library that there will be two versions of the said treaty, even after it may have had Royal Assent from the House and even after it has come into effect—one from the official office of the Communities and one apparently from Her Majesty's Government. Which text will the Court of the European
154
Communities depend on? Which version of either of those phantom treaties will we he invited to approve on Thursday? I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that three questions arise.
Is it not a breach of the practice and custom of the House for Her Majesty's Government not to publish prior to effective assent in principle the known text of a draft treaty which is likely to become a fundamental component of the effective constitution of the nation? Secondly, is it not a major breach of duty that Her Majesty's Ministers have not, even in their role as Privy Councillors, taken steps to protect the realm by furnishing themselves with this phantom text? Thirdly, in consequence of these matters, should not the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill be postponed until the text of the third treaty becomes a printed and published reality? Should not the Second Reading of the approving Bill be undertaken only after the public, Members of Parliament and perhaps Committees of the House have had the time to read, scrutinise and assess its implications and consequences?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful, first of all, to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of his point of order. I have, of course, seen the letter from the Minister of State which refers to the relationship between the treaty on European union and the treaty of Rome. It is for the hon. Gentleman to decide whether he considers it premature for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to be proceeded with ahead of the preparation of a consolidated version of the treaties. That may well affect how he votes on Thursday.
I am satisfied—I have had to satisfy myself—that the Bill before us tomorrow is perfectly in order. Whether it should he passed is a matter for the House, not for me. The Bill that we shall debate tomorrow is perfectly in order.
Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will he aware that this morning the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that she proposed to take no action on any of the 91 complaints against officers of the West Midlands police force or on any of the 11 complaints about misappropriation of funds from police sources. The matter has obvious implications for the police as a whole. It is clearly a green light to officers planning misbehaviour. Have you had notice from the Attorney-General, in view of the obvious implications for the police and public confidence in them, that he intends to come to the House to offer a statement on the subject?
Madam Speaker: No, I have had no such indication.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that, during the run-up to the general election, all of us who are sitting Members received a letter from the then Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms about the use of House of Commons facilities, such as notepaper and stationery. I think that they were sensible rules, because such facilities clearly give to an incumbent Member a distinct advantage over candidates from other parties. Therefore, it is important that those rules are reinforced regularly. On this occasion, I look to you to make sure that the House is fully aware of those rules and that they are abided by on future occasions.
I have in my possession a letter sent by one hon. Member. I have given her notice that I intended to raise

155
this point of order this afternoon. The letter appears to violate those rules. The hon. Member in question is the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). The letter is dated 7 April—two days before the general election. At the top it says:
"From Mrs. Elizabeth J. Peacock JP MP, Member of Parliament, Batley and Spen"
In the right-hand corner, the letter heading says:
"House of Commons. London SW1A OAA", and it lists some telephone numbers. At the bottom, the letter is signed by "Elizabeth J. Peacock".
I think that that is probably a violation of the excellent guidance given by the previous Speaker, and I look to you to safeguard the constitutional rights of this Chamber and of the facilities here.
Madam Speaker: I certainly intend to do so, and I remember the guidance so wisely given to us. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman furnishes that information to the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Speaker Weatherill (Retirement)
Motion made and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal Favour upon the Right honourable Bernard Weatherill for his eminent services during the important period in which with such distinguished ability and dignity he presided in the Chair of this House. —[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
3.59 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is this matter debatable?
Madam Speaker: Yes. It is usually a procedural motion, but it is debatable. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak?
Mr. Skinner: I shall not take long. This motion says that we are asking the Queen for a Royal favour. I have no intention of asking the Queen for any favours. I believe that the Queen should do her subjects a favour and start paying taxes.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of this House. He knows full well that we do not debate the Queen, her activities or our attitude towards the Queen in the House. This motion requests the Queen to confer an honour on our former Speaker. It refers to the Speaker and not to the Queen, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carry out the procedures that have been laid down in this House for a long time.
Mr. Skinner: I realise that what you say is absolutely correct and I shall come to do that matter, I just mentioned the Royal favour bit en passant—and that is the only favour I shall give to the Maastricht mob this week.
What is this favour? Will it be a place in the House of Lords? If it is, I do not want to support it. Normally, I do not have a say in the matter for anyone who gets a place in the House of Lords, because they are nominated in some list. There will be a few more nominated in a bit—Norman Tebbit, the Countess of Finchley and all the rest of them.
On this occasion, when I am given a possible chance of voting against sending someone to the House of Lords, I shall seize it with both hands. So I am looking for a teller to join me and to vote against the motion. If the favour means a place in the House of Lords, this is one of the rare occasions that we have a chance to say no.
I am against the House of Lords. I believe in a classless society. The Prime Minister is always rabbiting on about a classless society, but I want to carry it out. I do not believe in perpetuating the other place and adding to its number.
What is more. I do not know why Bernard Weatherill wants the job. It astounds me. The man had everything going for him when he was Speaker of the House of Commons. He often used to tell us that he had a little thimble in his pocket, and that he would use it when he finished. I am not against him doing that. He could use his thimble to undo all the robes. He could also use it for all those new Conservative Members of Parliament who want penguin suits, or he could make a few grey suits for those who want to be clones of the Prime Minister. Why does he need to go to the Lords?
Of course, it might not be the Lords, it might be money —some extra cash. We are talking about a society where

157
more than 3 million people are on the scrap heap—that pile of human misery known as the dole queue. We live in a society where 80,000 people are losing their homes. Why should we dole out favours to someone who is doing all right?
I do not want any favours when I have done. I hope to Christ that no one will nominate me for anything, because I shall turn it down.
Sir Anthony Grant: The hon. Gentleman is suffering from "knight starvation".
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has been given a favour. He became a knight like nearly all the rest of the Tories. They go begging on hands and knees to the Prime Minister of the day. They should be given a pair of knee pads to enable them to crawl.
If my hon. Friends agree with me, they will be against the House of Lords. We once had a conference decision, when the block vote was flavour of the month, that resulted in 6 million votes, against 6,000, in favour of abolishing the House of Lords. If my hon. Friends join me, we will have a vote. I suspect that the House of Lords is what the royal favour is all about.
We have heard a lot of talk about the classless society, the honours system and elitism. Here is a chance for some Labour Members to practise those ideas. I say no to the motion.
4.5 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This House has developed its long commitment to free speech to such an extent that, when we listen to highly individual and colourful characters, such as my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), we enjoy not only their colourful speeches but their commitment to the art of personal propaganda. That does not mean that we should always appear to be, whatever our real reasons, a graceless and slightly unforgiving and ungrateful Assembly.
I have served in this House for many years, and I have had the privilege to serve under many Speakers. We would be wrong to allow the interesting gesture of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to be recorded as though we were in some way seeking to detract from the commitment and hard work of Mr. Bernard Weatherill. During his Speakership, many of us learned to appreciate not only his honesty and kindness, but his real concern for Back-Bench Members, and not just for those powerful Members on the Front Bench, either above or below the Gangway.
I think that it is important that the House of Commons should, from time to time, thank those of its own who care for its traditions—not only those associated with the pomp and ceremony but the really important ones concerning the protection of free speech and the rights and privileges of the people of the United Kingdom.
I should like to place on record not only my appreciation of Mr. Bernard Weatherill, but my real thanks for the way in which, over many years, he sought above all to protect the interests of individual Members of Parliament. However the motion is expressed on the Order Paper, I hope that the House will record its appreciation of the many years of loyal, kind and heartfelt warmth of service that he showed to hon. Members.
4.8 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: There is no objection on my part to recording our appreciation of the work of Bernard Weatherill as Speaker. I do not mind doing that at all. I object to the idea that a job must, for some reason, be given an added favour. I should have thought that the job of Speaker itself, which many people regard as the accolade of their political life, is sufficient reward. I am opposed to the idea that, because a person achieves a certain position, he should necessarily receive a royal favour.
Between 3,000 and 4,000 people work in the Palace of Westminster, and many of them do not receive anything like the prominence or accolades that the Speaker receives, but they are necessary to the functioning of this place. Last night, when the Adjournment debate started before 10.30 pm, those who receive the lowest wages in the Palace—not the £70,000-plus a year earned by the Speaker—were not allowed to travel home in a taxi because that is the rule. The Speaker receives a car, and rightly so. I do not object to that. However, the women who work here were sent home from this place, out on to the streets of London, to get home as best they could, late at night. They are not provided with a taxi if the Adjournment debate starts before 10.30 pm.
When we talk about the teamwork that is required to keep this place going, let us bear in mind the working men and women here who receive salaries and wages that are trivial compared with the pay received by the Speaker. Indeed, one might say that the Speaker, as the chairman or chairwoman over our proceedings, receives sufficient recognition by being elected by hon. Members. That honour should be recognised as such.
The idea that a royal favour automatically follows the Speaker's term of office should be scrapped. We can go a little way down the road of scrapping that aspect of the pomp and circumstance by voting against the motion. I have no doubt that many hon. Members thought that the motion would be passed in a routine way, but it gives us a chance to express our view now.
I do not expect many hon. Members to be in the No Lobby. If we are to change the panoply of this pompous institution, let us make a start now by calling a Division. I assure the House that, even if nobody is in the No Lobby, there will be two tellers for the Noes. As I say, it would be a start—[interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) is muttering. As a Tory, if he wants to support the Prime Minister, he has a chance to support us by voting in favour of a classless society.
4.11 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: This is a singularly ungracious and churlish way in which to mark the long and distinguished service of your predecessor, Madam Speaker. When tributes were paid to Speaker Weatherill at the end of the last Parliament, they met with the genuine and deserved approval of hon. Members in all parts of the House. When the traditional honour—some of us believe in tradition—is being offered to a man who has served the House with impeccable rectitude for many years, it is churlish, undignified, mean, mean-spirited and petty-minded in the extreme that it should be opposed by the sort of speeches that we have heard this afternoon.
4.12 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made it absolutely clear why he would be voting against the motion, and explained that in no way did he intend any disrespect to the previous Speaker. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, hon. Members in all parts of the House paid tribute to Speaker Weatherill. They were sincere tributes, for we hold him in the highest respect and affection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made an important point. Many of us have been in talks with people from eastern Europe in which they have explained how they are establishing new democracies. When we explain the way in which democracy works in Britain, they are, generally speaking, impressed—until we describe how the House of Lords works, its powers and the way in which its members are selected. There is no question of any of the newly emerging democracies imitating our upper House.
This is the first time for many years that we have a chance to make a gesture. We have an opportunity to say that the House of Lords is an affront to the democratic system and must be reformed. In joining my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover in the No Lobby, I and others who may be in that Lobby mean absolutely no disrespect to the previous Speaker, whom we hold in the highest regard.
4.14 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I wish at the outset to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is wondrous to watch him in action. I am surprised that he spotted this occasion and has brought the matter to the attention of the House. I commend new Members on both sides to study carefully the actions of my hon. Friend. They will learn a great deal at his knee.
Like other hon. Members, I have great regard and esteem for Bernard Weatherill and everything that he did when he was in the House. I am loth to deprive him of anything that he would want having left this place, if he approves of it and sees it as a reward. Although I am reluctant to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, I shall do so on the following ground alone: the unfortunate way in which the motion is termed.
We should have the right to confer a commendation or favour on one of our colleagues who has done a great service to the House. It seems most unfortunate that the only way in which we can do so is to go to the Queen and ask that a royal favour be conferred on Speaker Weatherill, who then has to go to the House of Lords, which is supposed to be this country's great bastion of privilege and class traditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has now shown that it is time that the House started to look at how we could confer some form of favour or commendation on any one of our colleagues whom we feel is suitable for such an honour. That could be people who sit in the House or serve in the Refreshment Department or elsewhere. I suggest something like a Commons medal.
Whatever else my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has done, he has shown us today that we must keep our eyes open, because we never know what will be slipped through on the Order Paper.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 15.

Division No. 16]

[4.16 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Alexander, Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Ancram, Michael

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Arbuthnot, James

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Armstrong, Hilary

French, Douglas

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gale, Roger

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Gallie, Philip

Ashton, Joe

Gardiner, Sir George

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gaenier, Edward

Bates, Michael

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Batiste, Spencer

Golding, Mrs Llin

Beith, A. J.

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bellingham, Henry

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bendall, Vivian

Graham, Thomas

Beresford, Sir Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Bermingham, Gerald

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Grylls, Sir Michael

Boateng, Paul

Gunnell, John

Booth, Hartley

Hague, William

Boswell, Tim

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bottomley, Peter

Hannam, Sir John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Hanson, David

Bowis, John

Hargreaves, Andrew

Boyes, Roland

Harris, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Haselhurst, Alan

Brazier, Julian

Hawkins, Nicholas

Bright, Graham

Hawksley, Warren

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hayes, Jerry

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Heald, Oliver

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hendry, Charles

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hicks, Robert

Butler, Peter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cann, James

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Horam, John

Carrington, Matthew

Hordern, Sir Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

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

Clappison, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Coe, Sebastian

Hunter, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Jack, Michael

Congdon, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Conway, Derek

Jessel, Toby

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cormack, Patrick

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

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

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

Dafis, Cynog

Kilfedder, James

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Day, Stephen

Kirkwood, Archy

Deva, Niranjan

Knapman, Roger

Devlin, Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Dicks, Terry

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

Dixon, Don

Knox, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dover, Den

Lait, Ms Jacqui

Duncan, Alan

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Lawrence, Ivan

Dunn, Bob

Legg, Barry

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lidington, David

Eggar, Tim

Lightbown, David

Elletson, Harold

Llwyd, Elfyn

Enright, Derek

Luff, Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Evennett, David

MacKay, Andrew

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Maclean, David

Faber, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fabricant, Michael

McNamara, Kevin

161

Madel, David

Sproat, Iain

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Major, Rt Hon John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Malone, Gerald

Stephen, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Stewart, Allan

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Straw, Jack

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Streeter, Gary

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Sumberg, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Sweeney, Walter

Merchant, Piers

Sykes, John

Miller, Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Milligan, Stephen

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mills, Iain

Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Temple-Morris, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Thomason, Roy

Moss, Malcolm

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mudie, George

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thornton, Malcolm

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tredinnick, David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Trend, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ottaway, Richard

Vaz, Keith

Page, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Pawsey, James

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Ward, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Powell, William (Corby)

Watts, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, John

Wheeler, Sir John

Riddick, Graham

Whittingdale, John

Robathan, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Wigley, Dafydd

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wilkinson, John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Willetts, David

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sackville, Tom

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wolfson, Mark

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Yeo, Tim

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Speed, Keith

Mr. Timothy Wood.

Spink, Dr Robert

NOES

Ainger, Nicholas

Meale, Alan

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Barnes, Harry

Mullin, Chris

Bennett, Andrew F.

Redmond, Martin

Boyce, Jimmy

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

Canavan, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Cohen, Harry

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Flynn, Paul

Mr. Bob Cryer.

Madden, Max

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her Royal Favour upon the Right honourable Bernard Weatherill for his eminent services during the important period in which with such distinguished ability and dignity he presided in the Chair of this House.

Adjournment (Spring)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 22nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 2nd June.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
4.26 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I want to raise an issue of serious, widespread and growing concern about which this House plainly deserves an oral ministerial statement before the recess. The issue is the Government's refusal to set any date by which Operation Container—the scheme for keeping prisoners in police cells—will be discontinued. We still await even the announcement of a timetable for reducing the huge number of prisoners now held in police stations.
Operation Container came into being specifically to deal with the shortage of prison accommodation in the Greater Manchester area caused by the destruction of Strangeways prison more than two years ago. The House will recall that Strangeways, built in the Victorian era and destroyed in the riot of April 1990, was seriously overcrowded, even in 19th-century terms, when the riot took place.
I saw the conditions in Strangeways, before the disturbances, on a visit to discuss with senior staff the problems caused by the detention there of prisoners who were mentally ill but for whom no accommodation was available in more appropriate places of detention. There were then about 1,700 prisoners in Strangeways; today there are still 1,638 prisoners held in police stations under Operation Container. Of that total, 233 are held in cells in 23 police stations in Greater Manchester. That number has hardly changed since last November and, despite the daunting stress imposed on our police service by crime figures for which any previous Government would have been heavily censured, it shows no sign of decreasing.
Greater Manchester police are not alone in having to bear the extra burden of acting as gaolers. Other police forces, from Devon and Cornwall to Northumbria and from East Sussex to Cumbria, have also become part of the prison system. In all, 39 police forces are participating in the operation. The full list was given in a priority written reply that I received from the Minister with responsibility for prisons on 11 May, and the cost of Operation Container is both enormous and still growing. Perhaps the Leader of the House could let the House know the total cost to date when he winds up the debate.
I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman can also let the House know whether the new Home Secretary will be accepting the Greater Manchester police authority's urgent request for a meeting with him to discuss its concerns about Operation Container. A letter that I received this morning from Mr. R. C. Rees, clerk to the Greater Manchester police authority, states that no effective action has been taken to provide temporary accommodation in, for example, military camps for the prisoners now held in police cells, and that, in his police authority's view, the Home Office is clearly in breach of its duty under the Prison Act 1952 to provide prisons.
The letter goes on:
"The Police Authority is also of the view that this failure on the part of the Home Office, and the consequent necessity for the Police Authority to provide accommodation in police cells, is having a deleterious effect on the policing of Greater

163
Manchester, in that many Police Officers are being compelled to act as Prison Warders instead of protecting the community from crime".
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There is also increasing anecdotal evidence in Greater Manchester that, on occasion, there are no empty police cells and that, for that reason, arrests that would be made in other circumstances are not being made.
Mr. Morris: I accept that important point and pay warm tribute to the long, sustained and extremely well-informed contribution my hon. Friend has made to discussion of this important issue.
The letter from the clerk to the Greater Manchester police authority continues:
"It is not yet too late to remedy the situation, even though the Police Authority is actively considering instituting formal legal proceedings against the Home Secretary, unless adequate assurances are given."
Surely that merits an oral statement by the Home Secretary before the recess?
The detention of remand or sentenced prisoners in police stations—including many in areas of acute deprivation and social stress—is manifestly unacceptable. The position is now deeply serious and the ending of Operation Container is a compelling priority. That is not only my view. In his reply to me on 11 May, the Minister said that the problem of using police stations for prisoners was
"regarded as extremely serious and the task of bringing it to an end … a top priority".
The reply went on:
"Neither I, nor my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, regard the detention of remand or sentenced prisoners in police cells as acceptable either for the prisoners or the police."—[Official Report, 11 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 20.]
Those statements make the Minister's inability to set a date by which Operation Container will end—or even to announce a timetable for reducing the number of prisoners held in police stations—all the more worrying for people in Greater Manchester and elsewhere who know that their police forces, with crime figures as they are now, have more than enough to do without adding to their already heavy burdens.
Notwithstanding the best endeavours of police officers, can security be as good in police stations as it is in prisons? Are the Government satisfied that public safety is nowhere at risk from the long-term detention of prisoners in police stations? Those are the questions put to me, day by day, by my constituents.
An operation that was described as "temporary" after the Strangeways riot has now come to look more and more permanent. Indeed, the overall position today is worse than when the Strangeways riot occurred, as police authorities are placed in the de facto position of running a prison service by reason of the Home Office default. Police officers are losing their rest days, police stations are changing their character and, in fact, the fundamental purpose of the police service is undergoing extra-statutory change as it takes on duties it was never meant to discharge.
I went recently to Brownley road police station in my constituency, where four prisoners were being held. They cannot have a shower there, so they have to be transported under escort from the police station for a shower. Exercise and catering provision are other difficult problems, quite
164
apart from the general effect on the work of dedicated officers in a very busy police station of turning it into a gaol for prisoners, some of whom have completed their entire sentences in police cells.
Councillor Stephen Murphy, chairman of the Greater Manchester police authority, has spoken with admirable restraint of a "real deterioration in policing" in consequence of Operation Container and of his disquiet that costs of well over £3 million incurred in the investigation, for prosecution purposes, of incidents both during and after the disturbances at Strangeways have not been met by the Home Office. The chairman points out that many police officers have been involved in this work. Yet the Home Office refuses to provide additional finances to cover the authority's costs. This also is unacceptable, not least to Greater Manchester's poll tax payers. Why should they have to suffer this imposition?
I am sure that the Leader of the House will accept that the problems created by Operation Container constitute a very important matter for Greater Manchester, the north-west and for the country as a whole. There is no party animus locally about the extreme urgency of the need now to have the problems resolved. That can only be assisted by an early meeting between the Home Secretary and those who have to deal with these problems at the sharp end of Operation Container. I ask the Leader of the House for a helpful reply when he responds to the debate.
4.37 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), because I have a prison in my constituency. I am happy to say that it is an extremely good and modern establishment. I know that the House always listens with the keenest interest to the right hon. Gentleman, because he renders a great service to this place. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will pay attention to the right hon. Gentleman's contribution.
Before the House rises for the spring Adjournment, I want to talk about the problems of woodlands in Britain generally and in Cambridgeshire in particular. It is a matter of great importance to all who value our heritage and want to preserve the best in our environment.
I cite first Brampton wood in Cambridgeshire, which comprises 330 acres of woodland on the edge of my constituency. It is primarily in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Many people in both of our constituencies are worried about the wood's future, and we have been inundated, not surprisingly, with correspondence.
I can best describe the wood by using the words of one of my constituents, Mrs. Pamela Timbrell. She wrote that there
"are a wide range of wild flowers—some endangered—a diverse collection of beautiful native trees, squirrels and species of deer in a truly wild and natural setting. It is indeed a place of fragile and magical beauty."
Another of my constituents, Mr. Barry Dickerson, the county recorder of lepidoptera, which for the benefit of old Etonians means that he is the recorder of butterflies and moths, has recorded 515 different species of butterflies and moths in Brampton wood.
The wood is owned by the Ministry of Defence. It has been found to be surplus to its requirements, and in line

165
with its normal policy it is selling it by competitive tender to the highest bidder, in order, not unnaturally, to obtain the best return for the taxpayer.
The people of Cambridgeshire have always supported the Ministry of Defence presence in their county. Quite sensibly, we have tolerated aircraft noise and so on, because we know the importance of the MOD activities to the defence of the realm. Cambridgeshire has a great history of defence of this country.
The future of the wood after its sale is uncertain. Such woodlands cannot just be left, they have to be managed if they are to retain their beauty and provide enjoyment for nature lovers throughout the county and the country. The wood is designated as a site of special scientific interest, but that does not ensure that it will be properly managed. After all, I understand that 2,000 acres of SSSIs have been damaged during the past 12 months. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Forestry Commission cannot compel the appropriate management of woodlands.
The Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire Wildlife Trust is keen to buy the wood. It would preserve it, look after it, and ensure that it is developed in the best possible way, preserving the flora and fauna inside it. However, the trust needs time. The MOD should, if possible, sell the wood to the trust. Will the MOD at least give the trust time to submit a suitably competitive bid, which it wants and intends to do? Alternatively, will the MOD give time to allow suitable safeguards to be put in place to preserve that beautiful wood?
We now have a new heritage Ministry. I am not quite sure what it does, but I should not be surprised if it were extremely interested in this problem. The Secretary of State for National Heritage should become involved in such issues. Of course, other Ministries are involved. The Department of the Environment must be interested, if the environment means anything. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be interested because it has forestry responsibilities. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to get those Ministries to work together rather than in separate penny packets, so that we can save something that is really worth while in our society. I know that both my right hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take the problem seriously.
I want to discuss the slightly broader issue, because British woodlands as a whole are at risk. I am sure that many hon. Members will have read the Observer supplement last Sunday. It certainly made stark reading. It is only a short while before the great Rio summit on the environment is held. It is ironic that, during the past 50 years, Amazonia—the place we are always told has devastated its forests—lost 10 per cent. of its forests, yet over the same period Britain lost 45 per cent. If those figures are true, they are very stark. It is worrying for the British environment and for a country that has been so notable for its woodlands and its forests.
It is also ironic that the Government subsidise new afforestation where people plant dreary conifers, which do not attract wildlife. They certainly do not create the woods that we want in our beloved country. While providing subsidies for those boring conifers, the Government run the risk of destroying existing much better, much more beautiful and much more lush woodland through the highest-bidder policy that the MOD is pursuing.
166
The matter is urgent, both nationally and locally. It is no good making lots of money, having wonderful machinery and new technology and creating wealth if, in the process, there is not a countryside in which it is worth living. I am sure that the Government would not wish to he known as an Administration who appreciate the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope that any hon. Members who are fortunate to catch my eye in the early part of the debate will take that into consideration. It is only a three-hour debate, and I wish to call as many hon. Members as possible.
4.45 pm
Ms. Liz Lynne: I know that, as this is my maiden speech, I shall be treated with courtesy and gracious listening, but it is none the less a fairly daunting experience. I feel very privileged to be a Member of the House. Indeed, I believe that all of us, being Members, are so privileged. I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would agree that in the light of that privilege and that honour, our behaviour, countenance and manner should reflect that.
I represent Rochdale and I realise that I have a very hard act to follow. My predecessor, Sir Cyril Smith, was a character in his own right. Loved by most—not all, but most—he was a tireless worker for his constituents. He is outspoken and he never hesitates to say what he thinks or believes. Before he came to the House in the famous 1972 by-election, he had been councillor, alderman and mayor of Rochdale. His service to his beloved Rochdale spans some 40 years. I know that the House will wish him a long and happy retirement. I, for one, owe him a huge debt of gratitude.
The Rochdale constituency comprises the old county borough of Rochdale. Within 15 minutes, we can be out of the township into the hills or on to the moors, yet it still embraces commerce, industry and all the inner-town facilities. Rochdale has a proud history. It was a great textile town, but sadly that is fading, although new industries are growing and thousands of small businesses now make a valuable contribution to our economy. Rochdale also has great companies with worldwide reputations.
Regrettably, however, unemployment is still above the regional average. While Rochdale does not have people sleeping out in cardboard boxes to any great extent, homelessness is still a serious problem and a social evil.
John Bright and Gracie Fields are famous Rochdalians. The Co-operative Movement was founded in Rochdale, as was the Workers Educational Association. In 1994, when it is reasonable to expect that I shall still be the town's Member of Parliament, Rochdale will celebrate some great events—the 800th anniversary of Rochdale parish church, the 150th anniversary of the Co-op, the centenary of the Rochdale canal and the centenary of the children's Moorland home. People, however, are the great wealth of Rochdale—its population, its voluntary organisations and its societies. Drama, music, church, community—just name it and we have it.

167
We are a close-knit community, which is why the death of Conrad Cole, a young soldier from Rochdale, in the so-called friendly fire incident has affected Rochdale greatly. It does not seem likely that, under international law, the pilots can be extradited. Because of that, I urge the Government to use their special relationship with the United States to press for a further and fuller inquiry and for the results to be released to the parents and all interested parties.
It is perhaps not surprising that Rochdale has always been concerned about the people within its community. It has been deeply involved in the issue of community care. The first local authority home for the elderly was opened in 1950, the family group homes by 1960 and schemes to help pensioners with decorating and gardening were introduced in 1963. In the 1960s, a youth-helps-elderly scheme was pioneered at a time of severe weather conditions. It is therefore wholly appropriate, I hope, that my maiden speech as Member of Parliament for Rochdale should be concerned with community care. Therefore, I ask that before the House adjourns we should debate the pressing issue of community care.
I grew up in a disabled persons' home, as my mother was in charge of it. A lot of my friends, of course, were disabled. One particular friend and I used to go all over the place together. She was 16 and I was 11 when we arrived there, but what used to make me so angry was that when we were out together people frequently asked me questions and never talked to her first, even though she was five years older. I realised very quickly the sort of discrimination that people with disabilities have to suffer. I was determined to help to change that, not only for disabled people but for everyone, to create an equal and caring society.
I should like to ask: where is the vision, where is the idealism, where is the hope? They are certainly not there for the elderly, or for disabled people, or for the mentally ill, or for the homeless, or for those with learning difficulties. Care in the community was supposed to be the great hope, but what has happened to it? I shall tell hon. Members. It is grossly underfunded and has not been properly thought through. I believe very strongly that community care is the right way forward, but not in the way that it is operating at the moment in many places throughout the country. If we are not careful, more and more people will be left to roam the streets. More and more people will be placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, with nothing to do all day. More people will be put into flats and bed-sits, without the proper back-up facilities. It is happening already.
We have a very good example of what happened when the large mental institutions were closed. Quite a lot of the inmates were dumped out, to fend for themselves. Many of them can still be seen wandering the streets and sleeping rough. We must not let that continue. We must certainly not let it happen again.
Community care has to be provided with proper resources. That money has to be ring-fenced to stop local councils being able to squander it on pet projects. We need to create a comprehensive disability income scheme so that people with disabilities can be given real financial freedom. We need also to create a new carers benefit that recognises the essential role that carers play in enabling people to stay within the community. We need to take positive action to
168
get people off the streets and into real homes of their own. Our aim should be to reduce homelessness by at least 50 per cent. in the next four years.
All the groups of people I have mentioned have to be treated with dignity and respect. For too long they have been ignored; for too long they have been swept to one side; and for too long they have been the poor relations. As a Member of Parliament, I hope to make my contribution to improved community care and I am happy that my maiden speech should have been devoted to that cause.
4.53 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: We have just heard a gracious and elegant speech, delivered with passion and compassion by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Miss Lynne). It is not surprising that we should hear such a speech from the hon. Lady because Rochdale produced, as she mentioned, Gracie Fields, who embodied the big-heartedness of that area. I hope that the hon. Lady will enjoy her stay in the House. I am sure that she will enjoy the same friendship that her predecessor, Sir Cyril Smith, who was a large and lovely personality, enjoyed here. I echo what she said about the need to look after the people of this country.
I urge the House not to adjourn, because of the threatened bed closures in my constituency of North Down in the Bangor hospital, the Ulster hospital and the Ards hospital. I denounce the Eastern health board's proposals to cut almost 100 hospital beds in the North Down area. Such bed closures will inevitably have an adverse effect on patient care in the area. There is no doubt whatsoever that waiting lists, which already are intolerably long, will grow longer still.
The board has announced that there will be consultations about the closures, but such talks—I speak from many years' experience of statements by the Eastern health board in the past—will, in my opinion, be a sham. They will be a cosmetic exercise to give a semblance of democracy to decisions already made to cut essential hospital beds—cuts which, if implemented, will clearly be detrimental to the people of North Down.
Every year, the North Down and Ards unit of management has imposed excessive expenditure cuts on hospital and social services in the North Down area. The present proposals are the result of a programme imposed on the unit by the Eastern health board to cut expenditure on hospital services by a further £1 million. I have charged the board with discrimination against the people of my constituency and elsewhere in the Eastern health board area. That area takes in the city of Belfast, which receives more than its fair share of money, in proportion to the population of Belfast, the number of hospital beds available in Belfast and the total expenditure of the Eastern health board on the city of Belfast.
I do not blame the Belfast hospitals for seeking to obtain as much money as possible. Money spent on patients is money well spent. The fact is, however, that money is being drawn away from the rest of the Eastern health board area to the city of Belfast. Therefore, I call for Belfast to be hived off from the Eastern health board area and established as a separate entity, because the cost of hospital beds in the Ulster and Bangor hospitals is lower than the cost of hospital beds in the Royal Victoria

169
hospital or the City hospital, Belfast. I am shocked by the cuts which it has been decided to make in my constituency of North Down.
The whole of a medical ward in Bangor hospital is to be closed. That ward consists of 24 beds. Sadly, patients who need operations will have to wait far longer for them. That makes a mockery of the claim that the national health service is being organised for the benefit of patients. The closure of a whole medical ward will create appalling difficulties for Bangor. The population consists of 70,000 men, women and children. It deserves to have a fully operational hospital with a casualty department. Instead, the Eastern health board cuts, cuts and cuts again. I have warned my constituents that, in due course, despite assurances from the Eastern health board to the contrary, the board will seek to close the Bangor hospital completely.
It is an indictment of the undemocratic bureaucracy that governs Northern Ireland that such proposals can be made with no reference to the elected representatives of the Ulster people. The board is composed of people who were appointed by the Minister and who, therefore, are minions of the Government. Representatives of the press are not admitted to meetings and do not hear the deliberations of the Eastern health board. We find out what is happening by rumour; then, eventually, a statement is made to the effect that the proposal will be implemented following discussions.
The Ulster hospital's orthopaedic ward, with 20 beds, is to be closed. The Ards hospital will lose 52 beds. All those closures will create suffering for patients and relatives, and nurses and other staff will inevitably lose their jobs.
I call on the Government to ensure that the proposed bed closures in the North Down and Ards area are not implemented within the next few months as proposed but postponed until the proposals are fully examined and discussed by the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. That can be done effectively only by means of a Northern Ireland Select Committee, which could cross-examine health board officials and other witnesses. I have been pressing for the appointment of a Select Committee for some time and I now repeat that demand for the restoration of democracy to the people of Northern Ireland.
If my fair and reasonable demand for the appointment of a Select Committee is still refused, I call on the Government to guarantee to the people of my constituency that the Eastern health board proposals will be postponed until the creation of another Northern Ireland Assembly. We understand from the discussions that have taken place over the past few months that there is a very reasonable prospect of a Northern Ireland assembly being established. The health board's proposals are an ideal matter for such an assembly to discuss, and I do not think that a decision should be made in advance of its creation.
In the name of my constituents, in the name of justice and in the name of community care, I urge the Government to ensure that the undemocratic bureaucratic Eastern health board does not proceed with the proposed hospital bed closures, which would create an appalling state of affairs in my constituency of North Down.
5.2 pm
Ms. Rachel Squire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech to the House. I begin by congratulating you on your election to your new post—a tribute to your ability and of most welcome assistance to new and inexperienced Members like myself.
I shall refer first to previous—experienced—Members of Parliament for Dunfermline, West and Dunfermline Burghs. My immediate predecessor was Mr. Dick Douglas. During his long career in the Labour and Co-operative Movement, he displayed—shall we say—an independence of mind. That career began when, as a young apprentice in the 1950s, he helped to lead a successful strike in the Clyde shipyards. It is a particular shame, therefore, that he decided to end his career by breaking away from the Labour and Co-operative Movement.
The vast majority of past and present Labour Members of Parliament for Fife have been and are an example of the best that the movement can offer. My special thanks must go to my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). I pay tribute to the ceaseless work of members of the Labour party throughout Fife and especially in my own constituency. My respect and affection for the people of Dunfermline and West Fife grow with every passing day. Throughout the century, they have displayed an unswerving loyalty and commitment to the Labour movement.
I cannot end this part of my speech without paying tribute to an outstanding example of that loyalty and commitment, a former Member of Parliament, Mr. Adam Hunter, who, sadly, died last year. He worked as a miner for 40 years before becoming a Member of Parliament, and subsequently he served the constituency of Dunfermline Burghs for 15 years in a most selfless and conscientious way. He was totally without pomposity and everyone who knew him speaks of him with the highest regard. I can only strive to match a small part of his ability.
That brings me to my constituency. I said that Mr. Adam Hunter had been a miner in the area for 40 years, but the history of coal mining in my constituency goes back much further—more than 700 years, to 1291, when the monks of Dunfermline abbey first extracted coal from Pittencrieff glen. Throughout the constituency, villages developed amid coal mines—Oakley, Saline, Blairhall and High Valleyfield, to mention but a few. Yet now there is only one deep mine operating in the whole of Scotland, at the western edge of my constituency at Kincardine on its border with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
My constituency's history is fascinating. This year, we are celebrating the 400th anniversary of Culross as a royal burgh. Next year we will mark the 900th anniversary of the death of Queen Margaret. I hope, too, that Dunfermline abbey will begin to be recognised as the Westminster abbey of Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The communities of the constituency have a long history of work and welcome. They include communities from Townhill to Torryburn, from Charlestown to Crossford, from Cairneyhill to Carnock, from Halbeath to Limekilns and Newmills. The constituency's communities

171
have a long defence tradition and we all owe a great deal to the people who live and work in Crombie, Pitreavie and Rosyth.
I am aware that this debate concerns the spring Adjournment. I should like to tell the House of all my concerns, but that would take days, rather than the few minutes left to me, so I have decided to use that time to raise just one issue—low pay.
George Bernard Shaw said, "Very few people can afford to be poor." I should like to think that that comment was history; it is not. The lowest-paid male manual workers earn less, relative to the average, than they did more than 100 years ago, in 1886. An unemployed married man with four children in Dunfermline was offered a job for 36 hours a week as a radio taxi controller for a wage of £54 a week. It would be comforting to think that that man was an exception; he was not. It would be comforting to think that low pay was confined to parts of Dunfermline; it is not. It would be comforting to think that it was confined to parts of Fife; it is not. There are 900,000 low-paid workers—one in three—in Scotland—and more than 10.4 million in the United Kingdom.
The Government have led the attack against Labour's call for a minimum wage of £3.40 an hour and the protection of wages councils. Will someone explain to me, and to the millions of low-paid workers, why the Government consider it immoral to pay a man or a woman £3.40 for an hour of work, yet moral to charge sick people—many of them on low pay and benefits—£3.75 for half a dozen pills on a prescription?
The Government have claimed that the introduction of a minimum wage would lead to unemployment. Given the extent of low pay, we should have full employment now. Instead, the latest statistics show an official figure of 2,695,300 unemployed, and the unofficial figure is much higher. Scotland is one of the parts of the country that have been hardest and longest hit by unemployment. Fife has the second highest unemployment rate in Scotland, with one in eight people out of work, and in parts of my constituency—central Dunfermline, for example—there is already an unemployment rate of 21.4 per cent.
The Government have said that they are keen on saving public expenditure. If that is the case, they should promote jobs with decent pay. If they did that, the people of Abbeyview in Dunfermline, 60 per cent. of whom depend on benefits, could instead earn a decent wage and contribute towards national insurance and tax. If the Government do not change their policy on poverty wages, that policy will add to the millions who already live on poverty pensions.
If the Government are keen to save on public expenditure, they should ditch the privatisation of the coal industry and the further attacks on local government and the health service. Privatisation will only add to unemployment, increase benefit demands and waste billions more of public money.
If the Government introduced a minimum wage, they could save public expenditure and increase income to the Exchequer. A minimum wage would bring in between £1.3 billion to £1.5 billion a year through tax and national insurance and fewer benefits. Minimum pay would also increase industrial efficiency and effectiveness. That is why 10 of our 12 European competitors have some form of
172
minimum wage protection. The evidence that economic efficiency would be promoted by minimum pay has been provided by organisations such as the Contractors, Cleaning and Maintenance Association and the Electrical Contractors Association. I urge the Government to cease immediately any plans to abolish wages councils completely where the highest basic pay rate is a mere £3.08 an hour. Instead, the Government should assist employers to invest in equality and efficiency.
In conclusion, I want to quote Winston Churchill. He said that without the protection of minimum wages
"the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst."
It is my hope and intention to work towards making that quote relevant only to the past—not to the present or the future.
5.11 pm
Mr. Michael Stephen: As is customary for those who have the honour of addressing the House for the first time, I wish to begin by referring to my constituency and to my predecessor. I am proud to represent Shoreham, which lies between the south downs and the sea in the county of West Sussex. We have a small port and an airport in Shoreham. In times gone by, we built wooden ships for the Royal Navy and for the merchant and fishing fleets. There was a time when Shoreham relied for its livelihood on shipbuilding contracts procured by its Members of Parliament. However, its Member of Parliament today has many tasks, but none is more important than to safeguard and promote the interests of local industry and commerce upon which the livelihoods of so many of my constituents depend.
Shoreham and Lancing are at the heart of the British simulator industry. Men and women of the most amazing technical skill and inventive genius build simulators to train the crews of aircraft and tanks. We also have a company that is equally extraordinary and at the leading edge of technology in the automotive engine industry. It designs engines for motor vehicles throughout the world. We also have a company that builds hi-tech operating tables and other extremely sophisticated equipment for the world's hospitals.
We have a famous public school at Lancing. At Findon we have a racing stables where Grand National winners have been trained. In the places that I have already mentioned and in Southwick, Sompting, Ferring, East Preston, and Rustington, there are pleasant residential areas to which people from all over the country come to spend their retirement years. Pensions are important for me. I have already joined the all-party pensions group and I have become a founder member of the group of 70 hon. Members who are pledged to fight for the Maxwell pensioners.
One of my predecessors as hon. Member for Shoreham was the father of the poet Shelley. However, my immediate predecessor was the right hon. Sir Richard Luce. He was a distinguished Member of this House for 21 years and he was well liked and respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He served his country well as a Foreign Office Minister and as Minister for the Arts. He is now vice-chancellor of Buckingham university and I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing him every success in that new appointment.
On policy matters, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on our policy towards Europe.

173
Britain should play a positive role in shaping the future of our continent. We should be good Europeans, but that does not mean simply saying yes to what the others want to do. I believe in co-operation, not federation.
The Government will also receive my support for returning the nationalised industries to the private sector. The private sector should do that which is best clone in the private sector. I welcome the citizens charter because it is vital in any organisation, whether public or private, that the people who work in it know what is expected of them and that the people whom it serves know what they have a right to expect. In short, I believe that the citizens charter is the mission statement for the public service.
I would like to raise many issues in relation to the environment, but I shall refer to only one today. It is water. We all now know that water is a precious natural resource, and I would like to see the building regulations amended so that all new buildings are equipped with the means of collecting and storing rain water.
Many people in my constituency fought in the second world war, and many others lost their loved ones in that dreadful conflict. We must all be grateful that the cold war has ended, but we still live in a dangerous and unstable world. We must remember the lessons of the 1930s. Countries are attacked because they are too weak, not because they are too strong.
I had the honour to serve Her Majesty in The Life Guards. I regret the need to amalgamate some of our famous regiments, and I respectfully ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to reconsider the manning levels required for the Army. However, I welcome the Government's commitment to provide our soldiers, sailors and airmen with the very best equipment that modern technology can provide.
I also practised as a barrister for 14 years and I therefore have a particular interest in law and order. In 1987 I wrote a pamphlet urging the Government to ask Parliament to confer on the Court of Appeal the power to increase over-lenient sentences, and I was very pleased when that power was provided by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. As we have seen in recent cases, that does not always mean that a sentence will be increased, but it does mean that a higher court now has the opportunity to reconsider the matter.
I believe that automatic remission of sentences should be abolished, because it is a fraud on the public. If a judge sentences a man to six years imprisonment, our constituents have a right to expect him to be behind bars for six years. I know that judges take remission into account when fixing sentences, but sentences should mean what they say. If judges wish to pass shorter sentences, let them do so and let them see what the public think about it.
I am aware of the need to maintain discipline in prisons, but our constituents do not receive reductions in their income tax for good behaviour. Good behaviour is to be expected in this country, both inside and outside prison, and those who behave badly in prisons should have their sentences increased.
I am not against parole, as opposed to remission, and prisoners should be entitled to earn reduction of sentence. Many people are in prison today because the education system failed them, and more thought and more resources need to be devoted to remedial education in prison. Far too much of the time that prisoners spend in custody is completely and utterly wasted, and it needs to be put to better use.
174
Another matter relating to law and order is pornography. The law should be tightened up in relation to printed matter, films, television and the increasing use of the telephone system for pornographic purposes.
In Britain today, unemployment gives us all cause for concern. I will not say when the recession will end, because, as Groucho Marx once said, "It is dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future." However, I do know that the recession is temporary. Many people in our constituencies risk losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgages. If they are on income support, they get their mortgage interest paid, but if they are on family credit, they do not. I have urged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to consider paying mortgage interest to people on family credit. That would be expensive, but when the taxpayer is helping a person to maintain and preserve a capital asset, I see no reason why the taxpayer should not get his money back when the recession ends and the property eventually is sold. For that purpose I suggest a legal charge upon the property.
The great majority of my constituents are Christian people. They believe that religious education in our schools should be predominantly of the Christian faith. They believe also, as I do, that everything that the Government do should be guided by Christian principles. Those principle are shared by the other great religions represented in our country today. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will never forget those principles, and I wish him every success in the years to come.
5.21 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). I am sure that he will make an able representative of his constituency. He and I have in common an interest in law and order, although I suspect they are slightly different aspects. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the tradition to a great extent and get carried away with a eulogy, because I do not want any thunderbolts to come down from heaven and consume me in the next 10 minutes. As it happens, before the recess we should spend a little time discussing an aspect of law and order which I should like to think would be of interest to the hon. Member for Shoreham, but I am prepared for the possibility that it is not.
Two years ago, after a statement by the Home Secretary the day after four innocent people had their convictions quashed for the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, the right hon. Gentleman set up a judicial inquiry under Judge Sir John May, a very distinguished judge, to consider not only those convictions but the seven other convictions that related to the Guildford and Woolwich case—those of Mrs. Maguire and her family, which have also been quashed. That inquiry seemed at the time to be urgent and there was an awful lot of curiosity about how it came to pass that those people were ever convicted of those offences. Two years and eight months have passed since that inquiry was set up, and it seems to have ground to a halt.
I cannot say that I am all that surprised. The history of judicial inquiries is not a happy one. Judicial inquiries into miscarriages of justice normally end by re-convicting those who have just had their convictions quashed. It became

175
clear early on that Sir John May was not willing to be party to a whitewash and that he was conducting a rigorous inquiry. From that moment on, it also became clear that Sir John May would never be permitted to report. The years have ticked by and there is no sign of a report. I understand, although I have not spoken to him, that Sir John is considerably frustrated about the situation.
The reasons why I have never believed that he would be permitted to report are not all that difficult to work out. The Guildford case is distinguished from the other big celebrated miscarriages of justice in that all those concerned—it is possible to demonstrate it and I attempted to demonstrate it in my evidence to Sir John May's inquiry—must have known that they had got the wrong people. They chose not to face up to that for fear, perhaps, of the consequences for their own careers or for fear that the roof of the legal system might fall in. It is quite easy to demonstrate that. We have only to look at the cast of characters involved to see why there will be no report from Sir John May.
The judge was Lord Donaldson, now Master of the Rolls—the judge, I believe, in both the Guildford and Woolwich trial and the Maguire case that followed. The senior policemen involved—many police officers were involved—were Sir Peter Imbert, now the Metropolitan Commissioner, Commander Bill Hucklesby, who became very senior in the Metropolitan police before he retired, and Commander Jim Nevill, who was also extremely senior in the Metropolitan police. They helped to capture the IRA unit called the Balcombe street. There was a big siege at Balcombe street, which many people will recall —it lasted a week.
From that moment on, it must have been obvious—indeed, it was obvious—that those were people who carried out the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings. They were prepared to confess to it. They were able to describe it in enormous detail—such great detail that it was not possible to pretend that they had not been involved. The script had to be rewritten, and it was rewritten on a fairly spectacular scale. The problem was that the Balcombe street people insisted on owning up. When they came to trial, they all got up in court and said that as members of the Provisional IRA they would not normally recognise a British court, but on this occasion, since innocent people had been convicted for offences for which they were responsible, they proposed to plead not guilty to the enormous list of charges in front of them, and invite their barristers to participate in the proceedings only in so far as it would draw out the enormous amount of fraud and perjury that had been committed.
As a result of that dramatic new evidence, the Guildford and Woolwich defendants were entitled to a retrial. That posed a very serious problem for the authorities because there was a serious danger that the truth would emerge. Had they owned up at that stage, we could have said, "Oh well, it was a mistake," and perhaps it was up to that point, although I do not necessarily accept that either. But that is not what happened. A little-known 17th century procedure was revived whereby the Court of Appeal could sit also as the court of first instance, thereby knocking out the appeal to which those innocent people were entitled and the retrial to which they were entitled, at
176
a single go in the absence of a jury.
That is an important point, because the Royal Commission on criminal justice is coming under a lot of pressure to blame it all on the juries. If it has succumbed to that pressure, it has been had. I will say only that. At every crucial stage in all such big cases steps have been taken to make sure that no jury is around. One cannot blame the jury. In this case, Lord Roskill, Lord Lawton, a former British Union of Fascists candidate for Hammersmith, and Mr. Justice Boreham presided. Even on the most generous interpretation, it is very hard to believe that they could not see what was going on and that the script was being rewritten from top to bottom.
Besides the distinguished people I have mentioned—Sir Peter Imbert, Commander Hucklesby, Commander Nevill, Lord Roskill, Lord Lawton, and Lord Donaldson —the Crown in all those cases was represented by the late Lord Havers, subsequently the Lord Chancellor. Now that we see the cast of characters involved it becomes clear, does it not, why we are never going to hear from Sir John May's inquiry? I have never believed that we would, and I now see reports saying that we are not going to. A decision has not yet been made, but it is about to be made. No doubt that will be when we are in recess. Perhaps it will take the form of a planted written answer to a tame member of the governing party.
I was invited, along with some other people, to submit evidence to Sir John May's inquiry. I did so and attempted to point out in words of one syllable where I thought that the responsibilities lay. I invited him to draw the appropriate conclusions.
When the royal commission was set up, after the release a year or two later of the Birmingham Six, to inquire into the criminal justice system in general, all those of us who had submitted evidence received a letter from the inquiry asking whether we would mind if our evidence was transferred to the royal commission—and no doubt subsumed into the enormous amount of evidence that it would receive. I wrote back and said no, I did not wish my evidence to be transferred. My evidence was specific to the Guildford and Woolwich inquiry. I wished it to go before Sir John May. I have heard nothing since that time. I knew from that moment on that the inquiry was doomed.
My purpose in raising this matter is to make only one point. When each of the great miscarriages of justice has occurred, the Home Secretary and occasionally the Attorney-General or someone else comes before the House and makes a statement. They say that everyone is upset about it, they hope that it will not happen again and they are determined to learn a few lessons from the case. I just hope that, if Sir John May's inquiry is to be abandoned —and it is—the Home Secretary will have the courage to come to the House and explain why it is to be abandoned. I hope that he will submit himself to questioning by the House and that we shall not one day find in Hansard some planted written answer telling us that it is all over.
5.30 pm
Mr. John Greenway: First, may I welcome you to your post, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is good to have two Yorkshire folk in the Chair in this new Parliament. I

