Sitting of 5 November 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) Bill (By Order)
      BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] ( By Order)
        CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
          EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL. (By Order)

            GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM)BILL [Lords] (By Order)
            Orders fir Second Reading read.
            To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Sheep Regime
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the GATT negotiations as they affect the United Kingdom sheep regime.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Sheep will be subject to the same general commitments as other agricultural products under a GATT round settlement.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance. What is he doing to ensure that French farmers are not allowed to mess up the whole of the GATT round? He will know that the French people love to eat Dorset lamb but are often prevented from doing so due to unilateral action by French farmers. Will he ensure that the French Government act in a communautaire way in these matters?
    Mr. Gummer: The problems that we now face arose largely because, although the European Community was willing to move substantially, it seemed impossible for the American negotiators to have enough authority to move in an equal way. I am sad that we should be in a position in which the GATT round is so in peril. I hope that it will be possible for both sides to come to a conclusion.
    I pay tribute to Mr. MacSharry's work and his willingness to negotiate right to the end. I was not involved in the negotiations, but I was present nearby and was aware of what was going on from point to point. As President of the Agriculture Council, I thank him for the work that he has done.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a serious disagreement between the United States and the European Community has been over the discredited and expensive oilseeds regime in the European Community? Will he—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that the main question refers to the GATT negotiations and the sheep regime. Perhaps he will direct his supplementary question to that point.
    Mr. Stevenson: I intend to refer to the GATT negotiations, Madam Speaker, including sheep.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will heed what I have just said. We shall have a statement later on the negotiations generally.
    Mr. Stevenson: Will the Secretary of State accept that, along with problems concerning sheep, the oilseeds regime is a big problem? Does he realise that if the European Community were to accept the GATT panel ruling relating to the oilseeds regime, progress on the GATT negotiations generally might be possible?
    Mr. Gummer: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not in as detailed connection with the oilseeds regime, or indeed with the sheep regime, as are many in the House. In negotiations of this kind, it is a mistake to undermine those

    395
    who are trying to negotiate on our behalf as part of the European Community. I believe that Mr. MacSharry sought to do that fully, in accordance with the position of the Council of Ministers, which I represented as the President of that Council. When there is a mile to go and one side goes more than half a mile, it would be helpful if others were able to meet that progress.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we are now to be committed to a communautaire approach to all these matters we shall have to give a more sympathetic hearing to the French farmers, who are reluctant to hand over their German market to the United States? Is he further aware that those of us who think that our GATT arrangements are of profound importance to this country are concerned lest the deeper we get drawn into this European arrangement with the Maastricht treaty, the more difficult it will be to keep our trading arrangements with the United States on the friendly basis on which we want them to be.
    Mr. Gummer: If we were not deep in the European Community, I would have been nowhere near those negotiations and the United Kingdom would have had no possibility of playing a part in the GATT agreement. Britain on its own would have had to stand aside and watch the European Community make GATT arrangements with the United States of America. That is why those who voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty last night were right and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) was entirely wrong.
    Mr. Ron Davies: It is in the interests of sheep producers as well as every other sector that we have a settlement at the GATT negotiations. I offer my personal support to the Minister in those negotiations. I know that he has just flown back from north America and we wish him well in achieving the settlement that he wants. Will he confirm, however, that at 3 o'clock this afternoon the Americans will announce retaliatory measures following the failure to reach agreement at the GATT round, principally on oilseed dumping by the EC? Will he also confirm that there have been two consecutive rulings by the GATT disputes panel against the EC on that issue? As Britain currently has the presidency of the Agriculture Council, will he now guarantee that he will not allow Britain's commercial interests to be prejudiced due to unfair protection by European Community farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the shadow Cabinet. I know that we shall have some sharp exchanges, hut they will be fair and honourable and I welcome them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] To resign for being honourable and fair seems a sad attitude to take.
    The truth is that the European Community has sought to meet the objections and has suggested a range of ways in which that might be done. I am determined to do everything that I can to encourage those negotiations and discussions to go on. I am sorry that there did not appear to be authority on the other side—understandably, against the background of the United States elections, and so on —to proceed as could otherwise have been done.
    I shall continue to do my best to safeguard not only Britain's interests but, as President of the Agricultural Council for the time being, those of the whole of Europe.
    396
    There is no other way to deal with world trade than to get a GATT settlement, which is as important to farmers in Britain, France and the United States as anywhere else.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to strengthen the incentives for environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Gummer: The first group of ESAs were strengthened and enlarged earlier this year. Proposals for enhancement of the remaining areas have been the subject of recent public consultation and revised schemes will come into effect early next year. I also expect to make an early announcement concerning further ESA designations.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister confirm to the House that he has lost the battle with the Treasury for further funding for environmentally sensitive areas? He lost it when he was in the United States recently, travelling incognito and signing himself in as Wyatt Earp at the Chicago Hilton. If matters continue in that manner, he will have to travel incognito around the Hilton hotels of this country, too.
    Mr. Gummer: I shall make an announcement soon, and I promise that I shall not detain the House for as long as the hon. Gentleman did on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the gratitude of farmers in the North Peak area for the meeting that he arranged for them with officials in his Department following the letter that I wrote to him setting out their concerns? Will he assure us that, when the revised proposals for the North Peak ESA are published, there will be another opportunity for consultation so that any further concerns that they have can be taken into account?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend's remarks are kind. However, any Minister or Secretary of State who responded to such a question without saying that people will have to wait and see would be very silly on any subject during a public expenditure survey round. However, that does not mean that my hon. Friend should feel that what has happened in the past will not have some direction in the future.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will he aware that there has been a considerable welcome, among both the farming community and the environmental lobby, for the latest set of environmentally sensitive area designations in England and Wales, but is he aware that there is considerable concern that the timetable seems to be slipping back? The impression given to farmers is that the areas might he sacrificed in the current round of negotiations on public spending. Will the Minister assure us that that will not happen?
    Mr. Gummer: I was the Minister who took the original Bill on ESAs through Committee, and I have been committed to that legislation ever since. As Minister, I have also presented further extensions to it, so the hon. Gentleman will know that I am keen on the concept. In those circumstances, he must understand that the subject is among the range of priorities within my remit that I have been discussing. If I were to say, "This is okay" or "No, it is not", other hon. Members would present me with other

    397
    issues and ask similar questions. Therefore, I shall have to stick to saying that I will make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that farmers in my constituency are pleased that the Cotswold hills appear in the next wave of published ESAs. I am pleased at my right hon. Friend's announcement today that he expects to be able to present guidelines on that ESA early next year. Will he assure the farmers in my constituency who enter the agreement voluntarily that they will not in future be subject to further environmental guidelines to which other farmers will not be subject?
    Mr. Gummer: The concept of the ESA is that it is a voluntary agreement between farmers and the community. That understanding must be supported and continued; otherwise, farmers will not enter into the agreements with their current alacrity and enthusiasm or voluntarily do more than they are paid for. I am impressed with the reaction of the farming community and I shall do nothing to undermine it.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EC.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the transportation of live animals.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): We shall continue to demand the highest possible welfare standards for all animals during transport. We are imminently expecting further proposals from the Commission.
    Mr. Flynn: Why has the Minister not demanded publication of the amendments to article 13 of the European Community transport directive? The amendments will improve the watering stops, and the feeding and resting arrangements for animals in transit, and will go a long way to ensuring that the terrible cruelty suffered by animals transported throughout the Community will be reduced. Britain is in the driving seat as it has the presidency, so why have the amendments not been published? Is this another example of the failing British presidency of the EC?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman should know that the directive to which he refers establishes a good framework of controls. It is incomplete as it stands and we await further proposals from the Commission, which we shall address. We are intent on demanding the same high standards abroad that we have in this country. The hon. Gentleman should know that tonight my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his capacity as President of the Agriculture Council, is attending the annual dinner of the Federation of Veterinarians in the European Community in Brussels. He will once again stress the Government's determination and commitment to achieving the very highest standards of animal welfare throughout the Community.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister personally observed the conditions in which some live animals are transported
    398
    in this country? I recently witnessed the death of a terrified sheep which jumped off the top of a lorry on the M1 motorway and was killed. Has the Minister seen the conditions in which live poultry are crammed into crates and taken around parts of the country? Before we lecture people in Europe about their treatment of animals, should we not get our own act together in this country?
    Mr. Soames: We believe that, by and large, we have high standards of animal welfare in this country. From time to time, however, there are regrettable accidents and incidents. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any such incidents he should give me the details and evidence so that I can have them investigated with great vigour forthwith.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people in this country are immensely grateful to him and to the Department for the steps that they have taken to improve animal welfare and the conditions of animals in transit? Will he use his influence to ensure that those standards spread throughout Europe? Is there any possibility under the Maastricht treaty—and the regulations whereby all member states must operate under the same conditions—of enforcing better animal welfare conditions throughout Europe?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a most important point. The enforcement of the rules is essential to their integrity and to the confidence of people in this country and elsewhere that these high standards of animal welfare will be enforced. My hon. Friend should be aware that in the Maastricht agreement there was a valuable declaration on animal welfare which was promoted by the British Government. We very much hope that those details will be taken up by overseas Governments.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust defence of our measures of minimum value for the export of horses. Will he assure the House that he will continue to fight the threat to this important animal welfare measure in the European Community?
    Mr. Soames: I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend. The minimum values have stood this country in good stead. It is our firm intention to fight with great vigour to ensure that they remain.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that it is best to slaughter animals as near as possible to the point of production and not to take them long distances? Is he not concerned about the number of abattoirs that fail to meet EC standards? At present only 98 out of 686 abattoirs in the United Kingdom meet the new EC standards, and many rural jobs are being lost as abattoirs are forced to close down. That has implications for increased animal transportation.
    Does the Minister agree that we need equality in Europe? While some member states are receiving grants to improve their small rural abattoirs, our small businesses are apparently not getting the support from the Government that they deserve.
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman stayed well clear of the question; I will confine myself to dealing with the part of his remarks that dealt with animal welfare. He raised an important point about abattoirs and animal welfare. There is no reason why animals should not travel, provided that they are humanely and properly handled, but an animal

    399
    that is not fit to travel should not be transported any distance at all. The question of abattoirs exercises us greatly at the moment and we are giving it a great deal of attention.

    Knackers Yards
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of knackers yards.
    Mr. Soames: The Government have made clear the importance that they attach to the role of the knacker industry, and in forthcoming discussions with the Community we shall be negotiating with vigour to secure its longer-term future.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend accept that well-operated knackers yards prevent serious pollution and health problems? Does he share my concern that crippling charges likely to be imposed under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 could seriously endanger the operation of knackers yards? Will he support the knacker men?
    Mr. Soames: The Government stand foursquare behind the knacker men—particularly in the light of the events of the past few days. My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to an important matter which is essential to the proper and orderly running of the countryside. It is true that the knacker men are very worried about the level of fees that they will have to pay for air pollution controls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Officials in my Department are closely liaising with those in the Department of the Environment, whose legislation it is. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do everything that we can to minimise the possible burden of these regulations on the knacker industry.
    Mr. Skinner: Last night the Government Whips were dragging Tory Members to the knackers yard and some of them have been squealing ever since. Instead of dragging those Tory Members out of one Lobby and into the other, should not the occupants of the whole Government Front Bench be sent to the knackers yard?
    Mr. Soames: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier: provided these animals are fit to travel, there is no reason why they should not do so.
    Mr. Wiggin: On a different aspect of the matter, in preparing his answer my hon. Friend may have studied the Select Committee report on the disposal of fallen stock and may be aware that not only is the present environmental attack on knackers yards causing that industry great difficulty, but the charges that knackers find it necessary to impose on customers have seriously damaged the industry. Will my hon. Friend look again at the Committee's recommendation that some support for the end product—perhaps paid for by the Department of the Environment—would recognise the important contribution that knackers yards make to the disposal of this disgusting material?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Naturally we studied the report of his Committee with great care. The knacker industry is not about to disappear and we aim to ensure that it will continue to play a key role in animal waste disposal. Hunt kennels, incinerators and
    400
    burial are also currently used to dispose of carcases. As I have said, we are aware of the great importance of the knacker industry to the countryside. Although there is no question of our subsidising the industry, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that we can to remove its burdens.

    Surplus Food
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the distribution of EC surplus foods to pensioners; and what assessment he has made of whether sufficient quantities have been allocated to each outlet.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Butter and beef worth about £17·9 million will be distributed by designated organisations to eligible people in the United Kingdom during 1992–93. Pensioners who fall into the eligible groups will qualify for the food.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister agree that that amount is only a small part of the £2·5 billion per year that we contribute to the Common Market? That butter and beef is paid for by taxpayers. The arbitrary halving of allocated amounts to the various outlets because of the doubling of the number has therefore caused great concern to the voluntary organisations which, with good heart and good will, undertake distribution to pensioners and other poor people. In future, will the Minister seek to obtain more supplies for each outlet, such as Dovesdale working men's club in my constituency? Will he ensure that poor people receive a proper amount, and will he take into account the views of the voluntary organisations carrying out the distribution rather than impose arbitrary limits? Or does he not care about either category?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either we give greater quantities to fewer organisations or we try to make sure that there is fair distribution across the country so that those who qualify manage to receive some of the product. It is a fixed budget, there are fixed amounts, and the pressure upon me has been to designate many organisations in order to ensure as fair a distribution as possible. I have done that, and I think that it is the right course.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. and right hon. Friends will be aware that my constituency has the highest proportion of pensioners of any constituency. They will also be aware that in recent years the distribution of that food has been of considerable benefit to those pensioners. Is there any opportunity for further distributions of surplus food? Is there a chance that the surplus mushrooms that have been grown in the Republic of Ireland will be distributed to pensioners there, rather than involve the payment of unfair subsidies which are damaging one of my most important employers, the biggest mushroom farm in the north of England?
    Mr. Curry: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his dexterity in making that question comply with the rules. We shall review the scheme to see whether it is reaching the right people and in the right quantities and products. One of the matters that I shall look at is whether we should look to a scheme that is tilted more towards beef than butter because there are fewer surpluses of butter and as

    401
    we all know, there is a horrendous surplus of beef. We shall see to what extent we can correspond to the economic conditions and, above all, make sure that it is fair to those who receive it.
    Mr. Ron Davies: May I press the Minister on the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? It is outrageous that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of good quality food are consigned to surplus stores while millions of people—pensioners and others on income support—are unable to afford those products on the open market. Does the Minister acknowledge that many people in the voluntary sector would willingly give their time to distribute the food but cannot afford the petrol? Does the Minister understand that if he made small sums available to the voluntary sector a decent system could be introduced to ensure that people who are willing to give their services free could get the free food to the people who need it?
    Mr. Curry: I readily pay tribute to those in the voluntary sector who organise the distribution of the food. It is by far the best system of distribution—much better than an attempt to distribute the food via supermarkets or other retail outlets.
    The quantities are limited, however. If we are trying to get rid of surpluses and control production, this is one of the least efficient ways of doing so. While the food is there, I am determined that people in the United Kingdom should have their fair share; but I should much rather look to an on-going reform of the Community that ensures that we do not generate the problem in the first place.

    Set-aside Scheme
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce details of the permanent set-aside scheme.
    Mr. Curry: We expect decisions on non-rotational set-aside to be made in time for farmers to choose this option next year if they so wish.
    Mr. Butler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. It is clear when we look around the countryside that rotational set-aside has disastrous environmental effects, whereas permanent set-aside will allow environmentally beneficial projects to be undertaken on the same land. I urge my hon. Friend to announce the details of his welcome reply as swiftly as possible.
    On a lighter note, may I commend to my hon. Friend for European consideration the world-famous Milton Keynes practice of decorating fallow set-aside land with concrete cows? They have the benefit of being low maintenance; they add nothing to the greenhouse effect; they neither suffer from nor pass on bovine spongiform encephalopathy; they are particularly difficult to rustle; they can be supplied with or without udders and other attachments; and, most attractive of all, they are totally non-productive and might therefore form the basis of a new standard Euro cow. Given that they are a singularly different breed, perhaps "MacSharry" would be an appropriate name for them.
    Mr. Curry: I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind a reply that is shorter than his question. I think that he may have solved the problem of the deficiency of the milk quota in Italy.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister agree with the estimate in The Times that his policy for set-aside will cost British taxpayers £130 million a year, without making any real difference to EC yields and without any beneficial environmental effect?
    Mr. Curry: I disagree profoundly. First, Ministers can decide to vary the precentage of land put into rotational set-aside as a function of the decrease in yields that that generates. Secondly, in regard to the permanent set-aside —we have both the non-rotational and the longer-term schemes—we want the rules to permit us to incorporate two important environmental schemes: the farm woodland premium scheme, to encourage woodland, and the countryside premium scheme, to encourage habitat. If those two schemes can be married to the non-rotational scheme, we shall have an extremely effective environmental package.
    Mr. Lord: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know of the general unhappiness felt by farmers about the need to set aside fertile and productive land. He will be aware also of the need to return dynamism and hope to farming. What steps is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food taking to encourage the growing of non-food crops on set-aside land, and also the establishment of trees?
    Mr. Curry: When we have the permanent and non-rotational set-aside schemes, we shall want to be able to put woodland on the sites concerned. We also wish to encourage farmers to plant crops that will yield biomass. Those two aspects relating to energy and trees will be very important. We are studying how we can target the longer-term set-aside—the 20-year permanent scheme—very specifically, to secure the best possible environmental benefits. Those could be related to amenity woodland.

    Farmers
    Illsley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to keep farmers on the land.
    Mr. Curry: The common agricultural policy provides a range of measures to support farming.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that many people consider his response to rural depopulation somewhat inadequate? Is he aware that between 1990 and 1992 British farming lost, on average, some 200 farmers and farm workers each week? Already articles are appearing in magazines such as Farmers' Weekly, comparing the state of agriculture to that of mining and forecasting huge job losses.
    How long can the Government continue to protect farm incomes through set-aside? Are decisions likely to be made that will be as disastrous to agriculture as decisions about the pits were to mining?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect: there has been an enormous structural change in agriculture over the past couple of decades—in the United Kingdom, a quarter of a million people have left agriculture, and in the Community 4 million people have left. That is as big a structural change as there has been in any other part of the economy.
    We have to make sure that the surpluses and overproduction, which depress farmers' incomes, are

    403
    removed through reform. At the moment, the grain price is relatively buoyant and the sheep price is higher than it has been for many years. Because of the changes in the agrimoney system and the eventual green pound devaluation, we should put some income into the agricultural sector. That is very much needed, and we welcome it.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties faced by farmers in areas such as the Chiltern hills and the vale of Aylesbury, where efforts at diversification often fall foul of what are necessarily strict planning controls? Will he undertake to work with his colleagues at the Department of the Environment to make sure that we have both a beautiful countryside and one that rests upon the good stewardship of farmers making their living there and not turning the countryside into a museum?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that I represent an area with a large national park and that what is not national park is an area of outstanding natural beauty. I understand exactly the problems that he describes and we will work very closely with planning authorities to overcome them.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Harvey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Exmoor environmentally sensitive area will come into being.
    Mr. Gummer: We plan to make an announcement on the proposed Exmoor environmentally sensitive area in the near future.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister recognise the very real problems faced by Exmoor farmers who can no longer take part in countryside stewardship schemes and programmes because they have ended in anticipation of the ESA proposals? Because of the new requirements resulting from much of Exmoor being a site of special scientific interest, there is no money to meet those obligations. With bank managers hovering over many Exmoor farmers, what reassurance can the Minister give farmers to take back to bank managers that the money for ESAs which he announced earlier this year will not be taken away from other agriculture programmes?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly make an announcement as soon as possible. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the ESA proposals, which began in this country, have now been taken up by the whole Community. We have been able to contribute to that process. That is why I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who did not wish us to go on being at the heart of the Community. I honour all his colleagues who stood up for their belief in Europe.
    Mr. David Nicholson: With no reflection on the voting activities of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) last night, I support his representations to my right hon. Friend. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Exmoor farmers in my constituency as well as in North Devon worked extremely hard to complete the form sent out by his Ministry in April, which, his officials may not be aware, is the lambing season on Exmoor? They were promised an early determination of this matter but are still
    404
    left high and dry. As someone who obtained votes in April on this matter of the ESA, I am extremely anxious that my right hon. Friend should keep the pledges that the Government made to those farmers and implement the ESA proposals as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gummer: I am never unhappy to have the support of my hon. Friend, as we had it last night.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister says that we shall have a response as soon as possible. Has he forgotten the solemn undertaking given to Exmoor, the Lake district and other national park farmers that they would receive ESA offers this year? Now that the Liberals, apart from the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), have bailed out the Government, enabling them to cut public expenditure further and threaten the ESA programmes, has not a large hole been blown in the Government's entire approach to environmental protection?
    Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what I think is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box on the Opposition Front Bench. Of all Opposition Members, I should have thought that he would be the last to congratulate his party on putting party politics before principle and to attack the Liberal Democrats, who put principle before party politics.

    "The Health of the Nation"
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent consultations his Department has had towards implementing "The Health of the Nation" proposals.
    Mr. Soames: Implementation of the White Paper is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. However, my Department has been involved both at ministerial and official level with a number of interested parties, about various aspects of the White Paper.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I do not know quite how to put this to my hon. Friend delicately. I am sure that he would agree that Conservatives believe in enjoying life, and good eating is clearly part of enjoying life, but can he inform the House what efforts are being made jointly with his colleagues in the Department of Health to advise people how to eat healthily to avoid the development of coronary heart disease?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has no need to be so coy about these matters. I regard myself as a thoroughly good advertisement for healthy eating.
    The White Paper places emphasis on reducing smoking, improving diet and sensible drinking as key factors in the prevention of coronary heart disease, strokes and cancers. Dietary targets relate to a reduction in the population's average consumption of saturated fats and total fats. However, the White Paper points to the need for a whole-diet approach.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that vegetarianism is one of the healthiest eating habits that we can adopt? If he wants to set an example to the nation on healthy eating, he should give up grouse and start eating lentil bake.
    Mr. Soames: I am sure that it is, in its own way, an attractive proposition, but I have never regarded vegetarianism as a serious alternative.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when it comes to "The Health of the Nation", Ministers should set an example? Bearing that in mind, will he tell the House what steps he has taken as regards his diet and personal habits?
    Mr. Soames: Like the Government as a whole, I am committed to a pragmatic and practical approach to dietary targets, as outlined in "The Health of the Nation".
    Mr. Etherington: I am quite sure—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Question 12.