177
also congratulate the hon. Members who have made maiden speeches in today's debate. I can scarcely believe that five years ago I stood here in fear and trepidation doing much the same thing. It is clear from the quality of what we heard tonight that the new Members elected to Parliament in this latest election will grace our debates and will certainly be great ambassadors for the constituents whom they represent.
In my judgment, the House should not adjourn for the spring recess until it has considered and taken stock of the widespread opposition throughout North Yorkshire to the plans of the National Grid Company to construct a new overhead powerline from Teesside to Shipton in the Vale of York. It would go right through the Vale of York, running some 60 miles. The proposal is the subject of a public inquiry which began today in Northallerton. That inquiry is expected to last at least two months—a clear indication of both the serious nature of the proposal and the strength of opposition to it.
The proposed power line would pass through the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) and for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who raised the issue in debate last April. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) have also received many representations on the matter. All my hon. Friends whom I have mentioned wish to be associated with my remarks this evening.
It is the first time for almost a quarter of a century that a major extension to the national grid has been sought. The application arises out of the decision to construct a new gas-powered electricity generating station at the ICI complex at Wilton on Teesside. Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends have any objection to that splendid project in isolation, but we believe that there has been a clear failure of the planning procedures laid down in the Electricity Act 1989. It is a matter of great importance to the House that an amendment to those provisions be considered as a matter of urgency.
It has been well established that, when permission was granted for the Teesside project, no consideration was given to the potential consequences for the national grid. None of the local authorities—in my constituency, North Yorkshire county council and Hambleton district council —none of the parish councils or residents and landowners who would be affected by the consequent power line were consulted about the power project application. Yet residents and landowners are told that the new power line is essential to transmit the electricity generated by the Teesside plant into the national grid.
Without question, those affected by the proposed new power line should have been consulted before the power station was approved because the power line has clear environmental impact. That impact should have been a relevant consideration in granting the power station consent.
Mr. William Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that in any case the National Grid Company has yet to demonstrate that there is a compelling and clear need to construct the lines, which makes the environmental cost of their construction even harder for local residents to bear?
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend has anticipated the very point that I was coming to. It is indeed the view of North
178
Yorkshire county council that the National Grid Company has not demonstrated the need for the proposed power line, and that existing transmission lines are adequate for the current level of electricity which it is obliged to transmit through North Yorkshire, including the power generated by the Teesside plant. However, there is a strongly held belief that further gas-fired generating stations are planned and that the proposed new power line is largely anticipatory of the likely requirements for transmission capacity in future.
The proposed power line should be a matter of grave concern to all right hon. and hon. Members for reasons that I shall explain in a moment. Privatisation of the electricity industry has brought many welcome benefits to both industry and domestic consumers and has introduced much-needed competition into power generation. The potential growth of cheaper and more cleanly generated capacity will bring environmental benefits in terms of reduced emissions. Those benefits are most welcome, but they should not be at the expense of the environmental impact of transmitting the new capacity through the national grid.
I make three points. First, this is the first major extension of the national grid for more than 20 years. What happens now will be a precedent for potential similar applications to extend the national grid in the years ahead. Secondly, as a result of the former point, the Electricity Act 1989 should be amended to require new generators, electricity boards and the National Grid Company to assess the implications for the national grid of any new power plants before permission is granted.
Thirdly, although in the past 20 years there have been many welcome advances in the technology of electricity generation—indeed, the Teesside project is one of the most advanced in Europe, if not the world—it appears that little if any advance in the technology of transmission has occurred in that time. We still have the same 150-ft-high pylons every 400 yd right across the country, of which there are already far too many in both my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
I am sure that many hon. Members often pass through North Yorkshire on holiday or en route to other destinations and will have observed the number of pylons there. They are a blot on the landscape. Their environmental impact is immense for the many people who live in their shadow. The National Grid Company claims that it can blend the pylons into the contours of the landscape. I fail to see how that can be achieved in the flat, open landscape of the Vale of York, especially at the southern end of the proposed line in my constituency.
I have never known such outrage, anger, resentment and despair as has been aroused by the proposed power line. The healthy increased majorities enjoyed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks and myself, as well as the return of the Langbaurgh constituency into Conservative hands at the general election demonstrates that the proposal is not seen as a party issue. Nor is it seen as a quarrel with the Government. My constituents see it as an issue of moral justice. They will gain nothing from the proposal, but they will lose a great deal if the proposal goes ahead.
Would my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House convey those concerns to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in his new post, with his new responsibility for energy? Many of my constituents

179
now look to him to reject the National Grid Company's plans to review the provisions of the Electricity Act 1989, and to press the company to give the highest priority to the research and development of less environmentally damaging methods of electricity transmission.
Until then, the National Grid Company's obligations to link any new generating capacity into the national grid should be ended, unless it can be shown that there will not be the sort of environmental damage that is likely to result in north Yorkshire.
I can think of no more important matter affecting my constituents on which to make my first speech in this new Parliament. However, this is not a NIMBY issue. It is not a local protest but a matter of the gravest national concern. Unless the provisions of the Electricity Act 1989 are amended, the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members will face the same sort of proposal very soon.
5.40 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate other new Members of Parliament who have gone through the nerve-racking process of making their maiden speeches and have acquitted themselves so well.
As a member, just, of the West Midlands police authority—a singularly ineffective body, for which I take no responsibility—I would like to use this opportunity to comment on the announcement by the Director of Public Prosecutions that there are to be no prosecutions as a result of the West Yorkshire police inquiry into the operation of the West Midlands serious crime squad.
Before I do so, I understand that it is traditional to pay tribute to one's predecessors and I do so willingly. I first became active in the Labour party just before Tom Litterick, the only former Labour Member for Selly Oak, was elected in 1974. Like my immediate predecessor, Tom Litterick was renowned for not always supporting the Government line. Unfortunately, I think that I am the first Member of Parliament for Selly Oak whose party is in opposition, and I shall not be faced with such difficult decisions.
Tom Litterick was one of the first to speak out in support of Mrs. Maguire and the other people whom we now know were the subject of miscarriages of justice. He did so at a time when that was very unpopular. I am proud of Tom Litterick's record for speaking out. I know that he would have been as concerned as I am about today's announcement.
Anthony Beaumont-Dark also had a reputation for being something of a rebel. Who am I to disagree with him about the poll tax? He has said that at times he was even paired with a Member from his own party. Hon. Members may be interested to hear that Mr. Beaumont-Dark recently confessed that there had been occasions when he was glad that he was not in the majority on a certain issue.
Anthony Beaumont-Dark had voted to restore capital punishment. During the election campaign, he told a public meeting how relieved he was that other hon. Members had not agreed with him and had voted consistently against bringing back the death penalty. In making that change of heart, I think that his mind was on the evidence of miscarriages of justice that has emerged in the past few years. The case of the Birmingham Six is
180
especially relevant to the area that I represent. I am pleased that Mr. Beaumont-Dark has recognised that we should never restore capital punishment.
The West Yorkshire police inquiry was mostly concerned with events which have taken place more recently. However, I am worried that two officers involved in the interrogation of the Birmingham Six were still in the serious crime squad when it was disbanded in 1989.
Early cases, such as that of the Birmingham Six and of Keith Twitchell—who, after six months, is still awaiting the result of his petition to the Home Secretary—took place before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That Act, which was supposed to put right some of the previous problems with police operations, has been routinely ignored by the serious crime squad, who continued to behave arrogantly and ruthlessly. At least 20 cases have gone to court, and to the Court of Appeal, where there has been evidence—most noteworthy is the ESDA evidence—to show that confessions and forensic evidence have been fabricated.
The police have not dealt with the use of supergrasses in the way that one would expect, and plenty of the evidence in court has given us cause for concern. Today we have heard the outcome of the inquiry into those cases.
When the Police Complaints Authority summary was sent to the West Midlands police authority, it expressed concern about a report in 1985 by Commander Hay of the Metropolitan police, which made various recommendations. The most noteworthy recommendation was that officers should not spend more than two years, or a short time, in squads such as the serious crime squad. Those recommendations were completely ignored.
I have been trying to get to the bottom of the matter and to find out who saw the recommendations and why they were not acted upon. I have written to Geoffrey Dear, the chief constable at the time. He denies seeing the report, even though the Police Complaints Authority stated that several chief officers within the West Midlands police saw it. I then wrote to Les Sharpe, his deputy at the time, who is now chief constable in Strathclyde.
He could not help me, and it is still impossible to find out who saw the report, why it was not acted upon, why officers involved with the Birmingham Six case were still serving in the serious crime squad in 1989, and why so many of them had served for more than five years in the squad and had created a culture in the squad which has resulted in many people in the west midlands being deeply troubled by the operation of their police service.
We need to be concerned not merely about members of the serious crime squad but about the management structure of the West Midlands police and the way in which the culture of the serious crime squad was allowed to continue.
It is to be regretted that the inquiry has taken two years and nine months to come to its conclusions. Although the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave assurances last December to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that there would be absolutely no cover-up in the investigation into the serious crime squad, the public in my constituency and in the west midlands, who want absolute confidence in their police force, will be deeply troubled by today's new announcement.
The chief superintendent in charge of the West Midlands police division that covers my constituency had direct line management for the serious crime squad. I am

181
concerned that the role of those police officers will not come to light and that we shall not find out who was responsible for the fabrications and the activities which have led to such public concern.
My constituents want a police force that they can trust and the House should not adjourn until the matter has been discussed adequately.
5.49 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I follow in the footsteps of the new hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Ms. Jones) and congratulate her on a fluent maiden speech, in which she expressed very positive views. I am sure that the House will hear from her on many future occasions. I was pleased that the hon. Lady conformed to tradition, at least at the beginning of her speech, by paying tribute to her predecessor, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark. However, I was a little saddened that she did not continue with the tradition that the House has kept for some years, that a maiden speech should not cover matters that are controversial. However, the hon. Lady is of her own mind, and no doubt we shall hear a lot more from her in the future. I congratulate her and all the other hon. Members who have made maiden speeches today.
I am glad to have the chance to speak in this brief debate and raise an issue which affects my constituency. The subject was touched upon earlier in a powerful maiden speech from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne). I relates to the decisions and funding requirements of regional and district health authorities as they affect two of the most vulnerable sectors of the community—the elderly and the mentally and physically handicapped. Such decisions are crucial to the provision of community and residential care for the mentally and physically handicapped.
In the previous Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) served as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health. He said:
"As a result of the policies of community care pursued by successive Governments, too many patients are being discharged too soon, for the wrong reasons, and without adequate support into communities which are unwilling, or unable to accept them."
I agree with that.
The announcement made on Thursday of last week by Crewe health authority that Cranage Hall hospital is to be closed in March 1995 falls into that category of closure, although the health authority added the rider that the decision will be subject to available resources being in place. Although some mentally and physically handicapped people belong in the community, when the necessary support structures are in place, individuals remain who, for whatever reason, require the security and stability of long-term hospitals—hospitals, which, in many cases, have been their homes for many years or decades. Those people cannot be expected to leave them without being caused considerable distress.
There are 255 residents in Cranage Hall hospital, and they are described by the health authority, with a glib attempt at semantic subversion, as "individuals with learning difficulties". Such a categorisation serves simply to distract attention from the real medical and social needs of many severely handicapped patients. In Cranage Hall hospital, there is a hard core of severely mentally and
182
physically handicapped people. I have argued for the retention of a facility for them on that site since I was first elected to Parliament nine years ago.
I must put on record my appreciation of the efforts of Mr. Richard Jackson of RESCARE, who has done so much to represent the best interests of patients, and of Mr. Derek Stubbs, the present chairman of the Cranage Hall parents and residents welfare society, who has also played a key role. I have worked closely with those two groups to further their proposed alternative concept for the future of the site—a future which involves the creation of a village community, with full medical and social support for those patients who require an institutional or semi-institutional setting and who quite simply could not survive the harsh realities of life beyond its boundaries.
The regional and district health authorities, in their wisdom, have totally rejected a plan by the Bradford and Northern housing association, which is a non-profit-making body. It envisaged a brand-new facility on part of the Cranage Hall site, which would have been funded by the sale and development of the rest of the buildings and grounds. The plan provided hotel and leisure facilities, and housing of different categories for the local community. It was an imaginative plan that deserved consideration, but sadly it did not receive it. One had hoped that the plan would have had some appeal because it would have transferred the patients—and the costs of treating them—from the health service budget. They would have become tenants of the Bradford and Northern housing association.
The number of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people in our prisons, and sleeping rough on the streets, not just of our capital city but throughout our country, is a testament to the failure of the speed at which the policy of community care is being implemented. However, there have been successes in community care where committed and experienced staff have established close inter-agency links, and have been given adequate funding and resources. They have made a real go of things. I have visited such facilities and have been much impressed by what I have seen. None the less, the costs of running them are extremely high. Community care can only work if it is given adequate funding and has a high priority on the agenda of those authorities responsible for health, social and community services provision.
I must admit that I am appalled by the discourtesy of the chairman and chief executive of Crewe health authority in not informing me, as the local Member of Parliament, of the decision until after the public announcement of the closure had been made. It is not acceptable that hon. Members who have been actively involved in an issue of such importance which directly affects their constituency should be left to hear of such a decision through a telephone call from a local radio station which had already been given a full statement—albeit a statement which misled the media and the public about the practical effect of the proposals and the type of patients involved.
An added dimension to the decision to "fast-track" the closure of Cranage hall hospital is the problem of capital resources and how that will impact upon the care of the elderly who also live within the Crewe health authority. Three years ago, the health authority's elderly bed strategy went to consultation. It proposed that both Barony and Arclid hospitals would close in September 1993 and that new homes for elderly persons would be built, one of

183
which would be located in Sandbach to cover my constituents' needs. The acute and rehabilitation service would be relocated at Leighton hospital in two or three brand-new wards. In the meantime, following on from the health service reforms, Leighton became the mid-Cheshire trust hospital and separate from the health authority.
The bid by Sainsbury's for the site at Barony hospital was accepted by the health authority; a contract was signed between the two parties, and an agreement was reached to clear the site in a set period, because the supermarket was to be built and opened by the end of 1993. It was intended and understood that health authority money would build new acute rehabilitation wards at Leighton hospital and that the trust would run them. The capital cost of the building would go via the region to the trust as an external financing limit allocation. The trust has a satisfactory capital plan—although it is not perfect—and it has much to renew in the way of equipment, some of which is many years old.
It is my understanding that the region is now saying that the district health authority cannot have the so-called Sainsbury's money, and that the trust must build the needed acute and rehabilitation beds at a cost of £2 million out of its present external financing limit. At the moment, the region is not committed to the building of those wards, but building must start in September of this year, for occupation in September of 1993. Therefore, contracts will have to be entered into without certain knowledge of where the huge capital sum is to come from.
The region cannot continue to step back from the problem. The real fear is that it is planning to rob Peter to pay Paul by using the proceeds of the sale of Barony hospital to Sainsburys to fast-track the closure of Cranage Hall hospital for the mentally handicapped. The Mid-Cheshire hospital trust at Leighton would be left in some financial uncertainty unless a clear commitment were given by the region now, as a matter of urgency, that the £2 million extra capital funding for the acute geriatric and rehabilitation beds will be forthcoming, as was previously understood to be the case by all the parties concerned.
I appreciate that I have dealt with detailed matters, but they are vital to my constituents. I call on the regional health authority and Crewe health authority to come clean with the people of my constituency, to tell them what the plans are and from where the money will come. Having done that, they should announce that the fast-track closure of Cranage Hall hospital will be put back by at least a decade, during which time other valid plans can be fully and properly researched.
6 pm
Mr. Richard Burden: I wish at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment and to add my voice to those who have congratulated other maiden speakers. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Ms. Jones). Many, especially on these Benches, appreciated her comments.
Three new seats were won in Birmingham by Labour at the general election. We had spent the previous two years being told that they were barometer seats. We gathered that whichever party won Northfield, Selly Oak and Yardley would go on to form the Government. It seems
184
that something went wrong with the barometer. I am convinced that in four or five years from now, we will be concerned not simply with so called barometer seats in Birmingham but with constituencies throughout the country, and that Labour will form the next Government.
Of course, one cannot be certain that there will not be any by-elections between now and then. I and my two colleagues from Birmingham—my hon. Friends the Members for Selly Oak and for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris)—have been allocated offices across the adjoining main road. We are worrying already about the problems that we might face as we cross the road together, perhaps coming to vote in a Division.
It is customary in a maiden speech to speak of one's predecessor. In Northfield, I succeed Roger King, who represented the constituency for nine years. He thrived on the reputation of being the motor industry Member. One of his claims to fame was to have won the first House of Commons versus House of Lords motor race. I think that if he wanted to be remembered for anything—he referred to the subject even in his own maiden speech—it was his campaign against the special car tax. No one could mistake the delight on his face when finally that tax was reduced by half in the last Budget. His only regret must have been that it was the party that he supported that introduced the special car tax in the first place in the 1970s. The recent reduction is welcomed by many of us on the Labour Benches. I add my congratulations to Roger King on his new appointment. He is not leaving the motor industry, for he has been appointed director of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
Northfield is synonymous with the motor industry. It lies to the south-west of Birmingham and contains the giant Longbridge car plant. Many of my constituents work there or in the associated component supply industry. The work force at Longbridge has contributed to the success of Rover in recent years, yet the car industry, like manufacturing as a whole, which is so vital to the Midlands, has been hit hard by the recession. Sales of new cars were down by 20 per cent. in the last year alone.
Those points are not simply of academic significance. Northfield's unemployment rate increased by 36 per cent. in the last year, but that bald figure hides a story of human misery and deprivation. The problems of poverty in Birmingham's inner city are reasonably well known. Though faltering and incomplete, some resources have been put into such areas and are beginning to tackle the problems of poverty in the inner cities. Far more invisible is the issue of outer ring poverty, in particular the poverty on our outer ring estates.
I might mention the estates at Bartley green, Weoley, Longbridge and Northfield itself. There are pockets of unemployment in those areas of between 70 and 80 per cent. They contain a high proportion of older people with a high dependency on benefits. There are also growing numbers of lone parents. In addition, startling poverty and deprivation results from the spiralling problem of debt which affects many of our constituents.
It is ironic to realise that a standard indicator of deprivation is lack of access to a motor car. A report by the director of public health in south Birmingham revealed that the area with the lowest access by families to a motor car was the ward of Longbridge. They make motor cars there, but they cannot afford to own them.
Where there is poverty, ill health soon follows. In south Birmingham, the area that I represent, along with my hon.

185
Friends who represent Selly Oak and Yardley, one clearly sees the problem of ill health. There is a high proportion of low-birthweight babies and stress-related illness is common, with people having a high dependence on tranquillisers.
If the Government are serious about tackling the problems of ill health in society, they must begin seriously to tackle the problems of poverty, bad housing and environmental deprivation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire) that it also means tackling the scourge of poverty pay. Unless and until we tackle the problem of poverty in our outer ring estates, we shall have increasing problems with racism. We must reject any attempt to stir up resentment against people who live in the outer ring or inner ring. We shall not achieve anything until we address the problem of poverty in the outer ring and empower the people who live there to contribute to their own destinies.
An example in my constituency is the possible development of about 200 acres of land currently occupied by the psychiatric hospitals on what is called the Rubery and Hollymoor hospital site. It is due to be closed and redeveloped. That raises large issues about the kind of care in the community that will follow. If that land is redeveloped—it is being sold off by the regional health authority, to he developed, we understand, by a firm called Charters, which has had an involvement in Docklands—there must be choices about the type of development that will take place.
Will that development provide offices but few jobs for local people and will it provide housing that local people cannont afford? In other words, will commercial considerations be paramount, and will the local community merely be consulted and the real decisions be taken elsewhere? There is an alternative to that. Real jobs could be provided in that development, along with the necessary training. Housing could be provided in a way that is affordable for local people. It could also be constructed to protect the environment. In other words, the local community should be partners in the whole process and be given a say in the decision making.
As their representative in this place, I know which choice I shall make. It will be for the regional health authority and the developers to choose, but I shall be returning to the whole issue time and again, because the whole community deserves no less.
For the Government, there is the challenge of deciding whether they are prepared to face up to the problems of poverty and deprivation on our outer ring estates. Are they prepared to devote the necessary resources to improve housing conditions, protect the environment, provide adequate levels of benefit and abolish low pay?
Much has been said recently about citizens charters and the rights of citizenship. Those rights will mean little if they are not accompanied by the right to have decent living standards and to live in a pollution-free environment—in other words, to have a decent home. I, and my hon. Friends from Selly Oak and Yardley, will be bringing that issue before the House time and again because it greatly concerns the people we represent.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to address the House.
6.9 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am honoured to have been elected to represent the Vale of Glamorgan and should like to thank the 24,220 people who voted for me, particularly the 19 people who wavered most before putting a cross next to my name.
I am honoured because I follow in the footsteps of Sir Raymond Gower, one of the most distinguished Back Benchers. He acquired a reputation as the most prolific letter writer in the House. He also had a reputation for turning up on people's doorsteps at the most unexpected moment. It is said, no doubt anecdotally, that many of his constituents would hear a light tap on the door and would arrive at the door just in time to see him disappearing down the path. However, he was an assiduous Member of Parliament. He represented the Vale of Glamorgan—previously the old seat of Barry—for 38 years.
Sir Raymond's death in 1989 led to the famous by-election victory of my immediate predecessor, Mr. John P. Smith, who won by 6,000 votes. I pay tribute to John Smith for his extremely hard work as MP for the Vale of Glamorgan. He established himself as a popular Member of Parliament and very nearly pulled off the virtually impossible task of holding on to a seat won by Labour from the Conservatives in a by-election.
The Vale of Glamorgan is a beautiful constituency. If anyone is considering taking a holiday within the United Kingdom, I recommend it. It has about 20 miles of coastline and some attractive inlying areas, and so far, the countryside is relatively unspoiled. We have also benefited from the highest level of inward investment of any constituency in Wales, so there is much prosperity in the vale. One sad thing blights that picture: the breakdown of law and order, which has been widely experienced by my constituents.
My solicitor's office, which lies in the heart of Barry, was burgled five times in a few months, and I decided to conduct a survey on what was happening elsewhere in Holton road, which is the second largest shopping street in south Wales. The results of my survey made grim reading. One retail business has been burgled more than 200 times in two years. That reflects a national problem: last year, 5.3 million crimes were reported in Britain.
Before adjourning the House, we need to send strong messages to certain people. I welcome the announcement of a victims charter, but it does not go far enough. The main message that must go forth from this House is that we care far more about the interests of victims than those of villains. We need to send a message to the police, criminals, the motor industry, the courts, solicitors, victims and the public.
The message to the police should be that we support them in their tremendous endeavours to protect us. In return, we look for increased efficiency from them. We need to back up the police. If a police officer is assaulted in the course of his duty, we need to be able to rely on the courts to hand out tough penalties to his assailants. If a police officer or member of the armed forces is murdered in the course of his duty, the death penalty should be reintroduced. On the whole, the police force are marvellous but, as in any profession, there are a few rotten apples. Where those rotten apples cause miscarriages of justice through tampering with evidence, the courts should fall on them like a ton of bricks, and long prison sentences should be imposed.

187
The main message for criminals must be that crime does not pay. Offenders who reoffend while on bail should know that they will be automatically remanded in custody and not given a chance to commit further offences. They should also know that, if they commit a string of offences and are eventually brought to justice, they cannot expect a string of concurrent sentences. The more offences they commit, the heavier should be the punishment. They should be made aware that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, they must pay full compensation to the victims of their crimes.
Our message to the courts should be that they should order full compensation, fines and prosecution costs. It is a disgrace that the Barry magistrates court does not normally award prosecution costs against defendants. When I put that to clerks of the court, I was advised that it was difficult to get blood out of a stone—most of the criminals are unemployed. If people are unable or unwilling to pay the orders made by the court, they should be set to work in a new scheme analogous to community service. They should be paid for that work but the money they earn should go first to the victims of their crime, secondly to the court in payment of their financial penalties, and thirdly to the prosecution in payment of costs.
The House should also send a message to solicitors, and I call on the Lord Chancellor to review the operation of the courts. I understand the Lord Chancellor's reasoning in trying to control the ever-burgeoning costs of legal aid by introducing standard fees for criminal legal aid work in the magistrates courts. I declare an interest, having practised for many years as a solicitor in courts. The Lord Chancellor has failed to take account of one of the main reasons why the cost of legal aid has gone up.
With the increased number of defendants appearing in court, there is far more waiting time, for which solicitors get paid at an uneconomic rate. They need to be able to charge for that waiting time if their bills are to reflect the amount of time devoted to the cases in question. Although I do not object to fixed fees for legal aid, the legal profession should, in return, have a reform of the courts' system. Such a reform should get rid of unnecessary adjournments, which are not the fault of solicitors acting for defendants, and reduce waiting time—for example, by introducing a staggered listing system similar to that which already exists in county courts.
The next message is to the motor industry. I want the House to legislate to make the installation of deadlocks on motor cars compulsory at the manufacturing stage. No new car should be sold in this country today unless it is fitted with a satisfactory lock. We have already legislated to make seat belts compulsory: why should not deadlocks also become compulsory? That would save an enormous amount of money in insurance claims, and young people driving high-powered cars would no longer be penalised because their cars were more likely to be stolen. It would be much cheaper to install those locks at the manufacturing stage than to add them later as accessories.
The most important message is to the victims of crimes. They should be allowed to use force to protect their personal property, provided they give full notice to the malefactors of the risks that they run by proceeding with their criminal actions. It is no good victims relying on the
188
police. A report in the Financial Times today said that a police constable on the beat in London is likely to come within 100 yards of a burglary being carried out only every eight years. We cannot rely exclusively on the police, and must allow the victims to help themselves. I should also like victims to be invited to attend court so that they have the opportunity to make representations on compensation. Courts should make apologies to victims if full compensation is not granted, and explain why it has not been awarded.
The message from the House to the public should be that the House will not rest until the citizens of Barry and every other city, town and village are safe to go about their business in peace.
6.20 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment.
In rising to make my maiden speech I confess to feeling "ever so 'umble". I am aware of the great traditions of this, the mother of Parliaments. I cannot deny the contribution made by the Chamber to the history of the British Isles. The irony is that I stood for election to the Westminster Parliament to secure my release from it, and the return of my nation to the full nation status that is richly and rightly deserved.
Mine is a particular privilege and honour as I represent the constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, where I was born and bred. I have the pleasure of representing my people, among them family, friends and innumerable acquaintances. Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is a geographically large constituency, although it is sparsely populated. My constituents have traditionally been staunchly independent—a tradition that, thankfully, persists.
In 1974, my predecessor, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, was elected to represent the constituency—one of the first real breakthroughs for Plaid Cymru. He held the seat with distinction until his decision last year to resign and make another career move. He was well known in the House as possessing a supreme intellect, and his contributions to debates are legendary. He also set the scene for a debate on the proper place for Wales in the European scenario. A committed European, he typically foresaw the proposed integration of the states of the European Community well before others. Many of his early speeches of 10 or 12 years ago still find favour today.
We in Wales, particularly Plaid Cymru, have always been comfortable with the concept of further integration, while preserving one's identity to the full. As well as being committed to Europe, my predecessor worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and the people of Wales. He served on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and the Standing Committee that debated the Broadcasting Bill. He was a former president of Plaid Cymru and had a keen interest in regional and countryside policy, as well as cultural and educational policy. Last year he served on the Standing Committee on the Further and Higher Education Bill. He is a hard act to follow and I am mindful of the presssure.
I emanate from a professional stable once occupied by another Welsh wizard, Mr. David Lloyd George. I served my articles at the firm of Lloyd George and George, and

189
was articled to Lloyd George's nephew, Dr. William Lloyd George. My father knew Lloyd George—actually, he did not, but I thought that I would say so, anyway.
Welsh is the first language for the vast majority of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, a constituency of breathtaking scenic beauty, and an amalgam of rural hill farms, slate mining towns and villages, coastal holiday resorts and traditional county councils. There is a saying in Welsh, "Tra Mor, Tra Meirion". For those who do not speak the language of heaven, I shall paraphrase the saying: Meirionnydd will last as long as the sea lasts. That is a romantic concept, but one which could soon be evidenced by local government reorganisation.
Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has everything that one could ask for, including gold mines. It could be argued that the monarchy might be in difficulty were it not for the reserves of high-quality gold in the hills of my constituency. I have to be careful not to romanticise overmuch—a temptation when one is describing something that one dearly loves. However, we do have problems —problems which may threaten the very existence of my constituency. They include high unemployment and chronic youth unemployment. There is a housing crisis of staggering proportions and crises in agriculture brought about largely by the Government's laissez-faire attitude to the common agricultural policy reform proposals. Such an approach appears typical when one considers the depth of Euro-cynicism among Government ranks.
Nothing that I have heard in the Chamber gives me comfort or reassurance that the serious problems are being effectively addressed—in fact, the contrary is true. Urgent initiatives must be taken if we are to combat the chronic youth unemployment. Is it not possible to re-evaluate the youth training schemes to make them more attractive to the young and to prospective employers? Would it not be possible to set a mandatory longer term for employment to qualify for the scheme?
We must try to regenerate the economy of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, particularly as the Trawsfynydd power station is soon to be decommissioned. During a recent visit to the European Community headquarters in Brussels, I canvassed the possibility of funding for the future in the event of the station's closure, and was staggered that the subject had not previously been discussed.
We need inward investment, and to ensure that, we need a transport infrastructure that will attract jobs and job creators to Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I referred to the crisis in housing. In the public sector, 1,100 people are on the local authority waiting lists. That figure is creeping upward daily. If there is to be a serious reorganisation of local government in Wales, it provides the opportunity to bring responsibility back to the local authorities, where it should be. The right-to-buy legislation had benefits for individuals, but wrought havoc on the public housing stock. The Government should be urged to fund Tai Cymru properly and so assist enthusiastic housing associations in their vital role. The problem is sufficiently acute to merit an attack on both fronts.
Planning legislation should be introduced in the private sector to minimise the detrimental socio-economic effect of second homes and the consequent harm to the constituency's intrinsic culture. It is well know that a small amendment to the Use Classes Order could readily address that problem. That would involve minimal legislation, but could have a major effect.
190
One family in five in my constituency depends either directly or indirectly on the agricultural industry. We must face the challenge posed by the CAP cuts head on, and we must cut the cloth to suit our needs. Only then can we be assured of a healthy and prosperous future for the constituency. It is no use sitting here and complaining: the answer is to take a full part in the European deliberations. The Secretary of State for Wales, as the Government Member responsible for agriculture in Wales, should have done so at an early date. I am hopeful that he will shoulder his responsibilities as he should and, even at the eleventh hour, take on the challenge for our communities.
On 11 May, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said that Plaid Cymru
"did incredibly well to win four seats in Wales",
although he confessed that he did not know what the message was. He also invited my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) to
"explain to the House where he thinks Wales is going."—[Official Report, 11 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 427.]
My hon. Friend is well able to answer any questions put to him, as he displayed in his masterly maiden speech, but I shall reply to the hon. Member for Christchurch.
Wales is on its way to self-government. The electorate of Wales will see Plaid Cymru as the only radical party in Welsh politics. They see Plaid Cymru as being in the main stream of European politics and they see in support for Plaid Cymru the way forward to solving its problems, some of which I have but briefly highlighted.
I pledge to work tirelessly and ceaselessly for the benefit of my constituents and the people of Wales. Thank you, Sir, for your indulgence.
6.28 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I rise with trepidation to make my maiden speech. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the making of a maiden speech as an occasion that no hon. Member would ever forget. I am sure that that is as true of me as of every hon. Member.
My trepidation has been increased by the series of eloquent speeches from other new Members, including the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Ms. Jones), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne). I once visited Rochdale to watch a rugby league match, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is a most interesting and agreeable place—and underrated—but I regret to tell her that on that occasion Rochdale Hornets lost by a wide margin.
I rise to make my maiden speech today to draw the attention of the House to a serious problem that has arisen in Hertsmere, but before doing that I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Cecil Parkinson, not just as a matter of custom but because everyone in Hertsmere would want me to. Besides occupying the highest offices of state, he was always held in the highest esteem and affection by his constituents, as a tireless servant of their interests. I know that he has many friends in this place and many others in the constituency.
Cecil Parkinson represented Hertsmere for more than 20 years. He first entered the House in a by-election in 1970, following the tragic death of Lain Macleod, then the

191
Member for Enfield, West. One of the many pleasures of representing Hertsmere is that of meeting many people in Potters Bar and other parts of the constituency which used to be in Enfield, West who remember lain Macleod to this day, who cherish his memory and who are proud of the influence that he exerted on the public life of this country. They are proud of his legacy and of the one-nation ideal which is still very much alive today. Their association with the late Iain Macleod is a matter of great pride to my constituents.
Besides Potters Bar, Hertsmere consists of a number of other communities in the southernmost parts of Hertfordshire, each fiercely independent and proud of its identity, but linked by a common thread of interest. Hertsmere has some of the loveliest countryside in close proximity to London. In the past week or so, we have heard many maiden speeches praising the beauties of the countryside of various constituencies, and I would add Hertsmere to that list—with the distinction that there can be few other places so close to London with such beautiful countryside. I know that both my predecessors were keen to preserve the quality of life in that countryside against the inevitable encroachment consequent on its proximity to London.
My constituents would also like me to mention the rail links between Hertsmere and London. It seems to be almost a convention that maiden speakers should complain about the state of the railway services to their constituencies, and we have heard a long list of such complaints—to which I should like to add a word of praise. Over the past 13 years, there have been great improvements in the rail services in my constituency, especially with the introduction of Thameslink, which has been supported by a considerable programme of investment in the railways. That in turn has greatly improved the rail services between my constituency and London.
Unfortunately, given the almost infinite capacity of British Rail to give with one hand and take away with the other, the improvement in daily services has been accompanied by a threat to Sunday services in the constituency, particularly to the communities of Radlett, Borehamwood and Elstree. In other parts of the constituency too, Sunday services leave something to be desired and my constituents want them improved.
My constituents are also interested in housing. A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned complaints about housing. My constituents are pleased with the developments in housing in the past 13 years—especially the 3,600 of them who had the chance to purchase their own homes through the council house purchase-of-property scheme. Thousands of others became home owners over the same period.
In the current economic climate, my constituents greatly appreciate the suspension of stamp duty on house purchases which continues in effect until August—and they would be pleased if the scheme were extended.
One other matter gravely concerns a large number of my constituents. They all find it disagreeable, but for some of them it causes a great deal of hurt. I refer to a series of systematic attacks on the Jewish community in my
192
constituency. In the past three months, Jewish people have been subjected to organised attacks on themselves, their religious institutions and their leaders.
In March, one of the synagogues in my constituency was visited twice by criminals, who attacked the premises and daubed them with slogans of the basest kind, thereby causing great pain to constituents who attended the synagogue. That was followed in April by two incidents when, at a different synagogue, congregants attending services were verbally harassed in an unpleasant way by people who were clearly acting in concert.
On top of all this, the private home of a rabbi was recently visited by people who one can only conclude were the same miscreants who had perpetrated the earlier offences. Once again, appallingly hurtful slogans were daubed, this time on the rabbi's private home; not only was his privacy invaded, but the entire Jewish community in the constituency were greatly affronted.
All right-thinking people in my constituency—my constituents are right-thinking people—are filled with the greatest disgust by these actions. Among the Jewish community, they re-awaken old fears and create potent new ones—and they cause the greatest possible hurt.
I raise this matter on the Adjournment because it is important, and I do so in the full knowledge that the Government have had an exemplary record of taking action against just this sort of activity. We know that the resources of the police have been greatly increased in the past few years, and legal machinery has been put in place to deal with such activities.
The Public Order Act 1986 created the new offence of incitement to racial hatred—a fact which I am sure is of considerable solace to my constituents at this time. They will be pleased to know that anyone engaging in this type of activity can now receive a sentence of two years' imprisonment. I hope that, when the courts deal with this sort of offence, they will take a robust view of sentencing and will sentence not only according to the immediate physical consequences of an act but according to the wider hurt and fear that it may create.
I urge the Government to take every opportunity, as I know they will, to stamp out this sort of activity. I am absolutely confident that it represents the antithesis of what the Government and the Prime Minister stand for and of the sort of society that he wants to create—indeed, this sort of activity should have no place in any decent society.
Although they can create a great deal of hurt, the people who perpetrate these crimes are probably very few in number. Nevertheless, my constituents are also concerned about the fact that, in recent times, extreme political parties have apparently enjoyed so much success in countries not far from our own. In those countries, sentiments espoused by political extremists in this country are expressed clandestinely, or even openly.
In the light of that, I urge the Government to continue to defend our constitution and our electoral system. I believe that that constitution and electoral system have served this country well, at times when other countries' constitutions and electoral systems have served them much less well. It would be a very sad day when the forces of extremism that we now see in other countries gained even a foothold in our own.
I have made my maiden speech with a great deal of pride. I am proud of being a Member of the House of Commons, and I am proud of its history; I am also proud

193
because I know that, in every party represented here, there is no place for the extremist activities that I have described. I hope that that will long continue, and that I never see the day when extremists occupy our Benches.
6.41 pm
Mr. Jamie Cann: I feel rather as I did when I first went to the dentist—full of trepidation, but knowing that at least it will all be over soon.
I have the honour to have been elected to represent Ipswich in the Labour interest, and in the interests of the people of that town. Before I go any further, I must mention my predecessor, Michael Irvine, who was an assiduous attender of the House and also a very pleasant man. He fought hard and defended the Government's position with courage, and I was therefore delighted to scrape home with a majority of 265.
Let me also mention Mr. Irvine's predecessor, who will still be well known to many hon. Members. Ken Weetch was the Labour Member from 1974 until 1987. and he is still very popular in both the constituency and the House.
Ipswich is just up the River Orwell from the port of Felixstowe, and was founded in the 5th century as an Anglo-Saxon village called Gyppeswic. It was burnt down four times by the Vikings, but we are still in favour of Europe—just. This year, its football team won the second division championship. It is now going into the premier league, and it is a matter of some sorrow to me that I shall not be able to watch the away matches because the rights have all been sold to BSkyB, or whatever it is called now. The team also won the 1978 FA cup against Arsenal, I am pleased to say. At that time, everyone in the town was incensed by the football commentators' description of Ipswich as a "sleepy little market town". We are not that; we are an industrial-relations town at root.
Ipswich still has many manufacturing industries, producing grass-cutting machinery, compressors, car components, lift motors, valves, pipes, castings and so forth. It has, however, broadened its range, and is now a large commercial centre specialising particularly in insurance firms. It is also the fifth largest container port in Britain. We in Ipswich have many facilities, and we live in a beautiful area in which we take a great deal of civic pride. We consider ourselves the regional capital of East Anglia; colleagues in Cambridge and Norwich dispute that, but of course they are wrong.
We have our problems, of course, but I wish to mention only one of them today. A large concern in the constituency. Ransome and Rapier, recently went bust; not only did it go bust, but, unfortunately, it went bust a few months after it had been bought by Robert Maxwell, and its pension fund is one of those that have been looted by him. The House will not be surprised to learn that I am one of the hundred or so Members of Parliament who are trying, on an all-party basis, to get something done about that. It is all very well for us to adjourn for our holidays next week, but some of my constituents do not know whether they will receive their pension cheques at the end of the month. Already a pension fund has closed down, affecting some people in Suffolk.
I believe—along with all the other members of the action group—that it is right, proper and desirable for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement. We should like that statement to say that the Government undertake to drip-feed and underwrite any pension funds
194
that may be in danger of closing absolutely, so that they may be kept going until investigations have apportioned blame. In particular, we should like the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that he intends to help to force the banks to release the £217 milion of pension fund money that they are holding. It is not their money; it was lodged with them as security, but it belongs to the pension fund, and we should like the Government to help us to get it back. We also believe that the right hon. Gentleman should take on board the 30 suggestions made by the Select Committee on Social Services, so that we can ensure that such a thing never happens again.
That is the only problem affecting Ipswich to which I shall refer today, because it is the most urgent. Ipswich has other problems, however, and I promise that on future occasions I shall bring them to the notice of the House.
6.46 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I have been privileged to sit here this afternoon and hear the many contributions made by other hon. Members, particularly the maiden speeches. However, the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made me feel even more daunted by the challenge.
In making my maiden speech, I find little difficulty in following one convention—that of referring kindly to the previous Member of Parliament for my constituency. Mr. Ian Grist is an old-fashioned gentleman of courage and integrity, and I have met no hon. Member on either side of the House who thought ill of him. He was very well regarded by his fellow Welsh Tory Members, who showed particular and unusual loyalty to him when he was sacked last year as a junior Welsh Office Minister.
It was said at the time that Ian Grist paid the price for backing the wrong horse in the Tory leadership election. I hope that it will now be of some comfort to him to learn that his friend and colleague, the hon. Member for the neighbouring constituency of Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), has succeeded him in his former post. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my fellow Cardiff Member on his promotion: I am sure that, like Mr. Grist before him, he will seek consultation and consensus before controversy and conflict. One result of the general election for which we can thank my hon. Friend the new Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) is the reversal of a "Major" change in the Welsh Office: again, there are three Heseltinians working in harness there.
Reading the maiden speech that Mr. Grist made 18 years ago, I was struck by his reference to the changing structure of employment in the constituency. He noticed the decline in traditional industries that was taking place then, and the fact that the service sector was becoming dangerously dominant. Over the past two decades, little has changed in that regard. If anything, the trend has accelerated: with the notable exception of Panasonic and Allied Steel and Wire, it is the service industries that now dominate Cardiff to an excessive degree.
The service sector provides over 80,000 jobs in a city that has a population of less than one third of a million, and during the past decade there has been a further 9 per cent. reduction in the activity of productive industries. Jobs in metal goods and vehicles have declined over that period from 10,000 to 8,500. Other manufacturing has seen a decline in employment from 8,500 to 7,000. The figures confirm a long-term loss of Cardin productive

195
sector and the manual employment that it provided, and it is no longer an industrial city. Indeed, Bournemouth manufactures more than Cardiff. The Government generally and the Welsh Office especially must help local authorities and industry to redress the employment imbalance.
This month's employment statistics show that, in Cardiff, Central, 4,765 people are officially registered as unemployed. It is the second highest level of unemployment in Wales—higher than the levels of unemployment in the valley constituencies. That is the unemployment that is to be found in the centre of the Principality's capital.
The constituency contains pockets of dangerously high levels of male unemployment. It is 27 per cent. in the Adamstown ward and 20 per cent. in Cathays and Plasnewydd. These inner-city wards need work desperately. In some parts of the city, as many as one in every two young men are out of work. The stresses and strains that this places on our society can be seen, perhaps, in Coventry and Los Angeles. They were evidenced in Ely, another Cardiff ward, last year.
My research has shown that, before Mr. Grist, the Member who represented my constituency was my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). My hon. Friend won the seat in 1966 and held it for the next eight years. When he made his maiden speech as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, he referred to the building of the Severn bridge, and that presents an opportunity that I can hardly resist. During his eight years as the Member for my constituency the toll on the bridge decreased from half a crown to 12p in 1974, which was a 41 per cent. decrease in real terms.
The toll increased to £1 during the 18 years of Mr. Grist's representation of the constituency. In real terms, that was perhaps a modest increase of 35 per cent., about 2 per cent. per annum above the rate of inflation. I have represented the constituency for only one month, and the toll has already increased by 40 per cent. for cars—the charge is now £2.80—and 180 per cent. for light vans, for which the charge is now £5.60. In only a month, the tolls have increased by much greater amounts than the sum total of previous increases over the previous 26 years.
It is worth comparing the figures with the tolls that are levied on the Dartford bridge, which are currently 80p each way for cars and light commercial vehicles. It is a valid comparison, as the Dartford bridge, which was opened in October, was built to relieve bottlenecks between Essex and Kent. Could the difference in treatment relate to the number of Conservative-held constituencies in Essex and Kent, bearing in mind that there are only two Conservative-represented constituencies in Gwent and Glamorgan?
If, as we are told, high tolls are needed to finance the second crossing of the Severn, why are there no tolls on the new M40, which was built at considerable cost to relieve the M1 and the M6? Over the next few years, it is estimated that £1 billion will be collected on the Severn bridge, and much of that money would have been spent in south Wales. As we have no overall tolling policy in the United Kingdom, unlike some other countries, we have what amounts to a selective tax on the economic region of south Wales.
196
Two hundred years ago, small farmers and traders in west Wales became so enraged at the unfair tolls exacted on the goods they took to market that they burned down the toll gates, but I am not advocating burning down the Severn bridge. The farmers disguised themselves as women, and the uprising became known as the Rebecca riots. My wife has an ancestor who, as a Rebecca rioter, was deported to Australia. Press reports suggest that business men and women who are running small businesses in Avon and Gwent will demonstrate on the Severn bridge during the bank holiday, thus producing even more traffic chaos than normal.
I ask the Government seriously to reconsider the tolls and to note the protest. The tolls are unjust and have caused otherwise law-abiding citizens to consider taking action that even threatens to drive the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) into the arms of the daughters of Rebecca. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for Wales, to use all his influence to change the unjust tolls.
6.57 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: First, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. As you know, I have long been one of the your greatest admirers in the House. I look forward to a long and happy relationship with you. It is one that has started most auspiciously this evening.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones) on his maiden speech. He made it with wit and with a succinctness that I shall try to follow. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, wishes to respond to the debate at about 7 o'clock, which gives me only two minutes. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central that it takes some courage to refer to early cross-dressing in Wales in a maiden speech. I look forward to hearing more of his speeches.
There is a lesson for all newly elected Members, and it was the first lesson that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) taught me. I think that it is a lesson that he teaches everyone. It is important to know that, if we are to take advantage of this place, we must be present. Being here is the important thing. There have been two wonderful examples today of the advantage of being here. The first example was provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who took advantage of the opportunity that our proceedings offered to have a debate on a matter of principle. That was followed by a somewhat controversial vote, but it was an interesting manoeuvre.
We then heard my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He provided an object lesson for all newly elected Members and experienced Members. He demonstrated how useful this place can be for an assiduous Member who wants to pursue the cause of justice, as my hon. Friend has done so well and so often.
In the short time that is available to me, I suggest that the House should debate the disposal of county hall before we move off for the spring adjournment. I should explain for new Members who do not know London that county hall is the wonderful building almost opposite the House that used to be the headquarters of the Greater London council. It is a grade 2 listed building. It was paid for by London ratepayers, and it was there to be the home of

197
Londonwide local government. Had my party won the election, it would have been restored to that position. It would have been the home of the new greater London authority. Unfortunately, an ungrateful electorate did not give the Labour party the majority that it merited, which means that we shall not have to return to this issue on a later date.
The House should surely have some time to consider the various options that are now being proposed for county hall. The GLC was abolished in 1986, as an act of political spite by the Government. It was inspired and initiated by that vicious old loony who is now on her way to the other place. That viciousness was subsequently compounded by a decision not to allow county hall to be used for public purposes.
It was suggested that it should be used for offices for Members of Parliament, and that would have been welcomed on both sides of the House. There was also a proposal that it should be used by a Government Department, and we would have been prepared to accept that if we could not have it for a new Greater London authority. If officials of the Department of the Environment are to move, perhaps they should move into county hall rather than being moved down river to Canary Wharf to save Olympia and York.
Currently, there are two proposals for county hall—one from the London School of Economics and the other from a Japanese hotel organisation called the Shirayama group, which is a privately owned company with a staff of seven and a turnover last year of only £10 million. The LSE has put forward a more than adequate proposal for the use of county hall, so it is absurd that a proposal from a fly-by-night cowboy concern should be looked on with apparent favour by the Government, and certainly with favour by the London residuary body.
It is scandalous that an international academic institution such as the LSE should be bounced in favour of a cowboy Japanese hotel group. If county hall were to be turned into a luxury hotel and luxury flats, patronised by Japanese tourists, it would be an obscene and absurd use of that wonderful building. I hope that, when the Government consider the proposals from those two very different organisations, they will favour a British educational institution over a Japanese hotel group.
7.1 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I congratulate you on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Broadcasting Select Committee's loss is the Chair's gain. I am sure that you will enjoy your position; we shall certainly enjoy your presence in the Chair.
It has fallen to me to respond to a large number of Adjournment debates over the past five years, and I must confess that there have been occasions on which my attention has wandered while I have sat through three hours of speeches. However, I appear to have done the job so well that I am asked back time and again.
My attention has wandered much less today than in the past, because of the interesting maiden speeches that we have heard. It always sounds patronising to say that maiden speeches are outstanding, but I truly thought that they were today. Most of us tend to put more sweat into a maiden speech than into subsequent speeches, so perhaps the amount of work put into their preparation is reflected in their quality. The quality was certainly high today.
198
Although, there were 10 maiden speeches, and it would take me more than the 10 minutes available to respond to them all properly—but I shall try.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Miss Lynne) spoke with great fluency about the discriminisation experienced by people with disabilities. I am sure that she will want to speak about that on future occasions and that the House will want to hear her.
I am sure that the House will understand when I say that the two maiden speeches that gave me the most pleasure were by Members for west midlands constituencies. We did our bit in the west midlands, with seven net gains for the Labour party. That will increase the west midlands regional group—already a splendid group—by 25 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Ms. Jones) made a highly knowledgeable and serious speech about the west midlands serious crime squad—one that certainly demands a response from the Minister when he replies to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) produced the most startling statistic—that the lowest access to car usage by families in any south Birmingham ward is in the Longbridge ward. It is a statistic that in future I shall quote as though it were my own.
It is appropriate also to refer to a speech that was not a maiden, but which in many ways related to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak. I refer, of course, to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I do not need to patronise him, but I thought that it was a masterly speech, given his tremendous record on exposing miscarriages of justice. The Government should understand the sense of outrage that people feel about those who have received sentences—which in the past undoubtedly would have been capital sentences—and who are now known to have been innocent. My hon. Friend controls his outrage in a most remarkable way. His comments certainly need a response from the Minister.
Other hon. Members also made their maiden speeches on law and order, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said, they were of a slightly different flavour from his. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) spoke about law and order, and we do not like to disagree with comments made so early in someone's parliamentary career. However, he also said something with which I strongly agree, and that was about the plight of the Maxwell pensioners. That issue was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), who also made a splendid maiden speech. Again, the Government must respond to those speeches. I am sure that many other hon. Members would also have raised that matter had they had the opportunity to do so.
I was impressed by the phrases used in the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire). I liked the phrase she used about parts of her constituency, where "work and welcome" are characteristics. Again, that is a phrase that I shall use as though it were mine. The substance of my hon. Friend's speech was about the low-paid, a subject to which I hope she will return again and again. Labour Members make no apologies for the campaign we fought during the general election on the basis of a strong belief in a national basic minimum wage.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) was most generous in his remarks about his