    Cattle Disease
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards random sampling for disease in cattle.
    Mr. Soames: A substantial proportion of cattle are at present subjected to ante-mortem veterinary examination at slaughterhouses, and all will be from 1 January 1993. All carcases are already subject to meat inspection. In general, I believe that random sampling has only a limited role to play in the control of cattle disease.
    Mr. Etherington: I apologise for my gaffe, Madam Speaker. It is the sort of thing that happens when one is running to and from a Committee.
    The Minister must be well aware of the very great public fear of mad cow disease. He will be aware also that that fear will dissipate only when there is thorough research into the subject. Can he therefore tell us whether there is vertical transmission of mad cow disease and what live research is being undertaken into the subject?
    Mr. Soames: There is absolutely no evidence whatever of vertical transmission, and nothing has occurred to cast any doubt on the opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its expert advisers that measures taken will eradicate the disease. We have a substantial and important research programme to which we are wholly committed and with which we shall press ahead.

    Bees
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the situation of the varroa mite among bees.
    Mr. Curry: To contain the spread of varroa, and in consultation with the beekeeping organisations, I declared an infected area south of a line between the Severn and the Thames. Movement outside that area is prohibited except under licence. Until now, the disease has been confirmed in 267 apiaries within the infected area. Varroa has recently been found in 17 apiaries in Suffolk and one in Lincolnshire. Following further consultation with the beekeepers, I have decided that the infected area will be extended from midnight tonight to include the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. I have written to the beekeeping organisations and instructed that copies of the letter should be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: As a beekeeper until the then Government Chief Whip, Lord Glenamara, brought it home to me that the requirements of swarming bees and Government Whips did not go together, may I point out that this is a very serious matter for beekeepers? Could the Government do something while the varroa mite is on the bee in its adult form rather than hidden in cells?
    Mr. Curry: I agree. It is a very serious matter. I have taken no action except in consultation with the beekeeping industry, because the industry is determined that we should try to limit the spread of the infection. We are doing important research into this matter and, following the discovery of varroasis, we have reviewed the bee health research programme and increased expenditure on it to about £200,000. The Central Science Laboratory has been asked to give priority to the development of a rapid field diagnostic test and, in addition, the Institute of Agricultural Crop Research will be undertaking long-term research into causes of mortality in varroa-infected bees.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings today.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time during his busy day to decide how to use the diplomatic and negotiating skills which he deployed so effectively at Maastricht to prevent a trade war between the United States and the European Community? Will he pull out all the stops to achieve an agreement on the general agreement on tariffs and trade before President Bush leaves the White House, in the knowledge that agreement on GATT will do more than anything else to pull the world out of recession?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on his last point—it is a very serious matter. It is for the European Commission, which has the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of member states, to make a deal, and we shall seek to reach a concerted position so that such a deal can be achieved. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about that a little later.
    Mr. John Smith: Why is it that, in the midst of all our present miseries—[Interruption.] Why is it that, in the midst of this situation, the Government think that it is a priority to abolish wages councils which offer a safety net for 2·5 million people, two thirds of whom are women?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a very narrow view. When he studies the whole of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, he may have a more enlightened view. As he may know, we have decided that wages councils will be abolished because they distort the operation of the labour market. Abolishing them will lead

    407
    to more jobs rather than fewer. These days, wages councils are an anachronism. They no longer have a useful role. They were set up in 1909 and they are not relevant to 1992.
    Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the truth that was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when wages councils were set up, which was that, if there is no wage protection, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad is undercut by the worst? Does he not understand that people in this country are sick and tired of his professing concern about unemployment when 1 million people have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of the concern to sustain and maintain jobs that we propose to get rid of the councils that destroy jobs. The fact of the matter is that they create unnecessary bureaucracy and add to the burdens on business. If that is the Opposition's industrial strategy—more burdens, less business and fewer jobs—the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better make it clear.
    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Townsend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are in favour of a very tough public spending round this year, especially on the revenue account, even if that means a public sector pay freeze to protect capital projects? Is he aware also that, when we are having to take painful decisions, it is not acceptable for Mr. Delors to ask for an increase in own resources? Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that if he wants more cash, he should look to the waste, fraud and corruption revealed by a recent report of the Court of Auditors?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot, of course, this afternoon anticipate my right hon. Friend's autumn statement which he will make to the House next Thursday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the Commission's proposals for a massive increase in Community spending are excessive in the present circumstances. No more than anyone else can the Community spend more than it can afford. I believe that, when we consider the future financing, we must be guided by the same principles of budget discipline and sound public finance that we all agreed to put in the Maastricht treaty.
    Ms. Glenda Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Jackson: Does the Prime Minister recall the pledge that he gave in his election manifesto that the value of child benefit would increase each year in line with prices? Despite the wriggling evident in his previous answer, will he repeat that pledge to the House today?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady must wait for the autumn statement next week, and I will tell her why. When
    408
    asked to anticipate a financial statement in the election, the Leader of the Opposition said, "You'll have to wait till next week when I make it." That applies to us as well.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend believe that a single currency for Europe is a desirable objective?
    The Prime Minister: I have indicated often enough in the House, not least yesterday, that I do not believe that that is a remotely likely objective to be reached in the time scale set and that one can only determine whether it is desirable in the circumstances of the day, when the decision needs to be made. That is not now.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister agree that the closure of the 31 pits would make 30,000 miners compulsorily redundant and destroy the jobs of up to 70,000 people in related industries and that very few of them would have any chance of finding other work? In those circumstances, what does the Prime Minister say in response to the extraordinary revelation made by the chairman of British Coal yesterday to the Employment Select Committee that, when he and the President of the Board of Trade decided to close the pits, he had no discussion, conversation or consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a great deal of consultation in government for some time over the whole question of pit closures and there was a great deal of detailed consideration for some time. The hon. and learned Gentleman now knows precisely what the situation is from a lengthy and detailed statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although this country's links with our friends in Europe continue to strengthen, our special relationship with the United States of America remains as vital now as it ever has been?
    The Prime Minister: It has been a very close relationship. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to it yesterday as an historic relationship. It has remained that for many years. I believe that that results from the shared interests that we have around the world and from a shared historical background. I have no doubt that that will continue.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Paddy Ashdown—[Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Mr. Ashdown.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is it not the case that the decision taken last night by the House, by however narrow a margin, nevertheless means that Britain's future in Europe has been saved and, with it, tens of thousands of jobs around Britain?
    The Prime Minister: May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear the response from the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: May I say first to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be heard in the House, as every other right hon. and hon. Member should. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the price of principle is often abuse, but he was right last night in the vote that he cast. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Sykes: Does the Prime Minister agree with the business men of Scarborough and Whitby who say that the social chapter would devastate jobs?
    The Prime Minister: That is a view with which I entirely agree. It is a view expressed not only by the business men of Scarborough and Whitby, clearly with great clarity, but by business men across this country. The social chapter was not in the interests of this country. We were right to reject it.
    Dr. Berry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Berry: Is the Prime Minister able to explain why he believes that an increase in public expenditure will severely damage the economy while hoping and praying that exactly the same activity by the private sector will get Britain out of recession?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman produces his question. The Government's position on public expenditure has always been that it must be prudent, it must be affordable and it must be in the interests of overall management of the economy. That was, is and remains the case.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to extend an invitation to President-elect Clinton to come to this country, immediately after 20 January, when he can?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to take the opportunity of saying that I look forward to meeting President-elect Clinton before Christmas. I have already had the opportunity of sending my congratulations to him and stating them both privately and publicly, and I look forward to meeting him before Christmas. I hope that it will be possible for him to visit this country.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: After the Prime Minister's poor performance in yesterday's debate and after his policy
    410
    failure on unemployment, the mines, British industry and devaluation, does he agree that his recent 16 per cent. approval rating in an opinion poll shows the generosity of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman was looking for one person in this country who has good reason not to trust opinion polls, he has just addressed a question to him. As to yesterday—right sentiment, wrong leader.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the true test of compassion in public services is not necessarily the amount of money spent but the quality and efficiency with which it is spent? Does he, therefore, share my horror at the lack of compassion of Lambeth council, which has already spent £400,000 of local charge payers' money on phantom teachers?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did see that particular report, which illustrated not only that Lambeth council is inefficient but that it is slightly less inefficient than Islington council, which spent rather more on the same matter.
    Q.8. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister repeat in the House the assurance that he gave to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that he would not introduce the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the second Danish referendum? Does that not show that there was no limit to the wriggling of the Prime Minister in his attempt to obtain votes in the Lobby last night?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman's last point had been right, there would have been no debate yesterday. It was precisely because I was concerned to get the Bill through that there was a debate yesterday and we will move to Committee stage, and move forward.
    I am happy to make the point entirely clear to the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, the House reaffirmed its assent to the Bill proceeding to Committee stage. In doing so, no thanks to the official Opposition, it reaffirmed our determination to play a leading role in Europe and strengthened our negotiating hand in Edinburgh. As for progress, there will be a limited discussion before Christmas. We will return to the Bill in greater detail in the new year. I wish to have plenty of time for full and proper discussion on all the details of a constitutional Bill which is of great concern in the House. It is important to carry the assent of the House on the Bill. That will take time.
    The present intention of the Danish Government is to hold a referendum in May. Given the Committee timetable that we have in mind and the full discussion that we need, we will need to take the Third Reading after that date in May. That has been and is the position, and that is the point that was made clear yesterday.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the council and leader of the House of commons (Mr.Tony Newton):The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER and TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER—
Second Reading of the Education Bill.
WEDNESDAY II NOVEMBER—Proceedings on the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords]
Motion on the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY I2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Adoption Law Review on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY I3 NovEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY I6 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 11 November at 10.30 am to consider European Community document No. 6224/92 relating to culture in the European Community.
[Wednesday 11 November
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document
6224/92 Culture in the European Community.
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-i (1992–93 ) and HC 79-viii ( 1992–93)]
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement.
Can the right hon. Gentleman add anything to the statement made by the Prime Minister yet again at Prime Minister's Question Time as to when exactly it is planned to bring the Committee stage of the Maastricht Bill back to the House? Can the Leader of the House say anything to cast any light on the contradiction between the assurance that the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) last night and the Prime Minister's statement today that the Third Reading would not need to be until the summer and what was said yesterday about the urgent need for yesterday's debate? Does it not show that the only urgency about yesterday's debate was the Prime Minister's urgent need to shore up his battered Government and that the only interest served was that of the Conservative party and not that of the nation?
When can we expect the social security uprating statement? Will the Leader of the House bear it in mind that if, as has been widely trailed, the statement contains an attack on the living standards of many of the most vulnerable people in society, the House will want a full day's debate on the issues raised in that statement and not merely half a day, as has been the practice recently.
Finally, will the Leader of the House find time soon for a debate on financial institutions, so that the House can consider the growing calls for statutory regulation of the City and the inadequate service provided by many high street banks and building societies in the light of the
412
Consumers Association report today which states that their service sometimes amounts to "monumental incompetence"?
Mr. Newton: Taking those matters in reverse order, there is to be a debate tomorrow on the Bingham report when some aspects of financial institutions will be relevant. Unusually, as I have already said, there will be a debate early after the autumn statement in which it might be possible to advert to some of those matters, so I cannot promise a separate debate in response to the hon. Lady.
The social security uprating statement will certainly be made as soon as possible. I hope that that will prove to be the case next week. As to the question of a debate, perhaps we can consider that through the usual channels when the hon. Lady has had a chance to consider the statement. She will be well aware that legislative action, at least of a secondary kind, is normally required by social security uprating statements, which would naturally provide a focus for debate.
On the timing of yesterday's debate, I must advert to the fact that it took place in response to persistent requests from Her Majesty's Opposition. When it took place, it turned out that its main purpose had to be to overcome the Opposition desire to delay considering the Bill at all, despite their alleged commitment to Maastricht. There is no contradiction between the various reports that have been referred to, but I certainly cannot add to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's comments a few moments ago on the timing of the Bill's progress. I can fill them out in one respect: I said some weeks ago that I expected to begin to make some progress on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill after the autumn statement and the debate that I have promised on it.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 733 on the Accommodation and Works Committee's proposal to move Members and their secretaries from 7 Old Palace Yard to 7 Millbank?
[That this House rejects the decision of the Accommodation and Works Committee to recommend transferring honourable Members and honourable Members' secretaries from 7 Old Palace Yard to 7 Millbank; deplores the fact that this decision was taken without any consultation with honourable Members most affected and that the Committee having reached a decision in July failed to inform honourable Members of it until October; believes it would be inefficient and a waste of honourable Members' and secretaries' time for secretaries or honourable Members to have to walk back and forth from offices in Millbank to offices in the House—a journey in some cases of half an hour; notes that the House of Lords is nearer to Millbank than the House of Commons; does not believe an expenditure of some £3 million on refurbishing accommodation for non-office holders in the House of Lords, who do not have to deal with constituency mail is appropriate at this present time when public expenditure generally is being severely curtailed; and calls on the Government to delay transferring honourable Members and honourable Members' secretaries from Old Palace Yard until alternative accommodation is provided in the Phase II development.]
In view of the fact that that has now been signed by all Members concerned other than Ministers—indeed, some Ministers are also concerned about the matter—and that