199
predecessor, my friend John Smith, who was a splendid Member for Parliament for that constituency. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke with pride about the area that he represents, and he too paid tribute to his predecessor. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) spoke fluently and without notes in his maiden speech. He showed quite remarkable confidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones) made an extremely witty speech. It is difficult to jest in this place, but he managed to do so while also making serious points. I hope that he does not incite his constituents to riot. He certainly made a powerful case about toll charges on the Severn bridge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich raised another issue about which I want to speak before my coat is pulled; I am rapidly running out of time. As my hon. Friend said, due to the operation of the free market, his constituents, like those of other hon. Members, will have less and less choice in the amount of sport that they can see on television. I raise that matter in what is perhaps a populist manner, but it is extremely serious and important. The new Leader of the House is the fourth in five years, and one of his key responsibilities will be as a member of the Broadcasting Select Committee—where I hope to join him.
That was one of the few achievements of the last Parliament and one of the few about which I feel pleased. Most of the others I opposed. However, we massively extended our democratic system by allowing television pictures from this House to reach millions of our constituents. That has been an unqualified success. I hope that the televising of Parliament will be extended and developed. I hope, too, that there will be television coverage of more Select Committees and Standing Committees and that there will be more regional coverage by the regional television companies. In addition, I hope that more educational use will be made of the signal from this Chamber.
The Leader of the House must, however, have a few words with some of his right hon. Friends. There is not the slightest point in transmitting spectacularly good pictures of what goes on in this Chamber, or anywhere else, if there is no national system of broadcasting. I used sport as a very important example. We were unable to watch World Cup cricket and we will be unable to see many Football League matches, because the so-called market forces have ensured that a small company with a lot of money behind it has denied most of my constituents, who do not have satellite dishes, the right to watch all these events.
If that is an extension of freedom of choice, it is a new definition. It is not even, in any sensible way, the operation of market forces. If market forces had operated in relation to satellite broadcasting, the companies involved would have gone bankrupt a long time ago, but, they were bailed out by other related companies with plenty of money to spare.
Having referred to the sports side of the question, I return to the television coverage of the proceedings of this House. It is not just that national television is being threatened as a result of the loss of the coverage of sporting events that previously all people could watch. There are now serious threats to the news and current affairs
200
coverage that is provided by our national television networks. Tremendous damage was done to the system by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Now we hear that programmes such as "World in Action" are likely to lose their prime time slots. "This Week" and other current affairs programmes are also threatened. We hear that some companies think that programmes such as "News at Ten" are taking up prime time slots and that "News at Ten" should be changed to "News at 3 am" so that a game show can be transmitted at 10 pm.
The effectiveness of the way in which politics and current affairs are covered in this country, including the way in which the signal from this House is used by the broadcasters, depends upon serious programmes being transmitted at times when viewers are able to watch them. The BBC and ITV national networks must be defended and sustained. No good will be done by unedited transmission of the proceedings in this House to a few people with satellite dishes. People are informed about national issues by news and current affairs bulletins that are made available to everybody and transmitted at a time when they are up and awake and able to take advantage of them.
I do not believe that I am putting in too grandiose a way when I say that, if anybody says anything about the coverage of the general election campaign, they will have to acknowledge, in fairness, that, if the people of this country had had to rely on newspapers alone for their information, any remote notion that the election was fought on a level playing field would have been ludicrous. The only conceivable argument that it was or began to be a level playing field would be that there was national broadcasting on radio and television that followed the guidelines laid down by the House.
If, during the next five years, the national broadcasting system is undermined—we see it already in sport and we may see it in current affairs—and it becomes more like the newspapers, with dozens of editions available but no content of substance and no requirement that there should be fairness and impartiality, the next election will be fought on a grotesquely unfair basis, because people will not be provided with proper, balanced information about news and current affairs.
The responsibility of the Leader of the House to this House is different from that of any Member of the Cabinet. He will be judged not by the extent to which he is a hatchet man for the Government but by the extent to which he sees that he has a responsibility to the whole of the House, which includes ensuring that the affairs of this House are properly transmitted by television signals and other means to the public at large, upon which they can make a balanced judgment on how we go about our affairs and debate the great issues of the day. It is his duty and responsibility to do that in as non-partisan a way as he can. If he does that, he will certainly have our support.
7.15 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I hope that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) will forgive me if, during the short time available to me, I do not refer to all the points that he has made. The spirit in which I shall approach my duties as Leader of the House was fairly

201
well set out in the speech that I made at the conclusion of the debate last week on the Gracious Speech, which I hope did not qualify me for his terminology as a hatchet man.
I do not suggest that I used to have fantasies about being Leader of the House, but I have always had a hankering to be in the position, at the end of this particular debate, of being able to look the House in the eye and say to all those Members who had made speeches that they had been so persuasive that I had decided that we should not have the recess. However, I have decided that discretion is the better part of valour.
Therefore, on this slightly strange occasion, when the Leader of the House is supposed to be one of the world's most formidable polymaths, capable of replying to all the points that have been made in profusion during the debate, I shall do what is expected of me. If I am unable to communicate as much information as the House would like to hear, I have to admit that I have learnt a great deal, including the names of an almost infinite number of towns and villages. At one point I thought that I was going to learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) the name of every squirrel in Brampton wood.
Let me attempt to comment, in the time available to me, on some of the speeches, including a formidable number of very good maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) paid what we all regarded as a pleasing tribute to her predecessor, Sir Cyril Smith, who was certainly one of the characters of the House in the time that I have been here. She showed that she will be a worthy successor because of the vigour with which she spoke about community care. That did her great credit. I hope that she will understand that, were I making a longer and different speech, I should wish to comment on the way in which the Government's plans for improving the delivery of community care are moving forward at this very moment, in the way she knows. However, she was right to place great emphasis on the importance of the subject.
We also heard a pleasing maiden speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire), who is not currently in her place. [HoN. MEMBERS: "She is."] I apologise unreservedly.
Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman cannot afford the eye test.
Mr. Newton: I can now assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get left off the end of this speech.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West brilliantly described her predecessor, Dick Douglas, as a man of independence of mind, a description with which all of us would agree, and went on to make a plea on behalf of Dunfermline abbey as the Westminster abbey north of the border. That drew a surprising degree of assent—given that there must be a number of other competitors—from some of her Scottish colleagues on the Opposition Benches.
The hon. Lady spoke more controversially, although not unacceptably so, about the problems of low pay. On that front, I would merely observe that only two Community member states—France and Spain—have a statutory minimum wage of the kind that she appears to advocate. France is experiencing record levels of unemployment and Spain has the highest unemployment
202
of any country in the Community, so those two countries are not an especially good advertisement for what the hon. Lady proposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) spoke of his predecessor, Sir Richard Luce—a man held in high regard by all of us—and then went through a formidable list of demands which, to my great pleasure, appeared to bear a considerable resemblance to the Conservative party manifesto, thus presenting me with a rather less difficult task than some Opposition Members did. My hon. Friend spoke persuasively, and his was an impressive maiden speech.
I think that I am right this time: the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) is not in her place. [HON. MEMBERS: "She is."] In that case, she has moved. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will probably agree that it is useful if hon. Members sit in the same place most of the time because we then have some chance of knowing whether they are here. At any rate, I am glad to remedy that error, too, and say how pleased all of us on the Conservative Benches were with the hon. Lady's comments not only about her Labour predecessor, Tom Litterick, but about her immediate predecessor, Anthony Beaumont-Dark, whom we remember even better and with a good deal of affection and respect.
The hon. Lady commented mainly on the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of the investigations of the West Midlands serious crime squad. She will probably understand —as her hon. Friends certainly will—that the only comment that it is proper for me to make is that the decision whether to prosecute is entirely for the DPP. It was a fluent and impressive maiden speech, none the less.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) recognised not only his own interest in the motor industry but the formidable interest of his predecessor, Roger King, both in the motor industry in general and in the sport of motor racing in particular. Reference was made to Roger King's victory over the House of Lords —which the absent hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would no doubt regard, approvingly, as some kind of symbol—in a rally some time ago.
The hon. Gentleman's speech will have struck a chord with many of his Scottish colleagues. He referred not only to the problems of inner cities, which we all seek to address, but to a problem that is more familiar to Scotland —the outer-ring estates around cities—and drew a parallel with Birmingham. The Government are well aware of the sort of problems of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, although we might not all agree on what is the right solution. I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's interesting remarks are drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) spoke in a way that will have impressed hon. Members on both sides of the House about his immediate and short-lived predecessor, who won the seat in the by-election. My hon. Friend properly paid tribute to John Smith, who, as he said, nearly pulled off the very difficult task of retaining the seat at the general election. Conservative Members are pleased that my hon. Friend managed to pull it off himself, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will look closely at his remarks about crime in the area.
I have some difficulty in competing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr.

203
Llwyd), the name of whose constituency I have some difficulty in pronouncing. He clearly shares with us a high regard for his predecessor, Dafydd Elis Thomas. We were sad to see Dr. Thomas go, but it is clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he will be a worthy successor in speaking for the Welsh interest in the House. In view of his reference to Welsh as the first language of his constituency, I hope that he was pleased to see that a Welsh language Bill was included in the Queen's Speech.
As the hon. Member for The Wrekin said, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) spoke with tremendous fluency and without notes, and in a way that will have commanded support across the party divide about the disgraceful attacks on synagogues in his area. He will have drawn the support of us all for his remarks on that, and I assure him that the Government and all my right hon. and hon. Friends will be concerned to do anything that they can to help him and the police and other authorities in his constituency to try to stamp out that entirely unacceptable behaviour.
I fear that I must apologise to those who spoke in the debate who did not make maiden speeches, as I may not be able to comment on what they said in the two minutes left to me. Instead I come to the last two maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones) paid tribute to a long-standing friend of mine, Ian Grist, with whom I used to be in the Conservative party organisation years ago, and made some remarks while I was briefly out of the Chamber which I had recorded for me. The hon. Gentleman apparently referred to the burning of toll gates in Wales during the 18th century and appears to have referred to—although I hope not made —a threat of similar demonstrations in the vicinity on a bank holiday in the near future.
Lastly, I come to my nearest neighbour in my Essex constituency of Braintree, the new hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann). I much appreciated his remarks about his predecessor, Michael Irvine, who brought a number of Maxwell pensioners to see me when I was Secretary of State for Social Security. I know Ipswich rather well. I was a boy in Harwich, and I used to watch Ipswich play football in the days when there was still something called third division south and nobody had heard of Ipswich. One thing that he and I have in common, across the political divide, is our great pleasure at the success of his town in football over the past few years.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 22nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 2nd June.

Orders of the Day

  Non-Domestic Rating Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.27 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will reduce the non-domestic rates for businesses in England and Wales facing the largest increases in their rates following the 1990 non-domestic revaluation. It honours the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech on 10 March. The Budget proposals in question were well received by the Opposition. I hope that the Bill, too, will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The 1990 reforms have brought substantial benefits to many businesses. Those that have reached their full new rate bills are already benefiting from the limitation of any increase to the rate of inflation. About half of all properties in England and Wales would have experienced rate rises of only 4.1 per cent. this year, anyway—before the Bill was introduced.
  For a number of businesses, however, the 1990 reforms would have meant much larger increases this year. That is primarily due to the effects of the large shift in rateable values resulting from the revaluation. For many businesses, particularly shops and offices in the south-east, values have not caught up with the changes in rental values during the boom years of the 1980s.
  Many hon. Members will agree that we could not go on using valuations based on the market as it was in 1973. Adjustment was bound to be painful, which is why we are phasing in the changes gradually.
  Under the transitional arrangements already in operation, no bill was to rise by more than 20 per cent. a year in real terms. For smaller businesses—those with a new rateable value of £15,000 in London or £10,000 elsewhere—the limit was 15 per cent. For properties with living accommodation attached, we reduced the limit to 10 per cent. from 1 April 1991, on top of the £140 reduction in personal community charge on the domestic element.
  I know that the recession has created difficulties for many businesses and some of those that would have faced the largest increases this year have been particularly hard hit in the recession. The Government have therefore decided that their costs this year should not be worsened by any real increases in the business rates.
  We propose a one-year freeze to provide a breathing space. We estimate that almost a quarter of a million shops and offices, many in the south of England, will benefit from reductions worth more than £160 million from this measure alone. Manufacturing industry in the north will also benefit. More than 80,000 properties in the industrial sector in the country will receive reductions totalling £25 million. A further 160,000 business premises will gain relief worth £110 million, bringing the total cost of the measure to more than £300 million this year and £200 million next year.
  The gains for individual businesses could be substantial. A small business property outside London with a new rateable value just below the £10,000 threshold

  205
  could save around £1,000 over the next two years in the amount that it has to pay. A property in London with a new rateable value just below the £15,000 threshold could save about £1,500. In each case, the saving is equivalent to about 12.5 per cent. of the full annual rates bill of the property concerned. For larger properties, the gains could be even more substantial. A property with a new rateable value of around £50,000 could save more than £6,000 over the next two years.
  In 1955, a new revaluation based on the state of the property market as at 1 April 1993 will come into effect. Given the downturn in the market since 1 April 1988—the valuation date used for the last revaluation—rental values in those sectors which have been worst hit by the recession may be lower than in 1988. If so, rateable values will fall at the next revaluation. That means that some businesses still in transition in 1994–95 towards the highest rate bills implied by the 1990 valuation, might never reach those bills. The present pause in the increases will be especially helpful in such cases, and I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome that measure.
  Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend the Minister has touched on a point that is of great concern to many businesses in my constituency, particularly in the shops and hotel sector, where the revaluations introduced two or three years ago mean that it would take about 15 years at the current rate of progress for those valuations to work through. While the pause is very welcome and has been extremely popular, there is a great worry that, in two or three years' time, businesses will face massive increases in their bills. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that that will not occur?
  Mr. Redwood: I am aware of the problem. As my hon. Friend illustrates, the problem is not confined to the south. It also affects many towns and settlements in the north. I will repeat the assurance that I have just given. If, on the date of the next revaluation, the values in 1988 turn out to be peak values, and next year's values are lower, that of course will be reflected in 1995 in the bills that businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency will have to pay. They will never have to pay those very high bills based on the 1988 values if those values turn out to be peak values, which, in some cases, I believe will be the case. 1 hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the phasing will continue? We are likely to face a situation in which even the 1988 values may only be halfway through being implemented. If those values are confirmed in real terms—one expects that there will be valuation changes across the country—businesses are seeking an assurance that the phasing will be continued.
  Mr. Redwood: I will answer that nearer the time. I have told my hon. Friend that the important relief that would arise is if the values turn out to be lower at the next valuation. In some cases, I believe that that will prove to be the case. Those businesses will never have to pay the high values based on the 1988 valuation if the current decline in the property market is confirmed at the time of the 1993 valuation.
  Mr. David Blunkett: Perhaps we can make sure that we understand this absolutely correctly. Is the Minister suggesting that there will be a permanent transitional period which, ad infinitum,
  206
  continues like a moving staircase, with no one ever reaching the valuation that was originally set because of the transitional arrangements and because the next valuation will overtake the first one before people have reached it?
  Mr. Redwood: I am not making any changes in the transitional arrangements as a result of the Bill, other than having a pause for one year in the introduction of the transitional increases in the way that I have described. I have already been very specific about what would happen in the case of a business property if the value in 1993 to become effective in 1995 turned out to be lower than the value in 1988. Whatever the transitional arrangements, that would mean that that business would never have to pay the full amount implied by the 1988 valuation, because it would have been overtaken by the events of the subsequent valuation. Many hon. Members will welcome that and believe that it is a positive step forward for businesses in their constituencies.
  Many businesses which benefited most from the 1990 reforms have had their reductions phased in to offset the cost of protecting those facing increases. The rate at which the gains have been coming through has been increasing since 1990–91, and we have decided to increase them further—by 3 per cent. in England and 13 per cent. in Wales—in 1992–93.
  The Bill provides that all remaining gains will flow through in 1993–94. All businesses which gained from the reforms will soon see the full benefits. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will welcome that. Far from prolonging the transition, where there are winners, we are accelerating it. I hope that the Opposition will welcome that.
  We estimate that 60,000 manufacturing properties, many in the north of England, will share more than £40 million in additional rate reductions this year as a result of the measure. Sixty-five thousand shops and offices will also gain, with reductions of more than £12 million. In total, 150,000 business premises will benefit to the tune of around £85 million in the current year. For an individual property with a new rateable value of just under £10,000, that could mean a reduction of about £180 in this year's bill, and for a property with a new rateable value of around £50,000, the saving could be as much as £580.
  One further change will provide significant help for a number of businesses which are trying to dispose of property in the recession. At present, transitional protection for those facing rate increases is lost when a property changes hands. The Bill will fulfil our pledge to remove that restriction with effect from 11 March of this year.
  Taken together, those measures will mean that no business will face a rise in rate bills this year in real terms. In the 1980s, business suffered from a 37 per cent. rise above inflation under local rates. The Bill provides a much better deal for many. If local rates had stayed, business would have paid £1,000 million more in 1990–91 and £850 million more in 1991–92. That shows the value of the changes that we have made. The Bill would increase benefits to businesses by a further £1,300 million over the next three years. I commend it to the House.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett: This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities on his new appointment. Whatever this philosophical and ideological background, I hope that he will bring fresh thinking and a new spirit of partnership to the relationship between local and central Government. I hope also that he will bring a degree of sanity and clarity to a system that has seen so many transitions, gearings and crankshafts over the past 13 years—
  Mr. William O'Brien: No, just cranks.
  Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, we have certainly had cranks. We have had nothing as clear cut or as craftsmanlike as a crankshaft, as I know from the production lines in my constituency. Instead, we have had one cobbled-together solution after another.
  Although we do not oppose the proposals in the Bill, we are obliged to point out what a shambles the system has been. First, we had a delay in the valuation process which was substantially responsible for ensuring that industries and productive parts of our economy were penalised long after the valuation of the sites and rental values of the premises on which they were reliant had ceased to be relevant in terms of the economy of the north of England, the midlands and Wales.
  The need for an urgent revaluation led to considerable dislocations because of the dramatic changes. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that the valuation base was 1 April 1988, at the height of the boom. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) validly raised with the Minister what would happen. We had an interesting reply, that given that the transition goes through to the date when the new valuation will apply, and given that next year the new valuation base will apply, property and rental prices could change dramatically and people will never have to pay on the valuation that was adjudged to be right from April 1988.
  Given that we are aware of helping the Government to avoid pitfalls and the misfortunes of what is no longer local government finance in the strict sense of the term but centrally raised Government finance for local government, let us surmise for a moment that, under the new valuation, there are such substantial gains for some and such unwarranted losses for some commercial and industrial properties that a new transitional arrangement has to be brought in. Those who were to be penalised so heavily under the 1988 revaluation base and who now find themselves with a revaluation below that level, and who, in the Minister's words, would never actually reach the original threshold, will find themselves so badly penalised in the recession next year that they will be entitled to special help.
  Because there are others who are gainers, and because losers have to have their losses phased in, we need a new transitional period in which those who thought that they would gain only slowly, as they have done since the 1990 change, and those who thought that they would lose only in phases in order to protect their businesses, as has been the case since April 1990, the whole dog's dinner will continue through until we reach the base from which the third revaluation will take place. Presumably the merry-go-round will start all over again and the people who thought that they would gain the most benefit will not
  208
  gain and the people who would incur the greatest losses will be protected from reaching their losses. It will carry on ad infinitum.
  That absurdity is brought about by the original lengthy delay, the failure to appreciate the consequences of the revaluation and the failure, until tonight, to acknowledge that there is a major problem arising out of the date chosen, at the height of the property-led boom—a boom which has now been shown to be transitory—and a failed promise of economic prosperity and regeneration. Of course, property prices and the inability to let property, particularly in places such as Canary Wharf and the difficulties that are being experienced in docklands, underline the extent of the collapse in the property market and the real problems of our economy.
  I shall never forget sitting on a tube and hearing two people discussing what was in the Financial Times that morning. It is always instrumental to sit on an underground train in the morning, if one can get a seat. The two obvious City finance experts were discussing when they would acknowledge that there was a real problem for the British economy. One of them said that it clearly would not be when industry in the north of England cried even louder and there was higher unemployment. The other said, "No, but a clear sign will be the collapse of the London property market." That occurred some time ago. Olympia and York is an example. What a cockeyed economy it is that is based on such precepts.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks that were kind towards me—I think that some of them were kind.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: Just a few.
  Mr. Redwood: Just a few, perhaps. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who welcomed the revaluation and said that the Government are taking a very important step? If so, is he now saying that Labour party policy is to have no transitional protection whatsoever? That would be of great interest to businesses which welcome transitional protection. Far from thinking that the measure is a dog's breakfast, they think that it is an essential protection given the increases in values that some of them face.
  Mr. Blunkett: Revaluations are not a dog's dinner, it was the system and the way in which the Government implemented it over the past 13 years, including the domestic and non-domestic changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rightly said that we welcome the changes. They are long overdue in terms of assisting many hard-pressed areas and ensuring that business does not pay more than it can afford given valuations and the rental of the sites on which its activities are based. Of course we accepted that, given the enormity of the change, there had to be transitional arrangements. We are seeking to get those things right.
  At the beginning of October, the Minister's predecessor acknowledged that there were 673,000 outstanding appeals under the unified business rate appeals system. I have no evidence that that level has dropped. Evidence in the early part of this year showed that there was greater awareness by businesses of the problem that they were facing. In February, the London Chamber of Commerce

  209
  showed quite clearly that three out of four enterprises in London were going to be losers and declared itself to be extremely unhappy with the situation.
  We welcome the general approach. We also welcome the Government's ability to find money when it suits them. We welcome the fact that we are talking about £1.3 billion of Government expenditure—only a few weeks, of course, after the Government vilified the Labour party for daring to favour interventions by public resources to help industry and commerce to recover—any resources that would have to be found by the Exchequer to invest in our economy and our country.
  The hypocrisy beggars belief. In the six weeks leading up to the calling of the general election, Government spokesmen announced more than £2 billion of new expenditure—we have new expenditure before us tonight —and then attacked the Opposition for being in favour of new expenditure. Regrettably—we and the Government's friends in the media must take some share of the blame —we were responsible for not getting the message across about the hypocrisy which exists on the Conservative Benches when it comes to deciding where public expenditure should go.
  We welcome the belated measure to recognise what we have been pressing for all along. I must emphasise that we pressed that those who would gain—it applies to large parts of the country where manufacturing industry and real productive industries are struggling to survive—should be able to have their gains immediately the revaluation came in. They should have been enabled, with a measure that was not interventionist in the sense of distorting the market but was interventionist in terms of helping productive economic capacity, to be alleviated from a fixed cost, which we recognise is difficult in a recession. When we are in a boom and profits are being made, rates are discountable against corporation tax, and when they are not that forms a substantial problem of liquidity for many industries.
  It is time that we in the Labour party spelled out an historical commitment which has often been misunderstood. It is time that we spelt out that we are in favour of productive manufacturing industry.
  By backing those who use their enterprise and initiative, we follow in the role that was a traditional and vital part of the growth of the skill trade unions and the Labour movement. Tonight I wish to reiterate that by saying that it is an important role for the Labour party of the 1990s to advocate and champion the small business, the self-employed, those seeking self-reliance and self-determination and people who are willing to use enterprise and innovation not merely for their benefit but in the interests of the well-being of the community in which they live. That is our historic role.
  We back productive industry against the freeloaders —the people who thought that they could make a quick buck in property development or on the stock exchange. It is our role to back the little man and woman against the vested interests of big business, international finance and corporate interests which know no boundaries and care little about the communities or individuals with whom they deal. If we assert that role more clearly people will understand that we are speaking with them and on their behalf. With the growth of self-employment and self-reliance in the 1990s we shall take on the Conservative party and defeat it.
  210
  Our role in defending small businesses is the reason why we advocated rate rebates for small businesses. It is the reason why we said that people who are struggling to get into business and make a living for themselves need help in paying the rates to pay towards community provision. It is why we said that those who were struggling to stay in business should be entitled to a rate rebate and that small shops on housing estates and in villages and towns should be supported and enabled to stay in business in the face of the vagaries of the big shopping complexes with which many local neighbourhood centres have to compete.
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: The hon. Gentleman gives a great litany of the advantages that the Labour party would bring to small businesses. As I recall, one of the Labour party's policies for small businesses was to give control over the rate level back to the local councils in which businesses are located. The local council in Hammersmith and Fulham raised the rate by almost 50 per cent. when the Labour party took power in 1986. That was an amazing attack on small local businesses. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly support giving control of the taxation of small businesses back to spendthrift Labour local authorities.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is interesting that the Institute of Directors, which is not known for its radical socialist thinking, and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce are in favour of decentralising the business rate. They are in favour of it because they genuinely believe in partnership. They do not just mouth platitudes. Ministers preach responsibility but deny it. They call for increased opportunity but stifle it. They talk about partnership but withhold the means and motivation to make it possible.
  Real partnership means that those who are elected at local level and are responsible to local people must work with their local business community. In the 1980s, people learned and understood that lesson well. When the business rate was centralised there was more partnership in Britain than there had been for many a long year. Breaking that partnership was a foolish and unhelpful act. It diverted the concentration of mind of local politicians from the reality that local business and its community sink or swim together. I remember that time in the 1980s well. Separately, neither can survive, because business needs decent education and training, fit housing, good public transport and an environment in which people are proud to live. The local community needs the enterprise and yield which business provides if social provision is to be a likely proposition.
  We need decentralised structures so that people can work together. Of course, if we had won the election and decentralised the business rate, we should have had to fix the business rate for next year. This Bill would have been about the process of decentralising the structures to local level and fostering and encouraging responsibility.
  Why is it, I ask the Minister and his colleagues, that other countries in Europe and throughout the world can accept the responsibility that must fall on local people and their elected representatives, but Britain cannot? Are we so immature politically, so inept in our democracy and so lacking in vision or foresight that we must treat local councillors and their electorates as if they were tiny

  211
  children while we in the House can be seen as responsible, mature, adult people who know best? It is nonsense, and we all know it.
  One day we shall have to return to a decentralised structure. I shall tell the House why. The gearing effect of the present structure is causing havoc with the provision of local services and the sensible financing that is necessary to achieve it. The gearing effect is created by the fact that, in England, 86 per cent. of local government expenditure is fixed by central Government. In Wales, the figure is even greater, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) will spell out later. As we saw last week, even the last 14 per cent. is fixed by the capping arrangements.
  When only a small percentage of total revenue can be determined locally, not only is a gearing effect created whereby local councils have to raise a great deal more from that small percentage to take account of even the most modest percentage increase in their expenditure but major distortions are created. That was true in the case of the world student games in Sheffield. Business gained from the investment undertaken but made no contribution to the revenue costs incurred. That was regretable.
  A second factor is a lack of ability to compensate for the ills that afflict local communities when major new developments occur which have some beneficial consequences but also have knock-on effects with which we are all familiar. I give one example from my constituency. The Meadow Hall shopping complex is an excellent and well produced development, which cost hundreds of millions of pounds, but the consequences for the city centre have been devastating.
  In any sane society, the revenue raised from the new development in Sheffield would have been available to compensate for the action necessary to refurbish and renew the city centre. That would make possible a partnership with the chamber of trade to revamp shopping sites and shopping centres to bring life back to the city centre. As we have seen from north America, that is vital if we are to prevent the decay and decline which leads to the squalor that urban policy is supposed to overcome but which sensible planning and economic policies could avoid in the first place.
  Mr. Redwood: On the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about the protection of businesses from high-spending, high-taxing Labour authorities, he might like to remember that, when the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was asked what would happen if local authorities whacked up the business rate if they were given local control, he said that that might be a problem. Indeed it would be. We saw it before. That is why the changes were introduced. We saw it in Sheffield, where a high tax was imposed on business. We would like to know Labour's answer to that problem.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry that the note or whatever the Minister scribbled on reached him so late. I had moved well on from the point about decentralisation of the business rate which the Minister's hon. Friends made. I had moved on to how one aspect of local government revenue raising can compensate for the disadvantages which arise in a complicated local economy where local people know best and can decide for themselves.
  212
  However, I shall take the question head on. The responsibility that local people feel about how crucial the wealth-creating aspects of their local economy are to the well-being of the community—in terms of the provision of services—weighed heavily with politicians of all political parties as we reached the end of the 1980s. It reached a point where many people acknowledged that efforts to hold down the rates, and subsequent efforts to hold down the poll tax, were clearly evident. Until 1985, capping did not exist but there was not a calamity. Often the will to do the job together existed. That will must be reintroduced and reshaped in the future. That is why the Institute of Directors, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and, at one phase, the Confederation of British Industry were in favour of that genuine partnership at local level.
  We cannot oppose the Bill, but it is a missed opportunity to do a good job on behalf of businesses and their communities, by getting rid of the gearing impact —in its substantial form—by restoring some sense to local authority finance, by broadening the tax base and decentralising the business rate, by having rebates for small businesses and by ensuring that the gains that companies have had to wait for are introduced immediately.
  More importantly, we also believe that, when introducing the council tax next year, the Government should recognise the need to integrate the two systems. There will be a domestic property tax and there will have to be an equalisation formula for the distribution of grant and compensation which is needed to take account of the different rate bases throughout the country.
  Some regions have lost heavily. My own Yorkshire and Humberside region lost £289 million in a full year in business income to the local authorities together with the withdrawal of the equalisation grant. That is a large sum of money, for which the local authorities have desperately tried to compensate, even under the poll tax capping regime.
  I know that some Conservative Members with expertise in local government will recognise the importance of the reintroduction of equalisation, and unless those things are taken together, we will again have missed an opportunity to get it right.
  In the past 13 years, there have been so many wrongs in local government finance. Let us hope that some sense will prevail and that the Government will take the opportunity to listen and to learn.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: I congratulate the new Secretary of State for the Environment on his appointment and thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to address the House.
  I believe that it is in the best tradition of maiden speeches that I pay tribute to my predecessors, and I do so warmly. However, there has only been one previous Member for Nuneaton, because, before 1983 and the Boundary Commission's changes, the constituency was Nuneaton and Bedworth. For many years Frank Bowles, later to become Lord Bowles in the other place, held that constituency. When Frank Bowles retired, Frank Cousins held the seat for a short time. I well remember that. As the voting age was then 21, Frank Cousins was the first person

  213
  that I was old enough to vote for. I remember him touring our estate in an old, yellow, open-topped Rolls-Royce—very smart it looked too.
  Then Mr. Leslie Huckfield became the Member of Parliament for Nuneaton, and I am sure that the House will remember him. He went on to that House over the water for a short spell.
  My predecessor was Mr. Lewis Stevens, who was the Member for Nuneaton from 1983. I believe that he was a quiet but hard-working and conscientious Member of the House, and I think that he was well respected on both sides of the Chamber. From looking at the records, I understand that he had the eighth best voting record in the last Parliament. He was a very diligent Member. However, it might have been better for the people of Nuneaton if there had been some more "no" votes in that record—they were all "yes" votes—especially in the votes on the financial strangulations of the poll tax and the discredited standard spending assessments that have burdened local government in the past few years. In every other respect, I believe that Lewis Stevens served his constituents to the best of his abilities and was well respected by them for it.
  I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on the Bill. I shall certainly not oppose what has been put before the House. However, we should all recognise that all parts of the local community have a role to play to ensure good services and an infrastructure most suited to the community's inhabitants and to the industries and commerce that flourish within it.
  Those two links are important. One cannot ignore the fact that people who live in a community are employed there in commerce and in industry. There is an historic and traditional link, started by the Rowntrees, who believed that people needed good services, homes and education, because that was better for the companies employing them. I think that that is still as true as it was then. In the fullness of time, history will repeat itself.
  During the past two years, constituencies such as Nuneaton, which is in Warwickshire, have suffered from reduced Government grants and the SSAs, which have led to capping—I asked the Minister a question on capping in this place last week. They have meant some real hardships for people in my constituency, hardships that they are suffering and that they will probably continue to suffer. With the threat of another £6 million of public expenditure being taken away from them, none of my constituents know, with any assurance, what the future means for them.
  Some elderly people live in authority-run homes in my constituency, but those homes are now being sold off by the local authority. The police authority has had inadequate resources. I know that one Conservative member of Warwickshire county council had his knuckles rapped sharply in the last round of public expenditure talks, when he rebelled against his group and said that the police authority needed extra money. He was not on his own: his colleagues in the social services and education departments were saying exactly the same about their services.
  The fire and rescue services in my constituency are so under-funded that the Home Office, with its formula, is questioning their viability.
  Education is one of the great things that we have all benefited from, and the education service is suffering at all levels from inadequate resources, which means fewer
  214
  teachers, leading to higher pupil-teacher ratios. That, combined with cuts in the budgets for equipment, means that we are denying young people rights to the best education possible. Lest we all forget it, we only come this way once. We are only young once, and it behoves us all to ensure that everyone has the right to equal opportunity in education because that is the key to our future in the Chamber and to the work of commerce and industry.
  Not only is that right being denied but this year, for the first time, young people in Nuneaton will be put at risk because many of the professional services that have run the youth service in Warwickshire so successfully for many years will be cut. Youth service leaders have taken people through the Duke of Edinburgh's award schemes year after year, and they are extremely saddened that their future ability to do so will be greatly diminished.
  Nothing in the Queen's Speech gave any hope to those constituents who are either homeless or inadequately housed—there are many of them. Nothing in the speech gave local councils the ability to build the houses that would meet the needs of those people and thus create employment in the construction-related industries.
  While I am the Member representing Nuneaton, I shall seek to protect and further local government, and to bring it closer to the people, which includes industry and commerce. I remember my years as leader of Nuneaton borough council. Year by year, I faithfully consulted the leaders of industry and commerce before the council set the rate. The leaders of industry and commerce often told me that I was not spending enough on the infrastructure that they so badly needed to make their industries flourish. It is crucial for the democratic process in this country that all parts of the community play a full and cohesive role.
  I shall also seek to look after the needs of industry and ensure that they are not ignored or overlooked. I will ensure that the voice of the people of Nuneaton will not go unheard in this Chamber.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Nigel Jones: I congratulate the Minister on his new role and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on his maiden speech. The hon. Gentleman may not know it, but I have three rather tenuous links with him. First, for my sins, I went to the same school as Leslie Huckfield. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's Liberal Democrat opponent in the recent election is one of my colleagues on Gloucestershire county council. The third link is that Gloucestershire county council, like Warwickshire county council, faces capping.
  It is unlikely that many Opposition Members will argue against the Bill. Any measure that promises to reduce business costs by £480 million this year must be good news, given that business has been so buffeted by the longest peacetime recession since the 1930s. The introduction of the uniform business rate, with its revaluation, came at the worst possible time for business. Interest rates were high and consumer demand was plummeting, but the Government asked some businesses to endure massive increases to their fixed costs.
  In Cheltenham, dozens of small commercial units are lying empty. At a meeting at the end of last year, the former Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs was asked to help the local business community. There was much talk from him about the small business start-up packages, but a good friend of

  215
  mine, a Cheltenham business man and former Conservative councillor, told the Minister that he needed a business survival package to save his existing small business.
  A cut in the UBR now has sadly come too late for many businesses, but it is a welcome recognition of past sins. It is sorely needed by many firms which are still struggling and which cannot see an end to this awful recession. The welcome cut in business taxation creates a dilemma for the Government. They have said that the recession is over. If that is so, why are they hurrying to cut business taxes? On April 28, the Prime Minister told the Institute of Directors that he was
  "more confident than ever that recovery is under way."
  I hope that he is right. On 12 May, the Prime Minister told the House:
  "Since polling day we have a dramatic change in the confidence of the markets and individuals."—[Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 496.]
  If recovery is under way, why make such temporary reductions? If there has been a dramatic change in confidence, why are the Government spending 'half a billion pounds on boosting business? Either the Government do not believe their own rhetoric on the recession, and they realise, as Liberal Democrats realise, that the recession is still hitting many businesses, or they proposed the cut in the business rate for other reasons.
  On 13 March, the Municipal Journal, perhaps mischievously, thought that it knew the real reason for the cut in UBR. It stated:
  "One benefactor from the budget boost to small businesses is forecast to be the former environment secretary and Tory Party chairman Chris Patten, who is defending a slender 1,412 majority in Bath."
  I am glad to note that, despite the result in Bath, the Government have not decided to drop the proposal, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will testify, the UBR is still causing small businesses great problems. Any measure designed to mitigate the impact of the recession, however late in the day, must be welcome.
  This debate is surely an opportunity to ask where the Government should go with UBR now the election is over and to examine how the Bill could be improved. Ideally, the control of non-domestic rates should be decentralised —or perhaps it is better to say, denationalised. Business rates, whether levied on the property or land, should be raised by local councils and not central Government. This happens in most other European countries which realise that differences in local business tax rates are not as distortive as some people have suggested.
  Where there are lower business taxes, land prices and rents will adjust to remove any benefits. Moreover, if business taxes are local, the local authority is far more likely to have a closer relationship with the business community, and therefore to understand the needs of local business. A small business man in Cheltenham has a far greater opportunity to talk to his councillor—he may even be a councillor—than he does of talking to the Minister.
  I should not be surprised if the introduction of the council tax does not force the Government into a complete rethink on this issue. With the 1991 Budget switch from community charge to value added tax, councils are now raising only a small percentage of the revenue they spend
  216
  —only 14 per cent. Therefore, small changes in spending or small changes in their grant allocation inevitably lead to large changes in the local domestic tax bill.
  This so-called gearing effect may make the council tax almost as unpopular as the poll tax, and, wary of yet another change in local personal taxation, the Government may then be forced into reopening the business rate debate. For the sake of the strength and vitality of local democracy, we hope that that happens.
  Until the furore over the council tax begins, it is perhaps too much to hope that the Government will use the Bill to decentralise the UBR. How then could we realistically expect the Government to improve the Bill? The most simple measure would be to make larger reductions than the Bill proposes. The Liberal Democrat alternative budget proposed an overall reduction, costing £800 million in 1992–93, by simply freezing the poundage increase. That was originally proposed by the present President of the Board of Trade in September 1991.
  Our proposal differed slightly in terms of the incidence of the tax reductions. It is possible that the Government's measure is more effectively targeted, although whether it is targeted more on Tory marginals than on areas of most acute distress may be debatable. If the Government's measure is better targeted, how much more effective would any additional help be if the Minister could only persuade his Treasury colleagues to give a little more leeway.
  There are many other problems with the UBR that could be tackled in the Bill with some imagination on the part of the Government. The Bill at last recognises the absurdity of the original decision to restrict eligibility for transitional relief to the orginal occupier. That decision caused some ridiculous anomalies, and I will give just two examples.
  Firms wanting to cut costs in the recession by moving to smaller premises found that, if they did so, any cost savings were outweighed by the increase in the rates bill that they suffered because their residency in the smaller premises would not be eligible for transitional relief. Firms coming into towns after 1 April 1990 found that their rates bills were far higher than those of a competitor across the street. In some cases, those anomalies further aggravated the already appalling state of the commercial property market.
  That anomaly is to be corrected only from 10 March 1992. Why cannot the entitlement to transitional relief be made retrospective? According to a parliamentary answer given on 18 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the cost of such a proposal in England would be about £90 million. Another answer gave the cost in Wales as about £1 million. The Government should at least look at the suggestion.
  Another improvement would be the restoration of the right to have a rateable value reduced if it were higher than the market rental value. The commercial property market has been through such an extreme cycle of boom and bust that many rateable values are far above current market rental values. The Government might protest that a revaluation is due within the lifetime of this Parliament. Such a response is no good to a small business desperately struggling to keep itself going. The restoration of that right could make all the difference to some firms and keep many people employed.
  The Scottish issue must also be dealt with. Unlike the famous poll tax gap of the 1991 Budget, when the Government failed to apply the cut in the community

  217
  charge on an equal basis in Scotland, at least on this occasion they have remembered the existence of Scotland. But Scottish businesses are still penalised relative to English businesses through the rating system. The reduction announced in the Budget did not further close the gap between Scotland and England.
  While the English business rate poundage is 40.2p, the rate poundage in Glasgow is 63.3p. In Edinburgh, it is 57.6p, and in Dundee and Stirling it is about 57p. The average Scottish poundage in 1992–93 will be 56.6p compared with the English poundage of 40.2p. The Government have two years left in which to harmonise the poundages either side of the border if they are to stick to their previous timetable. The Council of Scottish Local Authorities calculates that they will need to find a further £260 million in that period. This measure would be an opportunity to guarantee Scottish business that the Government will meet their promises on time, if not sooner.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would bear in mind the fact that the Bill is restricted to England and Wales. I hope that he will not be developing his argument too far on the Scottish dimension.
  Mr. Jones: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Although the Bill is welcome, and we on this Bench will be supporting it tonight, it attempts to ameliorate a bad system which has caused hardship and worsened the already awful effects of the recession. If the Government want to make a proper job of atoning for their recessionary sins, there are many ways in which the Bill could be improved in detail, and we shall attempt to do so in Committee.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment as Chairman of Ways and Means, the Minister on his appointment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on his maiden speech, which I enjoyed greatly. It is good to have in our ranks another hon. Member with expertise in local government. I have no doubt that we shall hear him on many occasions in the future.
  Any measure that can help businesses, particularly small ones, in England and Wales—I hope that there will be a similar Bill to assist Scotland—is beneficial. I have in my constituency many talented men and women who are self-employed and earning a decent living. They have been forced into self-employment because of redundancies, especially in the railway workshops and in other industries in Glasgow.
  I have often asked people who have been made redundant, "Why do you not open a shop or some other business and employ people?" The response is often, "Having a shop means having a commitment to pay rates. It means that, whether the trade is good or bad, you know that, come Monday morning, you must find the money for the rates, apart from the other expenses." So I am glad that at least some help is being given to the business community.
  I represent a Scottish constituency. I take on board, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your reference to the fact that this legislation covers England and Wales, but I must refer to
  218
  the deep anxiety that exists in Scotland because the system there has meant that every five years there was a revaluation, and that led to a great gap. Examples have been given, for example, of football pitches in Glasgow and London and other major cities where a big difference exists in the rates.
  Non-domestic ratepayers north of the border are bound to feel aggrieved that compensation is being given to ratepayers south of the border because the Government failed to introduce a compulsory five-year revaluation. Had such a revaluation existed in England and Wales, this measure would not have been necessary. So Scottish taxpayers' money is having to be provided for non-domestic ratepayers south of the border. I take the view that what a friend gets is no loss, but others may not share that view.
  For years, and particularly in the previous Parliament, some Tory backwoodsmen kept complaining about what they described as whingeing Scotsmen being subsidised. Indeed, even one of their Lordships in the other place complained about what he called over-subsidised, whingeing Scotsmen. We are tonight discussing an area about which complaints might legitimately come from north of the border, simply because the Government failed to get the revaluation completed on a regular basis. What a blow it would have been to shopkeepers and factory owners in the south if it had been completed on time.
  Reference has been made to so-called overspending local authorities. I think that I see the Minister nodding in assent over that. We must consider what is happening in areas where the recession is biting deep, as it is in my constituency. I do not accept that Strathclyde arid Glasgow are overspenders. Indeed, if it were not for the local authorities, many more businesses would be going to the wall.
  The Government have introduced compulsory tendering because the private sector is experiencing so much difficulty in the recession that it is moving into the public sector and obtaining local government contracts. Were it not for those local government contracts, many men and women would be out of a job.
  I clearly recall that, when Margaret Thatcher came to power, a civil engineering company in my constituency was pleased. It went on record as saying that it would cut on town hall work, but within five years, the director of that company was in the House of Commons Lobby pleading for local government work to keep the company alive.
  If local government spending were cut by Government edict, savings would be made not by cutting the numbers of young girls working behind the counters in the city chambers and the licensing department and on the word processors and typewriters, but rather by cutting roads contracts. Roads maintenance and street lighting would go.
  The Labour party will not oppose the Bill, but if the Government constantly have a go at local authorities, they should not blame people who must pay the rates for having a go at local authorities. The Government must carry responsibility for those rates bills, because they have capped local authorities throughout the country. They should tell business men and women that local authorities are, on the whole, responsible. They are run by dedicated men and women who give their time voluntarily.
  Those men and women are not like Members of Parliament. We complain of inadequate secretarial

  219
  back-up, but they depend on their wives, sons and daughters to answer phones while they are out attending meetings. Their tea, supper and Sundays off are often interrupted because they have volunteered to serve on local government. Yet every time a Minister gets to his feet, he has a go at so-called overspending local authorities.
  Tory Governments have always been keen to talk about law and order. Indeed, a maiden speech earlier tonight discussed that subject. However, the Minister must know that, because of Government cuts, the morale in our police force is in a terrible state. In 1979, if I went to a senior police officer and told him of vandalism in a certain corner of my constituency, he would offer to have extra men sent in and some officers working overtime. Consumers benefit from that. Now, officers in my local authority and, I dare say, authorities in England and Wales, say that they cannot employ the manpower necessary to protect people.
  The other day in my constituency, a terrible thing happened. A runaway car was running around a housing estate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) laughs, but it was not funny. Once the young vandals had stolen the car, they pushed it down a flight of stairs in a main street and killed a young woman who was coming from her home.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I have yet to make my maiden speech, and I had no intention of participating in this debate. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, because I was not discussing his remarks but a quite different subject. He was wrong to suggest that I was laughing at what I believe to be a serious matter. Will he withdraw his accusation?
  Mr. Martin: The hon. Lady should not be engaged in conversation in the Chamber but should be involved in the debate. I understood her to be engaged in, the debate. I accept that she was not laughing, but, if she was involved in a discussion with her colleague, she should not be here. Earlier this evening, hon. Members were taking part in a debate while others were engaged in private conversation. I understood the hon. Lady to be laughing at a serious point.
  The so-called law and order party is not supporting the police because it is not supporting local authorities. Although some business people may say, "Three cheers, the Government will give us cheaper rates," because the Bill will provide some respite, the same shopkeepers and factory owners will go to their group leaders, the Lord Provost and lord mayors asking why their companies are being vandalised. They want to know why, when their vans go into housing estates, they are vandalised.
  The answer will be that there is inadequate coverage for the police authorities. Although there will be cheaper rates for factories and shops, what will we do about the shopkeepers who sometimes come to us and say that things are so bad that they must stay the night in their shops to prevent them being broken into? What is the point of charging cheap rates when the party of law and order cannot protect the very people whom it claims to serve?
  The Minister—there is a new broom in the Department —should meet the leaders of the local authorities. In Scotland, we have a convention of local authorities. I hope
  220
  that the Secretary of State will meet the equivalent in England and Wales. Instead of trying to score points off one another, with the Government saying that the problems are all caused by Labour authorities and Labour authorities arguing that they are caused by the Government, why do not they get together and do something for consumers? Ultimately, the people who pay the rates, domestic and non-domestic, are entitled to the best possible service from local authorities and the Government.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on a first-class maiden speech. His remarks were generous, and his local government background will offer much to the House. As a former leader of the borough council at Nuneaton, he gave a good survey of local government in his area.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) referred, rightly and wisely, to the cuts in grant to Gloucestershire county council, which have a parallel with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton about Warwickshire. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that the former chairman of the Conservative party, Mr. Christopher Patten, owes his new job as governor of Hong Kong to the business rate. There is no doubt that he lost his seat on account of the devastating effect of the business rate on small traders and shopkeepers in the city of Bath.
  Obviously, we welcome the Bill, so far as it goes, because it means that some of the excesses in the business rate in England and Wales will now be abolished. During the past three years, Opposition Members have said that some of the changes should have been effected immediately. I can clearly recall saying that people who are changing their business should be eligible for relief in the same way as those who have been in business in the same property for some time. The changes are to be welcomed. But I echo the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that the transitional relief schemes within both the business rate and the poll tax have brought much uncertainty to the way in which local government finance is regarded in Wales and England.
  The new Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will have to answer questions about the Principality of Wales. I intend to target most of my remarks on Wales. However, I am sure that he will meet the challenge, as he has done during the years that he and I have served on Standing Committees.
  I understand that 30,000 business rate bills in Wales are likely to be frozen as a result of the legislation, 7,000 businesses are to have their reductions speeded up and 35 per cent. of business properties are to benefit. We welcome those improvements. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said, we wonder where the money is coming from, as the shortfall in Wales is to be made up by Welsh Office grants—£25 million in this financial year, £22 million next year and £13 million the year after.
  The money for some of the transitional relief schemes that we have been told about during the past year or so seems to come from nowhere. We welcome the schemes and the money behind them, but I and other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for

  221
  Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), wonder why the money could not be found for other important services such as the police force. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn about law and order. The whole of south Wales, from the city of Swansea to the Wye valley, has been allowed only one extra policeman for this current year. I am sure that, if the £25 million could be found, the money for more policemen could be found.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside referred to rebates. We believe that the business rate should relate to the ability of business people to pay it, as the individual's council tax or poll tax relates to his or her ability to pay it. That is why we argued at the general election, and still do, that rebates of up to 100 per cent., related to the profitability of businesses with an annual turnover below a specific level, would be welcome. The business rate as it stands is nothing more than a business tax. It is not a rate, as it bears no relation to how rates used to operate or the new council tax is to operate. The business rate is a national tax imposed on business people.
  Earlier, we heard exchanges across the Floor of the House on the former business rate levied by local authorities. Of course, some local authorities will spend more than others—that is the ways of things—but if we accept that democracy must be genuine, and local, we must acknowledge that all the benefits of a local business rate in linking the local business community with the local community itself are valuable. Local authorities provide an educated work force, roads, infrastructure, firefighters, housing, environmental services and, particuarly in Wales, important developments in relation to local businesses and general economic development.
  The business tax seems unrelated to the commercial activity of a given district. Some 20 or 30 years ago, the great Llanwern steelworks was placed in a rural parish in my constituency. It brought jobs and prosperity, but changed considerably the community's nature. It was right and proper that the !coal authority should derive the benefit of the business rate from the enormous steelworks in a part of the world that was changed by its presence.
  A local business tax or rate should be set, collected and used locally. I believe that that is the view of local government generally and of many business people in this country. However, in Wales, as in England, the current business rate distorts the local government finance system. Local authority associations, like many others, are deeply concerned about the different changes that local government finance in the business sector has experienced during the past few years. There is a credibility problem. Many people, both within and outside the business community, have lost confidence in the system of local government finance, whether the poll tax, council tax or business rate.
  There is another problem: local authorities, strapped for cash, will encounter difficulties relating to the new change to be introduced by the Bill. The recession means that there are many cases of arrears in England and Wales which in turn burden local authorities with extra administrative costs. Only recently, the Local Government Chronicle said that the changes to be introduced by the Bill were unlikely to have an immediate effect due to the complexities of the computer software of local authorities.
  It is important that the Bill proceeds as speedily as possible, which is one reason why we are helping it on its way. However, it is also important that local authorities should be given every possible assistance, not just financial
  222
  —although that is important. They should also be given advice on how their computers and software can cope with the changes.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said, the Bill's worst consequence for the local government finance system will be on the so-called gearing effect. In Wales, every 1 per cent. increase in expense means an increase of about 9 per cent. in the poll tax or council tax. Only just over 11 per cent. of local authority income is determined by the local council. There may well be advantages, but I cannot see them.
  Due to the gearing effect, if a local authority is to have a genuine revenue-raising power, the national business rate—collected in Wales and distributed in Wales from Cardiff—together with the grant system, which is crazy anyway, will mean that local councils can do virtually nothing unless they increase local taxes dramatically. The gearing effect has distorted local government finance and effectively meant that local authorities no longer have a proper revenue-raising function. That has enormous implications for the future of local democracy in Wales and England.
  I hope that, when the Bill is passed and the Government set themselves the task of administering the new council tax, they will look carefully at the joint impact of the business rate and the council tax on the proper revenue-raising functions of our local authorities. Without those functions, local democracy cannot function properly.
  There is a special case in Wales, as it seems that British local government reform is on the horizon. We have been told, although not yet in the House, that the Secretary of State for Wales intends to reform local government in the Principality fairly soon, a White Paper will be with us in the autumn, and the county council elections in Wales scheduled for next year may even be postponed.
  If we are to have a system of unitary authorities in the Principality and if that system is to enjoy any consensus among those in Wales who understand and are involved in local government, there must be alongside it a change in the system of local government finance which means that the standard spending assessments are much more realistic. That in turn will mean that the business rate is related locally to how people raise it and how local authorities spend it.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was a councillor when reorganisation took place. Does my hon. Friend agree that the displacement of officials will entail a fantastic cost in terms of redundancies? Last time, and ludicrously, officials made redundant from one authority immediately applied for posts in a new authority. The Government talk about saving ratepayers money, but I fear that we are in for spending another fortune.
  Mr. Murphy: I agree. I, too, was involved in the last local government reorganisation in 1974. Of course, it was extremely costly; I rather suspect that the reforms in England have been postponed because of the enormous costs that they would involve. I should be interested to know how we can avoid them in Wales—I assume that they can be avoided somehow. We are told that the reforms will pay for themselves, but I confess that I have never known that happen yet. Whatever happens, the reforms will be upon us fairly soon, so it behoves the

  223
  Welsh Office to examine local government finance at the same time as it examines the structure and functions of our new Welsh councils.
  We cannot keep having changes and reforms in local government: it must eventually settle down. The key word now must surely be stability in local government, and I hope that the Government will think again in the months and years ahead about the importance of returning the business rate to the local authority dimension and of ensuring that local democracy is both local and democratic.
  8.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): If I am a little tardy in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is because this is my first opportunity to do so. I hope that you will have many happy years in your new post.
  I also thank the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for his kind words. He referred to shared pleasures of serving on Standing Committees. I have a strange feeling that we will be returning to those shared pleasures on this and other measures as and when they arise.
  I sincerely congratulate also the new hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) on what I thought was a first-class maiden speech, delivered with sincerity and conviction. He spoke generously about his predecessor, Lewis Stevens, who is remembered with affection in this House—I do not believe I am being controversial when I say that he is affectionately remembered by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Nuneaton wisely highlighted the links in a community between work, housing and education. Perhaps, as a fellow paid-up member of the club of former leaders of councils, I may also welcome his contribution tonight and look forward to hearing from him again. When he mentioned SSAs, I realised that he will be welcomed into an even more exclusive club—those who wish to understand SSAs and to take part in debates on them. He will be welcome in the rarefied atmosphere surrounding such debates.
  The Government are encouraged by the wide range of support for the Bill in tonight's debate, even though, perhaps predictably, some hon. Members' comments went just a fraction wider. The Bill is certainly good news for business. In a nutshell, it means that no business, whether in transition or not, will face a rate increase of more than 4.1 per cent. this year; and 150,000 businesses will enjoy reductions of up to 27 per cent.
  To those who argue, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), that we could or should go further, I can only reply that this is already an exceptionally generous package, worth more than £1.25 billion over the three years concerned.
  Speaking of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, whose presence we welcome, he asked a couple of questions that I would like to answer straight away. First, he asked why we are proceeding with the Bill if the economy has turned around. The answer is that the Government believe in fulfilling their promises. This was promised in the Budget and we believe that it should be carried out. Realistically speaking, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will concede,
  224
  even with the economy turning round, the change will be gradual and many businesses will still face considerable pressures over the next couple of years, so we think it right that they should continue to receive the promised assistance.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham also suggested that we consider back dating the relief for properties that will benefit from having been left empty during the transitional relief stage. That would be a major exercise, and we should have to unscramble every transaction between 5 April 1990 and 10 April 1992. That would not only be chaotic—it would be undesirable, and it would involve retrospective legislation. Many businesses entered into these purchases and sales taking account of the law as it stood, and we think that it would be unfair to change the underlying ground rules now, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree on further reflection.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen asked me one or two questions which I will try to answer. If I do not, I promise to write to him with such residual queries as he may trace—
  Mr. Murphy: In Welsh?
  Mr. Squire: Preferably not.
  I can confirm that just under 30,000 businesses will benefit under the so-called loser clauses alone. A further 6,800 businesses will benefit by having their gains accelerated. Altogether, about 35 per cent. of businesses in Wales will be affected, at a cost of about £1 million to the Exchequer.
  The hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to rates being based on ability to pay. Before 1990, the basis of local business rates was broadly the same as for NNDR, in that they were based on rateable values. To the extent that businesses will not generally be prepared to pay more in rent than they can afford, market rents and hence rateable values are linked to overall business profitability.
  The Bill is certainly good news, targeting help on all businesses. If we simply aimed at small ones, we would not have been able to help some of those which face the largest increases under the 1990 reforms and the largest year-on-year changes under the transitional arrangements.
  The decision to end transitional protection on a change of owner-occupier is designed to ensure that the occupiers of new buildings and the new occupiers of old buildings are treated the same. It also allows more money to flow to gainers within the total. I have already mentioned that in the Welsh context.
  I should like to say a few words on transitional relief in the light of the earlier exchanges involving my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). If large increases in rates bills emerge from the 1995 revaluation, the Government will certainly consider using their powers to put in place a new transitional scheme after 1995. We have repeatedly given businesses that assurance, and I am happy to underline it again tonight.
  We know that, despite the existing scheme, businesses have had problems coping in the recession. The Government have monitored the position, and have listened. We accept that the loss of transitional protection has put some brake on property changing hands; the

  225
  Chancellor's Budget announcement included an improvement in the transitional scheme, which will help businesses in difficulties with the recession and assist their return to profitability.
  Mr. Murphy: Can the Minister tell us how long the transitional period is likely to last? Is there a norm, or do transitional periods go on for ever?
  Mr. Squire: I sense that the hon. Gentleman was being less than helpful in that intervention. The answer is, of course, that he cannot expect me to reply to his question from the Dispatch Box tonight—but I can tell him that the Government will examine the way in which businesses are affected from year to year, and will make decisions on that basis. I hope that he will agree that that is the only intelligent way in which to proceed. As I have said, the Government recognise the possibility of a further transitional scheme if we consider such a scheme justified.
  Incidentally, that momentary pause for reflection was helpful, in that I realised that I had made a slip of the tongue. I can confirm that the cost of the Welsh proposals will be £25 million in 1992–93, not the £1 million that I inadvertently mentioned a moment ago.
  The Opposition parties sought to tempt us back to locally set rates. Conservative Members are not moved; we are committed to protecting business rate payers. Only last week, and again tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) drew attention to the enormous rate rise—an increase of over 100 per cent. in local rate, and of 44 per cent. in the general rate—that the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham imposed on businesses in 1987. In 1989–90, poundages ranged from 122p in Kensington and Chelsea to 400p in Sheffield. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is more than aware of that figure. We cannot go back to that.
  I noted with considerable interest, and qualified agreement, what the hon. Member for Brightside said in his speech. If what I have just described could be termed the 1970s mode of the Labour party—in those days, a number of its members were quite content for businesses to be soaked, and soaked very heavily—we have now clearly moved into 1990s mode. Now, the Labour party champions small businesses. How that will blend in with the championing of the Transport and General Workers Union and other union paymasters, time will show.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall ignore that rather frivolous throwaway remark. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on where the poundage to which he has referred placed the city of Sheffield on the league table of rates paid by businesses. During the period he mentioned, Sheffield—the fourth largest city in Britain—ranked 61st on the league table. That bore no relation to the actual pence in
  226
  the pound that had to be levied to raise the necessary revenue to sustain what Her Majesty's inspectorate described at the time as the best education system in Britain.
  Mr. Squire: Of course I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the details of the poundages from the Dispatch Box. I can say, however, that over the years I have heard successive Sheffield Members, referring to the old system, bemoan the high cost of Sheffield's rates. I pass that on for the hon. Gentleman's information and possible edification.
  We have always made it clear that, although set nationally, proceeds of national non-domestic rate would be distributed fully to local authorities. The approach in the Bill underlines that commitment. The NNDR pool will be fully recompensed for any reduction in rate yield that is due to the Bill. Local authorities will be allowed to net off reasonable costs of re-billing from NNDR payments. We shall look carefully at any evidence from authorities that NNDR payments in the first month of the year have not kept pace with the profile of payments to the Department set at the beginning of the year, and we shall consider adjustments if they prove necessary.
  Local authorities will be given plenty of time to prepare for re-billing after enactment by delay in the commencement of the Act by about one month. They will be required to give refunds back to 1 April—or, in the case of transferred property, 10 March—to those who have overpaid, and to adjust future instalments downwards.
  I am sure that the House will wish to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, so that ratepayers can benefit from it. It gives significant help to all businesses, big and small, during the current financial year. It does so by restricting increases for all businesses, and by ensuring that those who benefited most from the 1990 reforms receive all that benefit during this year or the next. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said when he moved Second Reading, no business this year will face a real-terms rise in its rate bills.
  We believe that this is an important, targeted and necessary measure, and I urge the House to give it unanimous support tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Mackay.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  NON-DOMESTIC RATING BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Squire.]

  Customs Duties
  9.5 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): I beg to move,
  That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 7) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 792), dated 16th March 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  The order implements a decision of the Governments of the European Coal and Steel Community meeting within the Council on 3 February 1992. The purpose of the decision, which is part of a package of economic measures agreed by the Community to bring an end to the conflict in the Yugoslav region, is to reinforce preferential tariff rates on imports of all ECSC categories of goods originating from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Slovenia. Such imports were temporarily subject to normal rates of duty following the denunciation of the ECSC-Yugoslav agreement and implementation of Community decision 91 588. The order does not reintroduce preferences for goods originating in Serbia.
  For most industrial products, the Community's external tariff can be amended by Council regulation, which is directly applicable in all member states. For legal reasons, however, changes in the tariff related to products covered by the ECSC have to be incorporated in United Kingdom law by means of a statutory instrument through the affirmative resolution procedure. Hence the need for the order.
  9.6 pm
  Ms. Joyce Quin: I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by congratulating you on your appointment. I hope that you have much enjoyment in presiding over our proceedings, whatever the subject and whatever the hour.
  The subject with which we are dealing is similar to one that the Minister and I debated in Committee a few months ago when the (Amendment) (No. 6) order was considered. Against that background, perhaps I can take the opportunity to repeat some of the questions which I put to the Minister on that occasion, which I feel were not entirely answered.
  We have not had a major debate on Yugoslavia, and I realise that it will not be possible to have one when considering an Order as narrow as the one that is before us. During the debate on the Gracious Speech, however, we dealt with foreign affairs. That provided hon. Members with an opportunity, quite properly, to voice their concerns about Yugoslavia.
  I understand the procedure that relates to the Order, which the Minister clarified in his statement. When he replies, perhaps he will be able to say whether there is any way of speeding up the procedure or anything that would make it more effective in the face of the ever changing situation in Yugoslavia—or what, perhaps, more properly should be called the former Yugoslavia.
  When we discussed these matters in Committee, several hon. Members referred to the different parts of Yugoslavia and spoke of how we should respond to the emerging republics. Only a few months ago, through the order on ECSC customs duties, we were proceeding on the basis that the whole of Yugoslavia still existed, even though it was clear that different relations with different republics
  228
  were emerging on the part of the members of the European Community. It worries me that in such a rapidly changing situation some of the measures with which we are dealing through the procedures can quickly become out of date.
  The order tackles the problem of trade with the different republics in the former Yugoslavia, and no longer with Yugoslavia as a single unit, but I am not sure that it actually deals with those different republics in an entirely acceptable way. It exempts all the republics from ECSC customs duties, except Serbia. However, I understand that Serbia and Montenegro are operating as one unit, even though Montenegro is exempted under the order. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that, because it appears to be rather strange.
  We know that the different republics in the former Yugoslavia have evoked different responses among EC member states. Whereas many of us feel that Slovenia has done a great deal to commend itself to the European Community, there are doubts about some of the developments in Croatia—for example, many people have expressed concern about human rights there.
  It is not a simple matter to deal with the different republics, so I wonder whether the Minister could enlarge on his brief statement and say what sort of discussion of these matters has taken place in the European forum and what was the attitude of the British Government to including all the republics except Serbia in the order.
  Perhaps the Minister could also say a little about how the measures affect the different countries of the European Community. I know that, on the wider issue of sanctions, Greece, for example, is concerned that it might be more detrimentally affected than the various republics in the former Yugoslavia. I put that point to the Minister when we previously discussed this matter in Committee, but he did not respond. Will he now give us some details on that?
  I imagine that the order is of only minor relevance to this country, but as the Minister did not say anything about that aspect, perhaps he could confirm it. Could he also tell us whether he has found it necessary to hold discussions with industry about imposing the duties on steel for Serbia, but removing them for the other republics? What was the practical effect of introducing the previous order that we discussed in Committee? Did it make any major difference to the steel trade between the different republics of Yugoslavia and the different countries of the EC? The Minister has given us no details on that.
  I assume that we are dealing with modest measures that are probably insignificant within the overall trading position between the republics of the former Yugoslavia and EC countries. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some feedback on how that overall trading relationship is now viewed within the EC. While I certainly sympathise with the attitude that the EC is taking towards Serbia in particular, I think that all of us believe that it is important to support all the groups in all the republics that are opposed to the war, which are seeking to preserve or to reopen the channels of dialogue and trying to achieve some sort of solidarity between the various national and ethnic groupings. I should like the Minister to deal with that matter when he replies.
  Although the order is of minor importance in the overall relationship with Yugoslavia, it allows us to raise various questions—some of which I have tried to raise tonight, to which I hope the Minister will respond. The overall sanctions relating to Yugoslavia are adopted by regulation in the European Community and are

  229
  immediately binding on all the member states, so they have not given rise to debate in this House. The different procedure that applies to the ECSC allows us to raise some of these issues tonight, and I hope that the Minister will respond.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). She is right to ask those questions. It is also right that the House should be given the opportunity to debate the tragic events in Yugoslavia. I do not intend to deal in detail with those tragic events, because the scope of the order is narrow. All I would say is that Government will continue their twin-track policy in Yugoslavia. They will give all aid, comfort and support to my noble Friend Lord Carrington in his sterling efforts on behalf of the people in that region and will also encourage the different sides in the dispute in Croatia and Bosnia to come together.
  I shall do my best to answer the questions that the hon. Lady put to me. If I fail to do so, I shall be happy to write to her. She asked whether my Department had been in contact with United Kingdom importers and exporters. Our exporters face a difficult situation in Yugoslavia. They will need to reassure themselves that their customers have funds to pay for goods or services provided. That will not be easy. Many companies in the former republics have been badly hit by the present conflict, while others have money in banks outside those republics and can fund purchases with that money. Another problem is transportation of goods to the customer. The whole House will appreciate that our exporters face severe problems. My Department is ready to assist in every way that it possibly can.
  The hon. Lady asked me about the impact of European Community sanctions on trade with Yugoslavia. That is difficult to quantify. The main impact on trade has been the current conflict in the former republics. That has led to the value of United Kingdom trade declining by 37·5 per cent. in the first four months of 1992, compared with the same period last year. I am afraid that I do not have figures with me relating to the value of trade lost by other European Community members, but I shall be delighted to write to her with that information.
  The hon. Lady also asked me about who is to blame in this sad dispute. In our view, no side in Bosnia is without blame. The United Nations Security Council resolution 752 of 15 May calls for the withdrawal of units of the federal army and elements of the Croatian army from Bosnia. Serbs, through the federal army and irregulars, are the major aggressors.
  The hon. Lady asked me why, in the light of recent developments, Montenegro is included in the list of republics benefiting from the reintroduction of preferential access. I am sure that she will appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, upon which I should not like to dwell. However, at the time that the decision was taken Montenegro was deemed to be making a positive contribution towards the peace conference. The hon. Lady will recognise that that decision was taken by the European Community's Council of Ministers in December 1991.
  That leads me to the first point made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East. She said that there is a rapidly developing situation and she was asking whether
  230
  our procedures are sufficiently flexible to deal with it. We are in a difficult position, since we are committed to moving together as a Community. If one were talking about normal trade—for example, textiles—it would be possible to take a decision simply on the basis of the Council of Ministers decision. That is not possible when it comes to matters that relate to the European Coal and Steel Community. The hon. Lady will recognise that that is a much older agreement, dating back to the 1950s.
  The House may find it useful if I state the exact legal position. Section 5(3) and schedule 2(4) of the European Communities Act, as amended by section 19 and schedule 2 of the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979, require that, where an order imposes or increases any customs duty, the affirmative resolution procedure has to be used unless the duty is imposed pursuant to a Community obligation. If this order were being made pursuant to a Community obligation, the negative resolution procedure could be followed, but as, instead, the order is made pursuant to a decision of the Governments of the member states, it cannot be followed.
  I apologise for that somewhat legalistic language. In layman's terms, it means that, under the European Communities Act, we must use the affirmative procedure. The Council makes a decision which comes into force and, within 28 days, the House must approve it by affirmative resolution. If the House did not approve the course of action, the order would lapse.
  Such matters can usually be dealt with far more simply in Committee, but, as the debate is taking place so soon after the general election, the appropriate Committee has not been constituted. It is a rather complex legal point—
  Ms. Quin: Given that the situation in what was formerly Yugoslavia is changing, is a series of meetings envisaged, within the purview of the European Coal and Steel Community, to monitor what is happening to custom duties and possibly to change the arrangements again if it is felt appropriate to do so?
  Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point and I shall certainly take it on board. The House recognises that matters are moving quickly. Ministers and those who advise them will keep a close eye on the situation and, if it changes—for instance, if it becomes clear that there is a change in attitude by the Serbian Government—the Government will want to come back to the House, presumably having consulted other members in the Community, to see whether any change is appropriate. For the time being, however, we think that the order represents the best response.
  The order is part of a package of measures designed to put pressure on those whom we consider to be the principal aggressors—the Serbians. We think that ours is a balanced approach. I should add that we have also recalled our ambassador to Belgrade, who is now in London. We are determined to do all that we can to help to alleviate the tragedy in Yugoslavia. The order is part of the twin-track policy to which I referred earlier.
  I hope that the House will approve the order and will want once again to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of my noble Friend Lord Carrington.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 7) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 792) dated 16th March 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Defective Housing (Gosport)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay.]
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: This is the first opportunity that I have had to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your new role. I wish you well and congratulate you on your appointment. May all your Adjournment debates come up at 9.23 pm, and not much later, as many do.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of the plight of 278 families who are living in flats and maisonettes in my constituency—specifically in flats and maisonettes that were previously in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence.
  In the 1960s, John Laing, the builders, built for the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, then for the Ministry of Defence, several blocks of flats under the system of construction known as the Jesperson 12M system. That system was originally Danish and was used satisfactorily elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, there were serious problems in Gosport. The Jesperson 12M flats and maisonettes in Gosport were not built as they were elsewhere. In Gosport, most of them were built not with internal balconies but with external balconies. The idea was to provide more internal space. That type of construction seemed to work satisfactorily when the properties were owned by the MOD.
  The MOD found that it needed fewer of its properties for MOD occupation and it decided to sell some of them and to lease others. Of the properties that are causing difficulty at the moment, 275 have been leased to the borough of Gosport and provide council occupation, and 278 were sold by the MOD initially to property developers and, through them, to owner-occupiers.
  All was well until one day in September 1991, when, quite unexpectedly, a balcony on one of the blocks of flats in Sephton close collapsed. The inspection that took place immediately after the collapse rapidly revealed defects in the Sephton close blocks and in other flats in the development.
  The balconies were held in position by large C-shaped joints, about 3m high, secured at top and bottom by a hollow rectangular shaft which ran from the balconies into a receiving hole in the buildings where the shaft was secured by bolts. The whole of the joint structure was covered in concrete, thus making it impossible to discover whether there are defects. After the first balcony collapsed, it became necessary to shore up the other balconies with scaffolding. That remains the position today. That was the beginning of the crisis.
  The Government have been helpful and, through the MOD, have provided 350 housing units which the MOD will make available to housing associations, with the MOD retaining about half the nominations for five years, so that it will be able to rehouse returning service men, should that be necessary. The other half of the 350 units will be made available to the borough of Gosport. That will ease the borough's problem in housing its tenants and will help it to carry out the necessary redevelopment. However, the people in most severe difficulty are the owner-occupiers—the residents of the 278 privately owned blocks.
  232
  The Building Research Establishment, which is responsible to the Minister, has produced a paper which states:
  "We attributed the cause of the failure to the corrosion of the hollow steel fixing caused by water penetrating the cladding and being held in the shuttering and mortar/concrete encasing the steel section where it passes through the timber cladding."
  The paper also states that access to the troubled area
  "was gained by 'opening up' the construction from the outside of the building."
  It is clear from the Building Research Establishment paper that it was not possible to establish the defect prior to it manifesting itself in the most dramatic way through the collapse of the balcony.
  What can the owner-occupiers do? They paid between £25,000 and rather more than £40,000 for their properties, depending on location and timing. However, they cannot sell because there is no market. One cannot sell if no one is prepared to buy and if people believe that the estate is blighted—as it is at the moment. Selling is not an option.
  I pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor at the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and to the Department of the Environment, which has been helpful in working out with Gosport borough council the possibilty of obtaining common parts grants under the housing renovation scheme. It seems that such grants will be available, ranging from £5,700 to £6,300.
  A detailed scheme has been produced by Michael Dyson Associates, chartered structural engineers, of Southampton, and it seems to have some support. At the moment, the owner-occupiers are not minded to proceed along that route, because they do not regard repair as their way ahead. They want to be able to sell their housing units. I have urged the owner-occupiers to proceed along the repair route because that does not rule out other possibilities. I certainly urge them to bring together the necessary three quarters of residents in the owner-occupied blocks and to apply for common parts grants with the assistance of Gosport borough council.
  The second route along which the residents may proceed is to take legal action. That, too, is in hand. It is very difficult to bring together a disparate group of 278 owner-occupiers who need initially to obtain legal aid and to obtain counsel's opinion on who they might be able to take legal action against. One possible defendant, of course, is John Laing, the builder of the blocks, who undoubtedly constructed a block with a very dangerous defect within it. Another possibility is the Ministry of Defence or its predecessor in terms of authority for construction, the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works. Certainly the Ministry of Defence was not only responsible for having the block built but ran it for many years and was responsible for selling the block to the ultimate owner-occupiers. The Ministry of Defence might be an appropriate target for action.
  Also, there are the building societies that advised the owner-occupiers when they bought. In most cases, the owner-occupiers paid a modest surveyor's fee of £75. In other words, they did not have a proper structural survey. However, there is no doubt that the owner-occupiers were encouraged to use certain building societies, particularly the Halifax building society, and there may be an implication that the Halifax itself could be liable for that reason. There is a possibility of legal action.

  233
  It is difficult to see how that process can bring about a solution in the near term. We are looking for a shorter-term solution to that terrible situation in which the owner-occupiers find themselves—that is, of not being able to sell and not being able to move. There is no doubt that the dwellings are defective, and there is no doubt that the defect was not capable of normal discovery at the time of purchase. For anyone involved in housing legislation, that should begin to ring bells because it makes one think about the Housing Defects Act 1984.
  That Act is intended to cope with exactly that situation. On Second Reading of the Bill, our late lamented friend, Ian Gow, the then Minister for Housing and Construction, said:
  "The purpose of the Bill is to relieve the very serious distress and financial hardship of those who, often using all their savings, have bought their homes from public sector bodies in good faith and now find that those homes, through no fault of their own, have been very seriously devalued because of faults in design and construction which have since been discovered and confirmed by the Building Research Establishment."—[Official Report, 26 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 894.]
  That is exactly what has happened in the case of the owner-occupiers on the Rowner housing estate.
  I brought an all-party delegation from the borough of Gosport to see my hon. Friend's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South on 11 February. It was a short meeting because it was disrupted by a bomb scare and had to be curtailed, but I put it to the Minister as forcefully as I could that the housing defects legislation should apply in the case of the Rowner flats. We from Gosport were amazed—all four of us on our side of the table remember the words very well—when the Minister's adviser said that the defect in the flats was discoverable at the time of construction.
  I gather that that statement was denied subsequently, and we are told that the official said that the defect was discoverable at the time of purchase. However, that is not particularly significant to my case. The Minister ruled out the best route for my constituents, which is to use the housing defects legislation to require the local authority to buy their housing units at 95 per cent. of the defect-free price. That is what my constituents want.
  The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who will answer the debate, has written to me, again referring to the meeting on 11 February. In his letter of 6 May he said:
  "Defects legislation was reserved for dwelling types with serious inherent structural defects which could not have been known about or discovered on survey at time of purchase".
  I maintain that that is exactly what we have here, unless my hon. Friend has someone in his Department who is so clever that he can see through concrete. There was no way of discovering the defects. They arose as a result of water seepage through the concrete which corroded the metal within the concrete. No one could have discovered those defects until suddenly the balconies collapsed. I maintain that, on discoverability, the Rowner balcony flats fall precisely within the terms of the housing defects legislation.
  I suppose that it could be maintained that the Jesperson 12M class generally did not have defects. Of course that is true, but the flats constructed with balconies in Gosport, of which there are several hundred, had defects. Therefore, I maintain that the proper class is Jesperson 12M with balconies, as constructed in Gosport. I see no reason why that should not be accepted as a proper class.
  234
  In his letter of 6 May, my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that my constituents would be better off if they had their properties repaired than if they took advantage of the housing defects legislation to have the houses repossessed. He said that it would cost some £7 million to have the houses repurchased under the housing defects legislation, whereas it would cost only £1 million to repair them under the house renovation scheme. He says that the latter would be better from their point of view.
  I walked around the area again last weekend and spoke to some of the residents. I can tell my hon. Friend that that is not what they want. I put it to him that it is not for him to tell me what I should tell my constituents is best for them. I am telling him on behalf of my constituents that they desperately want the opportunity to sell their flats and maisonettes under the housing defects legislation.
  When our friend Ian Gow moved the Second Reading of the Housing Defects Bill, he said that he had had many letters describing the moving cases of people who were unable to sell their houses and flats—people in the most difficult situation. No case could possibly be worse than that of my constituents. They feel that they are stuck with blighted flats and maisonettes. Some of them work for the Ministry of Defence and have been relocated to other jobs in Bath or elsewhere. They cannot move. It is intolerable for them. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to think again.
  If the advice that my hon. Friend has been given leads him to believe that he cannot designate the properties, I ask him to look again at that advice and the facts that back it up. I ask for designation under part XIV section 528 of the Housing Act 1985. If my hon. Friend discovers that he cannot designate the flats and maisonettes, that it is not policy for him to do so or that the law does not allow him to proceed along that route, I ask him to do exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) did in 1982 when he realised that a special case had to be made of the Airey type of construction, and introduced emergency legislation.
  I also ask my hon. Friend to do exactly what Ian Gow did in 1984 and to introduce legislation which will help a further group of 28 classes of housing. I ask my hon. Friend to be responsive to the special problem of my constituents. I have met them, and they are essentially decent, reasonable and deeply worried people. They are our kind of people. They are the kind of people who are anxious to get on the escalator of house ownership. They bought their first property, and it has let them down. I believe that the Government owe them some help.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I fully appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and I shall endeavour to deal in full with the issues that he has raised. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) met my hon. Friend and members and officers of Gosport borough council early this year. A further meeting was subsequently held with my noble Friend the Earl of Arran, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. That allowed ministerial colleagues to explore the issues involved in detail and to prepare a way forward which, it was hoped, would provide constructive assistance to the owners of the flats in as short a time as possible.

  235
  The facts are these: the defects in the balconies could and should have been discovered at purchase; but, that aside, at the second meeting with ministerial colleagues, Gosport council's officers confirmed that the owners should be eligible for 100 per cent. grant aid.
  However, judging by various comments that have appeared in the media and elsewhere, misunderstandings persist and I therefore welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. I am also grateful for the chance to set the advice that we have alread given within the wider context of the Government's policy on ex-public sector housing stock in which structural defects become apparent.
  Whatever their construction, all older houses may have defects. Sometimes they will be trivial and sometimes more serious, but, provided that they are recognised, the buyer will be able to take into account future maintenance and repair costs likely to be associated with the defects and to reflect those costs in the price that he or she is prepared to pay for the property—they may even decide not to purchase. That is why we advise all local authority tenants contemplating the right to buy to obtain an independent survey, and why we warn them that a survey carried out by the lending institution is for valuation purposes only and will not necessarily reveal structural problems. That is sound advice for any prospective purchaser. We then expect owners to make proper provision for future repair and maintenance.
  Where serious, inherent, structural defects exist which could not possibly have been known about or discovered in a survey at the time of the purchase, that is a different matter. Research in the early 1980s by the Building Research Establishment revealed defects of that type in a number of prefabricated, reinforced concrete house types designed before 1960. As a result, owners who had bought from the public sector in good faith experienced a substantial loss of value. So, in 1984 the Government, with all-party support, introduced the housing defects legislation to ensure that their houses could be designated as inherently defective, and the owners could be assisted.
  The BRE has since investigated the range of system-built dwellings in this country, but it has found no further types that meet the criteria that I have outlined. Last year's efficiency scrutiny of the legislation concluded that any further designations were highly unlikely.
  The Jespersen 12M form of large panel system—LPS —construction, used in the flats at Gosport, was among the types surveyed by the BRE. Its report of LPS dwellings in 1987 revealed no cases of flats or houses which were structurally unsound, but BRE warned owners and purchasers to check that LPS buildings had been constructed to the standard system and that no one-off variations were present. Clearly, if such variations existed, they would need further investigation.
  When the balcony failures occurred on the Rowner estate last year, Gosport borough council wisely called in BRE to advise, and it found that the balcony design was unique to the estate and represented the sort of variation that it had warned might exist. It further concluded that the crucial fixing detail was highly vulnerable to rain water penetration and the uncovery work that it then carried out confirmed that severe deterioration of the metal supports,
  236
  through corrosion, had indeed taken place. However, there is no evidence that the flats, which were built to the standard Jespersen system, had any such problems.
  I understand that the cost of replacing the balconies will fall far short of the substantial reduction in notional overall value required by the housing defects legislation and that the defective detail does not meet the policy criteria for designation. Ministers have clearly and consistently been advised that any building professional carrying out a structural survey on the flats could and should have recognised that the balconies were non-standard, realised the extreme vulnerability of the fixing details, and advised that uncovery work would be necessary to determine the current condition of the fixing.
  We do not know what structural surveys, if any, were carried out when the flats were first sold, as found, on the open market by the Ministry of Defence to the three original property companies. Nor do we know whether the present owners commissioned such surveys when the flats were subsequently sold on. Various allegations have been made, but clearly it would not be right for me to comment further on questions of liability that might ultimately be for the courts to decide.
  My hon. Friend has suggested that the detail should have been seen as vulnerable at the time the flats were constructed. As he knows, no such statement has been made by my professional advisers, but even if that were true, it would merely reinforce their advice that the defect could and should have been discovered on survey at the time of purchase. That should not be our immediate concern today.
  The owners of leasehold flats and maisonettes are clearly in a very difficult position. Many, if not all, of them will be unable to fund the cost of the necessary repair works from their own resources. As every day passes, the cost of the temporary scaffolding, erected to make the balconies safe, mounts higher and higher.
  As I have already said, designation of the dwellings under the housing defects legislation would not be appropriate. Nor, as I shall show later, would it in any event be in the best interests of the owners, the council and the lending institutions that have advanced mortgages on the estate. Furthermore, as was explained to my hon. Friend and Gosport council when they met ministerial colleagues, and as I hope that I have further explained in correspondence, a better solution is to hand.
  As my hon. Friend has clearly and sensibly set out, since the housing defects legislation was passed, we have introduced the house renovation grants scheme to cover properties such as those on the Rowner estate, which were not previously eligible for repair grants. Since the scheme was started in 1990, local authorities have already agreed grant aid in just less than 40,000 cases, amounting to spending of more than £100 million, and targeted on owners—such as those on the Rowner estate—who would otherwise have real difficulty in carrying out essential repairs.
  As I have said, Gosport borough council's officers have confirmed that, in their view, all the affected owners could be eligible for 100 per cent. grant aid toward the cost of repairs, under the common parts provisions of the scheme. That could cost as much as £1.5 million, which is obviously a lot of money, but that is very much less than the £6.5 million that the council would need to spend to repurchase these homes at current "defect-free" valuations under the housing defects legislation.

  237
  That £1.5 million would restore the flats to the valuations that they enjoyed before the balcony failure, and the owners could keep their homes. Contrast that with the effects of repurchase under the housing defects legislation. It provides for repurchase of designated flats at 95 per cent. of the current defect-free value. I understand that those valuations would average about £25,000 a dwelling.
  However, I understand that the majority of owners have mortgages well in excess of that, since they bought at the height of property prices. Figures as high as £45,000 have been quoted, and it seems clear that, after repurchase, the average owner might be left with mortgage debts of as much as £12,000 to repay, on top of any rent, and without the value of a leasehold asset.
  That obviously cannot make sense. It certainly does not make sense to the lending institutions, which agree that assistance under the house renovation grant scheme is the only viable option. It surely cannot make sense either to Gosport borough council, which would, after all, have to foot the bill. Nor does it make sense in terms of overall public expenditure.
  238
  I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the only practical way forward for the owners is for them now to submit grant applications on the basis of the repair scheme that their structural engineers have already drawn up, and which will, I understand, be considered by Gosport council's planning committee as soon as 2 June. Once that has been done, the way will be clear for the council's officers to discuss with the Department's regional office how the resource implications for the council of grant aid can best be met, and the defective balconies replaced as soon as possible.
  As I and ministerial colleagues have repeatedly said, we are keen to provide constructive assistance to the owners of the flats in as short a time as possible. If they submit grant applications and enable Gosport council's planning committee to consider them on 2 June, and then to consider that matter with my Department's regional office, I hope that we shall indeed provide that constructive assistance to the owners in as short a time as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Treaty on European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the provisions which define the areas of exclusive competence of the European Community, as contained in article 3b of the draft treaty on European union, in the event of that treaty coming into force.

  The Attorney-General
  The hon. Member asked a question on 20 December 1991 about the exclusive jurisdiction of the European Community to which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office replied on 13 January 1992, at column 438. The term
  "exclusive jurisdiction of the European Community"
  in article 3b has now been replaced by
  "exclusive competence of the European Community",
  in accordance with the usual translation of the French word "competence". The answer to the hon. Member's question about exclusive competence is the same as to his question about exclusive jurisdiction, mutatis mutandis: the European Community has exclusive competence where that is conferred upon it by treaty provision or measures taken under the treaty. Current examples include the common agricultural policy, the common commercial policy and the external tariff.

  Rape (Male Victims)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions have been brought for the rape of a male victim in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figures given in the table are for acts of non-consensual buggery.

  England and Wales

  Buggery by a man with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent.

  Offence/Year

  Prosecutions

  1987

  19

  1988

  30

  1989

  24

  1990

  25

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male person of the age of 16 or over without consent

  Offence/Year

  Prosecutions

  1987

  3

  1988

  3

  1989

  2

  1990

  5

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Tibet (Torture)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the torture of prisoners in Drapchi prison, Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Two members of the British embassy in Peking visited Drapchi prison in July 1991, but were denied access to any prisoners. We cannot, therefore, corroborate allegations of torture there. Regrettably, reports of torture and physical abuse in Tibet are not uncommon. We deplore human rights abuses in Tibet and, indeed, throughout China. We take every opportunity to make our concern over such issues known to the Chinese authorities.

  Iraq (Hostages)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outstanding Kuwaiti hostages held by Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made clear at the meeting of the EC-Gulf Co-operation Council in Kuwait on 16 May, we are maintaining pressure on Iraq to fulfil all its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, including the return of missing Kuwaiti and other nationals.

  We fully support Kuwait's efforts through the International Committee of the Red Cross to establish the whereabouts of its missing citizens, of which some 800 are believed to be in Iraq. We raise this question at each Security Council review of sanctions and will continue to do so until all Iraq's obligations are met.

  Jersey
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the applicability of the United Kingdom's international obligations under international human rights conventions to Jersey.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  International human rights conventions are extended to Jersey as and when requested by the Jersey authorities.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the effect of the United States national security directive No. 26 on United Kingdom relations with Iraq in trade and technology assistance up to August 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The directive referred to was an internal US Administration document, and I understand that is was concerned solely with US policy towards Iraq and the Gulf.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he intends to introduce primary legislation to establish internal trading accounts within local authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he intends to publish the Government's final proposals following the publication of "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services"; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will publish a list of those local authority white collar services he intends to subject to compulsory competitive tendering, giving details of deadlines for competition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A list of those who responded to the consultation paper has been deposited in the House library, and copies of the responses have been placed in the library of my Department.

  The Government intend to bring forward in the autumn regulations and guidance under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992 to secure a clearer framework for compulsory competitive tendering. Announcements will be made in due course about the proposals for extending the list of activities subject to the compulsory competition provisions of the Local Government Act 1988, and on the timetable for implementation.

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends that the register of contaminated land should include reference to sites subject to clay pigeon shooting.

  Mr. Maclean
  The duty envisaged under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is for local authorities to compile registers of land which may be contaminated, in accordance with regulations. The regulations will specify contaminative uses of land. Consideration has been given to the inclusion of any use of land which results in its being contaminated with lead, including land used for clay pigeon shooting. However, implementation of section 143 has been delayed to enable further consideration to be given to the detail of the proposals and further consultation to be undertaken.

  Sustainable Living
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the establishment of a worldwide organisation to monitor the implementation of sustainable living and to prevent serious breaches in securing this goal.

  Mr. Maclean
  I will be working at the Earth summit to promote international arrangements for the effective follow-up of the agreements reached in Rio, building as far as possible on existing institutional arrangements.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his Department's definition of the concepts of(a) sustainable growth, (b) sustainable use and (c) sustainable development.

  Mr. Maclean
  Paragraphs 1.14 and 4.4 of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", Cm 1200. contain 70
  definitions of sustainable development. Paragraph 1.5 of the same White Paper deals with the need to integrate economic growth within these principles. The definitions of sustainable development embody a definition of sustainable use.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish plans for an environment agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are currently examining the results of our recent consultation exercise and will announce our plans for the environment agency as soon as possible.

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department plan to announce the outcome of the recent review of the disabled facilities grant system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The findings of the review of the house renovation grant system, including disablement facilities grants, are currently under consideration. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the two reportable radiological incidents that occurred in April at Sellafield involving the release of radioactive liquid in the former case and radioactive gases in the latter.

  Mr. Maclean
  British Nuclear Fuels plc reported two incidents to my Department that occurred in April at Sellafield, neither of which involved a release of radioactivity to the environment.

  Mundic Mining Soil
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings his Department has had with building societies regarding the effect on property development of concrete contaminated by mundic mining soil.

  Mr. Baldry
  Officials from my Department met representatives of the building societies and of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on 6 April 1992 to discuss problems arising with houses constructed from mundic concrete.

  Environmental Management Systems
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department made to the development of the British Standards Institute BS-7750 on environmental management systems; and whether he has any plans to promote the standard at the next European Council as part of harmonisation procedures for the single European market.

  Mr. Maclean
  Officials from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have liaised closely with the British Standards Institute on the development of BS 7750, in particular to ensure its compatibility with the EC ecu-audit proposals.
  71
  Compliance with the standard is voluntary. I therefore have no plans to promote it at the Environment Council as part of the harmonisation procedures for the single European market. But as it is the first of its kind in the world, I would anticipate that it will be a benchmark for the development of future European and international standards.

  Toxic Chemicals
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures exist to prohibit the illicit discharge of toxic chemicals with explosive gas generating potential from factories or workshops into the sewerage system.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Water Industry Act 1991 it is for sewerage undertakers, and, in the case of special category effluent, for the Secretary of State, to consent to discharges of trade effluent to sewers and to set appropriate consent conditions. These are designed to prohibit substances which by themselves, or in reaction with other substances, may give rise to explosive gases or vapours in the sewerage system.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he intends to make to the report by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation on disabled people's housing entitled "Housing: a Question of Influence".

  Sir George Young
  The report and its recommendations provide a helpful contribution to the debate on the provision of housing for disabled people. My Department has commissioned a major programme of research into the housing needs of elderly arid disabled people which is due to be completed in September this year. The issues raised by RADAR's report will be considered in the light of the results of this research.

  Housing and Disability Group
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide funding for the establishment of a national housing and disability group.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has considered this idea previously. We are not convinced that such an organisation is necessary. The Access Committee for England, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Disabled Persons Housing Service are already active in this area.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the number of(a) big water pollution incidents and (b) other water pollution incidents, in each year since 1981, showing the proportion of these caused by (i) oil and (ii) sewage and the proportion in each case caused by farmers;

  (2) if he will list, by area, the number of (a) big water pollution incidents and (b) other water pollution incidents caused by farmers in each year since 1981;

  (3) if he will list the number of (a) big water pollution incidents and (b) other water pollution incidents, in each year since 1981 showing the percentage of these caused by farmers.
  72
  Mr. Maclean
  Detailed information in this form is not held centrally by my Department or by the National Rivers Authority. The latest information available relating to pollution incidents is that published in the NRA's report "Water Pollution Incidents in England and Wales 1990".

  Waste
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he is encouraging the waste disposal industry to incinerate waste rather than to landfill.

  Mr. Maclean
  Both landfill and incineration have important roles to play as methods of waste disposal. What is appropriate in any area will depend on the particular circumstances, and type of waste to be disposed of. The Secretary of State is currently drawing up a planning policy guidance note on planning and pollution control, which will give advice to local authorities on the criteria they should apply in considering planning applications for waste disposal facilities, and in drawing up their development plans.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made towards achieving the Government's targets for recycling of household waste; and how these targets will be affected by current EC proposals.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since the Government set their target of recycling half of all recyclable household waste by the year 2000, we have introduced a range of measures to promote recycling, including a requirement on waste collection authorities to produce recycling plans; and the introduction of the recycling credits scheme on 1 April this year. There has been progress in a number of materials sectors, including the following.

  Aluminium can recycling has increased from 5 per cent. in 1990 to 11 per cent in 1991; the industry has set itself a target of recycling 50 per cent of aluminium cans by 1995.

  The number of glass banks has increased from 5,800 in 1990 to 7,155 in 1991; the industry has set itself a target of 10,000 banks by 1995.

  The number of save-a-can banks—which accept steel and aluminium cans—has increased from 200 in 1990 to about 625 in 1991; the industry has set a target of 1,000 save-a-can banks by 1994.

  As part of an agreement with the Government, the newspaper publishers recently published figures showing that 27 per cent. of newsprint used in their publications in 1990 was made from waste paper. Figures for 1991 are not yet available. The publishers have agreed to a target of 40 per cent. recycled newsprint by the year 2000.

  The Government are developing a national household waste analysis project, the first results of which will be available later this year. Together with a new survey of local authority waste collection and disposal practices being produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, that should provide more precise information to measure progress towards the Government's target.

  The European Commission has not yet finalised its proposal for a directive on packaging and packaging waste. It is therefore premature to speculate on the relationship between this or other measures and the Government's recycling target.
  73
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the final report of the study commissioned by his Department and the DTI on economic instruments to encourage the recovery of resources from waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have commissioned a study of economic instruments to inform the development of our policy on the recovery of resources from waste. The study has been commissioned because the Government believe that environmental policies should be soundly based, making use of the best available information. A draft of the final report is expected shortly.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the Government's target for energy recovery from used packaging.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have no plans to introduce a target for energy recovery specifically from used packaging.

  The Government are considering a range of possible targets for energy recovery from household waste. Decisions on them will be taken in the context of the Government's wider review of their renewable energy strategy.

  Office of Water Services
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers the Director General of Water Services has to restrain price increases in water bills; and if he will make a statement on the progress the Office of Water Services has made so far as a regulator.

  Mr. Maclean
  Water companies are not permitted to increase the tarriff basket, which includes the bulk of water and sewerage charges, each year by more in total than the increase in the retail price index plus a K factor specified for each company. K factors were set initially by the Secretaries of State; the director general is now making preparation to set revised K factors for the period beginning in April 1995. An interim determination of K can also be made for an individual company if there has been a material change of circumstances.

  From April 1992 most companies agreed to increase their charge by less than RPI + K, so saving customers an average of 1 per cent. or a total of £40 million in 1992–93.

  Water Bills
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the real terms and percentage increases made in water bills for each privatised water company since privatisation occurred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The annual increases in charges for each water supply and water and sewerage company are contained in the OFWAT leaflets "Water and Sewerage Bills 1991/92" and "Water and Sewerage Bills 1992/93", copies of which I have placed in the Library, together with a list of the increases in 1990–91.

  Acid Rain
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now make available maps showing the sensitivity of fresh waters in Great Britain to acid rain damage and the present and prospective extent of the areas liable to damage.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am issuing today a report to my Department by the United Kingdom critical loads advisory group entitled "Critical and Target Loads Maps for Freshwaters in Great Britain". This complements earlier work by the group on the sensitivity of soils in Great Britain, and supersedes earlier provisional maps relating to freshwaters in Scotland. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  This work will help to inform the consideration of policy on acid rain in the United Kingdom and the preparation of a new agreement in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the abatement of sulphur dioxide.

  Strontium-90 and Caesium-137
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has undertaken or sponsored any research into the mutagenic effects of strontium-90 and caesium-137.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 May 1992]: This Department has not undertaken or sponsored research into the mutagenic effects of radionuclides, as this lies outside our responsibilities.

  Part B Processes
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many part B processes have applied for authorisation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and how many of these have applied for and been granted commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: Provisional figures up to the end of December 1991 show that 2,809 applications for authorisation had been made to local authorities. The Department does not collect information on requests for commercial confidentiality.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to initiate a new review of the planning guidelines on opencast coal mining.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The current guidelines are contained in minerals planning guidance note 3—MPG3—published in 1988. As part of a monitoring exercise on the effectiveness of the guidelines, my Department has recently completed a wide ranging consultation exercise on their practical operation. I shall consider whether there is any need for revision of MPG3 in the light of that.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Chronic Fatigue
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive a final report from the Medical Research Council concerning the findings of the research study by the Institute of Psychiatry which is investigating chronic fatigue.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council annually submits to Ministers a report on the exercise of its functions which is laid before the House, but reports to Ministers on individual projects or programmes funded from the science budget are not normally expected. None is expected on the Institute of Psychiatry study of chronic fatigue syndrome. I understand that the study is due to be completed at the end of March next year and that the findings will in due course be published.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he plans to introduce any new citizens charters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The Citizen's Charter White Paper (Cm 1599) includes a commitment to publish a charter for London Underground customers. This will be published shortly.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise the elements of the retail prices index to eliminate the effect of movement in mortgage rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have now decided to ask the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee to review the treatment of owner-occupiers' housing costs in the retail prices index. The terms of reference for this committee are being amended accordingly and will now be as follows:"To advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implication for the RPI of the abolition of the community charge and its replacement by the council tax; to review progress on implementing the Committee's previous recommendation on the inclusion in the index of expenditure on holidays; and to review the present treatment in the index of owner-occupiers' housing costs and new cars. In framing its recommendations the Committee is asked to take account of the practices in other European Community countries."

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the realignments in the exchange rate mechanism since it was established together with the percentage change in each currency changed at the time; and what representations have been made to him for a new realignment.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table lists the ERM percentage realignments that have taken place.
  76

  Chronology of central rale changes within the EMS entry into effect of the EMS

  per cent.

  1979

  13 March

  23 September

  Deutschemark

  +2·00

  Krone

  -2·90

  30 November

  Krone

  -4·76

  1981

  22 March

  4 October

  Lire

  -6·00

  Deutschemark, Guilder

  + 5·50

  French Franc, Lire

  -3·00

  1982

  21 February

  Belgian/Luxembourg Francs

  -8·50

  Krone

  -3·00

  12 June

  Deutschemark/Guilder

  + 4·25

  Lire

  -2·75

  French Franc

  -5·75

  1983

  21 March

  Deutschemark

  + 5·50

  Guilder

  + 3·50

  Krone

  + 2·50

  Belgian/Luxembourg Francs

  + 1·50

  French Franc/Lire

  -2·50

  Punt

  -3·50

  1985

  20 July

  Belgian Franc, Krone, Deutschemark, French

  + 2·00

  Franc, Punt, Luxembourg Franc, Guilder

  Lire

  -6·00

  1986

  7 April

  Deutschemark

  + 3·00

  Guilder

  + 3·00

  Belgian/Luxembourg Francs

  + 1·00

  Krone

  + 1·00

  French Franc

  -3·00

  2 August

  Punt

  -8·00

  1987

  12 January

  Deutschemark

  + 3·00

  Guilder

  + 3·00

  Belgian/Luxembourg Francs

  + 2·00

  1990

  8 January

  When the Lire moved from ± 6 per cent. margin of fluctuation to ± 2¼ per cent.

  Lire

  -3·75

  Note: The net change in a particular central rate is approximately equal to the difference in the percentage changes shown against the two currencies concerned. For example in March 1983 the Deutschemark was revalued by 2 per cent. against the Guilder and 9 per cent. against the Punt.