413
apparently no consultation took place and the Committee seems to feel that it is not accountable, can we debate the matter next week?
Mr. Newton: I very much take note of my right hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that they will be carefully taken into account by the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee for whom, as he says, this is a matter.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the normal rules on Opposition supply days will apply? As the House knows, the official Opposition have about 20 days at their disposal, and the minority parties have only three between them. Given the peculiar political circumstances that we are in, we would be interested in choosing subject matter for discussion in the House.
Mr. Newton: I was not absolutely sure whether the hon. Gentleman was asking me to review the conventions that govern such matters, which I would be unwise to undertake without discussions through the usual channels, or whether he simply sought the allocation of a supply day for the minority parties, which I shall certainly bear in mind. Obviously, I cannot make one available next week, and it is likely that we shall be looking for time to debate the autumn statement in the week after that. I do not, however, dismiss his concern and I shall keep it in mind.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Given that during the summer the Government accepted the vast bulk of the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, will the Leader of the House be able next week to lay the amended orders to enact those recommendations? If not, will he give an undertaking that they will be laid soon?
Mr. Newton: A week or two ago I said that I was seeking to identify a basis for discussion through the usual channels with the aim of being in a position to bring forward substantive motions at an early stage. I do not think that I can go beyond that at the moment. My right hon. Friend will realise that there have been one or two of what I shall delicately call other preoccupations recently, but I hope to make progress as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I hope that one or two things that I have done, including giving more advance indications of business than has been customary in the past, have at least been helpful to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern in all parts of the House for the miners and others who can benefit from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on compensation for occupational emphysema and bronchitis? Is he aware of the Department of Trade and Industry's memorandum which argues that the longer the Government delay, the less they will have to pay? That, of course, is due to the high death rate among people with occupational emphysema and bronchitis. Is that any way to talk about people, many of whom often have to struggle to breathe? May we have a ministerial statement next week about the Government's intentions?
Mr. Newton: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman who has previous experience as a Minister with responsibility for disabled people, which I share, is well aware of the difficulties and complexities of many of these
414
matters and reports. I cannot add to what I said last week, when the issue was raised in somewhat similar terms. I expect an announcement about publication to be made shortly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I know that both he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will be giving careful consideration to those matters.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has announced that the trade union Bill is to be considered on Monday week. He will be aware of the various peculiar answers given by a Minister on Tuesday about wages councils.
I have had a number of written questions answered and have as yet failed to have a meeting with the Secretary of State on the issue, despite having been asking for several months.
Will it be possible before Monday week to obtain some estimate from Government of whether that measure will have a significant effect on the pay of some people at present protected by wages councils and on employment, which some would doubt?
Mr. Newton: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. My hon. Friend will no doubt have noted what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on the matter in an exchange during Question Time. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask his questions and make his views known during the Second Reading debate, which was announced in my business statement.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a further statement on the position of the 10 pits, when he could take the opportunity to answer a report by a professional mining engineer which I submitted to him a week last Monday and which demonstrated that the Taf Merthyr pit would be closed within three or four days? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the Secretary of State to the House to make a statement on that vital issue?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend will have looked carefully at the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made last week. My right hon. Friend answered questions in the House yesterday and has seen the Select Committee. I cannot promise a further appearance by the President of the Board of Trade in that context, but I shall once again make sure that he is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Sir Peter Emery: Although my right hon. Friend did not say so, will he confirm that we are to have the autumn statement next week? Secondly, will he consult or help the usual channels on both sides to arrange for the setting up of the Procedure Committee? A number of matters awaiting consideration have been referred to me and it is about time that we got on with that.
Mr. Newton: I note the latter part of my hon. Friend's suggestion. I suppose that I should have played the familiar Front Bench trick of announcing good news for the second time in the hope of obtaining additional good will. As I announced some time ago, the autumn statement is expected to be made on Thursday 12 November.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Government are now keen to accede to the Opposition's request for a debate, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why no opportunity has yet been provided for us to discuss the crisis facing the fishing industry? I raised the matter with him last week and I met representatives of the fishing communities last weekend. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sense of bitterness, resentment and anger that is building up is such that we must, as a matter of urgency, debate the common fisheries policy and its implications for our communities?
Mr. Newton: I made some comments about the matter to the hon. Lady last week, as she rightly says. I will again draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the hon. Lady's remarks. I cannot promise a debate now, but she will have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about the question of supply days for minority parties. I cannot add to that, but I meant what I said and I will try to be helpful as soon as I reasonably can.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: In view of the increasingly desperate plight of the Muslims in Bosnia, particularly with the onset of winter, and to highlight the courageous efforts made by the Cheshire Regiment in providing food and supplies to those who desperately need them, may we have a debate next week to discuss what else the British Government, as President of the Community, can do to end what seems to be a systematic attempt at the extermination of the Muslims in Yugoslavia by the Croats and the Serbs?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate next week, but I can promise to bear my hon. Friend's interest in mind. He may find it possible to ask a question after the statement that the Home Secretary is about to make.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the extraordinary and damaging decision of the chairman of English Heritage to dispose of and flog off a large proportion of English Heritage properties?
Mr. Newton: I have received a number of requests for a debate on that matter, which I shall continue to bear in mind; I will add the hon. Gentleman's name to the list.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will it be possible for the House to receive a statement next week on the European fighter aircraft? Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of people in my constituency work for British Aerospace and that many of them came to the House last week to lobby? Morale among them is extremely low. Indeed, every time they open their newspapers they feel deep concern about the future of their jobs, especially when they read first that the Germans are in on the project, then that they are out, then in again, and then that the Spanish and Italians are thinking about whether to be in or out. Those workers backed us during the Gulf war by working many hours of overtime. We owe them some certainty about the future of their jobs.
Mr. Newton: I cannot, under present circumstances, promise a statement, but my hon. Friend knows—and, I am sure, accepts—that the Secretary of State for Defence is very concerned about those matters and is discussing
416
with our partners whether the options presented to us offer a basis on which the four nations might continue to collaborate.
Ms. Rachel Squire: Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate early-day motion 668, which deals with the uncertainty of Rosyth royal dockyard?
[That this House notes with concern reports that the Government in considering closing one of the two remaining naval dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport; notes that the closure of either dockyard would mean the loss of several thousand jobs in the defence industry and supporting businesses; notes that both dockyards have been successful in diversifying into other commercial activities whilst improving efficiency in their core defence business; and therefore calls on the Government to consider all possible means, including, if necessary, a single combined management, by which a way can be found to keep both dockyards open and preserve at least some of the jobs dependent on them.]
Will he also ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about the future of the dockyard?
Mr. Newton: That matter was raised with me last week. Various proposals concerning the dockyards are very much under consideration. No decisions have yet been made about the future arrangements for dockyard management, and I am afraid that I cannot add anything further on the subject today.
Mr. James Paice: Before the debate next week on the Education Bill, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Secretary of State for Education that we hope that he will take powers, either in that Bill or later, to prevent the obstructive and intimidatory approach being taken by many local authorities against the governors and parents of schools which wish to become grant-maintained?
Mr. Newton: I affirm that the Government regard it as quite unacceptable for local education authorities to intimidate, or seek to intimidate, parents or anybody else into voting against grant-maintained status. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education will make every effort to prevent any such occurrence.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Can we have a Government response next week to early-day motion 736, condemning the Duke of Atholl for trying to deprive ordinary people of their rights of access to the Scottish countryside?
[That this House condemns the decision of the Duke of Athol! to challenge the status of the Minigaig Pass as a right of way; notes that the route is one of Scotland's ancient mountain drove roads which has been used by the people of Scotland for centuries and is still regularly used by hill walkers and mountain climbers with no evidence of resultant damage to the countryside or wild-life; is concerned that a loss of right of way status for the Minigaig Pass could endanger similar rights of way throughout Scotland; deplores the anachronism whereby the Duke of Atholl is the only person in the United Kingdom with a private army; fully supports all walkers who refuse to be intimidated and exercise their rights of access to the Minigaig Pass; and calls upon the Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the access rights of walkers are not reduced in any way by the Duke of Atholl or any other militant

417
members of the landed gentry who claim too much of Scotland's land which should be part of the national heritage.]
Will the Leader of the House show his respect for the House that he leads and the people whom we represent by joining me in a walk through Minigaig pass to assert the rights of the common people against the rapacious, militant landowners who frequent the House of Lords?
Mr. Newton: Pleasing—I think—as the prospect of a country walk with the hon. Gentleman is, I am not sure whether I can promise an early visit to Scotland for the purpose.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on early-day motion 746, which draws attention to the fact that Clarke Foods, formerly Lyons Maid, in my constituency has recently closed —putting 108 people out of work, some of whom have worked there for more than 40 years, and one man for 48 years?
[That this House notes with great concern that the Clarke Food ( UK) Limited works in Greenford, which were formerly Lyons Maid, have been put into administrative receivership and that 108 employees have been made redundant; notes with further concern that Clarke Foods have reneged on assurances given over redundancy payments at the time when they acquired the plant; expresses strong support for former Lyons Maid workers who transferred to Clarke Foods,. come of whom have worked on the site for over 40 years and who have been told that there will be no redundancy payments for them; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to investigate the fairness and legality of the situation in which the said employees and ex-employees are now placed.]
Those employees' jobs have gone without pensions because of what appears to be maladministration by Clarke Foods. Can we have an early debate on that matter so that I can seek help for my constituents who need it?
Mr. Newton: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, which is typical of his concern for his constituents. I understand that the redundancy payments service has received 95 claims for statutory redundancy payments and a number of other claims in connection with those problems, and that those claims are being processed as quickly as possible. I hope to reinforce that by drawing my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Welsh Grand Committee, which used to meet five or six times a year, has not met for almost nine months? In view of the numerous problems facing the people of Wales in terms of the economy, pit closures, unemployment, the future of the education service and many others, will he tell the House whether the Committee has at last been finally abandoned as a useless talking shop? If so, what alternative bodies will he give Wales to discuss our vital issues?
Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman is denouncing the body or demanding a meeting of it. Whichever it is, I shall try to ensure that there is some contact with him through the usual channels.
Mr. John Bowis: When my right hon. Friend has completed his walk through the ducal pastures
418
of Scotland, will he try to walk the plebeian route across the bridges of the River Thames in London and then come back and let us know when we can have a debate on transport in London? We need to see how three London boroughs can close three bridges at the same time and whether the Government need to take powers to ensure that traffic and transport in London is better co-ordinated.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport may wish to look at some of those observations without my even drawing them to his attention, but I shall try to ensure that he sees them. On the further request for me to go walkabout in various parts of the country, I shall try to put those in ranking order as between Scotland and Battersea.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: With reference to the elusive memorandum concerning the Danish decision, is the Leader of the House aware that it did not contain the important statement of Herr Klaus Kinkel, Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic, writing in Die Welt on 19 October? The article said that that decision was arbitrarily a halt to
"a healthy, historic growth process".
Would it not be a good thing for the Government to dissociate themselves from such a point of view in that memorandum or any other? Will he ensure that memoranda which should be literally placed on the Table or in the Vote Office are advertised and not just semi-surreptitiously put in the Library?
Mr. Newton: I think that I can safely assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no surreptitious intent. If he has specific practical suggestions as to how the handling of such matters can be improved, all my right hon. Friends and I would be ready to consider them. On the proposal that such memoranda should include a commentary on every observation anywhere in Europe about which we might have reservations, such memoranda would be very long indeed.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a debate next week on the British tourist industry, which is one of the most important industries in our country? It contributes as much as aerospace or the motor manufacturing industries, providing 6 per cent. of employment in this country, but from researches in the Library—it was fairly crowded— I understand that the subject was last discussed four years ago.
Mr. Newton: That is another request that I shall very much bear in mind, but I shall have to fall back on the standard reply: I do not anticipate finding time next week.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the Leader of the House make a statement to the House next week? I ask that because of the answer given to me yesterday, reported in Hansard at column 271, when I asked about the future of Tursdale workshop in my constituency. I was told by the Minister that he was concerned about the issue but that the closure of the workshop and redundancies there were not the subjects of the review. I am led to believe that, even while the Minister was speaking yesterday, British Coal announced 60 redundancies in that workshop. I should be grateful if the Minister would make a statement to the House on that.
Mr. Newton: I will draw the issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend consider letting us have a debate on the postal service, as we could then refer to the fact that first-class post has the highest ever figures for reliability and there is to be a freeze on postal rates? Is that not an example of the quality of services under the Government?
Mr. Newton: I am glad to have a more friendly message to communicate to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Members' interests?
Mr. Newton: We shall obviously have to have a standard question and standard reply exchange—the hon. Gentleman will say, "A" and I will say, "B". I am considering the matter, but I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Gentleman definite information.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: When will the Leader of the House make a statement about the plight of disabled people who come to the House of Commons to lobby? This week more than 100 people came from north Derbyshire to Westminster hall, where it was cold and draughty. Some 30 of them were in wheelchairs and could not use the toilet facilities. In addition, they could not use the Grand Committee Room as they were incapable of climbing the 30 stairs. The right hon. Gentleman has made promises before, and it is high time that when people come to lobby at Westminster those who are disabled should be given preference. Many promises have been made during the 22 years that I have been here—it is time somebody did something about this. I am asking the Leader of the House to do something, not just for the 100 people who came, but for the thousands who have come in the past and who should have the same rights as able-bodied people when they come to lobby Members of Parliament.
Mr. Newton: In view of the hon. Gentleman's phrasing, may I say that I do not recall making promises of the sort that he mentioned since acquiring my present responsibilities. However, I need hardly say that I shall take the matter seriously—not least because, as I said to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I have been Minister with responsibility for disabled people and I am aware of the problems and concerns. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the new structure set up in recent years to administer the House, I should properly refer the matter to the Accommodation and Works Committee, but that is not to say that I wash my hands of it. I shall certainly see if there is any way in which I can encourage or facilitate improvements of the sort that the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the growing problem of low pay? Is he aware that in Halifax today some of the very few jobs on offer pay the following low rates: a care assistant in a private home £2·50 an hour; a cleaner in a store, £2·45 an hour; a trainee hairdresser, £35 a week? Would not the Government be better employed looking at the problem of low pay rather than abolishing some of the few organisations which protect low-paid workers, such as the wages councils? Does the Leader of the House really want us to become the sweatshop of Europe?
Mr. Newton: It would be wrong for me to enter into a prolonged exchange on economics with the hon. Lady, but I should state that forcing up wage levels can easily lead to fewer jobs. No one debating these issues could or should dismiss that. I well understand that there are many potentially complicated arguments about the matter, and it is clear that the hon. Lady will have an opportunity, should she catch the Chair's eye, to make that sort of point on Second Reading of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, which I announced at the beginning of these exchanges.
Mr. John Gunnell: When will we have an opportunity to discuss opencast mining? We are awaiting a statement on the withdrawal or revision of minerals planning guidance note No. 3, and we are anxious that it should be withdrawn. We would like to know whether this matter will be considered in the context of other announcements on coal. This is a matter of considerable anxiety in many constituencies, as four early-day motions testify. People are worried that many people in those constituencies will lose their jobs because of the closure of the deep mines and will face the rape of their countryside because of the continuation of opencast mining. May we discuss that?
Mr. Newton: I cannot predict the timing of any further debates on the issues included in the review of the closures being undertaken by the President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Gentleman will know of the undertakings that have been given. It would certainly be surprising if he did not have a chance to raise some of his points in the course of the review or subsequent debates on it.
Mr. Barry Jones: Can the Leader of the House find time time for a debate on the future of the aerospace industry, in the course of which we can discuss the future of the European fighter aircraft project and the Superb executive jet's long-term future? Does he know that my constituents formed part of a lobby last week when people came in their thousands from all over Britain to show that they were deeply worried about the industry? May we have a debate on the future of this large and important manufacturing industry?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request, which ties in with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate soon on inequality in British society? I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to early-day motion 730.
[That this House is shocked by the revelation that Richard Branson paid no tax on his £229 million capital gain in selling the Virgin Music Group to Thorn EMI; notes that he used tax havens in Jersey and Guernsey to avoid a United Kingdom tax bill of £92 million; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to effectively close this tax loophole which is losing the United Kingdom over £4 billion a year.]
It draws the attention of the House to the fact that Richard Branson paid no tax on his £229 million worth of capital gains from selling Virgin Music Group to Thorn EMI. What sort of obscene Government allow a multimillionaire like Branson to avoid a tax bill of £92 million

421
while the same Government are proposing to abolish wages councils which protect people who earn as little as £2·50 an hour?
Mr. Newton: If the linkage that the hon. Gentleman believes he has established stands up, at least in his own mind, he will have the opportunity to make the point in the debate in 10 days' time.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. If hon. Members ask questions which meet the criteria for business questions, I will try to call all hon. Members who are standing. I ask them to be brief and to the point.
Mr. Calum MacDonald: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 727?
[That this House believes that the report by Lord Justice Bingham shows the Bank of England to have been negligent in its supervisory duty to protect British depositors with BCCI; notes that this is not a matter of hindsight, for, as Bingham shows, as early as 1979 the Bank 'was not only entitled but obliged to refuse a licence' to BCCI, (paragraph 2.30) but granted one anyway; notes that in 1984 the then Governor approved a plan to incorporate BCCI in the United Kingdom in order to regulate it more effectively but that the bank failed to carry this policy through when it encountered resistance from BCCI, and that the Bank 'was rather easily deterred' ( 2.46); notes that from 1985 the Bank shied away from taking the lead supervisory role over BCCI and thus accepeted 'a highly unsatisfactory supervisory situation as should have been obvious at the time' ( 2.57); notes that by 1986, adequate grounds existed to revoke or to impose conditions upon BCCI's licence and that in their failure to exercise their powers, 'the supervisors tended to lose sight of their primary duty to protect the bank's United Kingdom depositors' ( 2.67 ); notes that on this occasion and subsequently, 'the Bank failed to measure up to the task' ( 2.72); notes that on several occasions in the 1980's the Bank failed to make the enquiries that a 'rigorous supervisor' ought to have done (2.162 ); believes that the ultimate responsibility for this damning catalogue of errors resides with the Governor; and concludes that for him to continue to cling to his position leaves him with neither credibility nor honour.]
It condemns the Bank of England's negligence over the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and calls for the resignation of the Governor. Can the Leader of the House assure us that tomorrow's debate will not be the last opportunity to discuss this vital issue, and that if the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee produces a new report we shall have time to debate the issue again?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give any undertakings beyond the fact that, as is well known, there are mechanisms whereby Select Committee reports can be debated if that is thought sensible. We would want to judge that when we see the report. I think that I was pretty good to arrange a debate on Bingham as quickly after the report as I did.
Ms. Liz Lynne: Further to the reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave a few moments ago, will he give us his personal assurance that he will put disability access on the agenda of the next Accommodation and Works Committee meeting?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can—I am not even a member of the Committee, let alone its Chairman—but
422
I can safely assure the hon. Lady that her request will be noted by the Chairman, to whose attention I will make sure that it is drawn.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House persuade the President of the Board of Trade to indemnify private factories which have to pay £1 more per tonne for imported coal than they paid for Grimethorpe coal before that colliery was closed?
Mr. Newton: Once again I have to say that I will communicate the matter to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to the call by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) for an early debate on the lines suggested in early-day motion 733, which has been signed by hon. Members who have their offices or those of their secretaries in 7 Old Palace yard, may I tell the Minister—as one who dices with death at least a dozen times daily crossing Millbank—that an examination of the poll tax records of Westminster council for 1606 reveals that a Mr. Catesby and a Mr. G. Fawkes lived at 7 Old Palace yard. I understand that the G stood for Guy. The right hon. Gentleman should stop the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works spending £3 million refitting those premises and instead put in a tunnel under the road. If he does that, we promise not to use it for the purpose for which such a tunnel was used by Mr. Fawkes.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the assurance at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question. I genuinely note his request, as I genuinely noted the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. Harry Barnes: After last night's Divisions, the Leader of the House will be painfully aware of the importance of every single vote. Is he aware that at the recent general election almost 2 million people were missing from the electoral register and that the information about that is hidden in the Commons Library? May we have a debate about the electoral register and on the action to be taken to get everyone's name on it so that there is a full franchise for the election which may be held in the near future because of the situation in the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman should not pin his hopes on the last part of his question. I am in the happy position of having the Home Secretary, who is the Minister responsible for electoral registration matters, sitting close by. I therefore do not need to draw the point to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention because he will have heard it.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In preparing for the business on Monday 16 November, will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues to reflect on the importance placed on collective bargaining by General Motors, which yesterday opened its magnificent new ECOTEC engine plant? Will he ensure that no attacks on such bargaining processes are included in legislation? While he is speaking to his colleagues, will he also reflect on why no member of the Government was present at such an important event?
Mr. Newton: I am certainly not in a position to answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, hut I know

423
from experience, albeit not in that Department, that there are more requests for Ministers—and perhaps for you, Madam Speaker—to attend functions than they can possibly fulfil. The earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question raises the danger of staging a forerunner of the debate which is to be held in 10 days, so I shall simply refer the hon. Gentleman to that debate.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Will the Leader of the House, who is a compassionate man, make time next week for a debate on cold weather payments? I have asked for such a debate before, and I ask this compassionate Minister once again to arrange a debate before the onslaught of winter.
Mr. Newton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be such a debate next week. However, his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked about the social security uprating statement which I said that I expected before long. During the making of that statement, or in a debate which might follow in due course, the hon. Gentleman will have a good opportunity to raise that matter.