  My right hon. Friend has received several such representations.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of interest was credited to the premium bond prize pool each month in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.
  77
  Mr. Nelson
  The rate has remained unchanged at 6·5 per annum since July 1988.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will initiate a departmental investigation into the commercial sales by the now defunct Allivane Company of Cumbernauld, Glasgow, of artillery fuses to Iraq in contravention of the export control restrictions;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the sale of militarily sensitive materials to Iraq by the Aero Technologies Company of Glasgow;

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the commercial sales agreements between the Allivane Company of Cumbernauld, Glasgow, and the Space Research Corporation of Belgium in regard to provision of militarily useful materials to Iraq.

  Sir John Cope
  Investigation and related assessment of possible export licensing offences are matters for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. They carry out their inquiries thoroughly and expeditiously. It would not be appropriate for information relating to any particular investigation or related assessment to be made public other than in the course of court proceedings.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what categories of information requested by the Customs and Excise authorities from Government departments relating to the illegal commercial dealing by British-based or owned companies and Iraq, either directly or indirectly, have not been supplied to those authorities; and what are the reasons in each case.

  Sir John Cope
  There is frequent liaison between Customs and Excise and other Government Departments about exports from the United Kingdom to Iraq and, indeed, other countries. The nature of any information requested by or passed to Customs for the conduct of their statutory enforcement responsibilities is clearly a matter of investigative and commercial confidentiality and I can give no details.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make proposals to the European Commission to substantially raise the tax threshold of VAT for small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government support the Commission's proposal for a VAT directive for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, the Government would wish to see a significant increase in the optional higher threshold which, as currently proposed, is below the United Kingdom threshold, which is the highest in the EC.

  Bank of Credit and Finance International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish the Bingham report.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 14 May 1992]: Lord Justice Bingham will report as soon as he is ready. The Prime Minister has assured the House on 22 July 1991, Official Report, column 757, that the conclusions will be made public and the Chancellor has also stated on 19 July 1991, Official Report, column 721, that as much as possible of the report should be published.

  Clearing Banks
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many branches of clearing banks there are in the United Kingdom(a) at present and (b) in 1972, 1977, 1982 and 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 15 May 1992]: The latest figures available are for the end of 1991, at which time there were 13,035 branches of clearing banks in the United Kingdom. The figures for the previous years are:

  Number

  End 1972

  13,414

  End 1977

  13,179

  End 1982

  15,333

  End 1987

  14,480

  The banks included in these figures are: Natwest, Lloyds, Midland, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale—all years—and Yorkshire, TSB, Co-op and Abbey National, from 1982 onwards.

WALES

  Cystic Fibrosis Centre
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to establish and fund a recognised Welsh cystic fibrosis centre to cater for the current and future treatment of the patients who presently attend clinics in Heath and Llandough hospitals.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1986–87 and 1988–89, funds were made available to the University hospital of Wales and Llandough hospital under the centrally funded developments programme to employ medical staff engaged in the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis. These funds have since been built-in to South Glamorgan health authority's recurrent revenue allocation.

  Since the introduction of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 responsibility for the continued provision of such services rests with providing units in consultation with health authorities and trusts. Funding is allocated to health authorities to enable them to purchase appropriate levels of service for their residents in accordance with their local strategies and priorities.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the number of houses purchased by housing associations for rehabilitation and letting for rent in Wales in 1979, 1987 and 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not separately available for Wales prior to 1 April 1989. In 1991–92 housing associations in Wales purchased 288 dwellings for rehabilitation and 93 for letting for rent.

  Source: Housing for Wales.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales

  (1) what was the average rent of local authority-owned housing in Wales in 1987; and what are the average rents of local authority housing currently in Blaenau Gwent;

  (2) what was the average rent of local authority-owned housing in Blaenau Gwent in 1987; and what are the average rents of local authority housing currently in Blaenau Gwent.

  79
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average weekly rent in 1987 of local authority owned housing in Wales and Blaenau Gwent as reported by CIPFA was £17·91 and £22·14 respectively. In 1992–93 the average weekly rent reported by the borough of Blaenau Gwent is £30·77.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are on the waiting list of local authorities and housing associations for rented homes in Wales currently; and what were the figures for 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes for rent built by the local authority in Blaenau Gwent were occupied in 1979, 1987 and at the latest available date.

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

  Local authority occupied dwellings at 1 April

  Blaenau Gwent

  1987

  10,871

  1991

  9,774

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  The numbers of vacant dwellings are not readily available prior to 1 April 1982.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the totals of jobs lost to Wales from Inmos at Newport, Parke Davis, Pontypool, and the London Rubber Company, Llanelli, and potential and real jobs lost at Cwmbran following the decision of the Renishaw company not to locate in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am aware of the following company announcements of job losses in Wales—220 at Parke Davis, March 1992; 300 at London International, September 1991; and 16 at Renishaw, April 1992. The Welsh Office is currently in discussion with Inmos regarding its announcement in March of the planned closure of its Newport plant with the potential loss of 450 jobs.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to ensure national health service treatment is available in their community for those dental patients whose dentists have ended national health service dental treatment.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The community dental service is obliged to provide a safety net for patients who are unable to obtain treatment under the general dental services. It is for the district health authorities, in consultation with family health services authorities, to determine what services community dental services provide.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many dentists in Dyfed have since April 1991(a) ceased treating all patients, (b) ceased providing national health service treatment for adult patients, (c) ceased providing national health service treatment for all their patients and (d) opened new practices;
  80
  (2) how many dentists in Wales, in numbers and as a percentage of the whole, have stopped providing national health service dental treatment for (a) adult patients, (b) patients under 18 years and (c) all patients since April 1991;

  (3) how many dentists in Wales have given notice to their family health services authorities that they wish to end providing national health service dental treatment to (a) adult patients, (b) patients under 18 years and (c) all patients.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. The majority of dentists are continuing to provide NHS treatment for all patients. Nearly one and a half million patients were registered with dentists in Wales as at 31 March 1992. In the first year of the new contract there was a net decrease of five dentists practising in the general dental service in Wales.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will instruct family health services authorities in Wales to negotiate contracts with health trusts and directly managed community health service units to provide national health service dental treatment in areas where it is not available locally from independent contract dentists;

  (2) if he will fund family health service authorities to purchase national health service dental care from health trusts and directly managed community health service units to provide national health service dental treatment in those areas where national health service treatment is not available from independent contracting dentists.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The powers of the family health services authorities to administer general dental services are set out within the terms of the NHS Act 1977 and these proposals appear to fall outside the scope of the Act.

  Elderly People (Housing)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses were specifically built for the elderly by local authorities and housing associations in(a) Wales and (b) Blaenau Gwent in 1979, 1987 and 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of dwellings specifically built for the elderly are given in the table. 1979 information is not centrally available.

  Blaenau Gwent

  Wales

  1987

  Local Authority

  25

  438

  Housing Association

  35

  238

  1991

  Local Authority

  2

  131

  Housing Association

  104

  345

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Further Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each technical and further education college in Wales the numbers of students obtaining an ordinary national diploma, a higher national diploma or a B.Tech. qualification during the last academic year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Figures for students obtaining an ordinary national diploma are not collected centrally. The
  81
  numbers of students obtaining a B.Tech higher national diploma during the 1990–91 academic year are listed in the table:

  Number of B.Tech Higher National Diploma passes1

  College

  Number

  North East Wales Institute

  238

  Llandrillo Technical College

  21

  Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  50

  Welsh Agricultural College

  8

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  121

  The Polytechnic of Wales

  308

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education

  255

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  244

  Total for Wales

  1,245

  1 Includes distinctions.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the further education and technical colleges which will be funded by the new funding council, indicating(a) the number of students in each college enrolled in September 1991 and (b) the capital and current expenditure of each college during the last financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on capital and current expenditure for further education is not held centrally. Reliable data for student enrolments are not yet available for 1991. The total number of students enrolled at November 1990 in further education and technical colleges are listed in the table. The figures include both further education and higher education enrolments. The Further Education Funding Council for Wales will determine only the number of further education enrolments to be funded from the 1 April 1993.

  Number of enrolments at November 1990

  College

  Number

  Clwyd

  North East Wales Institute

  8,923

  Llandrillo Technical College

  5,633

  Welsh College of Horticulture

  288

  Llysfasi College of Agriculture

  367

  Dyfed

  Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  4,214

  Pembrokeshire College of Further Education

  2,411

  Ceredigion College of Further Education

  1,740

  Welsh Agricultural College

  207

  Gwent

  Newport College of Further Education

  4,395

  Crosskeys College

  3,740

  Pontypool College

  3,157

  Ebbw Vale College of Further Education

  1,613

  Usk Agricultural College

  395

  Gwynedd

  Gwynedd Technical College

  3,247

  Coleg Pencraig

  1,018

  Coleg Meirionydd

  996

  Coleg Glynllifon

  109

  Mid Glamorgan

  Merthyr Tydfil College

  2,434

  Aberdare College

  1,515

  Bridgend College

  4,331

  Rhondda College

  1,782

  Ystrad Mynach College

  2,588

  Pontypridd College

  4,003

  Pencoed College

  593

  Powys

  Coleg Powys

  3,889

  82

  College

  Number

  South Glamorgan

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  4,902

  Barry College of Further Education

  2,875

  West Glamorgan

  Swansea College

  6,249

  Gorseinon College

  2,394

  Neath College

  4,451

  Afan College

  2,339

  TOTAL

  86,798

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each technical and further education college in Wales how many students obtained A levels with grades A to C during the last academic year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not held centrally.

  Health Service Fees
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why the AG1 forms for patients claiming part or full remission of health service fees are not available; and when they will be.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Forms AG1 are supplied to family health services authorities in Wales which are responsible for its distribution to the general ophthalmic, dental and medical services. Adequate stocks are maintained centrally to meet all orders for these forms.

  The form has recently been revised and the new version has been issued to all FHSAs in Wales.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many official gipsy sites there are in each of the counties of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is given in the table:

  Official gipsy sites

  County

  Number

  Clwyd

  1

  Dyfed

  6

  Gwent

  2

  Gwynedd

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  Powys

  1

  South Glamorgan

  2

  West Glamorgan

  3

  Total

  17

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of official gipsy sites proposed by each of the counties of Wales; and what are their locations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Proposals currently notified to me by county councils are as follows:

  Clwyd

  Two residential sites, at Queensferry and Wrexham Six transit sites—not yet specified.

  Powys

  Two transit sites—Brecknock and Radnor areas.

  West Glamorgan

  Two residential sites at Caegarw, Margam and Fairwood Common, Gower.

  83
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policies concerning gipsy sites.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My policy is to encourage local authorities to meet their existing obligations under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The Government have undertaken to review the current legislation and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I hope to issue soon a public consultation paper.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the gipsy sites proposed by Clwyd county council.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The location of gipsy sites is a matter for the county council, in consultation with the district councils. In view of my statutory responsibilities under the Caravan Sites and Planning Acts regarding proposals which are opposed by the local authorities, it would not be appropriate for me to visit the sites proposed by Clwyd county council.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received over pensioners paying the full television licence fee while others in the same housing complex pay the concessionary sum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 14 May 1992]: We have received no correspondence on this subject since the general election. As I indicated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 14 May, Official Report, columns 172–73, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have no plans to change the present concessionary arrangements.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the United Kingdom benefits which are not available to the wives and families of British service men overseas; and if he will bring forward proposals to provide an equivalent level of social security for those wives and families.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The only benefits not available are income support and disability working allowance. We have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the cost of extending eligibility for severe disability premium by disregarding any non-dependant in receipt of either mobility component of disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will extend the criteria for eligibility for severe disability premium as recommended by the social security advisory committee in its eighth report; and if he will make a statement;
  84
  (3) what is his estimate of the cost of extending the criteria for eligibility for severe disability premium as recommended by the social security advisory committee in its eighth report; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his estimate of the cost of extending eligibility for severe disability premium by disregarding any non-dependant in receipt of the lower care component of disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what is his estimate of the cost of extending eligibility for severe disability premium by disregarding any non-dependant who is registered blind; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what is his estimate of the cost of extending eligibility for severe disability premium by disregarding any non-dependant over the age of 75 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what is his estimate of the cost of extending eligibility for severe disability premium by disregarding any non-dependant in receipt of severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) what is his estimate of the cost of extending eligibility for severe disability premium by disregarding any non-dependant in receipt of invalidity benefit, or who was in receipt of invalidity benefit, immediately prior to becoming eligible for retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have always made it plain that we intended the severe disability premium to be payable to people on income-related benefits, getting attendance allowance—or the middle or upper rate care component of disability living allowance—who live independently with no one receiving invalid care allowance for looking after them. Nonetheless, the committee has produced a carefully balanced set of proposals for extension of the premium. These proposals merit serious consideration, which they will receive, although I can give the right hon. Member no assurances about the outcome of our deliberations.

  The estimated cost of extending eligibility to the premium as recommended by the committee is in the order of £25 million to £30 million.

  The estimated costs of extending eligibility by disregarding each of the specified groups of non-dependants are shown in the table.

  Non-dependants to be disregarded

  Estimated cost £ million

  Those in receipt of either rate of mobility component of disability allowance

  2

  Those in receipt of lower care component of disability living allowance

  1

  Those registered blind

  less than 1

  Those over the age of 75

  15 to 20

  Those in receipt of severe disablement allowance

  2

  Those in receipt of invalidity benefit

  4

  Those who have been in receipt of invalidity benefit immediately prior to becoming eligible for retirement pension

  1—

  Note: All costs are in 1991–92 prices.

  1 No reliable information on which to base an estimate

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made regarding the impact of disability living allowance on income of sufferers from myalgic encephalomyelitis who were previously in receipt of mobility allowance.
  85
  Mr. Scott
  People receiving mobility allowance were transferred automatically to the higher rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance. If they were not already receiving attendance allowance they were invited also to claim either the care component of disability living allowance or, if over 65, attendance allowance.

  Like attendance allowance and mobility allowance, disability living allowance is awarded with regard to a person's care or mobility needs, not on the basis of a aparticular medical condition.

TRANSPORT

  Privatisation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish proposals for the privatisation of local authority ports, airports and public transport companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's intention to privatise the remaining local authority bus companies and to encourage local authorities to sell their airports was set out in the Conservative party's manifesto for the recent general election.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a timetable for the privatisation of local authority ports, airports and public transport companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No. This will depend on the circumstances of individual undertakings.

  Statistics Bulletins
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review his decision to charge hon. Members for his Department's statistics bulletins.

  Mr. Norris
  Copies of all the Department's statistics bulletins are available in the Library for reference. If an hon. Member requires a specific publication for more detailed work, on application to the statistics directorate of my Department, a copy will be provided free of charge.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties British Rail has bought along the safeguarded route for the channel tunnel rail link since 1 April 1991; how many have been sold; how many let; and how many are vacant.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from British Rail that, along the safeguarded route for the rail link, it has since 1 April 1991 bought 79 properties; sold two and let 43. Thirty-four properties are at present unoccupied, of which 22 have been identified as suitable for sale as and when market conditions are appropriate.

  A20
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current progress of the new A20 road between Dover and Folkestone.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The A20 Folkestone-Dover scheme is being constructed in three contract lengths. They are all expected to be completed by summer 1993.

  British Rail
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to employ as accountancy or auditing firms in relation to the privatisation of British Rail only such firms as have not been subject to criticism in reports from Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Freeman
  When making such appointments, we take account of all relevant considerations and make such inquiries as are appropriate to establish the competence of the firm concerned.

  London Coaches
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now given his approval to the sale of London Coaches; who won the bid; and if he will make a full statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend gave his consent to the sale by London Buses Ltd. of London Coaches Ltd. to a management buy-out team on 11 May.

  Tilbury
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors were included in the valuation of the port of Tilbury.

  Mr. Norris
  The valuation was based on a three-year projection of the operations of the port of Tilbury and an analysis of quoted companies and of recent corporate transactions involving ports.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who conducted the valuation of the port of Tilbury prior to its sale.

  Mr. Norris
  The valuation was made for the board of the Port of London Authority by S. G. Warburg and Co. Ltd.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what infrastructure and capital works including new buildings and roads were constructed, and at what cost during the five years prior to the sale of the port of Tilbury.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a commercial matter for the Port of London Authority, but there is relevant information in the annual reports which are laid before Parliament. Those for 1986–90 were placed in the Library of the House. The 1991 report will be published shortly.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for paying the legal fees of the management side in the various industrial tribunal and employment appeal tribunals' cases which commenced prior to the sale of the port of Tilbury and continue after the sale.

  Mr. Norris
  Costs arising from the abolition of the dock labour scheme, including those associated with the industrial tribunal, have been entered as extraordinary items, separate from the operational expenditure of the Tilbury and other divisions, in the accounts of the Port of London Authority. Any further liabilities in this connection, following the sale of the port of Tilbury, remain with the authority.

  United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what input his Department has made to Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department has played a full part in determining the Government's position during the preparations for the conference.

  Road Freight
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on current Government policy concerning the redistribution of road freight to rail.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We continue to support BR participation in joint ventures with the private sector, to back investment in BR's new channel tunnel services, and to encourage companies to take advantage of the recently improved criteria for freight facilities grants.

  We intend to liberalise access to the rail network and return BR's freight businesses to the private sector as soon as practicable, in order to widen customer choice and further encourage rail freight.

  School Buses
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the number of school buses involved in road accidents in Great Britain for each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will list the number and severity of injuries relating to road accidents involving school buses for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I regret that the information is not available. The standard report form on which police collect information on road injury accidents records the type of vehicles involved, but not the use to which they were put to at the time of accident.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average child-to-seat ratio for peak period school buses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information requested is not available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Aid
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of overseas development aid is currently spent on(a) science and technology usage and (b) education and training programmes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not record aggregate expenditure on science and technology as such, but the application of new scientific and technological developments to developing country problems through the research and development programmes which ODA 88
  supports accounts for approximately 4 per cent. of our total gross aid programme. Support for education and training programmes accounts for approximately 8 per cent. of the gross aid programme, excluding training activities carried out by the multilateral agencies which cannot be identified.

  Kurdistan
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to Kurdistan to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 6 to 10 July 1992.

  Aid
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money was spent by the Overseas Development Administration on monitoring and evaluation of aid projects for each year from 1985 to date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Expenditure on ex-post project evaluation, which is the responsibility of the ODA's evaluation department, has been as follows:

  £'000

  1985

  222

  1986

  399

  1987

  269

  1988

  608

  1989

  456

  1990

  426

  1991

  580

  Expenditure on monitoring is the responsibility of the ODA's operational departments managing the projects concerned, and is not recorded separately in the ODA's expenditure records. Details of monitoring expenditure could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the amount of overseas aid in the form of grants and (b) the amount of overseas aid in the form of loans to be (i) directed towards Africa and (ii) directed towards eastern Europe; what were the corresponding figures for each of the past three years; and by how much these figures are to be increased over the next financial year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 15 May 1992]: The information is as follows:

  £ thousand

  of which

  Bilateral aid to Africa

  Total aid expenditure

  Grants

  Loans

  1988–89

  328,949

  326,738

  2,211

  1989–90

  371,949

  369,209

  2,740

  1990–91

  418,374

  417,248

  1,126

  89

  £ thousand

  of which

  Bilateral aid to Africa

  Total aid expenditure

  Grants

  Loans

  Bilateral assistance to central and eastern Europe

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  163,769

  163,769

  —

  1990–91

  16,784

  16,784

  —

  1 Includes £61·7 million payment to Polish stabilisation fund.

  Figures for bilateral aid to Africa in 1991–92 are not yet available on this basis. Estimated expenditure in central and eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, in 1991–92 is £52 million, which includes know-how and emergency relief supplies for Russia. This and the amounts for Africa exclude the substantial assistance we provide through the EC and other multilateral bodies.

  The overall public expenditure provisions for 1992–93 for aid to developing countries and assistance to central and eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union, are set out in the FCO/ODA "Departmental Report 1992", Cm 1902. Copies can be found in the Libraries of the House.

  Africa (Drought)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to help to relieve the effects of the drought in central and southern Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has announced two packages of aid, on 4 March and 29 April, totalling £30 million. These include food, balance of payments aid, technical assistance and support for the activities of the voluntary agencies. In addition, Britain will be paying around £27·5 million towards the cost of the recently approved European Community special food aid programme which will provide an additional 800,000 tonnes of food aid, mostly for Africa.

  Brazilian Rain Forest
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions with Brazilian authorities with regard to providing further support for Brazilian research on rain forest problems.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since signing a Memorandum of Understanding on environmental co-operation with the Government of Brazil in July 1989, under which we are supporting a range of research activities in forest management in the Amazon, we have discussed with the Brazilian authorities and have approved a total of nine forestry projects for which we are providing £11·5 million. Additional project proposals are under discussion. We are also contributing £1·5 million to the core fund of the pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian rain forests, to be managed by the World bank in liaison with the European Commission.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sexual Crime
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay down guidelines for the counselling and care of male victims of rape and other serious sexual assaults; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. The police have been issued with guidance on the reception and treatment of victims of rape. While there is a presumption that most victims of sexual offences will be female, I am confident that the principles set out in the guidance will be observed regardless of the victim's gender.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list for each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom the number of registered overseas voters and their countries of residence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of overseas voters included in the electoral register for each parliamentary constituency will be published in the summer by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in the annual reference volume "Electoral Statistics 1992", series EL 19. However, prior to the publication, details of the figures have been placed in the Library. Information on the country of residence of overseas electors is not held centrally.

  Judith Ward
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the estimated cost, in 1992 prices, of detaining Judith Ward since 1974.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At 1992 prices, the average cost of detaining a female prisoner from November 1974 to May 1992 would be £424,000. Figures are not collected for particular individuals.

  North Wales Police Force
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been(a) the total funding and (b) the established number of full-time officers of the North Wales police force in each of the past five years; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding to meet the public demands of this service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Over the last five years expenditure and the police establishment of the North Wales police have been increased as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  Establishments

  1987–88

  32·96

  1,316

  1988–89

  36·81

  1,326

  1989–90

  41·1

  1,330

  1990–91

  46·0

  1,352

  1991–92

  153·1

  21,352

  1992–93

  3—

  1,369

  1 Estimated.

  2 No application made for establishment increase.

  3 Not available.

  91
  When considering applications for establishment increases, my right hon. and learned Friend takes account of a wide range of factors which influence demands on the police.

  The Government are satisfied that the North Wales police authority is able to meet its obligations to provide an efficient police force.

  Charitable Donations
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was donated to charity in Britain in 1979, 1981, 1986, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Jack
  This information is not available centrally, but figures published by the Charities Aid Foundation show that the voluntary income of the top 200 charities in England and Wales for the years mentioned was:

  £ million

  1979–80

  293

  1980–81

  329

  1985–86

  721

  1988–89

  1,058

  1989–90

  1,184

  Government support for the voluntary sector has increased regularly and is now around £2·4 billion per year, an increase in real terms of 114 per cent, over the period in question.

  Prison Chaplains
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the prison chaplaincy service in the last financial year for which figures are available; and how this was broken down by(a) chaplaincy salaries, (b) salaries of chaplaincy support staff, (c) chaplaincy budget, (d) expenses for visiting Christian chaplains and (e) expenses for visiting non-Christian ministers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of the Prison Service chaplaincy in 1991–92 was £4·9 million. This can be broken down as follows:

  £

  Salaries and related costs of all permanent staff

  3,145,327

  Fees and travelling for all visiting staff

  1,191,603

  Travelling expenses of volunteers

  17,874

  Other miscellaneous running costs

  584,110

  4,938,914

  There is no separate chaplaincy budget figure.

  Prison Service Staff
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed in the Prison Service, broken down by(a) occupation and grade and (b) gender.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is as follows:

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 2

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 3

  4

  3

  7

  Grade 4

  1

  —

  1

  92

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Assistant Director

  7

  —

  7

  Grade 5

  8

  3

  11

  Governor 1

  38

  —

  38

  Grade 6

  20

  2

  22

  Governor 2

  67

  7

  74

  Grade 7

  104

  16

  120

  Catering Manager

  3

  —

  3

  Governor 3

  93

  10

  103

  Governor 4

  274

  25

  299

  Governor 5

  316

  46

  362

  Governor 5 (works)

  62

  —

  62

  Governor 5 (Catering)

  10

  —

  10

  Governor 5 (PE)

  14

  —

  14

  Governor 5 (Hospital)

  17

  —

  17

  Principal Officer

  936

  40

  976

  Principal Officer (works)

  242

  —

  242

  Principal Officer (Catering)

  56

  1

  57

  Principal Officer (PE)

  83

  2

  85

  Principal Officer (Hospital)

  72

  4

  76

  Principal Officer (Dog Handler)

  2

  —

  2

  Principal Officer (Instructor)

  10

  —

  10

  Senior Officer

  2,219

  100

  2,319

  SO (works)

  245

  1

  246

  SO (Catering)

  92

  3

  95

  SO (PE)

  121

  5

  126

  SO (Hospital)

  186

  3

  189

  SO (Dog Handler)

  25

  —

  25

  SO (Instructor)

  36

  —

  36

  Prison Officer

  14,214

  1,427

  15,641

  Prison Officer (works)

  624

  7

  631

  Prison Officer (Catering)

  431

  25

  456

  Prison Officer (PE)

  366

  20

  386

  Prison Officer (Hospital)

  706

  124

  830

  Prison Officer (Dog Handler)

  390

  4

  394

  Prison Officer (Instructor)

  202

  5

  207

  Temporary Officer

  —

  14

  14

  Senior Executive Officer

  62

  11

  73

  Higher Executive Officer (D)

  —

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  186

  117

  303

  Executive Officer

  269

  327

  596

  Administrative Officer

  507

  1,403

  1,910

  Administrative Assistant

  165

  538

  703

  Administrative Trainee

  2

  —

  2

  Principal Medical Officer

  7

  2

  9

  Senior Medical Officer

  32

  5

  37

  Medical Officer

  83

  6

  89

  P/T Medical Officer

  99

  6

  105

  Insp. Animals Sp. Insp.

  1

  —

  1

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  109

  1

  110

  Higher P & TO

  123

  2

  125

  P& TO

  57

  8

  65

  Senior Psychologist

  16

  25

  41

  Higher Psychologist

  11

  17

  28

  Psychologist

  —

  4

  4

  Psychological Assistant

  16

  20

  36

  Psychological Graduate Trainee

  6

  21

  27

  Chaplain General

  1

  —

  1

  Principal Roman Catholic Chaplain

  1

  1

  1

  Church of England Chaplain

  92

  2

  94

  P/T C of E Chaplain

  111

  16

  127

  Roman Catholic Chaplain

  13

  —

  13

  P/T Roman Catholic Chaplain

  1

  —

  1

  Principal Nursing Sister

  —

  5

  5

  Senior Nursing Sister

  2

  21

  23

  Nursing Sister

  13

  89

  102

  Nursing Officer

  —

  1

  1

  Senior Enrolled Nurse

  5

  25

  30

  Enrolled Nurse

  5

  55

  60

  Sister (Midwife)

  —

  2

  2

  Nurse (Occupational Health)

  —

  1

  1

  Nursing Auxiliary

  1

  9

  10

  Head Pharmacist

  1

  1

  2

  Principal Pharmacist

  1

  —

  1

  Senior Pharmacist

  3

  5

  8

  Pharmacist

  1

  —

  1

  Staff Principal Pharmacist

  7

  —

  7

  93

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Pharmacist Technician

  2

  11

  13

  Chief Physiolg Meas. Tech

  1

  —

  1

  Farms and Gardens Officer

  4

  —

  4

  Farm Manager

  75

  1

  76

  Higher Instructional Officer

  28

  1

  29

  Instructional Officer

  902

  132

  1,034

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  9

  9

  Personal Secretary

  2

  168

  170

  Typing Manager

  —

  13

  13

  Typist

  —

  416

  416

  Auxiliary Officer

  1,070

  256

  1,326

  Night Patrol

  877

  78

  955

  Telecom. Tech. Engineer

  1

  —

  1

  Higher Tcoms. Tech. Officer

  1

  —

  1

  Storeperson

  410

  16

  426

  Assistant Storeperson

  121

  11

  132

  Support Grades

  21

  184

  205

  Librarian

  —

  1

  1

  Tracer

  —

  1

  1

  Industrial Staff

  2,488

  227

  2,715

  Total

  30,309

  6,168

  36,477

  Border Controls (Republic of Ireland)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for the common travel area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland of a decision by the latter to relax border controls along the lines advocated by the European Commission.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We attach considerable value to the common travel area arrangements, and a decision by the Government of the Irish Republic in the sense suggested in the hon. Member's question would inevitably have unwelcome implications. I do not, however, have any reasons to suppose that such a decision is likely in the absence of a general resolution of the frontiers question within the Community.

  Mr. Adol Owen-Williams
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what occurred when Mr. Adol T. Owen-Williams junior recently arrived at Gatwick airport; what questions and comments were made to him by immigration officers; and what plans he has to investigate his statement that he was subject to offensive comments by immigration officers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Mr. Owen-Williams was refused entry because he failed to meet the criteria for admission as a visitor in the published immigration rules. He was asked a number of questions about his background, employment, financial status and future plans. His allegations about his treatment by immigration officers have been investigated and he will receive a full reply. The investigating officer is satisfied that no offensive comments were made to him by immigration officers.

  Jersey Bailiff (Dismissal)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the dismissal of Her Majesty's deputy bailiff in the island of Jersey.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As the Privy Councillor with special responsibility to the Crown for Jersey, and in 94
  consultation and agreement with the lieutenant governor and the bailiff, I advised the Queen that the deputy bailiff, Mr. V. A. Tomes, should be removed from office in the interests of the effective administration of justice in Jersey.

  The principal function of the office of deputy bailiff is as a judge. Mr. Tomes has a history of extended delay in his delivery of judicial judgments, despite interventions by the Jersey authorities to assist him and despite undertakings given by him to the then Home Secretary in 1990.

  In October 1991, my predecessor as Home Secretary decided that Mr. Tomes might continue in office subject to his meeting conditions imposed solely to ensure that his performance of his judicial duties should be to a satisfactory standard. Mr. Tomes accepted those conditions immediately, without reservation and in writing. He failed to meet them. He also declined the opportunity to resign which my predecessor then afforded him.

  The history of failure to respond to warnings given, and to undertakings received, by previous Home Secretaries left me with no confidence that Mr. Tomes could properly be relied upon to discharge the vital requirement to deliver justice within reasonable time. Therefore, in fulfilment of my duty to uphold the Crown's ultimate responsibility for the good government of Jersey, I decided that I had no acceptable alternative to advising that he must leave office.

  Personally I regret having to advise Her Majesty to take this sad but necessary step.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last time a bailiff or deputy bailiff in the Channel Islands was dismissed on the initiative of United Kingdom Ministers.

  Mr. Jack
  There is no record of any such previous dismissal.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to review the use of the death penalty in those circumstances where it is still legally available as a sentence in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: None. A review of the law of treason remains on the agenda of the Law Commission, in the context of its work on the codification of the criminal law, but such a review has to take its place among the commission's other priorities.

  Pornography
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that a Europe without frontiers will not extend to the importation into the United Kingdom of hard-core pornographic magazines and videos.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: We have no intention of relaxing controls on those who would seek to profit from the trade in pornography.

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the policy of his Department to inform prison officers if an inmate in a prison in England and Wales is known to be HIV positive; and if he will make a statement.
  95
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The recommended practice is that such information obtained in a clinical context should be available only to staff with responsibility for the prisoner's health care unless the prisoner consents to wider disclosure in his own interests or, exceptionally, such disclosure is deemed necessary to prevent the spread of infection.

  Bail Offenders
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce legislation to give effect to the measures announced by his predecessor on 25 February to deal with offenders who commit an offence while on bail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I intend to support and encourage measures to reduce the incidence of offending on bail. By no means all the measures announced on 25 February require legislation; and work is already in hand on those measures not requiring legislation. Proposals for changes in the law will be introduced as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity occurs.

HEALTH

  Health Boards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chairmen and how many non-executive directors, by authority in England, do not reside in the district in which the health authority or trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally. Chairmen, members and directors are expected to live in or have close links with the authority or trust to which they are appointed.

  Dentists
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures she is taking to provide national health service dental treatment for those patients of dentists who have stopped providing national health service treatment;

  (2) if she will hold talks with the British Dental Association about the number of dentists who have stopped providing or intend to stop providing national health service treatment for their patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department is in frequent contact with the British Dental Association on a range of issues. There is no evidence of a widespread problem of dentists ceasing to provide NHS treatment. We recognise, however, that there are areas where some problems do exist. Family health services authorities are taking action to improve provision of dental care in their localities, and can make use of initiatives such as the location incentives scheme and employment of salaried dentists where a need exists. We are already discussing several possibilities with regional health authorities, family health services authorities and representatives of the profession on how to make further improvements.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the recommended maximum number of national health service dental patients registered with a dentist;
  96
  (2) what was the average number of national health service patients registered with each dentist contracted with family health services authorities and their predecessors in 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Before the introduction of the new dental contract in October 1990, patients did not register with dentists. At 31 December 1990 the average number of patients registered with general dental practitioners in England was 334. At 31 December 1991 the average number of patients registered was 1,605. We understand that the number of patients registering is still increasing. There is no recommended maximum number of registrations.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used by the Dental Practice Board when considering the removal of a dentist's name from the family health services authority list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Dental Practice Board plays no part in the procedure for determining the removal of a dentist's name from a family health services authority list.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have recorded no contact by way of estimate form in the last six-monthly period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the six months period ending 30 April 1992, a total of 650 general dental practitioners contracted to family health services authorities in England —from a total of 14,978—had not submitted any dental payment claim to the Dental Practice Board.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists' names have been removed from the family health services authority list in each month in the last convenient six-monthly period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Between 30 September 1990 and 30 September 1991 there was a net decrease of 29 dentists practising in the general dental services in England.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have no registration for continuing care and capitation payments at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 March 1992 a total of 482 dentists in England and Wales had no registrations for continuing care or capitation payments.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact she expects her Department's proposals on the future level of dentists' fees will have on the number of NHS dentists.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The level of dentists' fees in 1992–93 is a matter for the dental rates study group, which will meet shortly.

  Health Authority Funding, Stockport
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the change in formula for allocating funds to district health authorities, notified to Stockport in April.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional health authorities are responsible for revenue allocations to health districts. It is
  97
  for them to use their judgment about the formula adjustments which best reflect local evidence about differences between their districts. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. R. B. Martin, chairman of North Western regional health authority.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions since its implementation the Children Act 1989 has been used to prevent or act upon incidents of female genital mutilation.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Female Circumcision Act 1985 made female genital mutilation in this country explicitly illegal. Since the Act was implemented there has been no firm evidence of illegal mutilations carried out in this country.

  Under the Children Act 1989 it would be possible for a local authority to apply to the court for a section 8 prohibited steps order which could be used to prevent female genital mutilation. Although data on the numbers of applications for these orders are collected, there is no central record as to the reasons why the applications are made.

  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued to councils regarding the administration and interpretation of the Children Act 1988; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The launch of the Children Act 1989 has been accompanied by an unprecedented exercise to disseminate detailed information on the Act to local authorities, courts, voluntary organisations and others involved in child care. A list of publications on the Children Act follows. These include nine volumes of regulations and guidance on the Children Act, produced by the Department, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the then Department of Education and Science. Publication of the various volumes of guidance took place between March 1991 and October 1991, with local authorities in England receiving a proportionate share of approximately 20,000 free copies of each volume. A revised edition of "Working Together on Inter-Agency Co-operation for the Protection of Children from Abuse" was produced which took account of the Children Act.

  In addition to guidance to local authorities on the Children Act, the Department commissioned a number of training packs and copies were made available to local authorities. These are also included in the list of publications.

  List of Publications on the Children Act aimed at local authorities

  I Regulations and Guidance

  Name of Publication

  Date of Issue/Launch

  Volume 1—Court Orders

  6 March 1991

  Volume 2—Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children

  21 March 1991

  Volume 3—Family Placements

  15 April 1991

  Volume 4—Residential Care

  25 July 1991

  Volume 5—Independent Schools

  26 April 1991

  Volume 6—Children with Disabilities

  11 September 1991

  Volume 7—Guardians Ad Litem and other Court Related Issues

  7 October 1991

  Volume 8—Private Fostering and Miscellaneous

  15 October 1991

  Volume 9—Adoption Issues

  October 1991

  98

  Name of Publication

  Date of Issue/Launch

  Patterns and Outcomes in Child Placement

  3 May 1991

  Guidance for Local Authorities on Statistical Returns

  May 1991

  Working Together on Inter-Agency Co-operation for the Protection of Children from Abuse (New edition)

  October 1991

  The Welfare of Children in Boarding Schools Practice Guide

  October 1991

  Registration of Childminding and Day care: Using the Law to Improve Standards

  October 1991

  Practice Guide for GALROs

  Not as yet issued

  Guidance for GALRO Panel Managers

  Not as yet issued

  Timetabling of Care Proceedings before the implementation of the Children Act 1989

  February 1992

  The Care of Children—Principles and Practice in Regulations and Guidance

  1989

  Looking After Children—Assessing Outcomes in Child Care

  December 1991

  II Training Materials

  Name of Publication

  Date of Launch/Issue

  National Children's Bureau

  Children and Group Day care, aimed principally at those responsible for registration and inspection in SSDs

  16 May 1991 Launched by Minister of Health

  National Children's Bureau

  Child Protection Training Project designed principally for local authority staff in relation to court orders obtainable for the protection of children

  1 May 1991 Launched by Minister of Health

  Family Rights Group

  Working in Partnership with Children and Families and Communities. It aims to give social workers and their managers a thorough knowledge of the interrelationship of law and practice in relation to partnership and prevention

  24 July 1991 Launched by P.S.S. Health

  III Training Materials Centrally Commissioned

  Name and Description of Pack and Preparing Body

  Date of Launch

  Open University

  "Putting it into Practice" Deals with the overall philosophy of the Children Act prepared jointly

  23 January 1991 Launched by Minister of Health

  Department of Health with LCD principally for social workers, local authority lawyers and magistrates

  29 January 1991 Launched by Lord Chancellor

  Leicester University

  Children in Need and their Families: A New Approach. A guide to Part III of the Act for local authority Councillors

  November 1990

  Manual for Senior Managers of SSDs. Deals with the philosophy of the Act and major changes it brings about

  3 May 1991

  The Children Act—An Advisors Guide (video)

  July 1991

  IV Children Act Publicity—Leaflets etc

  To date six booklets and a leaflet have been issued on the Children Act:

  The Children Act and the Courts—A Guide for Parents

  The Children Act and Local Authorities—A Guide for Parents

  The Children Act and You—A Guide for Young People (leaflet)

  The Children Act and the Courts—A Guide for Children and Young People

  Getting Help from the Social Services—A Guide for Children and Young People

  99

  Living Away from Home Your Rights—A Guide for Children and Young People

  Children Act and Day Care—A Guide to the Law

  Diabetes
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are registered as diabetic within the parliamentary constituency of Barrow and Furness; and how many of those are under the age of 16 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. A. Graham, chairman of South Cumbria health authority.

  Health Authority Funding
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider the possibility of allowing virement between the cash-limited district health authority budget and the open-ended general medical services budget if there was local agreement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cash limited health authority budget and the demand led general medical services budget are met from different votes. Transfer of provision between votes can only be effected by submitting a supplementary estimate.

  Children's Teeth
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish in tabular form details of the average number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth in 12-year-old children in England based on the latest available information in each district health authority together with the comparable figures for 1982; and in which authorities the fluoride content of the water supply has been artificially increased.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave him on 14 June 1991, at columns 684–86 and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 9 July 1991 at columns 335–36.

  The information requested for 1982 is not available.

  Tinnitus
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline the research sponsored by her Department concerning tinnitus and include information on the number of people suffering from the condition.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1991 the MRC spent £112,000 on research into tinnitus.

  It is estimated that between 0·5 and I per cent. of the population are seriously affected by tinnitus.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a list of current and planned research studies into the possible causes of myalgic encephalomyelitis; indicating for each study, the start and completion dates, the commissioned body, the level of financial support and the nature of each study.
  100
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Independently funded research is not notified to the Department of Health by any formal mechanism. As a result of attendance by officials at scientific meetings and visits to establishments where research is going on, we are aware of a wide range of research into possible causes of myalgic encephalomyelitis. This includes virological, endocrinological and neurotransmitter studies, studies of sleep disturbance and studies of immunological and muscle abnormalities.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is funding a study at the Institute of Psychiatry. The MRC and the Department are always willing to consider sympathetically soundly based researched proposals in competition with other applications. We are not at present funding studies which are specifically considering possible causes of ME.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being done about myalgic encephalomyelitis and its epidemiology in order to establish a consensus of medical opinion regarding the treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis sufferers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Medical Research Council is funding a study at the Institute of Psychiatry, associated with the Maudsley hospital, which is attempting to find ways to help sufferers from chronic fatigue syndrome—myalgic encephalomyelitis—attending GPs' surgeries to cope with their condition and regain their health. The results of that study, together with those of earlier epidemiological studies, will form a basis for deciding whether further epidemiological studies are required and the nature of those studies. At present, management of ME is on a case-by-case basis, depending on the symptoms.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of cases notified to her from 1 January 1991 until 31 December 1991 in each health region for(a) food poisoning in general, (b) salmonella, (c) salmonella enteriditis, (d) salmonella enteriditis phase 4, (e) salmonella typhimurium, (f) campylobacter and (g) listeriosis.

  Mr. Sackville
  The detailed information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The data show notification of food poisoning to the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys and laboratory reports of specific organisms to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the total number of salmonella food poisoning cases, and the number of each of(a) typhimurium, (b) virchow, (c) total enteriditis and (d) PT4 in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows totals of laboratory reports of all salmonellas and of selected salmonellas made to the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centre.
  101

  Laboratory reports of salmonellas in faeces England and Wales 1987 to 1991

  Salmonella enteriditis

  Year

  All1

  Salmonella typhimurium

  Salmonella virchow

  Total

  PT4 only

  1987

  17,551

  6,400

  1,281

  5,784

  3,670

  1988

  23,821

  5,566

  1,135

  13,051

  8,964

  1989

  24,649

  6,080

  1,507

  13,013

  9,652

  1990

  25,351

  4,662

  1,055

  15,664

  12,141

  19912

  22,461

  4,429

  613

  14,301

  10,973

  1 All salmonellas excluding salmonella typhi, salmonella paratyphi.

  2 Provisional data.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether and when the Government will consult interested parties on the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government announced in the Queen's Speech their plans to introduce legislation to return British Coal to the private sector and are now in the process of considering the form and timing of coal privatisation. The Government have undertaken to consult on privatisation and I have today written to interested bodies seeking their views. I will of course welcome the views of any interested group or individual, by 22 June.

  Lead Shot
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give tonnages of lead shot(a) made in and (b) imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not available.

  GATT
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the Government's current objectives are for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government remain committed to an early and successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We are working with our European Community partners and other key participants to ensure that outstanding issues, particularly in the agriculture negotiations, are resolved as quickly as possible. A successful outcome will strengthen the multilateral trading system, boost world trade, and provide new opportunities for British exporters. It will also help to integrate developing countries and the countries of eastern Europe more closely into the international trading system.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made at the most recent round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks concerning the liberalisation of international trade for exporters from poorer countries.

  Mr. Needham
  In the negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the European Commission represents the European Community and the 102
  member states. The Government have made clear their commitment to a successful outcome to the Uruguay round negotiations. A Uruguay round agreement would bring considerable benefits to developing countries, providing greater opportunities for their exports and a more open and stable international framework for the domestic economic reforms which many of them are undertaking.

  Greenhouse Emissions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the full greenhouse gas emissions from different fuel cycles in the United Kingdom, including both the electricity generating technologies and the final fuel use technologies.

  Mr. Eggar
  Statistics on United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide and methane—the main "greenhouse gases"—are given annually in the Department of the Environment publication "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The figures for carbon dioxide are listed according to both emission sources and types of fuel. Further information on this subject can be found in the energy technology support unit report "The Impact of United Kingdom Electricity, Gas and Oil Use on Global Warming"—AEA Environment and Energy, 1991. I am arranging for a copy of this report to be placed in the Library.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any proposals for legislation under which accountancy firms acting as investigators for banks will not be able to act as receivers for companies placed by the banks into liquidation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such plans.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any plans to introduce legislation under which the bodies named as recognised supervisory bodies under part II of the Companies Act 1989 will be required(a) to admit members of the public to their council meetings and (b) to make their agenda papers public.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any plans to conduct a
  103
  competition investigation into the domination of the United Kingdom audit market by a limited number of firms.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Companies Acts Definitions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the provisions of the Companies Acts which relate to definitions of asset, liability and profit.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There are no provisions in the Companies Acts which define an asset, liability or profit, although there are clarifications of the scope when the term "liabilities" is used and of realised profits. However, the statement of principles being developed by the Accounting Standards Board is expected to contain definitions of assets and liabilities and of gains and losses.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has submitted to Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry into the collapse of BCCI.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department has co-operated fully with Lord Justice Bingham's inquiry.

  Companies Act Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish a summary of the findings of investigations carried out under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The "Companies Annual Report" published annually provides information about company investigations under the Companies Act 1985. However, there is no statutory provision for reports of inquiries under section 447 to be published, and information obtained under section 447 may be disclosed only under the clearly defined circumstances set out in section 449 of the Companies Act 1985, as amended.

  Public Limited Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any plans to propose legislation under which shareholders of all public limited companies will be required to choose from two firms nominated to the office of auditor.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the provisions of the Companies Acts relating to the showing in company accounts of pension scheme surpluses.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There are no specific provisions in the Companies Acts dealing with company pension scheme surpluses. However, the treatment of such surpluses is dealt with in the accounting standard dealing with accounting for pension costs—SSAP24.

  Greenwich Generating Station
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the proposal by MetroPower to redevelop the Greenwich generating station; and if he will set up a public inquiry.

  Mr. Eggar
  More than 100 representations have been received by my Department. The London borough of Greenwich, the relevant planning authority, has objected to the application and the President is therefore statutorily obliged to call for a public inquiry to be held into MetroPower's application.

  Arrangements for the public inquiry will be made when further information on aquaeous and atmospheric discharges from MetroPower, and the views of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority, have been received.

  Internal Market Council
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Internal Market Council on 14 May.

  Mr. Needham
  I attended the Internal Market Council on 14 May.

  Progress was made on a number of items which should benefit UK business. Political agreement, which meets all the main UK objectives, was reached on the third life insurance directive. This opens the way to completion of the single market for life insurance. There was also broad political agreement to an amendment to the second company law directive which limits the potential use as barriers to takeover of subsidiaries' shareholdings in parents.

  There were two intellectual property items on the agenda. A Council resolution on increased protection for copyright and neighbouring rights, and in particular the importance of the Berne and Rome conventions, was agreed. Further work was commissioned on the proposed directive covering protection of rental and lending rights, with the objective of the Council reaching agreement in June. Separately, the UK emphasised the importance of trying to resolve technical issues relating to the proposed Community trademarks regulation.

  A report on the procurement of services by utilities indicated that there should be no significant difficulties in reaching agreement at a future Council. There was a discussion about the possibility of harmonising hallmarking systems at Community level, something which most member states favour.

  There was extensive discussion of the Commission communication on Article 8A of the treaty of Rome on the abolition of routine frontier controls between member states from 1 January 1993. The United Kingdom underlined the need to retain the possibility of selective controls on goods, and that practical solutions were needed to meet problems raised by changes in controls. We emphasised that the issue of frontier controls on people was a matter for the Foreign Affairs Council. Other member states expressed a range of views. But while some showed greater support for the Commission communication, many recognised that pragmatic solutions were needed to the practical issues raised. The Council conclusions agreed the priority of continuing work on border controls as part of the completion of the single market.
  105
  Other items on the Council agenda included progress reports by the Commission on work relating to customs agents, drug precursors, and export controls on dual-use goods. A common position was reached on the Community customs code which consolidates existing Community customs legislation.

  Japanese Companies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the number and location of employees of each of the Japanese-owned companies within the United Kingdom.

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

  Assisted Area Boundaries
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make it his policy to wait for the Department of Employment to review travel-to-work area boundaries before completing a review of assisted area boundaries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. New travel-to-work areas will not be designated before 1994. The Government made it clear before the election that a review of the assisted areas map would be conducted early in this Parliament.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's estimate of the installed capacity of operational nuclear power stations in England and Wales in each year from 1994 to the year 2000.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The principal operator of nuclear capacity in England and Wales is Nuclear Power plc. Decisions regarding nuclear capacity are mainly a commercial matter for the company. Nuclear Electric will operate its existing portfolio of nuclear stations as long as it is safe and economic to do so.

  Rechar
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the interim capital cover arrangements for Rechar operational programmes are to be introduced.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: My Department expects to make an announcement shortly.

EDUCATION

  Student Loans
  Mr. Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will bring forward proposals to increase student grants and to end the present system of student loans.

  Mr. Forman
  No.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications for grant-maintained status are currently being considered by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  At 11 May, 43 applications for grant-maintained status were under consideration by the Department.
  106
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the progress towards grant-maintained status for schools in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Forth
  There is one GM school in Leicestershire. I hope to see many others following the example of Long Field high school and joining the growing number of GM schools.

  "'Alto 'Alto"
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he last watched an episode of "'Allo 'Allo" to assess its appropriateness for the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have watched this programme. The question of its appropriateness does not arise; the national curriculum does not prescribe the study of this or any other television programme.

  Funding, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the level of funding for education within the London borough of Greenwich in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a handful of letters about education funding in Greenwich. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has proposed a cap on the authority's budget which is, in his view, reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of the authority. It allows Greenwich a budget which is nearly 9 per cent. above its standard spending assessment for this year and 18 per cent. above last year's SSA.

  Education Reforms
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the Government's education reforms.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are continuing to make rapid progress in implementing the important changes introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988 and in subsequent legislation. We have made steady progress in implementing the national curriculum; we have taken measures to ensure that schools admit pupils up to the limit of their capacity; we have introduced schemes of local management for schools and colleges; we have given schools the chance to opt out of local authority control; we have established city technology colleges; we have reformed further and higher education.