Yugoslav Nationals (Visas)
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about Government policy towards nationals of the former Yugoslavia arriving in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom and its European partners have consistently held the view that the objectives of international aid to the former Yugoslavia should be to provide the means and create the confidence for as many people as possible to stay as close to their homes as possible. so that their eventual return remains a clear prospect. Without that, a fair and lasting solution to the political problems will be made very much more difficult.
The United Kingdom and its partners, however, have also recognised that for some people that policy will be neither practical nor humane. That is true, for example, of people who have been deeply traumatised by their experience, including men released from detention camps, many of whom have lost contact with their families; people who have been wounded; children who have lost their parents; and families who have lost their fathers.
The Government's view is that we should continue to help those most vulnerable groups. I believe that the British people wish to make their humanitarian contribution to ease the sufferings of the innocent victims of the civil war, but, at present, we are receiving in this country an increasing number of self-selected people from the former Yugoslavia, including arrivals from safer parts of the country well away from the war zones. For example, in an analysis of a large sample of those from the former Yugoslavia who have applied for asylum, one third were found to have come from Serbia, where many of them are seeking to escape the effects of economic sanctions.
Since the beginning of this year, the number of former Yugoslav citizens who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom has increased month by month. Some 2,000 applied in October alone. More than 4,000 former Yugoslav citizens have continued to arrive each month as visitors. Some have subsequently made clear their intention to stay on a more permanent basis by applying for local authority housing. In addition, some 15,000 people from other parts of the world have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the year.
It is extremely important that the humanitarian efforts that this country wants to make are targeted effectively on those innocent victims of the war who are suffering most. We will only achieve that if we exercise more control, and, therefore, organise specific arrangements for the reception of those whom we most want to help. At present, there is a danger of our receiving uncontrolled numbers of citizens of the former Yugoslavia who are well able to afford the air fare, and random groups organised by well-meaning organisations.
The United Kingdom is one of the few countries in Europe that have no visa requirement for any of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia. In recent weeks, several countries—for example, Germany, Sweden and Denmark—have announced the imposition of visa regimes on parts of the former Yugoslavia. It is now necessary for the United Kingdom to do likewise, so that we can control the process of admission and concentrate our efforts on the

425
needy. From midnight tomorrow, therefore—with the exception of those holding passports issued by the Governments of Croatia and Slovenia—all nationals of the former Yugoslavia will need to obtain visas before travelling to the United Kingdom, for whatever purpose. At the same time, however, the Government will make it clear to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross that we are ready to receive from Bosnia, and from other parts of the former Yugoslavia, people with special humanitarian needs who the international organisations judge should be evacuated, including those released from detention camps.
Numbers and timing will be discussed with the UNHCR and the ICRC. In the first instance, we shall be informing the UNHCR that, from the coming weekend, we are ready to receive 150 former detainees—and in due course, any dependants whom they may have—probably making about 600 in all. The Government will be making suitable arrangements for their reception and initial accommodation, and are urgently considering how they can best be looked after in the medium term.
It is the wish of all European Governments, and of many refugees themselves, that those who have fled from the former Yugoslavia should eventually be able to return to their homes in safety. We do not intend, therefore, that those whom we bring to the United Kingdom should make their permanent homes here; but while they are with us, we shall want to make them as welcome and as comfortable as possible. In the longer term, we shall continue to monitor the political situation with the international agencies, and when the time comes we shall be ready to assist the international organisations with the practicalities of returns.
Mr. Tony Blair: We welcome the decision, obviously, to respond to the direct requests to us by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, and her deputy, Mr. Stafford, to join the long list of countries that have taken detainees from the Bosnian camps into their own countries. But, while the Home Secretary may have given hope to that small group of people with one hand, by his announcement on visa requirements today he is, with the other hand, taking hope away from many more.
Of course, some of those from the former Yugoslavia may be economic migrants or even normal visitors, but will he confirm that thousands of them are applying for genuine asylum? The real question is this: what is the practical effect of insisting upon a visa in such areas as Bosnia in the present circumstances? What effect will it have on those people?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore confirm that the impact of this statement in practice is that, as refugees, as I understand it, cannot obtain a visa until they have left the country which they are fleeing, as they cannot leave the country without a visa, and as airlines, under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, face fines of up to £2,000 per person if they carry refugees without a visa, all such refugees currently coming here will effectively be barred?
Worse still, as regards those refugees who are in Bosnia and are trying, as their only means of escape, to get into Croatia, the UNHCR informed me—perhaps the Home Secretary can say whether this is right—that they are often unable to get a visa in Bosnia because of the situation there
426
and are not allowed into Croatia because the authorities there will not allow them in if they require a visa for the country of their eventual destination.
In other words, is not the truth that the announcement today, by imposing this requirement for a visa, is not simply an administrative test because, in the chaos and slaughter in the former Yugoslavia, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, in practice, whatever the theoretical position, erecting an absolute barrier to entry for many of these people who at present regard Britain as their sole means of survival? That is the impact of his statement.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion about other countries, such as Germany, Sweden and Denmark, perhaps he will confirm that those countries have already taken many more refugees than has the United Kingdom. Furthermore, as I understand it, those countries do not enforce their provisions on carriers' liability as strictly as does the United Kingdom. Therefore, their requirement on visas is not as big a practical obstacle as ours.
Was it not these circumstances that led the Home Secretary to say just a few weeks ago in response to widespread alarm among those helping refugees about the impact that any such visa requirement might have:
"Unlike many other European countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom has no visa requirement for nationals of the former Yugoslavia and we have no plans to impose them."?
Perhaps he would confirm that this was reiterated by his junior Minister a few weeks later.
In the view of many, the real reason for this announcement is that the Government are making the plight of refugees coming to this country infinitely worse by failing to plan properly for their arrival here. Back in September, the Refugees Arrivals Project, which deals with many refugees from Yugoslavia, asked for emergency funding to help with this problem. Not merely was that request turned down, but its funding is now frozen. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could confirm that. As a result, there are large numbers of families sleeping out on airport concourses, in dubious hotel accommodation or simply turned over to London local authorities. Many of these London authorities, Conservative and Labour, are happy to play their part in dealing with this problem, but they want to know where the burden of cost and funding will fall.
I must remind the Home Secretary of the scale and nature of the crisis with which we are dealing here. Sir Donald Acheson of the World Health Organisation—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be asking questions on the Home Secretary's statement, not making a speech on the matter.
Mr. Blair: I accept that, Madam Speaker. I merely wanted to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he accepts that Sir Donald Acheson and many others are warning that literally hundreds of thousands of people may die unless we find a proper concerted solution to the problem. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes this decision today without due regard for its consequences, for many thousands of people it will be dangerously and momentously wrong.
Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has not properly analysed the effect of my announcement, the whole point of which is to allow us to plan what we can do to ease the humanitarian tragedy taking place in parts of

427
Bosnia, to prepare for those who are coming here, and to supplement all our efforts to get humanitarian relief to those on the ground in Yugoslavia, to whom I am sure Sir Donald was referring in the comments that the hon. Gentleman cited.
Since I last made a statement about visas, circumstances have changed because of the large numbers of people leaving Yugoslavia. We are one of the last countries to introduce a visa requirement, and we are doing it for the same reason as all the other countries are having to do it —to control entry, to make sure that we concentrate on the genuine cases—the people most in need of refuge abroad—and to plan properly for their arrival.
In comparing the number of people coming here with the figures for other countries, one is often not comparing like with like. Instead, one is comparing those who have already applied for asylum here with everybody who has moved to countries such as Germany.
So far this year, more than 40,000 people have come here from Yugoslavia, and 4,424 have so far applied for asylum. I suspect that most of the 40,000 will not go back to their country until matters have improved there. Last time we analysed the figures, we found that only about a quarter were coming from Bosnia, which is the main war zone, a quarter from Croatia, about a third from Serbia and a few from Slovenia and Macedonia.
Mr. Blair: It does not matter where they are coming from.
Mr. Clarke: It does. People are coming here for a variety of reasons, no doubt all of them understandable. Some are suffering from the effects of the economic sanctions that we are imposing on Serbia. Some are trying to avoid being drafted into the fighting. No doubt some are coming simply because they find it easier to get a livelihood and a more secure existence outside their country.
We are asking the United Nations High Commissioner for Regugees and the International Red Cross to help us to identify the sort of people whom we have seen on our television screens, who are being driven from their homes into camps or shelled as they move across the country, and to plan for the controlled reception by this country of a number of those people.
The result is that we are ending the uncontrolled flow of people who happen to be able to afford the air fare and who—as the hon. Gentleman says—sometimes find themselves living at or near airports, and we are substituting the far more sensible arrangements that I have described, which I think match the feeling in the country that we must make an organised effort.
On finance, the British Refugee Council will handle the transition for the first group to come from the UNHCR, and we will be paying it, as our agent, for the transitional cost. We must ensure that proper arrangements are made in the medium term for those who come here, and we are urgently considering the most suitable mechanism, particularly for the provision of some help to those local authorities that have been most hard pressed as a result of some sudden unexpected influxes in recent weeks.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, because the steps that he proposes are both unfortunately necessary and manifestly
428
sensible, they will be have widespread support among the people of this country? Can he confirm that, of the 40,000 Yugoslavs whom we have welcomed to our shores in the past year, none have been returned to countries other than the western country that they chose as their first place of asylum?
Mr. Clarke: We have returned very few people. We turned away 46 asylum seekers who arrived not from Yugoslavia but from a safe country, to which they could obviously safely return, and about 400 other visitors who failed to give a satisfactory explanation for their visit on arrival at the ports—in the same way as we send other people away under our immigration control arrangements. My hon. and learned Friend is quite right: some 40,000 people have been admitted and there is absolutely no question of any of them being returned to a war zone in Yugoslavia. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his support for the measures that we are taking to organise our future response to the flow.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary recognise that his statement will be regarded with dismay by the British people whose instincts and judgment are more humane than those of his Department? Does he recognise that the only organisation that he appears to be putting his mind to is how to get these people back out of the country? This is institutionalised inhumanity. The reality is that those who are seeking to come to this country from the moving war-torn zones will find it neither practical nor possible. Neither the consular facilities nor the necessary documentation to acquire these visas will be available, and the sole result will be to increase the problems and pressures on other, neighbouring countries, particularly Germany which is already receiving some seven times as many refugees as this country.
Mr. Clarke: With great respect, that is all simply not the case. At present we have a large number of people coming here, as I have just described, not all of whom by any means have even been in a war zone so far. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross approved the general policy of concentrating most of the help to keep people near their homes where they want to stay, and Britain is one of the leading contributors to the humanitarian effort on the ground in Yugoslavia. The UNHCR and the voluntary bodies here do not approve of the well-intentioned practice of going out there and bringing coach loads, for example, of children back here and trying to place them in this country, not always with any idea of the background of the children and no proper arrangements for them here.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is asking countries like our own to take their share of the people identified by the organisations on the ground as being most in need of refuge overseas, and we have responded to that. The first batch of people will come here under that arrangement, as I have announced to the House today—probably 600 people in all eventually—and we shall be discussing with the UNHCR and the ICRC what further people we should receive.
The UNHCR and the ICRC are on the ground. They know the people who most desperately need the support of