  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, further education and sixth-form colleges will be transferred from local authority control on 1 April 1993 to a new further education sector and will be funded direct by new national further education funding councils. The Act also established a single funding structure for higher education and enabled institutions other than present universities to award degrees and adopt university titles. In 1992 we took steps to ensure greater openness about the performance of individual schools and announced plans to give schools a bigger say in initial teacher training. Measures to support the growing number of grant-maintained schools will be introduced later this year.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people are now entering higher education; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Forman
  The proportion of young people entering full-time higher education has increased from one in eight in 1979 to one in four currently.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what resources will be made available for nursery education provision in the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government will announce their decision later this year on the total amount of resources, including the share for education, to be made available to local authorities in 1993–94. It will be for individual local authorities to decide how much to spend on the services for which they are responsible, and for authorities and schools to decide how to deploy the expenditure.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to encourage the creation of nursery places.

  Mr. Forth
  Over the years 1987 to 1991 the numbers of under-fives attending maintained schools in England increased by nearly 90,000, from 517,000 to 604,000. The local authority grant settlement for 1992–93 allows for an increase in education spending well in excess of inflation. The scale and form of services for under-fives is for local authorities to decide in the light of the settlement.

  Music
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to protect and enhance the opportunity for young people to learn music and to develop choral and orchestral skills.

  Mr. Forth
  The final order for music in the national curriculum, which is now before the House, secures, for the first time, the place of practical music-making for all pupils aged between five and 14. It provides for children to learn to perform a wide range of music, both individually and in ensembles, and opportunity for them to develop both choral and orchestral skills.

  The Department assists the implementation of the national curriculum through specific grant, and intends to continue its grant this year to Music for Youth, a national organisation which promotes practical music-making in schools.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will make a statement about grant-maintained status for special schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Although the Government have considered whether to extend the option of grant-maintained status to special schools, we have no current plans to do so.

  Local Management of Schools
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any changes to announce in his policy for the local management of schools.
  108
  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans for changes in his policy for local management of schools. As part of the promised three year review of LMS, he will be offering guidance to local education authorities on future developments later in the year.

  Hornsey Centre for Children Learning
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether his Department has any plans to fund the Hornsey centre for children learning.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Sixth-form Colleges
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional resources will be made available for small sixth-form colleges to help with administrative costs under the new regime.

  Mr. Forman
  The funds available to the new further education sector will take account of the costs to colleges of undertaking or buying in services currently provided for them by LEAs. The allocation of funds to colleges will be for the Further Education Funding Council.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the contribution made to education by grammar schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Many grammar schools are centres of excellence and make a significant contribution to the education of our children. High educational standards are not, however, uniquely associated with any one particular type of school system and examination results vary widely between individual schools, whether selective or non-selective.

  Educational Equality
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will meet teachers' representatives to discuss educational equality for pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend will be visiting a number of schools and he looks forward to constructive exchanges with the teacher associations in due course.

  Selection
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on selection for secondary education at 11 plus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  We are in favour of a diversity of schools and of choice for parents. It is for local education authorities and the governors of voluntary and grant-maintained schools to establish the organisation of schools most appropriate for their area, in the light of local needs and the wishes of the community.

  Where proposals are made to introduce selection in the admission arrangements of a school we will consider them carefully on their individual merits and in the light of the local community's views and needs.

  Teacher Dismissals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what current indications he has of the extent of dismissal of experienced teachers due to the shortage of funds for schools operating local management of schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has seen no evidence that experienced teachers are facing dismissal because of local management of schools. LMS means that schools that attract and retain pupils receive more money and gives governing bodies the power to decide how best to spend that money for the benefit of pupils—including how many and which teachers to employ. Under LMS, the overall amount of money available for school education remains the responsibility of individual local education authorities.

  Class Sizes (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to reduce class sizes in primary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The management of individual schools, including the number of pupils in particular classes, is a matter for governing bodies and LEAs to determine, in the light of local circumstances and priorities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Plutonium Production Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department of Her Majesty's Government will be responsible for the collection and annual publication of plutonium production figures from civil nuclear power stations following the abolition of the Department of Energy.

  The Prime Minister
  This information will now be provided by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Department of Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reallocation of resources committed to support programmes planned by the Department of Energy before it was abolished.

  The Prime Minister
  With the exception of work on energy efficiency, responsibility for the programmes of the former Department of Energy has been transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry. The provision for those programmes, as set out in the supply estimates for 1992–93 and approved in the Appropriation Act 1992, remains unchanged. Responsibility for energy efficiency has been transferred to the Department of the Environment.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 May.

  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.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the relative responsibilities of the Department of the Environment and Department of National Heritage with respect to listed buildings.

  The Prime Minister
  Details were set out in news releases, issued by both Departments on I May, available in the Library of the House. Responsibility for the listing of historic buildings now rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Because of their close connection with planning controls, consents for works to listed buildings remain the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. There will be close consultation between the two departments, both on general policy and on particular issues. English Heritage will act as adviser to both Departments.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to required the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Health to issue a joint circular to training and enterprise councils and joint care planning committees on ways to enhance the prospects of training for people with learning difficulties.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Health will shortly be issuing guidance to local authorities on all services for adults with learning disabilities. This guidance will cover references to the need to plan day services in close co-operation with employment services and training and enterprise councils. The guidance is being prepared in collaboration with the Department of Employment and will be copied to TECs.

  Security Commissioner (Report)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Prime Minister when the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will present his annual report for 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's annual report for 1991 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have properly exercised their powers under the Act and that the arrangements in force for ensuring that the service discloses information only in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act are working satisfactorily.

  Open Government
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for greater openness in the machinery of central Government.

  The Prime Minister
  I have decided that, in the interests of greater openness about the machinery of government, it
  111
  would be appropriate to publish the memorandum of guidance circulated to Ministers as "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and the names and membership of the standing ministerial committees, sub-committees and working groups.

  Accordingly, "Questions of Procedures for Ministers" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The names and membership of standing ministerial committees, sub-committees and working groups are as follows. In addition to the members, other Ministers are invited to attend meetings as and when the business requires.

  The publication of this information goes a long way beyond anything published by previous Governments about central machinery.

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND DOMESTIC POLICY (EDP)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Lord Privy Seal

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.
  Terms of Reference
  "To consider strategic issues relating to the Government's economic and domestic policies"

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE AND OVERSEAS POLICY (OPD)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Attorney General

  The Chief of Defence Staff will attend as required, as will the Chiefs of Staff when necessary.
  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the Government's Defence and Overseas policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE GULF (OPDG)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for defence

  Attorney General

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review developments in the Gulf region and to co-ordinate any necessary action."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DEFENCE POLICY (OPDN)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the Government's policy nuclear defence."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SECURITY (OPDSE)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review arrangements for defence and security in Europe."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HONG KONG AND OTHER DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (OPDK)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Lord President of the Council

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Others, including the Attorney General, the Governor of Hong Kong, the British Ambassador in Peking, the Minister for Overseas Development, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the responsible Deputy Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, may be invited to attend as appropriate.
  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the implementation of the agreement with the Chinese on the future of Hong Kong and the implications of that agreement for the Government of Hong Kong and the wellbeing of its people; and to keep under review as necessary the Government's policy towards other Dependent Territories."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN IRELAND (NI)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Attorney General

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.
  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee the Government's policy on Northern Ireland issues and relations with the Republic of Ireland on these matters."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (EDS)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health Chief

  Secretary, Treasury

  The Chief Scientific Adviser is in attendance.

  Terms of Reference
  "To review science and technology policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (IS)
  Composition

  Prime Minister (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney General attend as appropriate.
  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review policy on the security and intelligence services."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (EDI)
  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider industrial, commercial, and consumer issues including questions of competition and deregulation."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT (EDE)
  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of reference
  "To consider questions of environmental policy."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HOME AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS (EDH)
  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social

  Security Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Attorney General and the Lord Advocate also receive papers and are invited to attend as necessary.
  Terms of Reference
  "To consider home and social policy issues"

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EDL)
  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for National Heritage

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government)

  Terms of Reference
  "To consider issues affecting local government, including the annual allocation of resources."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE QUEEN'S SPEECHES AND FUTURE LEGISLATION (FLG)
  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs should be invited to attend or be represented for discussion of The Queen's speeches.
  Terms of reference
  "To prepare and submit to the Cabinet drafts of The Queen's Speeches to Parliament, and proposals for the Government's legislative programme for each Session of Parliament."

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION (LG)
  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Lord Chancellor

  Lord Privy Seal

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Attorney General

  Lord Advocate

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms

  Terms of Reference
  "To examine all draft Bills, to consider the Parliamentary handling of Government Bills, European Community documents and Private Members' business, and such other related matters as may be necessary; and to keep under review the Government's policy in relation to issues of Parliamentary procedures".

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE PAY (EDC)
  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  115

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Financial Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of Reference
  "To determine the basis of the annual negotiations and consider other matters concerning civil service pay."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON HEALTH STRATEGY (EDH(H))
  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Health

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  Minister of State, Department of Employment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  The Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Transport and Education, and the President of the Board of Trade should receive papers and may be invited to at' end as appropriate.
  Terms of Reference
  "To oversee the development, implementation and monitoring of the Government's health strategy, to co-ordinate the Government's policies on United Kingdom-wide issues affecting health, and report as necessary to the

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY (EDI(P))
  Composition

  Lord Privy Seal (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Education

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Chief Secretary, Treasury

  Terms of reference
  "To coordinate the handling of pay issues in the public sector, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Industrial, Commercial and Consumer Affairs."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN QUESTIONS (OPD(E))
  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Lord President of the Council

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Wales

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  116

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Attorney General

  Parliamentary Secretary, Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.
  The United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the European Communities is also in attendance.
  Terms of reference
  "To consider questions relating to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EASTERN EUROPE (OPD(AE))
  Composition

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (chairman)

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Minister for Overseas Development

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Other Ministers may be invited to attend as the nature of the business requires.
  Terms of Reference
  "To consider questions relating to Britain's policy of assisting change in the former Soviet republics and other former Communist countries in Europe and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM (OPD(T))
  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (chairman)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for Defence

  President of the Board of Trade

  Secretary of State for Transport

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Attorney General

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the arrangements for countering terrorism and for dealing with terrorist incidents and their consequences and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON LONDON (EDL(L))
  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Environment (chairman)

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Minister for Industry)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Housing and Planning)

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government)

  Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Minister for Social Security and Disabled People)

  Minister of State, Department of Education

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Minister of State, Department of Employment

  Economic Secretary, Treasury

  QMinister for Transport in London

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  Terms of Reference
  "To co-ordinate the Government's policies on London."

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON DRUG MISUSE (EDH(D))
  Composition

  Lord President of the Council (chairman)

  Solicitor General

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of

  Defence

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, Department for Education

  Others, including the Minister for Overseas Development and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State from the Departments of the Environment and Employment may be invited to attend as appropriate and should receive all papers.
  Terms of Reference
  "To coordinate the Government's national and international policies for tackling drugs misuse, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs"

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON CO-ORDINATION OF URBAN POLICY (EDH (U))
  Composition

  Secretary of State for the Environment (chairman)

  Minister of State, Home Office

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Minister for Local Government)

  Economic Secretary, Treasury

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for

  Technology, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for schools, Department for Education

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment

  City Action Team (CAT) Ministers will be invited to attend for items in which they have an interest
  Terms of Reference
  "To monitor and coordinate Government action on inner cities, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs"

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOL MISUSE (EDH(a))
  Composition

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (chairman)

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Scottish Office

  Minister of State, Department of Health (Minister for Health)

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer

  Affairs and Small Firms, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport

  Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern
  118
  Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, Department for Education

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment

  Terms of Reference
  "To review and develop the Government's strategy for combating the misuse of alcohol and to oversee its continuing implementation, and report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs"

  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S ISSUES (EHD(W))
  Composition

  Secretary of State for Employment (chairman)

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Welsh Office

  Minister of State, Department for Education

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer

  Affairs and Small Firms, Department of Trade and Industry

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security

  Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment will also receive papers and he invited to attend as necessary.
  Terms of Reference
  "To review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women: to oversee their implementation; and to report as necessary to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs".

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Countryside Protection
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he proposes to take to assist farmers to care for the countryside.

  Mr. Curry
  We propose to announce shortly final details of six new environmentally sensitive areas—ESAs —which will begin operating this year and to consult on plans for a further six areas to begin operating in 1993 as well as reviewing the five ESAs that were designated in 1988. We shall consider the scope for further measures in the context of reform of the common agriculture policy, including the proposed agri-environment programme, once the current negotiations reach a conclusion.

  Veal Crate Rearing
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to the ban on veal crate rearing, what steps he will take to end the shipment of calves to Holland for the purpose of veal crate rearing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Legal advice is that a ban on the export of calves to Community countries would be illegal under the treaty of Rome. Our objective is for welfare rules to be introduced in the Community which reflect the high standards in the United Kingdom.
  119
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of calves shipped to the continent in 1991–92 for the purpose of veal crate rearing.

  Mr. Soames
  In the 12 months, April 1991 to March 1992, a total of 412,803 calves intended for further fattening were exported from Great Britain to the Continent. It is not possible to determine how many of these were for rearing in veal crates.

  Tenancy Laws
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reform agricultural tenancy laws.

  Mr. Curry
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, we intend, subject to parliamentary time being available, to implement reforms which would encourage more letting of agricultural land by giving landlords and tenants greater freedom to agree their own arrangements in law.

  Embryo Transplants (Cattle)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect the welfare of cattle used in embryo transplants.

  Mr. Soames
  Regulations for the collection and transfer of bovine embryos are being finalised by the Department. In preparing these regulations, full regard is being give to the welfare implications of the procedures of embryo collection and transfer. There will be a general requirement that all collections and transfers are carried out under the responsibility of a veterinary surgeon. In addition, two particular welfare provisions are envisaged:—the use of epidural anaesthesia would be mandatory prior to any collection or transfer of embryos;
  —the examination of recipient cows by a veterinary surgeon would be required prior to transfer taking place, to certify their suitability to carry the embryo intended for transfer.

  The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has also proposed that, in conjunction with the British Veterinary Association, it will draw up a code of practice for bovine embryo transfer to complement the Regulations.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations within the European Community over quarantine regulations.

  Mr. Soames
  Quarantine restrictions in relation to foot and mouth disease are being lifted within the Community in the light of the adoption of a non-vaccination policy in all member states. Although negotiations on quarantine for rabies susceptible species are continuing, this Government will not accept any solution which leaves the United Kingdom less well protected than under the existing rabies protection arrangements.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he proposes to take to promote opportunities for economically viable farming in less-favoured areas of the United Kingdom.
  120
  Mr. Curry
  Farmers in the less-favoured areas benefit from a wide range of support measures including hill livestock compensatory allowances—HLCAs—sheep and suckler cow premia, and capital grants which together are worth over £480 million annually. I have no plans to add to these measures. The sheep and suckler cow premia are currently subject to review in the context of CAP reform and HLCAs will be reviewed in the usual way in the autumn.

  Fresh Meat Regulations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he proposes to institute in the system of fresh meat regulations to meet European requirements.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government's proposal for regulations implementing in Great Britain the requirements of the EC directive on fresh meat—91/497/EEC—were issued for public consultation on 23 April. The proposed regulations replace almost all the existing fresh meat hygiene regulations in Great Britain.

  I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend gave concerning the establishment of the national meat hygiene service on 13 May 1992, Official Report, column 124.

  Honey Bees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what notification procedures are observed in his Department for the outbreak of Varroa Jacobsonni disease in honey bees.

  Mr. Curry
  The Bee Diseases Control Order 1982 requires that beekeepers should notify any incidence, or suspected incidence, of varroasis immediately to the responsible Agriculture Department for further investigation.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure the continuing prohibition of the importation of honey bees to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  The Importation of Bees Order 1980 prohibits imports of honey bees except under licence from countries of high bee health status which are free from varroasis. Commission proposals currently under discussion in Brussels would replace these controls with trading rules which provide among other things for identification and protection of disease-free areas. We will be reviewing our import policy in the light of these rules, including the need to offer continued protection to those areas of the United Kingdom which remain free from varroasis.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by his Department to prevent the spread of Varroa Jacobsonni internally within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have declared an infected area which includes Cornwall, Devon, Avon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East and West Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Greater London, Oxfordshire and Surrey. Movement of bees and hive frames containing comb into or out of that area is
  121
  prohibited except under licence. Intensive testing to date has shown no evidence of the disease outside the infected area.

  Rabies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recommendations have been made by the scientific and veterinary committee of the EC about measures to control rabies.

  Mr. Gummer
  The scientific veterinary committee's report has not yet been published. I understand that it is unlikely to recommend specific control measures, as it regards questions of enforcement as outside its remit.

  Tobacco Growing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 123, if he will show the percentage of the common agricultural policy funding given to the subsidising of tobacco growing in the EC in 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1991 the provisional cost of the tobacco regime as a percentage of the cost of the common agricultural policy was 3·85 per cent.

  Trawls (Nephrops Fisheries)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban twin and multi-rig trawls in nephrop fisheries.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes. Following requests from and a consultation with the industry on additional measures to conserve nephrops stocks we propose to ban the use of twin-rig and multi-rig trawls by United Kingdom vessels in nephrops fisheries except in the Fladen ground from 1 January 1993.

DEFENCE

  Dechmont Firing Range
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give details of the number of incidents involving stray bullets which have occurred in each of the last 10 years at the Dechmont firing range, East Kilbride;

  (2) if he will give details of any compensation paid to members of the public arising from incidents involving stray bullets at Dechmont firing range, East Kilbride, over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Over the past 10 years, there has been one proven incident involving stray rounds from the Dechmont firing range. This was in October 1986. A board of inquiry found that the incident, involving two stray rounds, was caused by a soldier failing to follow the correct drills.

  Compensation was paid to those who had property damaged as a result of the incident.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the gun clubs which are registered to use the Dechmont firing range at East Kilbride.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following non-MOD users are licensed to use the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association range at Dechmont:122

  Cartside Rifle Club

  Avon Sporting Club

  Balornock Rifle Club

  West of Scotland Rifle and Pistol Club

  Clyde Valley Pistol Club

  Claymore Rifle and Pistol Gun Club

  Martins Rifle and Pistol Club

  Dechmont Air Gun Club

  Strathclyde Police

  British Deer Society

  Firing Ranges
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the regulations which apply to registered gun clubs at MOD firing ranges.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Each civilian club which is licensed to use an MOD or Territorial Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve Association range has a range conducting officer who is responsible for ensuring full compliance with range standing orders.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if gun clubs registered to use MOD firing ranges are required to register individual weapons which will be used on the range.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. All weapons are registered with the local police under the provisions of the Firearms Acts and amendments thereto.

  Khmer Nationals
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is still providing any form of training for Khmer nationals in(a) Cambodia, (b) Thailand and (c) Malaysia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom military contribution to the United Nations Transition Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) includes a contingent providing mine clearance training for Cambodian nationals.

  Lieutenant Commander Peter McDonnell
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what posting in the Royal Navy is currently held by Lieutenant Commander Peter McDonnell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  1 refer the hon. Member to the current edition of the Navy list, a copy which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date and at what place he expects the court martial of Lieutenant Commander Peter McDonnell to begin.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The court martial of Lieutenant Commander Peter McDonnell is to be held at HMS Drake, Devonport, commencing on 3 June 1992.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to implement the recommendation made in "Options for Change" to maintain RAF Chivenor as a leading training base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes.

SCOTLAND

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ballots were returned by overseas voters registered for each constituency in Scotland in the general election on 9 April.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. Information about the total number of postal ballot papers returned for each constituency will be published in due course as a House of Commons Command Paper.

  Gigha
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land on the island of Gigha has been designated, as a percentage and in hectares, as a site of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No sites of special scientific interest have been notified on the island of Gigha.

  Child Care, Fife
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline(a) the total cost of the inquiry into child care policy in Fife, and (b) the expected contribution to the costs to be made by Fife regional council.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies given to him by my hon. Friend the then Minister of State on 10 March 1992, at column 465.

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Cumbernauld

  Housing

  5·338

  7·257

  8·587

  5·500

  10·557

  OES1

  1·915

  4·070

  7·806

  10·636

  8·129

  East Kilbride

  Housing

  8·445

  13·169

  10·933

  18·742

  15·313

  OES1

  4·470

  4·212

  4·932

  12·692

  9·340

  Glenrothes

  Housing

  5·140

  4·857

  4·226

  7·314

  10·134

  OES1

  1·206

  3·694

  5·832

  4·695

  8·564

  Irvine

  Housing

  2·755

  2·229

  3·419

  4·811

  3·506

  OES1

  1·012

  1·927

  5·707

  2·483

  2·619

  Livingston

  Housing

  3·327

  4·400

  6·750

  10·316

  7·142

  OES1

  3·501

  3·100

  1·663

  5·525

  14·400

  1 Other Environmental Services covers receipts from industrial, commercial and land sales.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the current value of the(a) commercial, (b) industrial and (c) housing assets of each of the Scottish new town development corporations.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information for commercial and industrial assets is as follows. The valuations are at 31 March 1992.

  Commercial property £ million

  Industrial property £ million

  Cumbernauld

  2·18

  44·75

  East Kilbride

  23·92

  47·83

  Glenrothes

  11·60

  25·16

  124
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the inquiry into child care policy in Fife undertaken by Sheriff Kearney has been completed.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The chairman of the inquiry has been asked to let my right hon. Friend have his completed report by the end of May.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland is he will make a statement about the inquiry into child care policy in Fife.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend will consider the question of a statement once he has received and studied the completed report of the inquiry.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the report from the inquiry into child care policy in Fife is to be published.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  As soon as my right hon. Friend has received and considered the report of the inquiry, he will make a decision about publication.

  New Town Corporations
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the actual capital receipts for each of the Scottish new town development corporations for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The actual capital receipts for 1991–92 are not yet available. The figures for the previous five years are as follows:

  Commercial property £ million

  Industrial property £ million

  Irvine

  8·23

  24·44

  Livingston

  3·56

  53·63

  The housing stock is not valued annually. Individual houses are valued as necessary.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the amounts paid in corporation tax by each of the Scottish new town development corporations in each of the last five years.
  125
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  East Kilbride was the only new town in Scotland to incur corporation tax liability in the last five years. Audited figures are not yet available for 1991–92 but in the previous five years the tax paid was:

  £ million

  1986–87

  2·551

  1987–88

  1·794

  1988–89

  1·727

  1989–90

  4·240

  1990–91

  2·893

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld

  Housing

  8·474

  8·994

  11·385

  6·504

  6·874

  OES1

  13·801

  16·033

  14·485

  11·485

  8·806

  Infrastructure2

  —

  —

  —

  3·605

  2·800

  East Kilbride

  Housing

  17·963

  22·335

  18·107

  9·657

  9·155

  OES1

  20·485

  16·048

  15·377

  16·164

  9·930

  Infrastructure2

  —

  —

  —

  2·038

  3·300

  Glenrothes

  Housing

  7·519

  6·975

  7·439

  6·068

  7·080

  OES1

  7·152

  11·670

  17·497

  9·101

  4·174

  Infrastructure2

  —

  —

  —

  2·090

  2·400

  Irvine

  Housing

  6·438

  5·704

  6·836

  5·227

  5·700

  OES1

  11·803

  10·237

  8·473

  4·778

  3·281

  Infrastructure2

  —

  —

  —

  1·448

  1·000

  Livingston

  Housing

  9·614

  12·326

  15·725

  6·104

  7·117

  OES1

  18·755

  28·052

  25·013

  16·802

  9·970

  Infrastructure2

  —

  —

  —

  4·650

  3·700

  1 Other Environmental Services covers industrial and commercial investment.

  2 Prior to 1991–92 investment in infrastructure was funded from the capital allocations for housing and other environmental services.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the revenue allocations for each of the five Scottish new town development corporations for each of the last five years at current prices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Revenue expenditure of the Scottish new town development corporations is supported by housing deficit grant and general revenue grant. The housing deficit grant meets the deficit incurred on building and modernisation of housing including management and maintenance after taking account of rental income.

  Housing Revenue Deficit Grant

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld

  5·313

  5·700

  5·197

  4·112

  3·768

  East Kilbride

  1·286

  1·112

  0·889

  0·521

  0·028

  Glenrothes

  5·459

  5·585

  4·453

  3·598

  3·019

  Irvine

  8·944

  8·109

  6·889

  6·112

  5·566

  Livingston

  15·789

  13·564

  13·890

  12·200

  9·916

  General Revenue Grant

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cumbernauld

  1·800

  2·050

  East Kilbride

  4·465

  2·720

  Glenrothes

  4·885

  4·513

  Irvine

  2·990

  2·435

  Livingston

  5·860

  4·684

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the level of capital receipts assumed for each of the five Scottish new town development corporations for the current financial year.
  126
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the capital allocations for each of the five Scottish new town development corporations for each of the last five years at current prices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is set out in the table.

  General revenue grant meets the coats of management and maintenance of community facilities and general administrative expenses. General revenue grant was introduced form the 1991–1992 financial year. Prior to that part of the revenue expenditure was included in new towns' borrowing consent totals and not separately identified. A grant was also provided to meet interest charges on accumulated deficits on non-housing activities.

  Details at current prices of the housing deficit and general revenue grant are shown in the tables.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Housing

  OES1

  Cumbernauld

  6·574

  11·806

  East Kilbride

  7·055

  15·930

  Glenrothes

  5·180

  8·174

  Irvine

  4·000

  2·281

  Livingston

  5·617

  12·970

  1 Other Environmental Services covers receipts from industrial, commercial and land sales.

  Renewable Energy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Government's target of 1,000 MW of renewable energy projects he estimates is to come from Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Targets for the exploitation of renewable energy are under consideration as part of the current review of the Government's renewable energy programmes.

  Nephrops Fisheries
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a weekend ban on fishing for nephrops will be introduced on the West Coast of Scotland following the consultation exercise on nephrops conservation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  While the catching side of the fishing industry is generally in favour of a weekend ban, a number of concerns have been expressed by processors over the implications for their activities. We have therefore decided that the matter should be considered in some more detail and 1 have today written to Lord MacKay, chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, inviting him to convene a second nephrops forum where the views of all parties can be considered in detail and possible ways forward explored.

  Water
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the increase in cost of provision of water in each water authority in Scotland shown as a percentage of the cost of provision last year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The estimated expenditure on water supply to be met from charges in each authority has changed as shown:

  Change in cost of water provision in 1992–93 as percentage of cost in 1991–92

  Authority

  Percentage

  Borders

  + 23

  Central

  + 2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  + 9

  Fife

  + 9

  Grampian

  + 4

  Highland

  + 5

  Lothian

  + 9

  Strathclyde

  + 7

  Tayside

  + 4

  Orkney

  + 13

  Shetland

  - 6

  Western Isles

  + 11

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to provide additional resources to local water authorities in Scotland to meet the resource implications of the EC drinking water directive.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: Water supply comes within the water and sewerage

  Adaptations to property provided by Scottish Social Work Departments Number of cases, year ending 31 March

  Region

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Borders

  581

  521

  489

  766

  766

  Central

  832

  800

  825

  n.a.

  1,559

  Dumfries/Galloway

  815

  637

  1,067

  1,134

  1,147

  Fife

  1,300

  2,259

  2,313

  3,208

  2,403

  Grampian

  2,152

  1,855

  2,087

  2,653

  3,382

  128
  programme, capital expenditure provision for which has risen substantially from £142 million in 1990–91 to £221 million in 1992–93, an increase of more than 50 per cent. It is set to rise further to £244 million by 1994–95. The EC drinking water directive was a factor taken into account in determining the increased resources.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide extra resources to help meet deficits experienced by water authorities as a result of diminished sales.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: Deficits arising from shortfalls in income due to diminished sales of water are a matter for authorities to take into account when setting charges in succeeding years, in accordance with statutory provisions. Government assistance would not be appropriate.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the additional capital and current costs of providing water that will require to be borne by local water authorities in Scotland as a result of the additional requirements of the EC drinking water directive.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The requirements of the EC drinking water directive are incorporated in the Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990. Capital expenditure for undertakings to the Secretary of State for improvement works to meet the regulations totals £1·6 billion for works up to 2000 and beyond. Corresponding current cost implications are not separately identifiable.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by district council, the number of applications made for adaptations to the homes of disabled people in each of the last five years; how many adaptations were carried out in each year; and what was the average length of time to complete adaptations from the request for an adaptation to be made to its conclusion.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The information in respect of district councils is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Regional council social work departments may also help disabled people with adaptations to their homes. Information on the number of applications made through social work departments and the length of time to complete adaptations to the homes of disabled people is not held centrally.

  The number of adaptations carried out by social work departments in each of the last five years, where available, is as follows:
  129

  Region

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Highland

  554

  555

  596

  373

  502

  Lothian

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Strathclyde

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Tayside

  2,852

  4,496

  3,211

  3,149

  2,374

  Orkney

  35

  59

  63

  63

  82

  Shetland

  112

  147

  128

  132

  157

  Western Isles

  44

  38

  98

  108

  33

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the amount of money spent by each local authority in Scotland in the last three years on home improvement grants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The available information on improvement grants paid by local authorities for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 is set out in the table.

  Improvement grants paid by local authorilies, year ended 31 December

  £000

  District

  Year

  1989 Grants paid

  1990 Grants paid

  1991 Grants paid

  Scotland

  56,804

  55,547

  65,951

  Borders

  Berwickshire 1

  345

  385

  388

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  554

  710

  789

  Roxburgh

  473

  547

  511

  Tweeddale

  156

  50

  328

  Central

  Clackmannan

  92

  167

  107

  Falkirk

  314

  447

  471

  Stirling

  460

  337

  535

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  208

  363

  216

  Nithsdale

  557

  515

  652

  Stcwartry

  65

  190

  141

  Wigtown

  210

  201

  388

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  596

  5,637

  673

  Kirkcaldy

  856

  970

  913

  North East Fife

  1,173

  1,324

  1,408

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  2,926

  3,308

  4,013

  Banff and Buchan

  615

  518

  449

  Gordon

  423

  478

  465

  Kincardine and Deeside

  597

  909

  722

  Moray

  777

  542

  732

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  72

  88

  89

  Caithness

  320

  332

  341

  Inverness

  554

  913

  601

  Lochaber

  459

  268

  440

  Nairn

  146

  100

  143

  Ross and Cromarty

  2.101

  1,457

  1,721

  Skye and Lochalsh

  763

  669

  910

  Sutherland

  363

  464

  482

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  2,142

  1,272

  960

  Edinburgh

  7,512

  5,900

  9,152

  Midlothian

  359

  380

  400

  West Lothian 4

  783

  719

  795

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  3,784

  2,253

  2,421

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  71

  70

  16

  Clydebank

  34

  58

  26

  Clydesdale

  718

  794

  459

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth 2

  38

  68

  70

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  166

  241

  168

  Cunninghame

  613

  1,002

  4,261

  130

  District

  Year

  1989 Grants paid

  1990 Grants paid

  1991 Grants paid

  Dumbarton 3 4

  228

  75

  16

  East Kilbride

  94

  148

  199

  Eastwood

  37

  43

  28

  Glasgow

  11,622

  12,184

  13,730

  Hamilton

  69

  458

  366

  Inverclyde 1

  1,821

  2,707

  2,886

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  169

  318

  131

  Kyle and Carrick

  486

  248

  452

  Monklands

  84

  228

  245

  Motherwell

  324

  270

  496

  Renfrew

  1,497

  1,761

  1,829

  Strathkelvin

  200

  196

  227

  Tayside

  Angus

  538

  543

  485

  Dundee

  1,336

  2,026

  1,949

  Perth and Kinross

  1,388

  579

  403

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands 1

  991

  838

  755

  Shetland Islands 2

  76

  100

  88

  Western Isles

  3,448

  3,254

  4,309

  Returns outstanding:

  1 Quarter 2 1989.

  2 Quarter 3 1989.

  3 Quarter 3 1990.

  4 Quarter 4 1990.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now consider increasing the funds available to local housing authorities to enable them to offer more grants for home improvement schemes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: The gross final non-housing revenue account capital allocations for local authority expenditure in support of private sector housing in 1992–93 total £121·016 million. This represents a substantial increase of 8·9 per cent. over the corresponding allocations for 1991–92. It is for local authorities themselves to decide how best to deploy these resources to meet local housing needs, including the need for home improvement grants.

  Pre-school Funding
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total allocation of central Government funding to pre-school development groups in(a) speech therapy and (b) physiotherapy in each regional health board area for each financial year since 1987 and the projected expenditure in such spheres in each financial year from 1992 to 1995.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 18 May 1992]: No specific allocation of resources are made to health boards for speech therapy or physiotherapy. Allocations of resources for the purchase of services to meet the health care needs of their resident population are made to health boards each year and it is for them to determine their priorities and how the money will be spent.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many restart interviewees fell within the guarantee group and how many fell within the aim group, for the latest available period for Great Britain and for each region; how many of each of those groups were submitted or placed in(a) employment training, (b) enterprise allowance scheme, (c) job club, (d) job interview guarantee or (e) employment action; and how many such claimants were not made an offer of help, showing whether it was because (i) they were already on or about to start on a scheme, (ii) they were about to leave the unemployment register, (iii) an offer could not be made because there was no appropriate scheme place available or (iv) an offer could not be made due to the claimants' attitude or behaviour or severity of their problem.

  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.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if non-employed employment training trainees who receive part-time earnings, who were solely in receipt of unemployment benefit before receiving their training allowance, are subject to the earnings rules for unemployment benefit; and if she will make a statement.

  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.

  "Actively Seeking Work" Test
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants in each quarter since March 1991 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole have(a) been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claim referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims allowed or disallowed for not actively seeking work, (d) had their claim referred to an adjudication officer for refusing suitable employment and (e) how many of those in (d) have had their benefit disqualified or not disqualified.

  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.

  Bridging Allowances (Young People)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list by region and for Great Britain as a whole, shown separately for males and females how many 16 and 17-year-olds were in receipt of extended child benefit, how many were in receipt of bridging allowance for each month since September 1991 and how many young people in each region and in Great Britain exhausted their entitlement to youth training bridging allowance; and if she will make a statement.
  132
  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.

  Disability Benefits
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if claimants who are receiving disability benefits, or a disability premium with their income support, are eligible to take up a place on the enterprise allowance scheme; what disability benefits they can retain while they are on the allowance and trying to start a small business; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Claimants who are receiving disability benefits or a disability premium with their income support are eligible to take up a place on EAS, provided they meet the local entry criteria. People receiving an enterprise allowance are entitled to the full range of in-work disability benefits in the same way as anybody else who is employed or self-employed.

  TEC and LEC Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise council and local enterprise company chief executives are in post; how many are male or female or from an ethnic minority background; how many have resigned since their TEC or LEC became operational; what information she has on the employment backgrounds of the chief executives, including the numbers who have retained their civil service status; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Of the 82 training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, 81 have a chief executive or acting chief executive in post. One is in the process of being filled. Of these, 69 are men and 12 are women. Information on the ethnic origin of TEC chief executives is not available. Since individual TECs became operational, seven of them have had a change in chief executive. Information on the employment background of chief executives is not held centrally, but 45 are civil servants.

  Information about LECs in Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Options Careers Fair
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether her Department will be represented at the options careers fair to be held at the national exhibition centre in Birmingham in October.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has been informed that "Options 92 Career Planning" has been cancelled.

  Employment Service
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the Employment Service made in meeting the targets outlined in the 1991–92 agency agreement; and if she will show for the latest possible date the(a) total unemployed job placings and variance from target, (b) long-term unemployed job placings and variance from target, (c) people with disabilities job

  133
  placings and variance from target, (d) inner-city job placings and variance from target, (e) number of claims not pursued following initial contact and variance from profiled annual reference level, (f) number of claimants moved from unemployment benefit to another benefit and variance from annual reference level and (g) number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators and variance from annual reference level.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am informed by the chief executive of the Employment Service that in the period April to December 1991, the Employment Service placed a total of 1,020,100 unemployed people into jobs, within 1 per cent. of the profiled target. A total of 17·8 per cent. of these placings were long-term claimants, 2·4 per cent. were people with disabilities and 34 per cent. were unemployed people in inner cities against annual targets of 16 per cent., 2·4 per cent. and 34 per cent. respectively. Over the same period, 416,950 claims were not pursued following initial contact, 18 per cent. above the profiled reference level. The number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators was on target at 35,950. The number of claimants helped to move from unemployment benefits to a more appropriate benefit is not a reference level under the annual performance agreement for 1991–92.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of male and female directors of training and enterprise councils; how many are from ethnic minority backgrounds; how many directors are from the private sector; from which industrial sectors they come; and of non-private sector directors, how many are from(a) local authorities, (b) local education authorities, (c) other educational organisations, (d) trade unions, (e) voluntary organisations, (f) ethnic minority organisations, (g) employers' associations and (h) others.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information available is shown in the table. Information on the industrial sector background of directors from the private sector is not held centrally.

  Category

  Numbers of directors

  (i) Men

  1,018

  (ii) Women

  122

  (iii) Ethnic minority background 1

  40

  (iv) Private sector

  799

  (v) Non-private directors of which

  341

  (a) Local authorities

  98

  (b) Local education authorities (not included in (a))

  51

  (c) Other educational organsiations

  28

  (d) Trade unions

  61

  (e) Voluntary organizations

  43

  (f) Ethnic minority organizations

  4

  (g) Employers Associations

  10

  (h) Others

  46

  1 Based on information collected in June/July 1991: 12 Directors preferred not to state their ethnic origin.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responsibilities training and enterprise 134
  councils have for training people with learning difficulties; and what steps she is taking to ensure they fully meet these responsibilities.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  TECs are obliged through their contracts with the Department to ensure that suitable high quality training is available for all trainees with special training needs. This includes people with learning disabilities. TEC's performance against their plans is regularly monitored by officials.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish the budget agreed with each training and enterprise council in England and Wales for 1992–93, broken down into the five major expenditure blocks; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The budget allocations for training and enterprise councils in England and Wales for 1992–93 are still subject to negotiation in some of the Department's training, enterprise and education directorate regions and therefore not yet available.

  Employment Programmes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many and what proportion of employment training leavers for each region and for Great Britain as a whole(a) had been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) had obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how many of the enterprise training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan;

  (2) if she will publish tables showing the latest available results from the employment training leavers' survey for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales and each local enterprise company area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who had (a) been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how many of the employment training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan;

  (3) how many people were participating in (i) employment training, (ii) the enterprise allowance scheme and (iii) youth training in each month since November 1991; and if she will make a statement;

  (4) for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, whether she will give the latest results of the youth training scheme—youth training leavers survey, to show for male and female trainees and for each separate ethnic group and for those with a disability (a) those in full-time work with the same employer, (b) those in full-time work with a different employer, (c) those in part-time work, (d) those on a full-time course at a college-training centre, (e) those on another youth training scheme, (f) those doing something else, (g) those who were unemployed, (h) those who had obtained a vocational qualification, (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (j) the usable percentage response rate and (k) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers;

  (5) if she will publish tables showing the latest available results from the employment training leavers' survey for each TEC area in England and Wales and each LEC area in Scotland broken down to show the number and

  135
  proportion of employment training leavers who were (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (6) if she will state for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, separately for males and females, how many people have entered employment action and how many were participating in employment action in each month since January 1992;

  (7) how many and what proportion of employment training trainees for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, were, three months after leaving (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another government training programme, (g) on a full time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (8) if she will state for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, separately for males and females what percentage of persons aged (a) 16 years and (b) 17 years have been on youth training schemes in each year since YTS-YT started.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As the information requested is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will give for each region and for Great Britain as a whole for 1991–92(a) the number of people who were receiving payments under the enterprise allowance scheme and (b) the amount of expenditure on enterprise allowance schemes; what information she has on the survival of those businesses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information, by region and for Great Britain as a whole, on the numbers of people receiving the 136
  enterprise allowance at the end of the 1991–92 financial year is shown in the table. The table also shows EAS expenditure on allowances.

  There is no information available on the survival of those businesses starting during the 1991–92 financial year.

  Number of People Receiving Enterprise Allowance: 1991–92

  Region

  Participants

  Payments £000's

  South East

  3,269

  11,391

  London

  4,611

  12,697

  South West

  3,991

  9,623

  West Midlands

  4,173

  9,904

  East Midlands

  4,281

  10,576

  Yorks and Humberside

  4,085

  11,154

  North West

  6,805

  16,430

  Northern

  2,258

  6,048

  Wales

  2,756

  7,136

  England and Wales Total

  36,229

  94,959

  Scotland

  4,000

  —

  Notes:

  1. Participant totals as at the end of the financial year.

  2. A separate payments figure for Scotland is not available.

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will outline the timetable for reviewing travel-to-work area boundaries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  New travel-to-work area boundaries will be calculated from the commuting 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.

  Markham Main Colliery
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the likely increase in unemployment in the Doncaster north constituency should the proposed closure of the Markham Main colliery go ahead.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is not possible to estimate the increase in unemployment in any particular area if and when Markham Main colliery is closed. A number of organisations including British Coal Enterprise, and this Department through the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils, offer a wide range of help with job finding and retraining to unemployed mine workers.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Macpherson of Drumochter Lord Macpherson of Drumochter —Took the Oath.

Smoking on Trains: BR Policy
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree that British Rail should ban smoking on all journeys of less than 90 minutes.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for the British Railways Board to determine whether smoking should he permitted on trains. In doing so it takes due account of its passengers' wishes. There is a ban on Network SouthEast's inner suburban services. I understand that British Rail has no plans to extend that ban.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although I am not a smoker I ask the Question because of my need to protect minorities? Is he aware that British Rail is progressively making smoking more difficult for the 20 per cent. minority who wish to smoke on trains? Is that desirable at a time when British Rail wants to please the clients in order to attract people to return to the railways as more money is invested in them and as our roads become more crowded?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in response to market demand and to save on the cost of train cleaning, smoking has been banned on inner suburban routes in Network SouthEast. Market research suggests that 77 per cent. of passengers are in favour of the ban. BR believes that the ban may have attracted more customers to its services.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the banning of smoking on trains, a unilateral imposition, a form of dictatorship? Bans are imposed without consulting the smokers concerned, about one-third of the travelling public. Does the Minister agree that British Rail should be legally bound to make provision for smokers? After all, smokers have rights too; the right to enjoy smoking tobacco whenever they wish.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, smoking is allowed on all InterCity services. It is banned only on short journeys.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, speaking as a member of the noble Lord's endangered minority, does not the Minister's answer totally contradict the Citizen's Charter, which refers to all public services? Those services are required to make better provision
542
for all users and "wherever practicable" they should provide for choice. In particular, it is stated that BR will
"seek to make its services to the public friendlier and more personal."
In the section dealing with prisons it is stated that,
"all citizens are entitled to consideration, including those who offend against the law."
Does the Minister acknowledge that, although the rights of prisoners are allowed for in the charter, British Rail's approach, which is in violation of the charter, regards smokers as non-citizens?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, British Rail must respond to its market and to its users; its philosophy must be market-driven. It is for British Rail to decide whether to impose bans on particular services. Obviously it must take into consideration all its users. It is for British Rail to decide whether it is acting in line with the Citizen's Charter.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the Minister replied that one of the reasons for banning smoking was that trains would be less dirty. Does he agree that in addition to cigarette ends on the floor there are sweet papers and so forth? Why does British Rail not place a receptacle in every compartment?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good suggestion. I understand that in non-smoking carriages less litter is dropped because people do not see cigarette butts on the floor and are less inclined to drop sweet papers and so forth.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when certain people enjoy certain pleasures there is always a body of other people wishing to stop them doing so? Is that not somewhat dog in the manger and what will British Rail's position be when a train breaks down?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I know that my noble friend indulges in many pleasures including, probably, smoking on trains. I hope that he will be able to continue to indulge in most of those pleasures. The breakdown of a train is a different question but as I know that my noble friend travels to Scotland he will not be affected because one can smoke on InterCity services.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not British Rail proposing that there shall be no smoking on journeys lasting less than 90 minutes? Is that not an absurd restriction to place on the travelling public who smoke? Should not British Rail be encouraging people to use the railways instead of their cars in the interests of the prevention of pollution rather than discouraging them, particularly in central London, where the pollution is very bad indeed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right. It is extremely important for British Rail to encourage people to use its services. It is also important that it should take into account the views of its passengers. It is not possible to keep all its passengers happy all the time, for many reasons. The decision on whether to ban smoking on suburban

543
journeys is not based on time but on distance. As noble Lords will be aware, sometimes time and distance on British Rail can be two different things.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount not aware—
Lord Marsh: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Over the past 160 years, British Rail—
Noble Lords: Order, order.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: —has been able to satisfy its customers by having smoking and non-smoking carriages on all its rail services?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps this is more a question which is properly addressed to the Leader of the House but if, as the Minister says—and I suspect he may well be right—he has no responsibility in this matter, is it his intention to answer questions generally on behalf of British Rail? Should this Question be on the Order Paper? I am slightly puzzled.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord has great experience as regards British Rail. It is my job to try to answer the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether or not British Rail intends to ban smoking on Network SouthEast journeys of less than 90 minutes' duration, it is already surreptitiously doing so by the simple means of not providing enough smoking compartments?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, British Rail monitors the level of vacant seats in both smoking and non-smoking compartments in order to determine the relative demand.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this terrible dictatorship has been extended to theatres, where there are prohibitions or partial prohibitions, to London buses, and, indeed, elsewhere? Is the Minister further aware that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has given a remarkable new insight into the purpose of the Citizen's Charter? Indeed, that seems to be its only purpose. However, will the Minister enter into discussions with British Rail to see that the number of non-smoking compartments is, at the very least, increased in proportion to those where smoking is permitted?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall certainly draw to the attention of British Rail the questions which have been asked in your Lordships' House.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that all the European countries allow designated carriages for smoking? Will he perhaps draw to the attention of British Rail that when it is running trains through the Channel Tunnel, there should be a half-way mark at which point smokers may light up?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as always, my noble friend offers an interesting view regarding British Rail. I shall bring the noble Lord's remarks to the notice of Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail.

World Population: Initiatives
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further initiatives they are taking to deal with problems caused by the increase in world population.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are continuing to increase significantly our support to population programmes and reproductive health services in Africa and Asia, to the UN Population Fund, and to non-governmental organisations. Last year UK population assistance to developing countries exceeded £26 million—the highest ever. We are also working closely with the European Commission to develop a stronger commitment to population assistance within the Community as a whole.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I welcome the Minister as she answers her first Question in this House on population, because we are aware of the great interest that she has shown in another place regarding this important issue. Is she aware that the United Nations Population Fund's report published last week confirms what many people have been saying for a long time—that is, that educating women, and giving them access to family planning and health services, is the key in trying to prevent the catastrophe which will occur if nothing is done about world population? I welcome the £26 million to which the noble Baroness referred. Does she accept that the countries involved are not doing enough, and that in our case we should be taking the world lead in this very important matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's last question first, we are increasing our support for family planning activities faster than any other country. We are also encouraging other countries to increase their support not only for the United Nations Population Fund but also for the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the WHO Human Reproduction Programme and for non-governmental organisations like Population Concern. What the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said about women is true. The more you enable women to continue in their education, to take up jobs, to start small businesses, the more you give them good mother and child health care advice, the less children they wish to have and the more likelihood there is that the children which they do bear will survive.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, following the reply of the noble Baroness, am I right in thinking that the Government recognise that such factors as clean

545
water, immunisation, primary health care and even pensions have a strong bearing on population policy? Will the Government ensure that those factors are discussed in international dialogues?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is right. Clean water, which enables the milk substitutes to be properly mixed for the benefit of children, immunisation which prevents illness, and indeed some security in old age, do a great deal to discourage the continuous reproduction that many women suffer against their wishes, particularly in developing countries. That is the reason we produced a pamphlet last year called Children by Choice Not Chance. That pamphlet was used for debate in all international fora and it will form part of our discussions at the Rio Earth Summit. It is essential that it should do so.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, perhaps I may ask this. Is the noble Baroness in full agreement with me and many others who believe that the best way of providing family planning advice and supplies is through a network of primary health care being made available to all members of the population? I am aware that the Government, at least verbally, support the WHO goal of health for all by the year 2000, which I take to mean accessibility of basic health care to everybody in the world. What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking towards achieving that desirable goal?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, primary health care is the basis not only of smaller and more healthy families, but also of a happier society in the third world. We are increasing our support not only for reproductive health programmes, but also for that primary health care. For instance, our contribution to the United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—will ensure that this year £9·5 million, the highest amount ever, will be fed in not only bilaterally, but also through the multilateral agencies to improve women's health services alongside child survival. That is done mainly through the primary health care units.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when everything that can be done has been clone, the harsh reality is that world populations will he limited either by starvation or by birth control? By any ethical standards, particularly the Christian ethic, birth control is surely the kinder of the two.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we prefer to talk of family planning and not control. It is fundamental to our policy that family planning should not be coercive; it should be by choice. That is the reason it is right to make family planning devices and advice available, and to improve mother and child health care wherever that is needed. It is much more than throughout the third world; it is in Central and Eastern Europe and also the former Soviet Union.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that, as the World Bank said yesterday, it is not just a matter of better educational facilities for women? But there should also be improved living
546
standards for the poor generally in the third world to ensure that those children have a better prospect and chance of surviving. Against that challenge, can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the Government will reverse the disastrous trend in our aid budget, which is down to 0·27 per cent. of GNP, and move towards the UN target of 0·7 per cent.?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Question certainly concerns population. However, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right that the overall economic situation affects the size of families particularly in the developing world. Let me put on record that the average over the past five years is 0·3 per cent. of GNP. We all know the reasons. In the last quarter of 1990, we did not make certain payments which were made in the first quarter of 1991, giving rise to the figure that he mentioned. I can assure the noble Lord that we are now spending our aid better; it is better targeted, and we are obtaining better value for money out of it. As growth comes, so we do more for the developing world.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that international organisations such as the UNFPA and IPPF estimate that within the next decade at least 200 million new couples will want contraceptives in addition to the existing users? Does the Minister also accept that that is the scale of the problem, and whatever fine words and declarations emanate from conferences, armchairs or even pulpits, that need will still remain?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I accept what the noble Viscount says. That is the reason we are engaging in new projects in those countries that particularly need family planning, clinical equipment and supplies as well as advice. We have a programme which certainly bears good comparison with others. I hope to extend it still further above the record figure that we achieved in 1991.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made a statement of the first importance on this subject last week. Can the noble Baroness explain to the House where the Government stand, and whether or not they support that statement?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the most reverend Primate made an interesting, fundamental and important statement. We fully agree with much of it. It is fair to say that we shall continue to try to respond with all the help which is needed by the 200 million people who want family planning advice and who cannot obtain it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many religious organisations related to the United Nations believe that where one can increase education and raise standards of living, that appears to contribute to a lessening of the huge increases in the birth rate? Therefore is it not sensible to help people achieve better standards of living and improve their education to enable us to achieve what everybody in the House wants?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes.

EC Legislation: Scrutiny and Debate
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
In respect of the meetings of the European Community's Council of Ministers held in the year 1991, how many legislative instruments were signed without debate or discussion in Council prior to their issue to individual member states, and how many were issued after discussion and debate.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, approximately 300 items of legislation were adopted by the Council in 1991. Some of those items, mostly of a routine nature, were formally adopted without debate by Ministers in the Council, but only following detailed discussion at official level. Even in such circumstances discussion in the Council is not ruled out should any member state wish to initiate it. The precise figures requested by the noble Lord are not available.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. However, is it not the case that literally hundreds of legislative instruments of varying importance are being discussed in private by the Commission and the Committee of Permanent Representatives behind closed doors? The legislation is then commended by them to the Council of Ministers as something with which it need not concern itself. Is it not a dangerous tendency that civil servants —not accountable to the public in any way —should, without any democratic control, be able to initiate and push through such legislation as they think necessary?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, underestimates the amount of attention that Her Majesty's Ministers pay to these items. It is true that the Committee of Permanent Representatives look at some of the detail. Indeed some of it is written in such arcane language that without its help a normal mortal would never understand it. Nevertheless, the committee having done the ground work, we then seek—as is normal in government in this country—to make sure that we are vigilant and that we take up the various issues. We do not give permission to the Committee of Permanent Representatives to proceed unless we are satisfied with the result. That will continue. We do not adopt measures until we agree with them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does that mean that Her Majesty's Government are happy with the situation in which legislation which is binding on this country is discussed only by civil servants?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter puts an important point. The difficulty about the volume is that if every issue were discussed in the greatest detail by Ministers when the instructions first given to the permanent representatives were in fact agreed we would waste a
548
great deal of time. However, where there is any contention I can assure my noble friend that we look at it in great detail. Indeed our scrutiny is better than that of many other countries. That is why other member states are seeking to model their scrutiny system on ours. It is in that sense that I believe that your Lordships can be satisfied that a great deal of attention not only has been paid in the past, but will continue to be paid, to the detail of the legislative proposals which come before the Council of Ministers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say to which Cabinet committee or sub-committee these regulations go prior to approval? In view of her earlier answer to my Question does she agree that it would be much better if we cut this wretched legislation down to manageable quantities and concentrated on what was important?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I agree about cutting down the amount of paperwork involved. But there are some necessary things for the good and the benefit of the people of this country with which we must comply. We must do our job thoroughly. I am sure that your Lordships' House would not agree that we should defer matters which were beneficial. We hope that what is necessary for the benefit of this nation will also be for the benefit of others. We shall make sure that we continue the parliamentary scrutiny. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to await the announcement from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about committees. However, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no failure to scrutinise.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it is a little difficult to understand why the figures asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, are not available. I entirely agree with my noble friend that we have to do our job properly. Can my noble friend tell me whether it is the case that the number of provisions which are passed without debate is not capable of being counted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Central records are kept of Commission proposals and of votes in Council. However, from time to time there are a number of votes on a single issue. That will result in a single decision which takes the form of a regulation or directive. We would have to examine the detailed records of the progress of every legislative proposal through the Community machinery throughout 1991. I regret to tell your Lordships' House that that can only be done at disproportionate cost. I am not sure that it would be to a beneficial end to count numbers. It is far better to concentrate on detail, and that is what we are doing.

Company Ownership and Control
3.4 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take action to prevent the companies which manufacture the 125 executive aircraft, Rolls-Royce cars and Rover cars passing into overseas control, and if so, when.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government take the view that in general it is the company itself which is best placed to decide on changes in ownership or control.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. That was in line with government statements which are made now and again to the effect that they are not in the business of picking winners. Does the noble Baroness accept from me that there are some people in this country who believe that as regards the north of the country and its industry and manufacturing processes, the Government are not prepared to back or pick winners, but that in the South-East of England the Government are quite prepared to throw money at the problem affecting developers of office properties which contribute nothing at all to the wealth of this nation? Is the noble Baroness further aware that a leading Member of this House, who is a leading industrialist, has just pointed out to the Minister for Industry—which I believe is his title—that 38 per cent. of our industry is now owned by foreigners, and that if that continues much further, we shall be economic colonials?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is grossly unfair concerning the Government's support for manufacturing industry for the country north of Watford. I simply draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that since 1979 this Government have supported the aerospace industry with £1·3 billion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that regarding all the companies to which my noble friend referred, there seems to be something called "a golden share" which allows the Secretary of State to determine whether those companies should change ownership? Is she further aware that in the course of the past few years the concept of the golden share has been somewhat eroded in the sense that Jaguar, for instance, can be sold to Ford, and the Secretary of State relinquishes the golden share? If taxpayers' subsidies of doubtful legality are going to be offered to companies such as those mentioned by my noble friend, including the Rover group, is it not right that the Government should make sure that these companies continue to be in United Kingdom ownership?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for that question. I should like to set the record straight. As it was made clear at the time of the privatisation of British
550
Aerospace, the Government's special share does not grant any powers to direct or influence the commercial strategy of that company. The main purpose of the special share is to prevent the British Aerospace group passing into foreign control because of its position as a major supplier to the Ministry of Defence. The group's corporate jet division manufactures the 125 executive jet. Foreign share ownership is restricted to 29·5 per cent. As the noble Lord also raised the question of the Rover group, I point out that the conditions of sale included the need to repay up to £400 million to Her Majesty's Government in the event that British Aerospace decides to sell the Rover group or its principal subsidiaries or its trademarks within five years of the date of agreement. I believe that we were looking after the taxpayers' money very well.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, can I take it that the answer from the noble Baroness is that the Government intend to do nothing at all to prevent these firms going into foreign ownership?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord can take it that the answer from the noble Baroness is that we are very anxious indeed about the position of industry in this country. The resource which allows our industry to continue and for new models to be developed will be focused on with fierce concentration.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Cranborne will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the inquest on friendly fire.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Badgers Act 1973, the Badgers Act 1991 and the Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to collective labour relations, that is to say, to trade unions, employers' associations, industrial relations and industrial action. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

551
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 and certain other enactments relating to tribunals and inquiries. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Ulster Bank Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Communities: Select Committee
3.10 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In moving the first Motion, I ought to point out to the House that at its meeting last Thursday the Committee of Selection recommended that, in relation to the Europe Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, the rotation rule should be suspended until 2nd November 1992. This is to allow time for the House to consider the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on the Committee work of the House. It is proposed that the membership of these two Committees should therefore remain unchanged for the present except for the appointment of Members to replace those who have resigned. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Aldington,

L. Boston of Faversham (Chairman),

L. Brain,

L. Bridges,

L. Bruce of Donington,

L. Chalfont,

B. David,

B. Elles,

552

L. Ezra,

L. Hunter of Newington,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish,

L. Nathan,

L. Pearson of Rannoch,

B. Robson of Kiddington,

E. Selborne,

L. Shepherd,

D. Somerset,

B. Stedman,

L. Thurlow,

L. Varley,

B. Young.

That the Committee has power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee has power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-committees, but that such Sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular enquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-committees;
That the Committee has power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee has power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee has leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-committee from time to time shall, if the Committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any Subcommittee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee or any Sub-committee appointed by it has leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any Committee of the Commons on European Legislation etc. or any Sub-committee of that Committee for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and has leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman for any such meeting.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

553

V. Caldecote,

L. Dainton,

L. Desai,

L. Flowers (Chairman),

L. Gregson,

L. Howie of Troon,

L. Kirkwood,

B. Nicol,

B. Perry of Southwark,

B. Platt of Writtle,

L. Porter of Luddenham,

L. Renwick,

L. Tombs,

L. Walton of Detchant,

L. Whaddon.

That the Committee has power to appoint Sub-committees and that such Sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman;
That the Committee has power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-committee;
That the Committee has leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee thinks fit, be delivered out;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee or any Subcommittee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Commit tees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Those are not perhaps the words with which I should have chosen to begin a maiden speech in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships may think those words a trifle too frivolous for a Lord Advocate coming before your Lordships for the first time, but the words were given to me and I must make of them what I can.
When she made her distinguished maiden speech to your Lordships a couple of weeks ago, my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey, recalled to your Lordships that in her youth she had been a cricketer. Being a cautious lawyer I have checked my reference, and the noble Baroness said on that occasion, before your Lordships:
"I am a maiden once more."—[Official Report, 7/5/92; col. 32.]
I doubt whether I was the only person who found those words strangely evocative. I could see the noble
554
Baroness only a few years ago dashing around the cricket pitch at Roedean and flying across the lacrosse field. Although I could imagine that—and I am sure that one or two of your Lordships could imagine it also—it is perhaps stretching your Lordships' imagination a little too much to ask you to think of me as "a maiden once more"—or as ever having been a maiden on the playing fields of Roedean. Therefore, I cannot come before your Lordships with the line that the noble Baroness brought forward. So, what then?
The very term "maiden speech" seems to tell us that the speech should be somewhat light and elegant. It should be a graceful concoction—a soufflé rather than a bread-and-butter pudding. But when the maiden speech is to move the Second Reading of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, we are in somewhat heavy country and in solemn waters indeed.
I must therefore ask your Lordships to think of the speech more as being a ship on its maiden voyage, like a liner of yesteryear—on this occasion, unfortunately not Clyde-built, but of solid construction nonetheless, crafted by the riveters and platers of the Scottish Office. But maiden voyages can be hazardous even when they relate to uncontroversial Bills. Icebergs may lie in wait. I am grateful that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will be available to scramble on board and to guide the Bill safely on its voyage.
Your Lordships will note that the Bill has three purposes. First, it proposes a fundamental reform of the parole system, similar to that introduced for England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Secondly, the Bill proposes new arrangements for dealing with life-sentence prisoners and so fulfils, as respects Scotland, the obligations of the United Kingdom under the European Convention on Human Rights. Thirdly, in Part II, it makes a number of useful changes to the law of Scotland on criminal evidence and procedure. I shall give a broad outline of the effects of the provisions and then go through some of the clauses in a little more detail.
I turn first to the reform of the parole system. This takes forward our response to the report of a committee chaired by the very distinguished Scottish judge, Lord Kincraig, entitled Parole and Related Issues in Scotland. The report was generally welcomed on publication and has been valuable in establishing principles which will improve the fairness and effectiveness of the parole system and, very importantly, restore meaning to the full sentence imposed by the court.
At present, as your Lordships will know, after they have served two-thirds of their sentence, prisoners automatically receive remission of the remaining third if they have been of good behaviour. The prisoners are then free from any sanction, even if they should misbehave when they go out into the community. By contrast, under the Bill, any prisoner—at whatever stage he is released—may be returned to custody by a court if he commits an offence punishable by imprisonment during the currency of his original sentence. This means that the sentence imposed by the judge continues to have an effect throughout its whole duration.

555
The next thing to notice is that the provisions on early release embody the fundamental principle that no prisoner will be released, other than on exceptional compassionate grounds, before the half-way point of his sentence. At this point we have to distinguish between prisoners who are serving less than four years and those who are serving four years or more. Prisoners who are serving less than four year will be released automatically at the half-way point of their sentence unless their release is delayed for misbehaviour in prison. In line with the advice of Lord Kincraig's committee, there will be no automatic post-release provision for these prisoners. However, when the court considers at the time of sentencing an offender to between one and four years in custody, that that offender is particularly vulnerable to re-offending, the court will be able to make an order for post-release supervision. The purpose of that order will be to protect the public. It will also assist the offender, through compulsory work supervision and, in that way, we hope that it will avoid him falling back into a pattern of offending on release. A released prisoner who breaches the requirements of a supervised release order will be liable to be returned to custody.
The provisions for prisoners who are sentenced to four years or more are different. For them, release at half sentence will be discretionary rather than automatic. All those cases will be considered by the Parole Board for Scotland which may recommend release, at any stage up to two-thirds of sentence. The recommendations of the board will be based on the central issue of possible risk to the public. If the board does not recommend earlier release then the prisoner will be automatically released on licence at the point of two-thirds of his sentence. Therefore all long-term prisoners—that is, four years and over—whether or not successful in gaining parole, will be released on licence. They will be subject to social work supervision potentially from their release until the end of their sentence, and they will be required to be of good behaviour. If a prisoner breaches his licence conditions, he may be returned to custody, on the recommendation of the Parole Board or subject to the board's confirmation.
The provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill on discretionary life prisoners introduce new arrangements which meet our obligation to change the law in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell, which dealt with discretionary life prisoners. Your Lordships will know that in cases of murder life imprisonment is mandatory. But sometimes in other cases the court imposes a life sentence in the exercise of its discretion. So a discretionary life prisoner is to be defined as one on whom the court has passed a life sentence partly as a punishment for one or more offences and partly to protect the public. The European Court of Human Rights judgment established that once the punitive grounds of such a sentence no longer hold, the public risk ground is a matter which must be open to review by a body having the status and constitution of a court.
556
Accordingly, your Lordships will find that the Bill makes provision for the sentencing court to determine by order the period for which the prisoner should be detained on punitive grounds. At the end of that period the prisoner will be entitled to periodic reviews by the Parole Board of the continued grounds of his detention. For this purpose we shall bring forward rules under which the Parole Board will be constituted and will function as a court. If the board finds that there are no longer public risk grounds for the prisoner to continue to be detained, it will be able to direct the Secretary of State to release him on licence.
I now turn to Part II of the Bill which deals with matters of criminal procedure. Since its enactment the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 has been amended several times. In some cases the legislative framework has been given a new direction; in others the statutory provisions have been clarified or tidied up. The provisions in this Bill fall more into the category of tidying-up legislation. The measures presented to your Lordships today do not constitute a major reform of the 1975 Act. That is an exercise for another day. Nonetheless, in the light of practical experience and with the development of new forensic techniques, we recognise that the legislation now needs to be modified and updated.
Our proposals include provision to give effect to Part II of the Scottish Law Commission's report on evidence relating to blood tests and DNA tests. The recommendations in Part I relating to civil cases were enacted in 1990. In its report the Scottish Law Commission sets out fully the need for specific statutory provisions in this field. I do not need to go over the reasoning behind those recommendations. Suffice it to say that there is a general desire, which was clearly reflected in the responses to the commission's report, to ensure that the powers of constables to take fingerprints and samples are spelt out on the face of the statute book. There are various other proposals in the Bill which are designed to facilitate the efficient operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland. They are wholly consistent with the Government's commitment to the Justice Charter, which was published in Scotland last November.
As regards the changes to the law of evidence in Scottish criminal proceedings, the Bill includes a provision to enable evidence to be given from abroad by means of live television link. This mirrors a provision which is already available to courts in England and Wales. There are also provisions on children's evidence which further implement recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission. There are provisions to enable a child in certain circumstances to give evidence at a special hearing, that evidence then being recorded. The recording will be played at the trial. Provision is also made to give authority for the use of screens in criminal proceedings so as to conceal the accused from a child giving evidence. That facility is already available to courts in England and Wales. These measures are designed to add to existing provisions whose purpose is to reduce the stress which is sometimes experienced by children who have to give evidence in criminal proceedings.

557
Perhaps I may now go briefly through some of the individual clauses. Clause 1 of the Bill sets out the new arrangements for early release of short-term and long-term prisoners and continues the existing arrangements for the release on licence of mandatory life prisoners. As I have said, short-term prisoners will be released unconditionally at the point of half their sentence but they will have a continuing liability to recall for reoffending. Your Lordships will find the provision dealing with that matter in Clause 16. Long-term prisoners—prisoners serving four years and upwards—will be eligible for parole at half their sentence but will in any event be released on licence no later than two-thirds of their sentence. Life prisoners who are not discretionary lifers may be released by the Secretary of State at any time after consultation with the judiciary and on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
Clause 2 introduces the new arrangements for discretionary life prisoners, which I have already mentioned. Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State a new power to release any prisoner early on exceptional compassionate grounds. This is a minor but useful provision. At present, for example, where a prisoner is terminally ill, there is no method of early release except by resort to the somewhat inappropriate use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
Clause 4 re-enacts, with modifications, certain existing provisions for prisoners who have been transferred to a mental hospital during their sentence. Clause 5 brings fine defaulters and those sentenced for contempt of court within the ambit of the new early release arrangements. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 bring young offenders and those few children who are sentenced by the courts within the scope of the new arrangements. Your Lordships will wish to notice, however, that children will continue to be eligible for release on licence at any point from the start of their sentence on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
Clause 9 enables long-term prisoners who are liable to deportation to be released by the Secretary of State without a recommendation by the Parole Board, after serving half their sentence. Clause 10 sets out the conditions under which life prisoners transferred to Scotland from another jurisdiction are to be treated as discretionary life prisoners for the purposes of the arrangements in Clause 2. Clauses 11, 12 and 13 deal with the duration and conditions of licences, in particular the condition of compulsory social work supervision which will attach to all licences at the point of release. This supervision will be subject to national objectives and nationally set standards and will be 100 per cent. funded by the Government.
Clauses 14, 15, 18 and 19 provide for the new supervised release order. This can be viewed as something similar to a short probation order imposed on a short-term prisoner on release from custody. We envisage that when sentencing the courts will wish to use their power to impose a supervised release order in cases where, because of the nature of the offence or the offender's background, they consider that the offender poses a particular risk to the public. Examples would he those convicted of violence or crimes against children.
558
There is provision for the requirements of the order to be varied by the court which made the order, either shortly before or shortly after the actual release. That is so as to take account of any change in circumstances since the original sentence was imposed. There is also provision for proceedings to be taken where an offender breaches the order. Such proceedings could result in the offenders being returned to custody. All court decisions on supervised release orders will be subject to appeal. Under Clause 17, released prisoners who breach licence conditions are also liable to be returned to custody, if the Parole Board so recommends.
Clause 20 and Schedule 2 preserve the existence of the Parole Board for Scotland. I think that this would be a suitable point at which to pay tribute to the board. It has now been working indefatigably for about 25 years. In particular, the chairman, Mrs. Jean Morris, who will be known to many of your Lordships, has presided for nearly 12 years over the board's deliberations. In ensuring the board's continued existence, the statute also makes clear that the central criterion for the board's recommendations should be risk to the public from further offending. The Secretary of State will be able to give the board policy directions, and make rules prescribing the matters that it may take into account. Noble Lords will also note that the Secretary of State is given power to prescribe certain aspects of board procedure. As I have said, such powers will be used in particular to set up a mechanism for dealing with the matter of discretionary life prisoners.
Under the new scheme, the board will consider all parole cases without any prior sift. The Bill, therefore, does not provide for the continued existence of local review committees. In due course, such committees will be wound up. But I think that it would be wrong not to express the Government's appreciation of all the work that has been carried out over many years by local review committees. The work has been carried out by their members—unpaid—who have given up their own time. In future, we hope that such people will be able to continue to serve as parole advisers for whom provision is made in Clause 21 of the Bill. That is a very useful innovation. Such advisers will be able to explain the parole system to prisoners and help them, for example, with formulating written submissions in connection with their applications for parole.
Clauses 22 and 23 make good certain deficiencies in the powers currently available in respect of assigning prisoners to particular establishments and transferring them. Clause 24 makes provision for additional days to be awarded so as to postpone the date of release of a prisoner who is guilty of a breach of discipline. That replaces the existing provision of a sanction of forfeiture of remission. Clause 25 clarifies the status of prison standing orders and other directions made under the prison rules.
There are, of course, other provisions, but I shall now move on to Part II of the Bill which deals with criminal procedure. Clause 28 gives effect to the recommendations in the report on blood tests of the Scottish Law Commission. The clause gives a statutory framework for the taking of fingerprints,

559
impressions and other forensic samples in investigations. In particular, it clarifies the circumstances in which certain samples may be taken without a warrant.
Clauses 29 and 30 make further provision for the modernisation of the law of evidence. In particular, they introduce new provisions in relation to video or audio recording in connection with evidence taken on commission. Clause 31 allows, in certain circumstances, the High Court or the Sheriff Court to receive evidence from abroad by means of a live television link. As I have said, that brings us into line with the position in England and Wales.
Clauses 32 to 34 of the Bill deal with certain provisions relating to the evidence given by children in criminal proceedings. Again, without going into them in detail, they are designed, by the use of modern technology, to ease the position of children giving evidence. Clause 33 is simpler. It allows for the use of screens in such circumstances. Clause 35 deals with matters of routine evidence and Clause 37 simplifies a rather unnecessarily complicated way of dealing with business while a jury is out of the court considering its verdict.
Clause 38 amends the legislation relating to the backdating of sentences which is an important matter. Clause 39 amends the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to enable the Crown to make application to the court to set aside a conviction where the prosecutor believes that that conviction should indeed be set aside. Schedule 4 deals with various minor procedural changes with which I do not need to detain your Lordships.
In conclusion, the Bill provides what I and the Government consider to be a coherent package of reforms to the parole and early release systems. It also contains a set of useful improvements to the law on criminal evidence and procedure. I cannot say that the Bill's voyage could claim any blue riband for its speed; but, craving your Lordships' indulgence, it does, nonetheless, seem to me that the proposals and the package have much to commend them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, on behalf of all Members of your Lordships' House perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, to the Government Benches. We have had the benefit of a complete explanation of this very important Bill. I was interested to note that the publications of the noble and learned Lord include Owners and Neighbours in Roman Law and that his hobby is walking. That gives a new meaning to the Harry Lauder song, "Roamin' in the Gloamin'." But, there it is. We look forward to hearing further contributions from the noble Lord in due course.
It goes without saying that while I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment and welcome him to his new position in succession to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who has now moved on, although I do not know whether it is sideways or
560
upwards—I see that the noble Lord is indicating downwards—I should have preferred it if the positions were reversed and that it was the noble and learned Lord who was making the speech from where I speak today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, has shown himself to be internationally renowned as a lawyer of considerable significance. As I said, we look forward to hearing from him in the future.
The present Bill comes before your Lordships' House for its Second Reading. At the outset, I should say that it is most unfortunate that this House is forced at very short notice to consider not only the Bill but also the report upon which the Bill is based; namely, the Kincraig Report which is the foundation of the Bill. The Kincraig Committee first met in January 1988. It reported to the Government in March 1989: the Government published their response in July 1990. Here we are, nearly two years on, receiving a Bill that has been thrust at us in succession to the gracious Speech and which we have to consider at very short notice.
It was the ineptitude and the lack of management in the last Administration which led to Scotland falling behind in this type of legislation while the Carlisle Report, the equivalent report, was given precedence in your Lordships' House. We have had no opportunity whatever to debate the Kincraig Report. We are faced with a Bill without proper debate. I do not intend to make any major commitment from this side of the House at this stage because of that. We shall take our time to look at the Bill and the issues which it raises in relation to Scotland, bearing in mind that Scotland has a separate legal system and its own prison system.
We have to have regard to the Bill to digest the Kincraig Report, as I have said, at short notice. Basically as I see it, the whole concept is one of balance between protection of the public from offenders and the need to recognise the element of rehabilitation in prison sentences to which the noble and learned Lord has already referred. No one on any side of this House can pretend that there is an easy answer to the problems posed.
In the Kincraig Report there is an emphasis to reduce the prison population balanced with the public perception of punishment and rehabilitation. That is important, because it is how the system appears to the man in the street which is most important.
There is an assumption in the Kincraig Report that judges will not take into account what happens once a person has been sentenced. In other words, the judges will say, "Well this is probably worth four years, but we will give him six because he will be out after 50 per cent. of his sentence is served". The Kincraig Report denies that any such attitude exists. I can say from my own experience and without revealing any confidences—because this was not said to me in confidence—that some judges in the past, at least, have said, "Well, he'll get parole after a certain period of time", and that was reflected in the sentence.
What is problematic in the whole issue is the lack of public input into the report and into the Bill. In the Kincraig Report—looking at the people who have been consulted—there is no representation on behalf

561
of the victims. There is no representation on behalf of the prisoners, apart from an input from SACRO. The victim in all of these matters, as usual, becomes a back number. He has no voice anywhere in the report.
In a long-term sentence, surely before the prisoner is released the victim should be heard to see what has happened to him or her in the intervening period, because the emphasis on release is what has happened to the prisoner in the intervening period.
In the short-term prison sentence, which is four years, it is wrong to assume, as does the Kincraig Report, that anyone who is sentenced, as the report states, to a sentence of over five years has committed a grave crime; and anyone with a sentence of under five years does not need any help when he gets out of prison. It will be well known to those Members of your Lordships' House who were involved in the administration of the law that four years represents a serious crime.
Whether it is grave or serious is a matter of semantics. Very often it is the persistent offender who does not fall into the high category of over five years who needs help; but in terms of this Bill, he will be released into the streets willy-nilly with no support at all. For example, the person who commits the crime of culpable homicide with a single punch, or—as sometimes happens in the case of young persons—with a single stab wound, may very well receive a sentence of over four years. Of course it is a grave crime; but the likelihood of that person re-offending is minimal, whereas the likelihood of a person who is a persistent offender, who has received a sentence of, say, three years, re-offending is very high.
If supervision on release is the keynote of the report and central to the Bill, there is something to be said for looking at the short-term prisoner in relation to post-sentence supervision. He or she may have as many or indeed more problems as the long-term prisoner who may be more settled than the short-term prisoner.
There will be little opposition from this side of your Lordships' House to the general principle of the Bill, bearing in mind that the initiative for the introduction of parole came from a Labour Party study group chaired by my noble friend Lord Longford, followed by the paper, The Adult Offender which paved the way for the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Parole has become an integral part of the prison system, but it has been the subject of public and judicial criticism. The question which now arises is whether it works; and, if so, whether it can be improved. I accept that the Bill attempts to look at the problem.
The implementation of the Bill and the costs involved will depend on how it works, and in the Bill the Government recognise that there is a financial juggling act to be done in which they cannot forecast what the cost will be. It is all guesswork at the moment.
It would be helpful if any money saved within the prison system were to be put back into the prison system instead of being diverted elsewhere, so that the real problems, the humane problems—the slopping
562
out, and all the rest, with which we are all familiar; we have had plenty of debates about that—can be faced and handled by the prison authorities.
Part I of the Bill raises interesting issues in the concept of the three categories of prisoners: the short-term, the long-term and the life prisoners. Clause 1, dealing with early release, leaves the Secretary of State no option whatever in releasing short-term prisoners. Clause 1(1) states:
"the Secretary of State shall, … release".
Clause 1(2), equally, states:
"As soon as a long-term prisoner has served two-thirds of his sentence, the Secretary of State shall release him".
If I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, he said that a person could be detained in prison for a longer period than that if he had offended against prison policy. My understanding is that that is against the European law, and that the only addition to a prison sentence which can be imposed is one which is imposed by the criminal courts. Indeed, reference is made to that in the Kincraig Report.
The release of a short-term prisoner is unconditional; the release of a long-term prisoner is on licence. As I have said, this is based on the assumption to which I have already referred, that if a person commits a crime and is sentenced to prison for over four years, he is, by definition, guilty of committing a grave offence.
That approach is illogical and it should be looked at. Clause 1(1) is of course,
"without prejudice to any supervised release order"
which a court might impose at the time of sentencing.
The lack of discretion given to the Secretary of State is something that I hope the Government will look at; and perhaps they will substitute the word "may" for "shall" in Clauses 1(1) and 1(2), because it appears in Clause 1(3). Therefore for consistency it might be better if the word "may" appears instead of "shall".
The Bill also raises the vexed question and much debated question of classification of a life prisoner. It classifies them into groups. The first is a "life prisoner"; and the second is a "discretionary life prisoner". That is a complicated and unnecessary classification.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, had hoped to be here as a member of the Select Committee on Murder. The report was debated some time ago in your Lordships' House. Ironically, he has been detained presiding over a murder trial in Inverness. He has asked me to convey his apologies to your Lordships for his absence; but I have no doubt that at the Committee stage we shall hear his powerful voice.
I do not intend to go into the arguments for and against the mandatory life sentence. There will be focus on that at the Committee stage; and, as I have said, I suspect it will lead to the Chamber being asked once more to express its opinion during the Committee stage on whether the mandatory sentence should still exist, albeit that the Bill is basically a Scottish one.
Suffice to say that the Bill underlines the artificiality of the existence of the two types of life sentence. Life should be a sentence always left open to the courts;

563
but once imposed it should mean what it says without artificial classification such as "discretionary" and "non-discretionary".
Clause 2 introduces a new concept of the relevant part of the sentence, and that is adding more confusion to the question of life sentence. At present the Scottish judge can make a recommendation which is not binding on the administration; but now the judge, if the Bill goes through, having decided that life imprisonment is the appropriate way to deal with a case, will then have to say what the relevant part of the sentence is to be. That has a ring of inconsistency, and makes the judges' job difficult. A person has either to be sentenced to life or not.
Clause 3 relates to release on compassionate grounds. As the clause stands, there is no question of a temporary release on compassionate grounds. However, Clause 17(1) (b) contains provisions for revoking a release granted on compassionate grounds, and that, again, is inconsistent. A person who has been released on compassionate grounds can be recalled because his health or circumstances have so changed that he would not have obtained a compassionate release in the first place. That is confusing. Perhaps there should be a measure of flexibility in Clause 3 to allow a temporary release on compassionate grounds.
Many issues will be debated in Committee. There is the question of whether fine defaulters should be included in the amnesty—if we can call it that—because the Bill runs contrary to what the Kincraig Report suggested. In Clause 9 there is again a dual system of punishment, because a person who is due to be deported will be pushed out of prison and out of the country halfway through his sentence. He will be put on a boat or an aeroplane to go somewhere, whereas the Scottish prisoner will be left to be dealt with under the terms of the licence. That may lead to stress within a prison. The Government might also give consideration to the suggestion contained in the Kincraig Report that the life sentence licence should be reviewed periodically and at some stage lifted from the person's shoulders.
Many other issues arise in the Bill. The role of the Parole Board and the introduction of parole advisers are set out in Clauses 20 and 21. The Kincraig Report suggests that volunteers should be parole advisers to prisoners. That is an alarming prospect, because applying for parole plays a vital part in a prisoner's life. He either stays in gaol or he gets out of gaol. It is wrong to have volunteers as advisers. The Government might consider bringing that scheme within the legal aid system.
The Parole Board probably requires some review to take account of modern times. As I said, the prisoner should be represented. There should be someone from the prison—for example, a prison officer—to represent the reality of life within prison. The Kincraig Report said that one member of the Parole Board has served for 14 years. That is far too long for a person to serve on a committee such as that. Consideration should be given to limiting the period of service.
564
Part II is interesting. The taking of samples may lead to confusion. Clause 28 provides that a constable may use reasonable force to take a sample from an external part of the body. What on earth does that mean? What if a prisoner thinks that what the constable is doing is unreasonable? I am thinking especially of sexual cases. Is the male sexual organ to be treated as an external part of the body? Or does the clause relate only to parts of the body visible to the police officer? Perhaps the Government will give that matter some thought. The clause provides also that,
"a constable may take from the person fingerprints, palmprints and such other prints and impressions".
I hope that the Government will understand that that provision may lead to difficulties. What constitutes reasonable force is another question.
On the subject of children giving evidence, the Bill does not set out the commissioner's qualifications. I suggest that the minimum qualification for the commissioner should be that he is qualified in law and has experience of the criminal law. There is a gap in that part of the Bill because it does not provide for the accused person to be represented when the child is giving evidence and there is no provision for cross-examination. If a child is to give evidence against someone, it runs contrary to the tenets of natural justice for that person not to be represented. There should be cross-examination at the time the evidence is given, which, as the noble and learned Lord said, will found later proceedings.
I could continue, but I shall not do so. I look forward to what may prove to be an interesting debate on these important provisions for the criminal law of Scotland.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise with great trepidation to confront the battery of lawyers, soon to be reinforced by that lion of the North after he has finished trying murders in Inverness. I dare say that the Committee stage will be even more boring than Second Reading. Happily, I shall not take part in the Committee stage. One of our tame lawyers will assist the Scots lawyers in their long and tedious discussions.
We on these Benches welcome the Bill, because the extraordinary fact is that we imprison more people in Scotland than any other country in Europe except Northern Ireland. The one fact we know about rehabilitation of criminals is that it seldom takes place in prison.
I welcome this attempt to bring the law up to date and to cope with the appalling problems of rehabilitation and the present rise in crime. I have one or two questions for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. Obviously the protection of the public is extremely important. Clause 2 ensures that matters will be looked at properly and that as far as possible the mistakes of the past will be avoided.
Clause 13 which relates to regulating the supervision of released persons is important. The Government say that they hope the financial effects of the Bill will be neutral, but if the regulation, supervision and rehabilitation of prisoners is to be effective, that will need a great deal more money than

565
the Government hope to save by the reduction of numbers of persons in prisons. The prisons themselves, as everyone knows, need a great deal more money.
I was interested to read Clause 19 which deals with appeals. I presume that that means that the prisoner may appeal. But it is difficult to see how other interested people—for example, the victim—can appeal against a prisoner being released. I should like a little more information about how the appeal procedure will work when the noble and learned Lord replies. I should also like to know what the judge will do when the jury is out considering its verdict. Will he summon another criminal into court and try him or will he get on with his paperwork, which is what I presume he does? It is a subject about which we shall need a little more information.
That is all I have to say. I understand that the Law Society of Scotland is against one or two points in the rules of evidence, but on the whole the Bill brings the law up to date. It is beneficial and if it can reduce the number of people in prison and start to help them when they come out of prison, it will be a good Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble and learned friend for introducing the Bill so clearly and also for his maiden Speech, the first occasion of his taking part in debates in your Lordships' House. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing from him many times in the future.
I shall venture to make a few general observations on Part I of the Bill. My impression is that the overall effect is likely to be the earlier release of prisoners. That is despite two points which my noble and learned friend made, pointing out that the period which a judge has prescribed will continue to be observed through parole. A prisoner will quickly be returned if he commits another offence. Also, normally release will not be before less than half a sentence has been served. Despite that, the general effect of the clauses in the Bill will be earlier release. If I am wrong, I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser will tell me later.
That brings the hope, provided that crime in Scotland does not increase, that in future there will be less overcrowding in prisons. Whether or not that is one of the aims of the Bill, most of us do not want anyone to stay in prison a day longer than necessary.
The Bill makes changes in arrangements for release and the procedure affecting the Secretary of State and the Parole Board for Scotland. No doubt these proposals have been judged by the Government as improving the prospects of obtaining a balance which should be sought between punishment for offenders, deterrence against repetition, the shortening of custodial periods and protecting the public. Whether the changes will be effective in making such an improvement, only time will confirm.
The decisions which have to be taken by the Secretary of State are often difficult. Perhaps my own experience as a former Secretary of State for Scotland may be helpful to your Lordships. I invite the House to consider the duty laid upon the Secretary of State
566
for Scotland in taking decisions on the release of prisoners convicted of serious crimes, in particular murder. Like the Home Secretary in England, he is required to consider such cases personally.
That is right, because those decisions affect life and liberty. In the Scottish Office a conscious effort has to be made to set aside time for consideration because home affairs are only a part of the Scottish Secretary's functions. They also cover the responsibilities of several large departments in London dealing with subjects in England such as environment, health, education and agriculture. In my case, I was faced with taking such difficult decisions over a period of four years.
It is 18 years since I had to take any of those decisions. I must make it clear that I have not tried to keep up to date with any of the changes made in the meantime. One of the factors, however, which I regarded as being of the greatest importance was the safety of the public, where a released prisoner might become dangerous. For that reason, I am glad to note the provision in Clause 14 for supervision, where necessary for the protection of the public. This is a new procedure which is being introduced.
Clause 20 continues in existence the Parole Board for Scotland. It has become an important part of the system, and I felt that I had good relations with the board and its chairman during my four years. Of course, those were the early years of the board's existence as an independent body. I know Mrs. Morris, the present chairman, well and I can think of no one better to do the job.
The Bill appears to give the board more discretion in relation to the Secretary of State's directions than has been the case in the past. The noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench has already pointed this out. Under Clause 2, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be bound to release a prisoner on licence in certain circumstances, if the board is satisfied. Thus, to a certain extent under the Bill the board has more discretion and the Secretary of State less. When my noble and learned friend replies, will he confirm that that is so? Is the provision in Clause 2 the first time that the Secretary of State is to be directed by the Parole Board rather than merely advised?
Clause 21 brings a new kind of player onto the scene, the parole adviser. This is someone quite new. Without any commitment, can the Minister indicate roughly what is contemplated here? How many parole advisers will there be at a time when they are at full strength? What kind of person do the Government have in mind? Is it to be a full-time job? Is it to be done by retired people? Will they be former professionals in associated fields, or will they have considerable experience in those fields? We should be glad of information either now or at later stages of the Bill.
I am sure that a Secretary of State will welcome any well-informed advice that he can get. I ask noble Lords to appreciate the role of the Secretary of State confronted with decisions on the following lines. A prisoner, convicted of a violent crime—perhaps murder—has served most of his sentence. Some form of release is being considered into the world outside prison. The Secretary of State will have before him the

567
history of the crime, which may have been brutal; a report on the conduct of the prisoner in prison; probably a psychiatrist's comments as well. It will be considered whether he is likely to be a reformed character, whether he is likely to live a quiet life outside prison as a normal citizen. If so, then most of us would wish him to be released so as to avoid his deteriorating further in prison and becoming a kind of cabbage. Those are the considerations which a Secretary of State has to take into account, but I add again that the safety of the public must be paramount.
I wish to turn to the particular subject of prisoners with mental disorders. They must be considered in any plans for early release. I am glad to see that Clauses 4 and 26 deal with these matters. Clause 4 is concerned with transfers to mental hospitals, but in future fewer mental hospitals will be available and their numbers will gradually decrease. We all know why: it is the Government's policy—widely accepted and accepted by me, if it can be carried out with effective co-ordination—that a majority of mental hospitals, the old ones in particular, should be closed down. Then those who are capable of it, though they may have mental disorders, should be cared for in the community. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is due to come into full effect in less than a year—April 1993.
I ask: are the Government satisfied that enough mental wards will still be available, say, in 1996, 1999 or later, for what the Bill provides? If not, can such prisoners be treated or supervised satisfactorily in the community? If so, are plans being made now? Are local government authorities, which will in future be responsible, being briefed and prepared?
Those who may have to have dealings with sufferers from mental disorders should, if possible, have basic training, to include awareness of symptoms and information about handling sufferers. The object must be the early recognition of mental trouble and early reference to and advice from the associated psychiatrist. In future I favour such basic training for prison officers because a significant proportion of all prisoners have mental trouble. This is a view, I am glad to say, that is shared by Lord Justice Woolf who inquired into a prison situation in England. Speaking at a conference in London last December arranged by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, he advocated basic training and briefing on mental disorders for prison staff. He added that on a recent visit to Scotland he had been glad to find that some training had already started. That is good news for those of us who are involved in these matters in Scotland.
In my view, that training should not just be limited to those who handle prisoners. I believe it should be part of a scheme to prepare all those who are involved in our community for dealing every day with members of the public. I refer to railway staff, shop assistants and other such people who deal with the public.
The recent Act of Parliament to which I have referred is designed to increase substantially the number of mentally disabled people circulating in the community. Many of those people would otherwise have been in hospital. Many will be young people.
568
Some will have been in prison only because their illness made them incapable of coping with ordinary life with the result that they resorted to petty crime or created disturbances. I suggest that in due course a new section for the Citizen's Charter might be composed devoted to the subjects of awareness, early recognition of mental disability and civilised and sensitive handling of sufferers. My right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave is in a good position to consider that point by virtue of his recent experience in the Department of Health.
As regards prison or remand centres, we must aim to anticipate and forestall attempted suicides, usually by young people. I hope that, with assurances on the points I have raised, the Bill will help in achieving the balance I have described.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend who has just spoken has reminded us of the heavy responsibilities that, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, he experienced in relation to the release of long-term prisoners. I believe I am right in saying that this Bill somewhat lightens the burden for future Secretaries of State. If I am wrong about that point, perhaps my noble friend will inform me.
I wish to limit my remarks at this stage to one aspect of the Bill, which I shall discuss in a moment. This week the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will meet in Edinburgh. Every day as the Lord High Commissioner, the Queen's representative, processes up the steps leading to the Assembly Hall he is overseen by a somewhat threatening and more than life-size statue. That statue is a stern reminder of the continuing influence of John Knox upon our habits and culture in Scotland.
One of the darker sides of the way we conduct our affairs—I believe this is part of the continuing John Knox effect—has been that we have consistently been at the top of the imprisonment league in Europe. My noble friend Lord Mackie reminded us of that. We have kept many people in prison without any proof at all that our crime rate, which has remained high by European standards, would increase if we imprisoned fewer people and imprisoned some of those people for shorter periods of time. We have never properly ascertained either whether unnecessary imprisonment, unnecessarily long sentences, and arrangements for parole and early release which can be perceived as unfair, are themselves counterproductive.
In addition overcrowding in Scottish prisons has from time to time produced damaging and massively expensive unrest—we all remember what happened not so long ago at Peterhead —and has resulted in too many people escaping from prison. Such events are always a cause of anxiety for the public and are also a cause of prison unrest. Such changes as have been made in recent years have produced some encouraging signs. The use of community service orders and other alternative sentences for lesser offences has helped to stem the increase in the number of short-term prisoners. In fact we have seen the number of prisoners in Scottish prisons fall in each of the past four years, although that number is still clearly far too

569
high at 4,724. I understand that that is the current figure and it represents more than one prisoner for every thousand men, women and children in Scotland.
This drop in numbers, together with an increase of, I believe, 10 per cent. in prison staff, has reduced overcrowding. The number of escapes has decreased over four years from 96 to 42. In addition we are at last beginning to see a drop in the number of crimes and convictions in Scotland. I noted that this was stated in the press last week or the week before.
I shall address my remarks mainly to Clause 1, which follows three principles enunciated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. First, imprisonment must of course be a punishment. It must clearly demonstrate to the offender that the public requires that he or she serve a sentence appropriate to his or her offence. Secondly, a prisoner must he held so long as he or she is a serious danger to the public. Thirdly, if a prisoner is not to become so embittered by his time in prison that the likelihood of his reoffending after release is greatly increased, the sentence and the date and conditions for early release must be seen to be fair and just.
It has always seemed to me that some of the vagaries of our prison system in Scotland have increased bitterness quite unnecessarily and therefore have decreased rather than increased the chances of a prisoner going straight after his release. That was certainly the case when I was an honorary sheriff a number of years ago and when I was on the visiting committee of an institution for young offenders. I suspect that it is just as much the case now.
It is not difficult to see how unfair the system must seem to prisoners when, for example, a professional man is sentenced to four years' imprisonment for fraud and he behaves well and is allowed parole after one year and four months whereas a young burglar may receive on the same day a three-year sentence. He also behaves well but is not eligible for release until two years have elapsed. The second man is sentenced to a year less in prison for what is regarded as a lesser offence yet he is held in prison for eight months longer than the professional man I have referred to.
Such a system of sentencing must be seen as unfair by prisoners. If judges try to redress the balance—and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has said that they do—by skewing the sentence and sentencing the second man to four years, that man gets out at the same time as the first man but carries the stigma of the heavier sentence all his life. The Bill addresses this problem. The measures in the Bill will mean that a prisoner sentenced to three years—to use the same example—will be eligible for release after 18 months and someone sentenced to four years will only be eligible for parole after two years, and, if not eligible for parole, he will be eligible for release after two years and eight months. The earliest possible dates of release will in that case reflect the severity of the sentence.
That seems to me absolutely right. It is much fairer. Providing the Parole Board has the clear responsibility of granting parole only when the safety of the public is not threatened, as is clearly stated in Clause 2, that and a number of the other provisions in the Bill, including the interesting new involvement of social
570
work departments, should reduce the number of people in prison. It should also reduce the current counter-productive sense of grievance and the resulting tendency to reoffend.
There are many other interesting and positive aspects of the Bill, some of which have been mentioned by speakers in this debate. I greatly look forward to the Committee stage. I find this a very interesting and promising Bill. I hope that the House will give it a fair wind.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is with diffidence that I risk to speak, not having put down my name to do so. However, a couple of points have emerged in the debate which make it seem appropriate that I should say a couple of words.
First, I congratulate my noble and learned friend on his admirable maiden speech, which he treated with gratifying thoroughness. I am sure that the House will look forward to many more contributions of a similar kind.
The focus of the Bill which interests me in particular is that relating to evidence and the indications that various categories of evidence on which emphasis has been placed in recent discussions are being taken into account. In Clause 29 there is provision for the use of audio and visual records, which is a positive step. In Clause 31 there is provision for the use of televisual evidence in controlled circumstances where somebody is giving evidence from abroad; and, in particular, there is provision in Clause 32 that recorded video evidence by children may be admissible under certain well-controlled circumstances. In Clause 33 there is provision that a screen can be utilised so that children giving evidence do not feel themselves to be within the sight of the accused, though the accused may be present and able to follow the giving of the evidence.
However, it is Clause 28 in particular to which I wish to draw attention. It seems that the evidence which may be derived from genetic fingerprinting and the wide range of applications of such scientific testing are so important that I question the wording relating to the taking of blood and certain other samples by means of "swabbing or rubbing." When I have had blood samples taken—not for evidential purposes but for medicinal evidential purposes—it has been by the means of extracting a small sample of blood. That is a specific point, but it arises most conveniently here. I should like to be assured that under the clause the appropriate samples can be taken. I am not sure that rubbing or swabbing provide sufficient opportunity.
It is helpful that the Bill addresses itself to questions of new categories of evidence, but I wish to make the point about the scientific progress of evidence in order to be assured that the Bill makes the necessary provisions to ensure that such categories of evidence are admissible and that the necessary samples can legally be taken.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, first I must congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, on his maiden speech. I must make a personal apology. I was not aware that it was a maiden speech, because I seem to have seen the noble and learned Lord around, in various places, for quite a long time. I apologise if I disturbed the normal tenor of the House. It was a very helpful maiden speech, giving a good résumé of the Bill which will be very helpful when we reach the Committee stage. Perhaps at this point I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether there is any intention of providing Notes on Clauses for the later stages of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, seemed to think that he had taken a step downwards after having been Lord Advocate. The important point is that he has been Lord Advocate. As I know from people in the Scottish legal firmament, it does not matter what happens afterwards once you have held that post.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, made some comments about speaking on Bills such as this. I am at least as nervous. Way back in 1967 I foolishly made a speech on an English Criminal Justice Bill, partly because I was told that there was no provision in that Bill for parole to be extended to Scotland. Because I made a speech on that subject I was appointed to the Committee on the Bill. Incidentally, I re-read the speech recently. I only hope that the people in Hansard in this House are as kind as they were in the other place because the speech reads quite well.
There were only two non-lawyers dealing with that Bill, Victor Yates, who represented a Birmingham constituency and myself. It was so much a lawyers' Bill that in order to accommodate them we met only on Wednesday afternoons so that they could be in court the rest of the week.
Since then I have dealt with many Scottish Bills relating to the criminal justice system and prisons, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Those measures have all aimed at trying to reduce the prison population. It is appalling that the present size of the prison population in Scotland puts us almost at the top of the European league. The size of the prison population was the main reason for the 1967 Act and many other Acts, but it appears still to be rising. This Bill should help, but there have been a number of false dawns before. Still the numbers rise.
A number of speakers have paid tribute to the Parole Board. I do not want to be a dog in the manger; I have every respect for Mrs. Morris and the work she has done on the Parole Board. However, as has been suggested—it may have been in the Kincraig Report —I consider that two terms are sufficient for anyone in such a job. Otherwise, whether they like it or not, no matter how capable, honest and self-searching they are, in the eyes of the public they become part of the Establishment. I would hope that we could at least discuss whether we should reduce the length of time any one person can serve on the board.
I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar about the composition of the Parole Board.
572
I believe that we should do something to widen the composition and include people who are less Establishment and who have greater involvement with the criminal justice system, despite the very good work that is done now.
In earlier Bills, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, will remember, we talked of detoxification units as a means of reducing the prison population. I believe that the unit in Aberdeen has now been closed, yet the police in Aberdeen thought that it was a great help. It allowed people to stay overnight or for a couple of nights after which they returned to their families or their normal work.
Obviously, we approve of the backdating of sentences to the date of remand. That has been requested for a very long time. It should produce a reduction in the prison population. However, accommodation for prisoners after they are released from prison is woefully scarce at present. Many prisoners find, particularly after having been in prison for a number of years, that their roots have been lost. Some of them, probably those most likely to offend again, have no solid home background or any place to go to. SACRO, with which I was associated for a long time, has some accommodation but it is inadequate compared with the scale of the problem.
It is difficult to suggest that certain houses should be allocated to people who come out of prison, although that has certainly worked for a number of psychiatric cases coming from mental hospitals. In view of the general housing problems in Scotland, it may seem unfair to give priority to people coming out of prison. However, it could prove ultimately to be a very cost effective way of dealing with prisoners. Perhaps some way of extending the accommodation provided by organisations such as SACRO or the YMCA, which, considerably subsidised, would enable prisoners to have somewhere to go on their release from prison, can be considered.
There are undoubtedly other problems in the terms of release. On looking through the Kincraig Report, I noticed the concept of training for freedom. I wonder whether that is helpful. I have the feeling that when people are given training for freedom, the pressure put on them is sometimes just too great. There have been a number of cases of people who were being given training for freedom outside prison and who, for some reason or other, committed a very minor offence. Noble Lords may remember the case of a man in Edinburgh who was released early from the work he was doing, who had had half a pint of beer in a pub and who was waiting for a bus when the offence occurred. He was put right back again to the beginning.
The same sort of thing happens when people come out of a special unit. They are put right down to the bottom of the heap, sewing mailbags in some cases. We almost seem to be trying to test them to destruction. That is basically unfair although I understand that many people have survived because of their experience in the special unit.
This Bill has a great many points in its favour but it will fail unless the Government are willing to look at the cost to the social services. I do not like the

573
suggestion in the Bill that there will be a saving in the prisons which can be given to the social services. Surely part of the rationale for a reduction in the prison population—which is something that we all want—is to have a good enough ratio of prisoners to officers so that prisoners can be given training within the prison.
I believe that it would be a good policy for the prison officer population to be maintained as it is at present, with a reduction in the number of prisoners, so that more time could be given to training. Perhaps there would even be an increase in the ability of prisoners to take trade or educational courses.
Despite all that, there will be a tremendous strain on the social services. One point that we shall need to study carefully in Committee is the implications of the Bill for the local authority social services. As I said, the Bill, by and large from what we have seen so far —we shall discuss it more closely in Committee—appears to be a step forward. It is perhaps not as big a step as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate suggested but it is a step forward in the Scottish penal system and we are grateful for it.
4.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, in winding up this short debate, I should like, first, to welcome to the Front Bench my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I have worked with him over recent years when I was the Lord Advocate and I am delighted that he joins me on the Front Bench in your Lordships' House. In the course of the past year he has appeared not only before the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the United Kingdom; he has also appeared before the European Court of Justice and, most recently, before the International Court of Justice. I venture to suggest that that is a record of advocacy that is unlikely to be equalled by anyone. I am grateful that he joins me and has participated in this debate today. I hope also that he will take part in the later Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
In opening for the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, seemed to me to be particularly churlish. The Bill has enjoyed widespread support in Scotland. One of his complaints was that the committee had not consulted widely enough. If he had ploughed through the report and got to Chapter 1, towards the end of the first sentence he would have found that groups of members of the committee visited HM Prisons Barlinnie, Cornton Vale, Edinburgh, Glenochil, Perth, Peterhead and Shotts. If he had persevered and reached paragraph 1.2, he would have found that Lord Kincraig's committee made special arrangements for staff and inmates of penal institutions to be notified of our interest in receiving their comments. As a consequence, some 44 prisoners responded to the proposal. Moreover, social work departments and others have a keen interest in the concerns of the victims.
Subsequently, some 40 responses were received by the Government when a further invitation was offered to comment on the report produced by Lord Kincraig for the Government. There are some detailed points of
574
criticism or clarification that remain to he resolved, but in the main the report has been very well received in Scotland. Some queries raised in the course of your Lordships' debate this afternoon wanted to probe the question of whether it would result in more or fewer people being in prison. I do not think that an objective either way was in mind. We indicated that we wanted —as is found in our response to the Kincraig Report —the proposals to form a structured and well balanced framework for the release of offenders from prisons and young offenders institutions in Scotland. I believe that we have achieved that objective.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate made clear, there has also been the necessity to bring the position in Scotland into line with that obtaining in England and Wales in order to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to those who are detained in prison under discretionary life sentences. While that has been in place for some time in England, we have taken this opportunity to get the position correct in Scotland.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, whose intervention I much welcomed, that he knows very well the anxious and difficult decisions that Home Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Scotland have to take when deciding whether or not those held in prison under life sentences should be released on licence. This is the first time that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be directed by the Parole Board, which for the first time will function as a court. That functioning of the Parole Board as a court goes toward discharging our responsibilities and obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, seemed to be suggesting that the distinction between short-term and long-term prisoners was illogical. However, the recommendation of the Kincraig Report was that only those serving long sentences should be eligible for parole and that was generally welcomed. The introduction of a system of discretionary release for short-term prisoners would effectively bring those prisoners back into the parole scheme. It was felt that that was not a worthwhile way of approaching matters when a sentence was of that duration.
A number of questions were asked about parole advisers. However, given the number of issues that were raised during the course of the debate, I probably shall not have time to develop them. Parole advisers will be members of the community in the locality of the prison who have an interest in penal matters and who may have been involved with the prison in a voluntary or official capacity. There will be between one and five advisers in any long-term establishment.
I was asked whether notes on clauses will be provided for noble Lords who wish to participate in later proceedings. While those are not immediately available, they will be made available. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who characterised these proceedings as being long, dull and tedious, will be an active and enthusiastic contributor to our discussions in Committee after being armed with a full set of notes on clauses.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, expressed concern that the reduction in the number of mental

575
hospital places will mean that an insufficient number of beds will be available. There is no question of prisoners who are liable to detention being looked after in the community. Transfer prisoners represent only a tiny proportion of the number who are sufficiently mentally disordered to be detained in hospital and there will be no difficulty in finding beds for such patients.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised a number of points about how the community will regard the way in which the sentences and parole are ordered after the changes have been introduced. I hope that as we develop our discussions in Committee my noble friend will appreciate that there will be no risk to anyone in the community. In Scotland our record of detaining people in prison is curious. I am never entirely sure that the figure putting us at the top of the league in Europe is accurate. However, we wish to achieve a position where people are not detained unnecessarily in prison but are able to return to the outside world, possibly with proper supervision if that can be arranged, having regard to the safety of the public.
There was little discussion about Part II of the Bill dealing with criminal proceedings. My noble friend Lord Renfrew raised the taking of samples under Clause 28. He is correct in saying that in many circumstances where blood is sought for use in the new DNA techniques and so forth it will be necessary to take a full and proper blood sample. If that is so, existing powers in Scotland allow for it. Clause 28(6) states:
"Nothing in this section shall prejudice—

(a) any power of search;

(b) any power to take possession of evidence where there is imminent danger of it being lost or destroyed".