429
the British public, and we are organising ourselves to make sure that we have planned entry and proper arrangements for their well-being when they get here.
Sir John Wheeler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that most people will agree that it is necessary to have an orderly regime imposed by visas to allow for a proper entry of people into the United Kingdom? Will he also agree that it is necessary to look at where they will live, because the London boroughs, in particular, cannot accommodate the increasing number of refugees? Will he further confirm that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed disquiet about the removal of children of tender years to this country, and that there is an important procedure to be followed through the Department of Health with regard to the adoption of children? Will he agree that that must be pursued as well?
Mr. Clarke: On the first point, my hon. Friend is quite right to remind me that there are some councils, including his own, that are very hard pressed by the number of refugees who have arrived, particularly in recent months. For that reason, when the British Refugee Council seeks to move the incomers into local communities it will obviously look for local authorities that can be helpful, but I suspect that it will be moving them to those parts of the country that are not so desperately hard pressed already as Westminster, which is one of the places to which people just make their way when they get off the aircraft.
The second point that my hon. Friend makes is extremely important. The people organising these movements of children are, I am sure, acting from the highest motives, but it is the view of people in social services departments, voluntary agencies and adoption agencies that it is not desirable for well-meaning people to bring in children the way they are doing at the moment, either just handing them over to social services or seeking to place them with families without going through the very careful procedures that we quite rightly have in this country.
Ms. Ann Coffey: What practical help can be offered to local authorities? In Stockport we have 54 Bosnian Muslim refugees in temporary accommodation. I have been to talk to these families, and I can assure the Secretary of State that they are the very families who have had horrifying experiences and have been traumatised by them. It is likely that many of those families cannot return because there is nowhere for them to return to safely. In three, five or six months, there will be serious problems in respect of resettlement, rehousing and integrating those families into the wider community. What practical help does the Secretary of State envisage offering Stockport and other authorities? I hope that we will not have to wait until we reach crisis point and hon. Members such as I have to send letters begging for help. I urge the Home Secretary to tell us now what practical help he envisages offering.
Mr. Clarke: We expect that the people who will be handed into our charge by the UNHCR will also largely be Bosnian Muslims who have been through the same experiences as the people who are now living in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey).
The long-standing position in this country is that people who are resident here acquire certain statutory
430
rights which they claim from the authorities in the areas where they take up residence. Up to a certain point, that has been a long-standing feature of our arrangements and no doubt it is taken into account in the ordinary financing of local government. However, I accept that some local authorities have experienced a sudden and unexpected influx and they are having urgent discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning about what should be done.
The Government recognise that recent uncontrolled arrivals have imposed substantial unanticipated burdens on public services in some localities. We see a strong case for some assistance to some of those local authorities. However, I am not sure whether 54 additional people in Stockport necessarily places Stockport in that category. My right hon. Friends and I are considering urgently the most suitable mechanism for providing assistance to those local authorities that are particularly and exceptionally hard pressed.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that there will be no dismay in Uttlesford district about his announcement today? Will he acknowledge that Uttlesford recently had to cope with an influx of 171 refugees who could not be classified as necessarily the most oppressed and faced the prospect, before my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement today, of unlimited further arrivals of people in that category? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only rational and humane way of discharging our international obligations—which I hope that we will discharge—to oppressed people is to do that on a national basis which tries to help the worst afflicted?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am well aware of the problem in Uttlesford. The incident in Uttlesford had a great deal to do with the urgent discussions inside the Government which led to today's announcement. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) suddenly found that about 170 Albanians arrived at Stansted airport from Kosovo—a dangerous part of the world, but not somewhere where a great deal of fighting is taking place at the moment. Those people must be cared for and they have claimed their statutory entitlement from a comparatively small district council. I quite understand that the council rightly fears that similar planeloads of people could arrive at Stansted quite steadily—at least, they could have done—unless we impose the visa requirement. The problem now facing Uttlesford is a subject which my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, are considering urgently.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State will be aware that there are more than 2 million refugees within the territories of the former state of Yugoslavia. Clearly, there will be enormous pressure and it is therefore right to adopt as sensible and selective a policy as we can devise. However, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that it makes sense to impose the visa requirement on Bosnia, the major war zone, and not on Croatia or Slovenia—although I accept that he is imposing it on Serbia—where there is no fighting at the moment? Surely it does not make sense to establish a visa regime against the one area where the most desperate fighting is continuing.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one's initial reaction to that is to say that it seems to be the wrong way round. However, if we consider the countries on which we impose a visa requirement and the practice of other western European countries, it is clear that visas are imposed on the places where the difficulty is occurring. It is from there that one must control the flow.
At the moment, Slovenia, I believe, is almost as peaceful as Austria. We do not have a great influx of people from Slovenia. There is no need to burden the authorities there with a visa requirement. That is not a problem, but Bosnia and the former states of the former Yugoslavia are. The problem is people travelling on passports from the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, one imposes a visa which in the first place is restrictive so that then one can have the planned and controlled entry of those whom we most want to help, of the kind that we can arrange with the United Nations.
Mr. Simon Burns: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the vast majority of people? May I seek clarification in regard to housing, to which my right hon. and learned Friend has alluded, as it is critical? Is he aware that local authorities have had it explained to them that if refugees come to their areas, they are to be treated under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 as unintentionally homeless? Regardless of the numbers, that will cause problems to certain local authorities. Also, if housing is to be made available under the homeless persons Act, it might stop other people who have been on a housing waiting list for a long time. One does not want an increased race relations problem on such emotive grounds. If more help or more consideration can be given to a way of helping to solve a potential problem, which would cause great resentment, it will be greatly appreciated by many local authorities and many private individuals.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. We are trying to encourage the humanitarian instincts of the population. We want to avoid those things that might arouse resentment in areas that become too hard pressed. My hon. Friend accurately describes the present position in which those who seek asylum are entitled to be given priority as unintentionally homeless. There are authorities in which it is almost impossible to house a long-standing resident because all the housing has been taken by refugees. That underlying problem will be addressed in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this week. [Interruption.] It does not leave refugees with no roof over their heads. It does not put them on the streets. It allows them to have temporary accommodation and not, as long as they are in temporary accommodation, acquire that first priority over the queue when it comes to homelessness applications and local authority housing.
Mr. David Trimble: The Home Secretary drew a distinction between giving assistance to persons who are genuinely suffering from the war and others such as economic migrants. In the light of that, does he agree that it seems very difficult to support the distinctions that he is drawing between various parts of the former Yugoslavia? Although he gave a reply about Slovenia to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), in his earlier statements he said that a quarter
432
of the refugees are coming from Croatia. Why no visa requirement there? May we be assured that more help will be given to people from Bosnia, particularly as Her Majesty's Government, in view of the Foreign Office's crazy idea of ethnic cantonisation, which was put forward by Lord Carrington some time ago, have some responsibility for encouraging the development of the war there?
Mr. Clarke: I will not go into Balkan politics, but I think that it is a rather far-fetched theory that we have encouraged the war there. Indeed, we have been in the forefront of those making strenuous efforts to try to restore peace to that rather stricken part of the Balkans. We will not be imposing a visa requirement on those who carry Slovenian passports or Croatian passports, because we do not have a particular immigration difficulty with them. People with those passports often come from peaceful parts of the world as visitors and go back again. Bosnia will have the visa requirement. but I expect that, because the fighting is worse in Bosnia, the United Nations will be asking us to take people overwhelmingly from that part of Yugoslavia.
Indeed, I am sure that the people whom we are expecting to receive in the next few days will all come from Bosnia because they have been driven from their homes. They are in a camp there and they have to be moved from the camp so that more people can go in. The effect of what I have described will be that all those people who are coming here, for whom we are now organising arrangements, will be identified as the worst victims of the war.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, two weeks ago, Ealing had to refuse 150 Bosnians because it simply could not house them, but it still faces the problem of the legality of that action. That matter will be addressed in the Bill. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the council, which acted in the very best of faith, that there will be no problem in terms of the legality of that action? Will he also consider allowing section 11 money to be extended to cover the necessary education of children of refugees from countries such as Bosnia and other countries, as well as those from new Commonwealth countries?
Mr. Clarke: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the particular problems in Ealing; I have already referred to the city of Westminster. Indeed, the Minister for Housing and Planning is an Ealing Member of Parliament, so he is particularly well placed to know about the position.
The position is that those who come here and take up residence have certain statutory entitlements to social security and services. Under the homelessness legislation, they are also entitled to be treated as homeless in certain circumstances. We are modifying the homelessness provisions. The refugees cannot legally be refused statutory entitlements; nor do I think that we would want them to be so refused.
We are examining the problems of councils that have a flow of refugees that is out of the ordinary compared with the flow of homeless families who might normally turn up in any borough. There are not many such councils, but some face particular difficulties. The Government accept

433
that there is a strong case for providing financial assistance to such authorities. We are urgently considering the best way of providing that assistance.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about section 11. To change section 11 would require legislation. I have long considered it a weakness that section 11 is confined to ethnic minorities from the Commonwealth. That is perfectly reasonable, but section 11 excludes Vietnamese, Bosnians and other groups until we eventually find the parliamentary time to amend that part of the Act.
Mr. Tony Banks: The great housing burden in respect of refugees has fallen on both Conservative and Labour boroughs in London. Although the Home Secretary has heard stories of 150 or so refugees going to other places, some London boroughs are trying to look after anything up to 10,000 refugees from various parts of the world. We want to give a proper welcome to those refugees, but we cannot do so because of the enormous pressure on housing resources. What urgent measures are being considered? Is the Home Secretary prepared to meet delegations from the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities so that he can fully understand how widespread is the problem of housing refugees in the capital city?
Mr. Clarke: I made it clear that I am aware of the pressures. They are not confined to London, but I readily accept that the worst pressures are probably felt by some of the London boroughs. I have already responded but I cannot undertake to receive delegations because that aspect of the problem is not part of my departmental responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning are seized of the problem. Discussions are taking place, and delegations on housing problems should be addressed to them.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend may remember that I raised the matter in the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill and highlighted the pressure that it puts on certain local authorities in Kent. I welcome the rapid response and the co-ordinated assistance for refugees from Bosnia. Does that not dovetail with the humanitarian aid that the Government have already sent to the former Yugoslav republics?
Mr. Clarke: I remember that my hon. Friend made the point strongly in the debate earlier this week. The assistance dovetails with what we are doing in Yugoslavia. We have sent £70 million in aid to the relief effort in Yugoslavia. Our aircraft are making flights into Sarajevo, sometimes at considerable risk. Many lorries have been sent to Yugoslavia. We have troops on the ground protecting the humanitarian convoys. We have given £2·5 million of medical supplies to the World Health Organisation. We have contributed £3 million to the UNHCR for the provision of winter accommodation in Bosnia.
The British have responded as positively as any other member of the international community to the problems in Yugoslavia. The bulk of the help should be given on the ground in and around Bosnia and in Yugoslavia. We are
434
also prepared to make a proper and organised humanitarian response in Britain to the problem of people who must get out of the territory to receive help.
Ms. Kate Hoey: Does the Home Secretary not realise that as a result of his statement today many people will believe that the Government discriminate against Muslims? The Muslim population in Bosnia is suffering most. To introduce visa requirements for those people alone seems nonsense. Does he recognise that, instead of spending a great deal of time trying to push through the Maastricht treaty, the Government should do more to bring together the European countries to do more than simply feed people so that they can die with full stomachs rather than die poor and hungry?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady has her arguments upside down. We do not know the religion of the people who are coming here, because we do not ask them and we do riot discriminate. Only a quarter come from Bosnia. The people who will be prevented from coming here under the arrangements that I have announced are people from Serbia who cannot demonstrate any reason for making a visit. I anticipate that the people whom we shall receive from the Red Cross and the UNHCR will overwhelmingly come from Bosnia—instead of a quarter, I expect that it will be almost 100 per cent. We certainly expect the first batch to be overwhelmingly Muslim, because more Muslims than people from any other group are being displaced. It is precisely the reverse of what the hon. Lady suggests. I have listed our humanitarian efforts, which exceed those of most other developed countries.
The British convened the London conference to take forward the peace effort. David Owen, appointed by the Government, and Cyrus Vance seek to take forward the peace effort in Yugoslavia. With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, it is positively carping and misleading to claim that the British are not responding on all possible fronts to the desperate crisis in the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: I welcome the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend. He will be aware that Britain was criticised by other members of the Community for not playing a full part in receiving refugees from Yugoslavia. Will he outline how the measures that he has announced today compare with what other European countries are doing? What effort is being made to co-ordinate a European response to ensure that all countries in the Community play a fair part?
Mr. Clarke: Some of the criticism from western Europe was based on a misunderstanding of the figures and a belief that our regime was different from that which we had. I know that there was some resentment in Germany, to which hundreds of thousands of people from the former Yugoslavia have fled, largely because there were already many Yugoslavs in Germany. I have no idea how many of the Yugoslavs in Germany have fled directly from the war zones and how many former Yugoslav citizens simply think that Germany is a slightly better place to live until things become quieter back at home.
The Germans thought that we had taken only the number that we had published as asylum applicants, but the great bulk of refugees arrived in the first place as visitors. The figure is already more than 40,000 this year and it is increasing steadily. We believe that the best way of sharing the burden that has been urged on us is to work