I understand that it may be possible to obtain sufficient genetic material for examination without the taking of significant blood samples. That sets the matter in a hierarchy of importance but I must emphasise that, at the end of the day, the individual is properly protected. If more intimate searches or samples are required, it will be necessary to go to the court to secure a warrant.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked about the evidence of children. He appears to be under the misapprehension that a commission is to be provided to take the child's evidence in advance of the trial with no opportunity for examination or cross-examination. That is not correct. It is envisaged that the child's evidence will be taken before a commissioner, who may be the trial judge, as happened in a recent case in Scotland. As a child is giving evidence there will be the opportunity both to examine and to cross-examine. We are conscious of the fact that if we deprive the accused person of his right to cross-examine we might find ourselves in contravention of the European Convention. As the Bill makes clear, the important safeguard is that the accused should not be in a position to be in direct eye contact with the child in such a manner that the child might be disturbed or frightened about giving evidence. If the noble Lord wishes to explore that matter or any other in Committee, I shall welcome his intervention.
576
The Bill is not controversial in any party-political sense. It will be of considerable importance in properly arranging our affairs in Scottish prisons. There will be a number of important reforms and improvements to our system of criminal proceedings. Doubtless there will be some details which we must explore in Committee. I look forward to that but trust that the proceedings will not be too long or too tedious.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

"Friendly Fire" Incident: Inquest Verdict
4.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question which was asked this afternoon in another place. It relates to the inquest into the deaths of British soldiers during the Gulf war from friendly fire. The Answer is as follows:
"I am sure the whole House would wish to join me in extending its deepest sympathy to the families of each of the soldiers who died in this tragic incident.
"The inquest sitting in Oxford into the deaths of nine soldiers killed when their two Warriors were hit by two Maverick missiles fired by two US A-10 aircraft has returned a verdict that each of them was killed unlawfully.
"The Government and relevant legal authorities are considering as a matter of urgency the implication of the jury's finding and verdict. The DPP has asked to see all the relevant papers held by Her Majesty's Coroner and the Ministry of Defence and will consider all the circumstances of the case. The MoD is providing its papers to the DPP. I understand that the DPP has pointed out in a press release that there is no power to prosecute a foreign national in England or Wales for any offence of murder or manslaughter allegedly committed abroad.
"I should also like to take this opportunity to respond to a number of points made during the inquest.
"I am aware that there has been some criticism with regard to the provision of information by the MoD to the families. I can assure the House and the families that our intention has always been to provide as full an account as possible. It was not until 10th July that General Johnston. US Marine Corps, wrote to our joint headquarters at High Wycombe with statements from the pilots answering points raised during our own inquiry. The MoD wrote to the families on 23rd July as soon as it was possible to provide an authoritative account based on the findings of the board of inquiry.
"On the question of procedures in future military operations our own board of inquiry recommended that standard operating procedures for close air support operations must in future

577
include instructions that a grid reference or a latitude and longitude is included in mission briefs and that this is always acknowledged by the pilots. Work on this recommendation is in hand.
"The board of inquiry also recommended that a study be initiated to identify a suitable air recognition system for future use. The Defence Research Agency is undertaking a research programme aimed at assessing short-term solutions as well as options for the longer term. We are exchanging information on possible solutions, and maintaining close contact with the US and other allies.
"We are also working closely with our allies to develop new procedures and training to ensure that, in any future operations, the risks of troops firing on their comrades is minimised".
I add that that has always been the case.
"These events were a tragic incident in the Gulf war. We must try to learn what lessons we can from them. We must at the same time continue to pay tribute to the remarkable achievements of British, American and other coalition forces in the successful liberation of Kuwait, and salute the memory of all those who gave their lives, whatever the circumstances".
4.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Answer made to a Private Notice Question in another place and will, I am sure, join with the noble Viscount in expressing our deepest regret for those killed by friendly fire and for the pain and suffering caused to the families involved.
The noble Viscount has been good enough to explain what action the Government propose, but I have one or two questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. As regards the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and the Ministry of Defence, are the Government satisfied that the whole matter was properly and openly handled by the Ministry of Defence from the outset and, indeed, by the United States Government from the outset? Was there total honesty? There have been allegations that there were cover-ups and lies told. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount will respond to that.
Secondly, I understand from the Minister that there will be new procedures on how to avoid such an incident occurring in the future, if it is possible. But have the Government any explanation as to why the two A-10 pilots apparently failed to follow the procedures which were carefully followed by other A-10 pilots in the same area on the same day? If so, what is the explanation? The procedures seem to have worked well for some but not in this tragic case.
Thirdly, in view of yesterday's court decision of unlawful killing, which the noble Viscount mentioned, will he advise the House of the action which Her Majesty's Government propose to take? I understand that the matter is in the hands of the DPP who has asked for papers, which is perfectly proper. However, will the Minister give an indication of the legal advice which the Government have received as to whether
578
proceedings could conceivably be possible against the A-I0 pilots involved and, if that is possible, under what jurisdiction and how?
Furthermore, do the Government believe that any such action is desirable? If such actions are not possible or desirable, will the noble Viscount advise the House of the action which the Government will take to ensure that the United States Government take due account of yesterday's court decision? After all, that is a decision which is possibly the half-way stage of a serious trauma experienced by the families of the soldiers who were killed. It demands urgent steps to bring that trauma to an end. Any steps the Government take will have the support of the Opposition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too join with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I express on behalf of my noble friends our recognition of the great pain caused to the families of those soldiers who lost their lives in those tragic circumstances.
Is the Minister aware that we welcome unreservedly the steps taken by the Ministry of Defence on air recognition systems and other similar areas to avoid repetition of episodes of this kind on any occasion in the future when we may be collaborating with non-British forces?
Is the Minister aware that many of us recognise that, in the light of the statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions, there is no jurisdiction as regards the British courts? Many of us believe that the continued clamour for some form of action to be taken against the American pilots in the criminal courts is profoundly mistaken and will cause only deeper pain to the families concerned when they recognise that that is quite impossible.
Is the noble Viscount aware that American servicemen too lost their lives as a result of friendly fire, as did many other American and British servicemen in the Second World War? Finally, is he aware that, recognising as we do the great grief of the families concerned, unhappily it is a great mistake to believe that terrible mistakes do not happen in war and that there is some solution available which will minimise the pain to the next of kin?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their parties. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and the attitude of the Americans. I emphasise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence from the very beginning, and once again last week during the course of his visit to Washington, made it absolutely clear that we expect the Americans to show the maximum amount of sympathy and sensitivity to the families concerned.
As regards our own attitude, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked what action Her Majesty's Government wish to take in particular as regards proceedings which may be possible against the A-10 pilots. I repeat that the DPP has advised and has given out a press release to the effect that we have no jurisdiction in the circumstances which obtained

579
during the course of this tragic incident. I emphasise to the noble Lord some of the implications. First, the Ministry of Defence is considering the implications of the jury findings and verdict. I believe it would be inappropriate for me to offer any further comment until that consideration is complete.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has asked to see all the relevant papers held by both the coroner and the Ministry; and I understand that all the papers will shortly be in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The noble Lord asked about the new procedures. The new procedures which we are developing are being developed closely with our allies and with the United States in particular. We want those new ideas for doctrine and for training to ensure that in any future operations the risk of troops firing on their comrades is minimised. I add also that that has been a continuing process. It is not something which is new as a result of a friendly fire incident in the Gulf war. Ever since allied operations began, and particularly when war became such a high technology affair, the armed forces of this country have paid particular attention to the technologies available in order to minimise the effects of friendly fire. That process continues with undiminished vigour.
With regard to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I associate myself with the tenor of his remarks. It should perhaps be remembered that during the course of the Gulf war on average around 3,000 sorties per day were flown by allied air forces. The number of friendly fire or "blue on blue" incidents, as I understand is the jargon used in this country, was much smaller in the Gulf war than in previous wars. I suggest that that is a reflection of the considerable care and the advances that have taken place over the years to ensure that the risks are minimised.
I associate myself also with the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the American servicemen. They lost a number of their own men in casualties of a similar kind. I am sure that the whole House would like to be associated with the expressions of sympathy sent by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to our American comrades-in-arms in these tragic circumstances.
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any disciplinary or similar action has been taken by the American authorities in respect of the two pilots who appear to have failed completely to carry out their standard instructions? Further, can my noble friend assure the House that it is the intention of our Government, as it is of the American Government, not to allow this tragic incident to interfere with or spoil the close and friendly relations between the armed forces of the two countries which co-operated so splendidly in the Gulf war?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The matter of disciplinary action is a matter for the American armed forces and their procedures. I am sure that my noble friend will agree
580
that we would not like the Americans to interfere with our procedures in matters of discipline concerning our own armed forces. He will readily understand what is at stake in circumstances of that kind. With regard to the second part of his remarks, I am delighted to give him the assurance he seeks and am grateful to him for making that point.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, following on from that reply, does the Minister agree that the remarks made on a television programme by one of the solicitors in the case accusing the two American pilots of cowardice and dishonourable conduct, were unfortunate and unwarranted? Will the Minister dissociate Her Majesty's Government from those sentiments?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are all well aware of the extraordinary record of courage of the American pilots in wars of all kinds. I know, as he does, that the courage of the American pilots in the Gulf war was second to none.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Minister say why it was left to the parents of the soldiers to initiate proceedings? Would the Government have taken any action? The Americans landed in the wrong place when entering Israel at one time and have therefore shown that they are not accurate. Surely it is wrong that it is left to the parents and ordinary citizens to take up these cases.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, she is being more than a little unfair on a number of points. First, during the recent Gulf conflict I was astonished by the extraordinary accuracy of the high technology weapons employed, above all, by the American forces.
I am sorry, but I cannot remember the second part of the noble Baroness's question. Perhaps she will assist me.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am a simple soul and find it odd that ordinary citizens have to take up these matters.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, ordinary procedures were followed; the inquest was held; the verdict was reached. The Ministry of Defence made representations to the Americans of the kind I have described to your Lordships. We all feel sympathy for the parents—no one more than I—but I must make it clear that ordinary procedures were followed. There is no doubt that even if the parents had not been fighting in the way that they have, legally we would be in a similar position as we are today.

Mauritius Republic Bill [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a technical measure required because of the change of status in Mauritius from that of a realm to a republic within the Commonwealth on 12th March 1992. It follows the same lines as well established precedents and seeks to ensure that the

581
operation of our existing law in relation to Mauritius is not affected by the change of status. I trust that noble Lords will agree that the Bill is a noncontroversial one.
The decision to become a republic was of course one for the Government of Mauritius to take and did not in any way require the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
The new constitution of Mauritius makes provision for appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Hitherto appeals from Mauritius have lain to Her Majesty in Council, but this is no longer appropriate now that Mauritius is not part of Her Majesty's dominions. The Bill therefore makes provision to enable Her Majesty in Council to authorise the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the new constitution of Mauritius to hear appeals direct from the courts of Mauritius.
I am happy to inform Members that the government of Mauritius have told the Commonwealth Secretary-General that they wish the country to remain a member of the Commonwealth now that it is a republic. The Secretary-General has consulted members of the Commonwealth, who all agree to that proposal.
I am sure that your Lordships will join me in wishing Mauritius and its people continuing peace and prosperity. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
5.7 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for explaining the Bill to the House. We warmly welcome the information that the Government of Mauritius have applied to become a member of the Commonwealth.
Britain has enjoyed a close and friendly association with Mauritius for nearly 200 years and, in discussing this Bill, it is proper that we should emphasise that our wish is that this good relationship should continue for future centuries.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill will enable Mauritius to become a republic within the Commonwealth and, as a result, the Governor-General, Sir Veerasamy Ringadoo, will become its first President. Sir Veerasamy will remain President for three months after which Mr. Cassam Uteem, the present Industry Minister, will become President.
The scene is not without its complexities. Perhaps the noble Baroness will deal with a few questions which I believe are of some importance. First, with regard to the elections held in the island last September, there are persistent criticisms that they were "rigged". I understand that the Opposition party in Mauritius has now appealed on that matter to the Privy Council and that a hearing is expected fairly soon. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will confirm that the hearing is pending, and, more
582
importantly, that it is in order to introduce this Bill when a number of the island's leading citizens are petitioning the Privy Council.
It would be helpful also if we could be given some information about the aid the Government give to Mauritius, an area for which the noble Baroness has a great responsibility. Can the noble Baroness say whether she has discussed the future aid programme with the Mauritian Government and, if so, with what result?
Finally, over the years the House has taken an interest in Diego Garcia. It is of course a military base currently in US hands. It would be interesting to know whether the profound political changes which have taken place in recent years have affected its defence status. It would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate upon that and tell us what are the current views of the United States and whether there is any prospect that Diego Garcia may be returned to Mauritius in the foreseeable future?
Our hope is that Mauritius will remain a stable and prosperous island with a democratic government. We wish the people of Mauritius a happy and peaceful future in a free society. We shall of course support the Bill in all its stages.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, as regards the Second Reading of the Mauritius Republic Bill which is indeed a non-controversial measure. As the noble Baroness said, it makes provision for the new status of Mauritius as a republic within the Commonwealth. That of course is an option open to all members of the Commonwealth and an example of the flexibility with which that organisation responds to changing conditions, changing times and new realities.
In the past the Commonwealth has suffered both from too high an expectation at some moments and from some neglect in recent years on the part of this country. Perhaps there has been a failure on our part to make the most of the contribution which it can make to world affairs. It seems to me that the Commonwealth could never be a political entity in the sense that the European Community is such an entity. However, it provides a most important link and bridge between the developed and the developing world; between the North and South, and between the East and West. That is something of which we should make the most.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, Mauritius has an established democratic tradition. The speech which I am making should really be made by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth who was Commonwealth Secretary in 1967 when Mauritius became independent. He told me that in many ways it was a Labour Party colony with very strong links with the British Labour Party. Its Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, had long and intimate connections with the Labour Party. The first Governor-General, who was then general secretary of the Labour Party, was Len Williams.

583
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, raised the question of the recent election. It is indeed the case that there have been widespread complaints that it was rigged. As we know, that is a common belief of people who lose elections. It is particularly common and likely to have substance in developing countries, as we know when one considers the recent experience in the Philippines and elections in this country until 1832.
The use of observers seems a good, easy and relatively cheap way of meeting that charge. It is important that the use of observers should not be seen as a confession of weakness or humiliation, but as a sign of confidence that one is ready to see that the procedures are fairly carried out. The recent experience in Zambia seems a good example. I believe that the provision of observers cost only £150,000. Members of your Lordships' House took part and it worked very satisfactorily. I believe that observers will be used again in the coming elections in the Seychelles which is moving towards a party-party constitution.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to aid to Mauritius which we would be interested to hear about. The Mauritian economy, given the part of the world where it exists, is a relatively prosperous one, with a per capita income of about 2,000 dollars a year. It is an economy which has shifted away from undue dependence on agriculture. It has successful industrialisation and exploitation of tourism. All these factors give ground for hope that its democratic traditions will continue. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in wishing Mauritius every good wish in the future.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe who cannot be present, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to make a contribution, particularly as a result of my very long association with Mauritius. I first met the person who founded an independent Mauritius at the time of the India round table conference. We were taken together to meet Gandhi. He was a medical student and I was an aspiring young politician. The Ramgoolam family made wonderful contributions to Mauritius as we know it today. Those who are running the country will follow that example. I join with all noble Lords in wishing Mauritius a very happy and successful period in the Commonwealth.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who has also visited that lovely island and who greatly enjoyed his visit, I join in sending good wishes. The decision as to whether Mauritius should remain with a monarchical, or have a republican, system is of course a matter for it. We know the decision that has been taken and we wish the people well with it.
Mauritius is a very beautiful island and, as the noble Lord opposite said, it is one which has a fairly high standard of living and a very effective economy. Perhaps I may introduce a slightly more frivolous note: there is one relic of the fact that Mauritius was once a French colony—it has a most excellent cuisine.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should like briefly but warmly to thank the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Bonham-Carter, Lord Bottomley and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. This measure was bound to be welcomed by a nation which has won the hearts of so many British visitors. Everyone has a fondness for Mauritius and realises that time must move on. It is about 11 years since I made my first visit there and I have been back on occasions since then. I have watched Mauritius changing its ways as time has gone on.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made three main points to which he wished me to respond. The question as regards elections was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I remember my first visit in 1981. When talking with the then leaders of the Labour government in Mauritius, I said to them that things were happening there of which they should be aware. The government had been in power for a considerable time. Shortly after that the government were ousted from power. At that time we heard the very same criticisms which are being mentioned now.
Therefore, perhaps I may respond on that difficult question. Her Majesty's Government are aware of the rigging claim, but we have seen no evidence of it. If there is a case for the Privy Council to consider—the issue is indeed going to the Privy Council—then we should await the outcome of that consideration. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I understand that it is in order for this Bill to proceed despite that happening.
Mauritius has a working parliamentary democracy. I am certain that there is no intention in Mauritius that minority rights shall be overridden. That is another comment which I have heard in the past and since the general election in September of last year. The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, and Lord Bonham-Carter, asked about aid to the republic of Mauritius. Naturally our aid programme is not going to be affected by the status change in Mauritius. It has had a successful economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. It does not receive capital aid.
However, Mauritius benefits from a modest programme of technical co-operation, mainly in human resource development. In addition, the Commonwealth Development Corporation manages a substantial investment portfolio, which is projected to rise to some £50 million by 1994. We believe that that will be good for the sort of development that is regularly taking place in Mauritius itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, also asked me about Diego Garcia, an archipelago of the Indian Ocean which, for many years now, has been commented on by party after party. Since independence, Mauritius has maintained a claim to sovereignty. Since the election last September, the Government of Mauritius have been a little more vocal about the matter, but I can assure your Lordships that the maintenance of British sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago was made after full consultation with the pre-independence government of Mauritius. In fact, one of the first ex gratia payments, which was made in 1965, was made in recognition of their consent to the

585
change. That amounted to £3 million. From 1981 onwards, I was involved in providing further help to the Ilois people about resettlement.
We have told the Mauritians that the islands will be ceded to Mauritius when they are no longer required for defence purposes. The initial phase of the defence agreement with the Government of the United States of America will end in 2016, with a continuation for a period of 20 years thereafter if both sides so agree. However, we have no doubt about our sovereignty. It has been continuous since 1814. We continue to be willing to talk to Mauritius to clarify any difficulties or misunderstandings. As the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Africa, I have been involved in these things in a sensible and friendly way with various members of the Government of Mauritius, including its Prime Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made some comments about neglecting the Commonwealth. I disagree with the noble Lord. Having spent the past six and a half years of my life trying to bring light and friendship to the Commonwealth and having made the most wonderful number of friends in the Commonwealth during that time, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no neglect of the Commonwealth. However, it is most important that we are sensible about what is expected within the Commonwealth. These days, the Commonwealth is a partnership—and no government exemplify that better than the Government of Mauritius who have sought to build up the economy of that island extremely well.
I am most grateful to your Lordships for your welcome of this Bill. In conclusion, perhaps I may congratulate Mauritius on its achievements since independence. It has sustained a working parliamentary democracy and established a prosperous and rapidly developing economy. The country has rightly been described as something of a model for other developing countries. We wish the Government of Mauritius a very bright future.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 14th May), Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

International Law and the Security Council
5.25 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what, in their opinion, is the place of international conventional law in the "new world order" and how the executive power of the United Nations Security Council should be related to it.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may add my word of welcome to all those that have already been expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. In her role as Minister for Overseas
586
Development in this House, she has a high and deserved reputation, not only in this country but around the world.
In 1988 an American airliner blew up over the United Kingdom, killing everyone on board and some people on the ground. The United States and British Governments found evidence that it was a bomb explosion and, after suggestions that the Syrian or Iranian Governments were involved, later produced prima facie, evidence against two Libyans who are now resident in Libya. The fact, if it was proven, would constitute a horrible crime and the two Libyans, if found guilty, would be horrible criminals indeed. What did the two governments do, and was it the best thing to do?
The international law governing terrorism in the air is the Montreal Convention, which came into effect in 1973. Her Majesty's Government say that the Montreal Convention was not intended to cover acts of state terrorism, but the relevance of that is unclear. However, the wording of the convention nowhere excludes "state terrorism". It gives signatories a perfectly clear route down which to proceed in all cases of air terrorism. First, they may request extradition. We do not, in fact, have an extradition treaty with Libya and nor does the United States. We have never extradited anyone to a country with which we do not have an extradition treaty and I rather think that the United States has not done so either. However, one can extradite people without a treaty.
After they have in one way or another exhausted the resources of their own domestic law, the parties to the convention may go to arbitration and, if that in its turn fails, they may go to the International Court of Justice. If the Government had taken that clearly stated, essentially sensible and obviously law-abiding course of action, they could have obtained a judgment from the court that they were in the right and that Libya was in the wrong and the United Nations Security Council could then have enforced it with a binding resolution.
However, the United States and the United Kingdom did not do that. We went straight to the United Nations Security Council. In this, many think that the two governments twisted the law and that they did so from what some euphemistically call "a position of strength". In fact, it may be that all international lawyers, except those who advise the United States and the United Kingdom Governments, think that. In any case, parties as far apart as the Singapore Times, the Economist and the Iranian Government think so.
The United States and the United Kingdom obtained a non-binding resolution from the Security Council, telling Libya to take "all reasonable steps, etc.", as the world now knows so well. The Libyans have said that they will give a full and effective reply —that is, a reply that will be in accordance with the law.
The United States and the United Kingdom took that course perhaps because they feared that if they proceeded in accordance with the Montreal Convention, they might lose their case in the International Court of Justice. After all, the Iranian

587
Government are currently addressing the International Court of Justice about the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a United States warship earlier the same year, with an equally great loss of innocent life. The United States has a history of defeat in the international court, and only partly recognises it. The court found against the United States when the CIA mined Nicaraguan harbours, damaging a British flag vessel, among others, and again in a case that the United States brought against the Italian Government.
So the United States and Britain judged—and judged rightly—that the balance of power in the world at that moment was such that they could get from the Security Council a resolution under Chapter 7 of the Charter, which is the chapter about threats to peace and about international security. The balance of power in the world was at that moment determined by the fact that Russia was awaiting the American decision on how much aid it could expect to cope with its economic breakdown and to stabilise its currency, and China was awaiting the American decision on whether it could once again enjoy most favoured nation status. The vote, which was 10 to five, thus went through.
Now the UN charter is the most powerful document in the world, and Chapter 7 is the most powerful chapter in it. It overrides all other conventions and contracts. The International Court of Justice always assumes that the Security Council is its own judge when it applies the charter, and the court has never questioned any of the Security Council's actions under Chapter 7. So the Security Council resolution overrode the Montreal Convention procedure, and prejudged the outcome of the Libyan case before the court. The case was that the United States and the United Kingdom should be restrained from bombing Libya in accordance with their threat to do so. The court decided, as its own precedents required, that Libya must obey the Security Council resolution, and that was that. But the Security Council by this action did perhaps abuse its own great power, by acting before the other, entirely legitimate, procedures had been completed. By effectively interfering in International Court of Justice proceedings, it muzzled the court.
The growth of law in the world has probably suffered. It so happens that the International Court of Justice may have been deprived by this resolution of the possibility of it enhancing its authority where it may matter even more than it does in terrorism cases, namely in judgments about Somalia and the Kurds, which are cases of mass suffering and death. Its authority is now undermined in the Third World, where nobody sees the Lockerbie bombing or the difficulty in obtaining the extradition of the suspects as threats to world peace, however horrible they were. But that is what the Security Council has indeed been induced to say they were.
The question the Government should answer is this: why did they not state that they would not apply to the Security Council for enforcement until proceedings under the Montreal Convention were
588
completed, with a ruling by the International Court of Justice? So far, they have only justified the Security Council resolution by the statement that something had to be done about terrorism. Nobody dissents. The question is whether that was the right something to do.
Perhaps I may repeat what I think is obvious. I am not against the Government for taking energetic measures jointly with the US. I am not against extradition and a trial in Scotland or the US. I am not against an appeal to the Security Council to enforce the decisions of the relevant court. But I do worry about the effect of going to the Security Council instead of the relevant court, thus cutting off the other side's recourse to its judgment. The domestic analogy to this would be the Government hearing and judging criminal cases because their most powerful member did not trust the judiciary to come to the right conclusion. Governments, of course, used to do exactly that, and on the whole we are glad that they have grown out of the habit. The worry about this will continue whether or not the Libyans now agree to extradite the men.
If I were allowed a Motion at the end of this discussion it would be, "To move to resolve that HMG do not do it again". Let us let it all simmer down, and think more objectively next time. Internationally as well as nationally the executive and the courts must keep to their own functions. Might must never come to think it is right; that is obvious. But there is another truth too. Others must never, when they see might, think: well, that must be right.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am not an international lawyer and the argument which we have heard is closely connected with one's interpretation of the Montreal Convention, the status of the International Court of Justice and its relations with the Security Council. As I understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, he is saying that under the Montreal Convention the International Court of Justice could have been used to handle this case and that the route via the Security Council has been taken by the United States, the United Kingdom and France because in the Security Council political muscle can be used. This has given rise to the idea that Libya is being bullied by the great powers, and in some quarters (which the noble Lord did not mention), is even being used to enhance President Bush's electoral prospects.
I shall return later on to the political consequences of the route which the United States, the United Kingdom and France have taken. The advice I have received—in these cases, if one is not an international lawyer, one can only go on advice—is that the Hague, Tokyo and Montreal Conventions sought to plug a gap in international law in respect of air terrorists. The Montreal Convention says that if an air terrorist turns up on the territory of a signatory country, that country has an obligation either to try the terrorist or to extradite him or her. It presents those two obligations. It does not say that the country in question has an exclusive right to try the terrorist. In this case, Libya claimed it had the right to try and that

589
it would try the terrorists in question. But I am also advised—this is where my advice differs from that which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has received—that the Montreal Convention does not deal with the case of a member of the security service of a signatory country who commits an act of air terrorism and then returns to the country by which he is employed, as a safe haven. That is not covered by the Montreal Convention.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so kind as to make clear whether he is arguing that the Montreal Convention specifically protects such suspects; and if not, why he thinks that is relevant?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is relevant because if the terrorist in question is employed by the country to which he returns, the likelihood of the trial being fair is diminished. That is the argument.
The International Court of Justice is not a criminal court and there is no question—and nor has the noble Lord suggested it—of the international court being able to try individuals. What it was asked to do was to issue an injunction against the actions put in train by the Security Council at the request of the United States, the United Kingdom and France. They had demanded of Libya a demonstration making it absolutely and categorically clear that Libya had abandoned terrorism. In addition, as an indication of this clear demonstration, they required Libya to hand over the terrorists for trial in the United States, the United Kingdom or France.
It should be clear that the Montreal Convention confers no rights on states; it confers only obligations. That is an important distinction. But in the light of the Security Council's demand and Libya's refusal to comply with that request, the council decided that Libya's conduct constituted a threat to peace. That may indeed be a large claim to make on the basis of the evidence, but that is the basis upon which it took that step and imposed limited sanctions. The international court then refused to order the injunctive relief which was requested from it.
I shall now return to the political consequences of those events to which I referred earlier. There have certainly been those who felt that the use of the Security Council route would be interpreted as bullying; that it would engender sympathy for Libya; and that Arab states would want to get Colonel Gaddafi off the hook on which he appeared to be impaled. I understand those anxieties, and from time to time as the saga developed I have shared them. But in the event it does not appear that such fears have been justified. The embargo has in fact been backed by the Arab states, including Syria. Moreover, according to a report in today's edition of the Independent, Egypt is putting pressure on Colonel Gaddafi to comply. In the meantime, in an interview published yesterday in the Financial Times, Colonel Gaddafi is portrayed in a contrite mood. Therefore, it looks as though the anxieties that were felt—and, as I said, not unreasonably felt—do not in the event seem to have proved justified.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Kennet has indeed done the House a service by tabling this Question tonight. I am bound to say that I find myself in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in that I am not an international lawyer. Not only that, but I have the great disadvantage of being the only person to be speaking in the debate who has not received, in advance, a brief from an international lawyer. Therefore, to a certain extent, what I have to say comes from a position of not quite invincible ignorance.
It strikes me that my noble friend Lord Kennet has raised two issues. First, there is the role of the Security Council either as a legislator or indeed as a court, and the relationship between what the Security Council does and what the International Court of Justice may or may not do in relation to the same set of facts coming before either the council or the court. Secondly, if the Security Council had the legal right to do what it did in this case, was it wise that the United States and the United Kingdom should in fact go down that particular route of using the Security Council rather than the international court?
If I may, I should like to take both those issues in that order. As regards the Security Council versus the International Court of Justice as almost a court of first instance, I do not think that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed, I think that my noble friend accepted that point. It is quite open to a state —is it not?—to go to the Security Council and ask it to make a decision as to whether the set of facts that is being considered falls within Chapter 7 of the charter. As I understand it, there is no obligation on the part of any state to pursue the Montreal Convention route before the issue goes to the Security Council. I suppose that it is a matter of judgment by the state that considers itself to be affected as to whether or not it wishes to go along the Security Council or the Montreal Convention route.
We had the situation in which the British and American Governments were taking the view that the terrorism which was emanating from Libya was state-sponsored and not merely the isolated acts of one or two people who might in such circumstances be employed by the Libyan Government; in other words, it was a complaint about Libya's actions as a state. In those circumstances, the fact that the Security Council route was chosen rather than the Montreal Convention route does not seem to me to be a matter of particular censure. Indeed, it was clearly in the minds of the British and American Governments that, if they pursued that route, the chances of getting the two men extradited from Libya were likely to be greater than if they had pursued the Montreal Convention route. At least, I assume that that was what was in the Government's mind—otherwise, I do not understand why they acted in that way.
Having got their determination under Chapter 7 and having imposed the sanctions, we then move into a realm not so much of international law but one of international politics. I do not think that anyone is arguing—not even my noble friend Lord Kennet—

591
that the sanctions resolution is invalid. My noble friend indicates that he is not by shaking his head. I refer to the decision of the Security Council that it was a breach of the peace under Chapter 7 and that therefore it could attract—and did attract—a sanctions resolution. If the sanctions resolution is not invalid, then, in that case, the political judgment was made that that was the appropriate route that should be followed. Not only was that the political judgment that was made; it was also a political judgment which was accepted by the rest of the Security Council; otherwise, the resolution would not have been passed. No veto was cast against it and, indeed, a sufficient number of countries voted in favour of the resolution —at least, the requisite nine clearly did, but I do not know what the actual vote was. Certainly, no veto was cast against it and the resolution was passed.
Was it wise for the Government to pursue that route as opposed to pursuing another one? I am bound to tell my noble friend that I do not think it was necessarily unwise for the Government to act in the way that they did. Whatever else it is, the Security Council mechanism is infinitely quicker than the mechanism of using the Montreal Convention. One has to set up the arbitration and, if the arbitration is unsatisfactory, one has to go to the International Court of Justice. Then, if that court proves unsatisfactory, one has to come back, so to speak, full circle and return to the Security Council. If the object of the exercise is to get those two men out of Libya to be tried—as I assume it is—it seems to me that to use the Security Council route in the way exercised by the Government cannot be condemned as unwise. Indeed, I would find it difficult personally to condemn it as such. I hope that it works and that the two men involved are extradited and stand trial.
In conclusion, I should like to make one general point. We have had a very brief debate about an extremely complex issue but one which is, in a sense, very simple. My noble friend put it concisely in his opening remarks. The state of world politics now means that the procedures of the United Nations and of the international community will have to change. When I read the title of my noble friend's Question for tonight, I assumed that he would deal with such issues as whether or not, in the history of the Gulf war, the Security Council Military Staff Committee should have been used, and whether in fact it was legal for the Security Council in effect to mandate the United States to carry out enforcement action under Chapter 7. I thought such issues would be raised. Although my noble friend did not say what I thought he would say, I hope that he will forgive me if I say what I had intended to say to him.
We are now in a state of international politics where the existing procedures of the Security Council will have to be changed. At present, such changes are taking place ad hoc as the exigencies of a particular situation arise and as the exigencies of that situation seem to demand. I shall give your Lordships one example: the Military Staff Committee. It is a body mentioned in the charter which consists of the chiefs of staff and the military representatives of the five
592
permanent members to whom direction of United Nations enforcement policy action under Chapter 7 is specifically delegated under the charter. I have said at this Dispatch Box before—and I say it again tonight —it seems to me that the sheer speed and technology of modern warfare makes that type of overriding institution very difficult to fit into a modern war.
Where I differ from the Government is that I feel that they do not have perhaps a coherent and sensible approach to the kind of amendments to the procedures of the United Nations Charter—indeed perhaps even to the constitution of the Security Council—that the times in which we are now moving and which we are increasingly going to have to meet in the future, are going to demand. I wish I could see a more coherent attempt on the Government's part to analyse the way in which the United Nations can be used more effectively in the future. As yet, I have not seen it.
However, perhaps I may say to the Government that I am delighted to see that they seem to be more enthusiastic about the United Nations now than they have been for many years past. Long may it continue! I hope that they will continue to give that extraordinary international institution more power and more support.
On the narrow point raised by my noble friend tonight, I have to say that I cannot go along with him in saying that the Government were necessarily unwise in pursuing the Security Council route. I think that it made for a swifter decision; and in terms of applying political pressure on Libya, it may indeed have proved to be more effective.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the opportunity this evening to address these important matters. I am grateful too to the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Richard, and particularly to Lord Richard for what he said in the last part of his remarks.
This is an important matter. Like all previous speakers I believe in this debate, I am not an international lawyer. Indeed, I am not even a lawyer. Therefore I hope I tackle this from a common-sense point of view with the backing of those experienced in international law.
In the wording of Lord Kennet's Question, he invited us to consider the place of international convention law in the "new world order". The "new world order" is not a term we normally use. But it is clear, not least from the contributions tonight, that the international order has undergone rapid change in recent years. It will probably, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said just now, continue to do so. One of the most encouraging features of this evolution is the growing realisation that respect for international law at all levels is essential for maintaining international peace and security.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred this evening —as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—to the International Court of Justice. I hope there will be no doubt in your Lordships' House about the United

593
Kingdom's support for the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. We brought the ICJ its first ever case, concerning the Corfu Channel incident in 1946. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to note how, in that case, the United Nations Security Council and the ICJ were able to reinforce one another's efforts towards dealing with that incident. I am happy to report to your Lordships that only 10 days ago the dispute was finally set to rest by an Anglo-Albanian Memorandum of Understanding. That has taken a long while, but it was a successful outcome.
Alone among the permanent members of the Security Council, the United Kingdom has always accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction. Fifty-four other states have now done so; and we are encouraged that more developing countries and countries from Eastern Europe, too, are among them. It is an encouraging sign that more disputes than ever before are being brought before the court for settlement, and that the court, under its British president, now has more cases pending before it than at any time in its history.
The ICJ has lately had to address the question which is at the centre of Lord Kennet's debate tonight. That is the relationship between international conventions and the executive power of the Security Council. As a number of noble Lords have recalled, Libya submitted two applications to the ICJ on 3rd March this year invoking the 1971 Montreal Convention on the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation.
I should like to respond now to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. He said that the Montreal Convention imposes obligations on states rather than rights. He is absolutely correct. The Montreal Convention does not confer an exclusive right to try the accused. Libya itself has been in breach of one of the main provisions of the Montreal Convention—Article 10—if the evidence alleged against her agents is proved to be true, by supporting offences against the safety of aircraft.
I shall now return to the separate cases brought against the UK and the US. Libya asked the court to declare that the Montreal Convention gave Libya a right to insist on prosecuting the two Libyan nationals accused of bombing Pan Am flight 103, and that the convention obliged the UK and US to assist a prosecution in Libya.
Secondly, as a preliminary issue, Libya requested the court to grant interim measures which would prevent the UK and US from taking action to require Libya to surrender the accused to any jurisdiction outside Libya, and from taking steps which would prejudice a Libyan prosecution. As the House will be aware, the court decided the preliminary issue in the UK's favour on 14th April. It has not yet considered the main issue.
I do not intend to discuss the case in detail. It is for Libya to decide whether it wants to pursue it. I shall, however, say two things. First, any state has a perfect right in law to invoke provisions of treaties which confer jurisdiction on the ICJ. But this is not to say that its motives in doing so are immune from scrutiny.
594
It would be wrong if that were so. I have to say that the Libyan attempt to seek interim measures had all the appearance of yet another manoeuvre to avoid facing up to its responsibilities. This was the first time in the history of the United Nations that a Government sought to use the ICJ to frustrate the operations of the Security Council. That this was indeed the objective emerged clearly in the oral hearings before the court. During all the weeks (about six in total) that had elapsed since the unanimous adoption by the Security Council of Resolution 731, Libya had engaged in nothing but evasion and prevarication. It did not turn over the persons accused of the bombings of the US and French airliners. Libya did not disclose what it knew of the crimes. Libya did not take concrete action to end its support for terrorism. Since then, I am sorry to say, it has been more of the same.
Secondly, we find it extraordinary that Libya should invoke the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention requires states to do everything possible to prevent terrorist offences of precisely the kind which caused the Pan Am and UTA disasters. Here there is evidence that the two accused were acting as agents of the Libyan state—the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made. Trial in Libya would make the Libyan authorities judge and jury and accused in the case. To argue that the convention should be read as giving Libya the right to conduct the prosecution would give those accused of these awful crimes refuge in their home state, which was one of the main objects of the international community to prevent.
The ICJ reached its decision on Libya's application for interim measures on 14th April. It rejected the Libyan request by a majority of 11 to 5. In handing down its judgment, it made it clear that Libya was obliged, under Article 25 of the charter, to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council; and that, under Article 103 of the charter, that obligation prevailed over obligations under any other international agreement, including the Montreal Convention. There is therefore no legal obstacle to Libyan compliance with the Security Council's resolutions.
Clearly, that first ruling by the court is of central importance to the theme of the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in drawing attention to the provisions of the UN Charter and to the relationship between two of the principal organs of the UN system. Article 103 is unequivocal: obligations under the charter must prevail over those under other treaties, where the two are alleged to be in conflict.
The ICJ's verdict on interim measures was preceded by the adoption of Security Council Resolution 748. As the House is aware, that resolution sought to bring about Libyan compliance with the earlier resolution by imposing selective sanctions on Libya. The resolution was adopted on 31st March. The sanctions were deliberately postponed until 15th April to allow Libya a further opportunity to comply. Once again, Libya allowed the time to slip by without evincing any serious intention of complying. We find that regrettable. But it would be quite wrong for us to regret that the Security Council moved to take that

595
second decision when it did. We cannot accept the argument that the Security Council should have awaited the ICJ's verdict on the application for interim measures, let alone its decision on Libya's principal case, which could take years. The ICJ and the Security Council are separate organs of the UN, each with its own responsibilities. There is no reason in our view why the Security Council should refrain from exercising its powers pending consideration of an application to the ICJ. It would clearly be wrong if any country, seeking to forestall the Security Council from carrying out its responsibilities under the UN Charter, could do so by the simple expedient of putting in an application to the ICJ. The council was entirely right not to be deflected from its course by Libya's applications.
A separate question is thrown up by tonight's debate. It is whether the matter addressed in Security Council Resolutions 731 and 748 is the proper business of the council. On that point, we are in no doubt, either. Article 24 of the charter confers on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. That cannot exclude international terrorism and the measures needed to combat it. International terrorism represents one of the most significant threats to peace around the world. If international terrorists are allowed to wield their scourge unchecked, the threat to international peace and security and to the rule of law is clear. How much more serious the threat to international order when terrorist attacks, whether in the skies above Lockerbie, in St. James's Square or in Northern Ireland, are supported actively by a foreign state. That is a challenge that the Security Council cannot afford to ignore. That is why in their declaration adopted after their high-level meeting on 31st January this year, under the Presidency of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the members of the council expressed their deep anxiety over acts of international terrorism, and emphasised the need for the international community to deal effectively with all such acts. In adopting its Resolutions 731 and 748, the council was doing exactly that.
I wish to assure your Lordships that the Government have no hidden agenda in this matter. Our demands are set out quite clearly in the relevant resolutions. They are perfectly reasonable demands, given the nature of the crimes that have been committed, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred. There were 441 people killed in the bombing of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. Our objective is to bring those responsible to justice and to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. We are not trying to change the Government of Libya. That is for the Libyan people.
We are not abusing the Security Council. We are not seeking to undermine the rule of law or the provisions of international conventions. On the contrary. Our aim is to bring to justice those accused of these appalling crimes, using the instruments at our
596
disposal, and to see to it that Libya finally and convincingly renounces the use of terrorism. If we are to be serious about combating terrorism, we can do no less.
I hope that it will be clear from these remarks that Her Majesty's Government are deeply concerned here about the rule of law. International treaties and conventions of course have an important part to play in upholding this. But they are not always complied with. Under the Montreal Convention of 1971 no state party may support terrorist attacks on aircraft. The convention alone cannot solve the problems raised by the bombings of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. And the convention does not address, nor was it designed to address, the wider issues of Libyan involvement in international terrorism over many years. Given the nature of the matter, and Libya's persistent refusal to mend its ways, the Security Council had to act. International conventions have a central place in the international order; but there may be occasions when the power of the Security Council as well must be brought to bear. I believe that it was wise to do so. The delays, the failure to stop international terrorism, and all that runs from that, would otherwise be laid at the door of those who did not take the right action at the right time. Going to the Security Council was undoubtedly that, and in that action, we have been widely backed throughout for trying to bring to justice those responsible for these atrocities.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask her one question. She was reading from a prepared text. The first part of her speech consisted of a defence of the legality of the Government's action. Does she recognise that I was not alleging that the Government had behaved in any way illegally, but was questioning whether it was politically wise to use the law in the way that it has been used?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, although I prepared a text, because I considered this matter to be of supreme importance and believed it right to do so on this occasion, I was using notes at the same time and interweaving them.
The word "abuse" was used in the noble Lord's remarks, I believe, and it was certainly used in the debate. While he may not be accusing the Government of acting illegally but politically unwisely, I am afraid that the subtlety that is well accepted in your Lordships' House may not be interpreted like that outside.
I thought it was important to put on the record without any doubt that I believed it was both politically sensible and, for the security of people flying in aircraft in the skies, very wise indeed that we should have taken that action. It is being widely supported by Arab states, non-Arab states and all countries who are determined to bring this kind of terrorism and indeed terrorism of any type to an end as soon as possible.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.

  CABINET COMMITTEES: MEMBERSHIP AND REMIT
  CABINET COMMITTEES: MEMBERSHIP AND REMIT
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEES OF THE CABINET
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEES OF THE CABINET
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE AND OVERSEAS POLICY (OPD)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE AND OVERSEAS POLICY (OPD)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE GULF (OPDG)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE GULF (OPDG)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DEFENCE POLICY (OPDN)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR DEFENCE POLICY (OPDN)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SECURITY (OPDSE)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SECURITY (OPDSE)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HONG KONG AND OTHER DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (OPDK)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HONG KONG AND OTHER DEPENDENT TERRITORIES (OPDK)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN IRELAND (NI)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON NORTHERN IRELAND (NI)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (EDS)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (EDS)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (IS)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (IS)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (EDI)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (EDI)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT (EDE)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT (EDE)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HOME AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS (EDH)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON HOME AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS (EDH)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EDL)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EDL)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE QUEEN'S SPEECHES AND FUTURE LEGISLATION (FLG)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON THE QUEEN'S SPEECHES AND FUTURE LEGISLATION (FLG)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION (LG)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION (LG)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE PAY (EDC)
  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE PAY (EDC)
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON HEALTH STRATEGY (EDH(H))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON HEALTH STRATEGY (EDH(H))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY (EDI(P))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY (EDI(P))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN QUESTIONS (OPD(E))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN QUESTIONS (OPD(E))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EASTERN EUROPE (OPD(AE))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON EASTERN EUROPE (OPD(AE))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM (OPD(T))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM (OPD(T))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON LONDON (EDL(L))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON LONDON (EDL(L))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON DRUG MISUSE (EDH(D))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON DRUG MISUSE (EDH(D))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON CO-ORDINATION OF URBAN POLICY (EDH(U))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON CO-ORDINATION OF URBAN POLICY (EDH(U))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOL MISUSE (EDH(A))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOL MISUSE (EDH(A))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S ISSUES (EDH(W))
  MINISTERIAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S ISSUES (EDH(W))
  LONDON TAXI FARES: INCREASE
  LONDON TAXI FARES: INCREASE
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE PSBR
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE PSBR
  PROBATION SERVICE: STAFF INCREASES
  PROBATION SERVICE: STAFF INCREASES
  REMAND PRISONERS
  REMAND PRISONERS
  MRS. MARIE BURKE
  MRS. MARIE BURKE
  TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS: REPORT
  TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS: REPORT
  PRISONERS: FOREIGN NATIONALS
  PRISONERS: FOREIGN NATIONALS
  No. 2 MARSHAM STREET: DEMOLITION
  No. 2 MARSHAM STREET: DEMOLITION
  DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: FUTURE LOCATION
  DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: FUTURE LOCATION
  UPLYME, DEVON: PUBLIC INQUIRY 14th/15th APRIL 1992
  UPLYME, DEVON: PUBLIC INQUIRY 14th/15th APRIL 1992
  DIEGO GARCIA
  DIEGO GARCIA
  HORN OF AFRICA: AID
  HORN OF AFRICA: AID
  MALAYSIA: FORESTRY AGREEMENT
  MALAYSIA: FORESTRY AGREEMENT
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 11th MAY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 11th MAY
  GRANTS TO UK NGO's
  GRANTS TO UK NGO's