435
with the UNHCR and the ICRC, which support our policy of giving most of the help on the ground. They have identified for us the people who must be moved out. We are one of the first countries to offer to take a share. The Americans have offered to take 300. Other European countries have made no response so far to the request of the United Nations to take some of the people from the camps.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Home Secretary said earlier that the Government did not intend to return to the war zones any of those who were already in the United Kingdom. Will he give an assurance that the Government do not intend to return any of them to transit camps in other European countries such as Austria and Germany? How quickly will he decide the exact status of those who have been helped to come here by voluntary organisations? Many of them are here on a temporary basis. Unless the Home Office grants them official status they will be excluded from many of the statutory entitlements.
Mr. Clarke: Again, I give the assurance that we shall not return anyone to a war zone. We only return people to safe places. We shall continue to return holders of passports from the former Yugoslavia to third countries from which they have come, but not if they merely passed through them as part of the journey. There is no reason why we should not return people to countries where they have been living for some time and where they are safe. We never accept people here as political refugees if they claim to fear persecution in one country, but have been living perfectly safely in another country before they arrive here. That is a sensible rule which we have to adhere to.
There is a backlog in settling the status of asylum seekers. We do so as rapidly as possible. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill was yet another attempt to speed up and improve the clogged-up and overcomplicated decision-making process. We can give exceptional relief to people whom we admit from the United Nations when they arrive, and their statutory entitlements will be in little doubt. The British Refugee Council is expert at advising them on those entitlements.
Mr. David Winnick: This will indeed be a bad day for our country's reputation. Is the Home Secretary aware that, given the prevailing circumstances in the former state of Yugoslavia, common humanity demands a generous approach by the British Government, and not the mean-spirited approach that we have heard about today? If the same policy had been adopted at other times, many people who live in this country would never have been able to come here in the first place when they were fleeing from terror and persecution.
436
Why should the Home Secretary not take effective steps with his Cabinet colleagues to co-ordinate local government action to deal with the problem in the right way, as well as trying to ensure that European Community countries take a common approach, so that, instead of closing the door, we do everything that we can to help people who, in the main, are fleeing because they are terrified of what will happen to them? Many are children who want a safe haven, at least temporarily.
Mr. Clarke: I know that we are going through a period of heightened political controversy in this country, but I cannot for the life of me see the point of some Opposition Members trying to pretend that this is a mean-minded response to which they are opposed. Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities will welcome the statement for some of the reasons that we have already heard, not least those mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey). We are going in for a planned and organised response, taking our share of the refugees that the United Nations is asking countries around the world to receive. We shall make a more effective contribution to relieving the suffering caused by the civil war than we have done hitherto.
When the hon. Gentleman considers the matter quietly and calmly—perhaps not in public—I suspect that he will realise that it is a perfectly sensibly way to proceed.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the Home Secretary able to state whether discussions have taken place between officials from his Department and the Scottish Office concerning the offers made by certain voluntary associations and charities in Scotland to place children from the war zones with families in the west of Scotland? I remind the Home Secretary that social work departments in Scotland have lists of approved foster parents, many of whom are experienced in dealing with traumatised children. Such children, who are devastated by the terrible losses that they have suffered, might be better off being placed with such foster parents than being adopted by exceedingly well-meaning, but ill-experienced, people.
Mr. Clarke: We have been keeping in touch with the Scottish Office throughout. I shall ensure that we continue to do so, because Scottish local authorities and voluntary organisations will undoubtedly be involved. I agree with the drift of the hon. Gentleman's comments about the reception of children. It is essential that it is handled by people who have experience and who know what they are doing, and who have the necessary data on where they might properly be placed. One instant and good effect of the visa regime will be to stop well-meaning people turning up with large numbers of children, not knowing how to provide properly for them in this country.

GATT (Uruguay Round)
4.53 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the position in the GATT Uruguay round of trade negotiations.
The House will recall that the Uruguay round of trade negotiations—the eighth GATT round—was launched in 1986. Its coverage was ambitious—fifteen different areas and 108 parties—making it the biggest trade negotiation in history. As well as traditional GATT areas, such as tariff and non-tariff barriers, it covered the new areas of services, intellectual property and investment, and the development of new GATT rules for agricultural and textiles trade. It also aimed to improve the rules and functioning of the GATT generally.
Those aims were ambitious, but they have now been very largely achieved. The draft text produced by Mr. Dunkel, the GATT Director General, at the end of last year proposed a basis for agreement on all these issues. More than 80 per cent. of the proposals were agreed by all the parties. However, there remained a number of unresolved problems, principally over agriculture, which led the European Community to say that the text was not acceptable as it stood. Negotiations also still have to be completed on the commitments by individual parties to cut tariffs and barriers to trade in services.
I must make it clear to the House that the European Commission is responsible for negotiating in the GATT on behalf of the European Community. It negotiates under authority from the Council of Ministers, who will have to approve any final agreement. For their part, the Government have consistently supported a Uruguay round agreement. That has been particularly true during our presidency, when we have made concerted efforts to help achieve a satisfactory conclusion.
Since the Dunkel text appeared, efforts have concentrated on bilateral negotiations between the European Commission and the United States. They were aimed at resolving their remaining bilateral differences, mainly on agriculture, and so open the way to the completion of a full multilateral agreement in Geneva.
The latest round of the talks took place earlier this week in Chicago between the European Community's Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, and the United States Agriculture Secretary, Mr. Madigan. As well as continuing attempts to settle the remaining difficulties over the GATT agriculture agreement, they were also trying to resolve a separate but related trade dispute over the Community's support regime for oilseeds. The Community and the United States have been negotiating changes to that regime, following the findings of the GATT panel that it breached the EC's GATT obligations.
Some progress was made on both issues, but final agreement had not been reached before the talks were suspended on Tuesday evening. The gap between the two sides has nevertheless been narrowed substantially, and the remaining differences are very small indeed. The Government are working to bring both sides back to the negotiating table as soon as possible.
A few moments ago I was informed that the United States had just announced retaliatory action in the oilseeds
438
dispute against $300 million of Community exports. I understand that that covers various types of wine, rapeseed oil and wheat gluten. That is a highly regrettable development and the Community will need to consider its response carefully. I stress that the first list will only be expected to come into effect after 30 days. The question of EC counter-retaliation, which some in the Commission have mentioned, will only arise if there is no settlement in the meantime, and would in any case be subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers. It is in the interests of both sides to avoid starting a spiral of retaliation, which can only harm exporters and damage the prospects for GATT agreement.
Little time remains if we are to meet the end-year target set for conclusion of the GATT round by the G7 summit and the Birmingham European Council. That is also important if the United States Administration are to take advantage of their arrangements for so-called "fast track" approval under which any agreement must be notified to Congress by March. We may never have a better chance to conclude such a wide-ranging agreement. If this chance is missed, the prospects for the negotiations and for the world trading system are serious, and those most directly concerned will carry a heavy responsibility.
While the remaining issues are difficult, the two sides have also never been closer together. A settlement both of the GATT issues and the oilseed dispute is achievable. The benefits of agreement would be substantial. Apart from the extra $200 billion annual world output which, on an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimate, would result from the round, there is the immediate boost to business confidence which agreement would give. We can and must grasp that prize.
Mr. Robin Cook: All parties in the House will agree with the closing remarks of the President of the Board of Trade on the gravity of the challenge to the world economy from the breakdown of the talks. In particular, I endorse his recognition that we are unlikely to obtain any agreement if we cannot conclude the talks by March when the fast-track mandate from the United States Congress expires.
The President may also wish to recognise the impatience of the rest of the world that an agreement which benefits more than 100 countries, including some of the poorest, should now be halted as a result of a bilateral dispute between the two most powerful trading blocs.
The President cannot pass responsibility for failure to the EC as though Britain were not part of it. Britain is currently President of the EC. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that, on 30 June, the Prime Minister assured the House that he was looking for a successful outcome of GATT during his presidency?
In order that we can judge the concerted efforts for success to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, can he tell us whether the Government accept the finding of the two GATT panels, that the EC is at fault in its oilseed regime? If the Government accept the outcome of those two panels, what have they been doing during their months in the EC presidency to resolve that matter? Equally, does the President recognise that there is fault on both sides of the dispute?
Have the British Government reminded the United States Administration that they have secured progress on cutting EC subsidies and obtaining protection of intellectual property which must have exceeded their

439
expectations six years ago when the talks began? Does he agree that the United States stands to gain most from the current agreement on offer, and that it would be unwise to throw it away for the sectional interest of oilseed farmers?
What protest have the British Government made bilaterally to their friends in the present United States Administration to remind them that there are great dangers to the United States as well as to Europe in starting a trade war? In the event that those representations are not successful, I put to the President two questions on which industry will want reassurance.
First, what attitude will be taken by the British Government at the meeting of the Council of Ministers, which I understand is to be held on Monday, to consider retaliation against today's announcement by the United States? As it appears that British products have largely been excluded from the first round of sanctions announced today, will the British Government resist imposition by the EC of tariffs on United States products which will put up the price equally for British consumers? Will Britain argue against the futility of tit-for-tat retaliation?
Secondly, will the President clarify the Government's current position on the multi-fibre arrangement in the light of the latest deadlock on GATT? He will be aware that progress on MFA depends on progress on GATT. Can he confirm that the existing MFA will be prolonged so long as GATT remains in abeyance?
It almost beggars belief that, at a time of world recession, a major stimulus to world trade should be at risk over a difference in negotiating position of just over 1 million tonnes of oilseed production. The gains to industry and commerce could be immense. The Government and the House must not permit those gains to be lost in a dispute over a row of soya beans.
Mr. Heseltine: I find myself in almost total agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I think that the House will share his indignation that, after six years in which the process has been under way, we have not been able to reach agreement on what is, by any standards, one of the most significant things that could give a boost not just to the economies of the advanced world but to the economies of the less privileged parts of the world.
The British Government's position has been consistently in favour of reaching a satisfactory outcome to the GATT round. The Prime Minister has been continually in touch with those people who can influence its momentum and direction in order to urge them to make progress.
The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to a number of specific issues. It was envisaged that the multi-fibre arrangement would be replaced as the new arrangements came into place, and we shall now have to consider how that meshes in with the present situation.
But the British Government's overriding interest is to continue to exercise whatever influence they properly can as an independent nation and as President of the EC to get the talks started again. It will be of no surprise to the House that there is continual contact on the matter in order to try to ensure that the suspended talks reopen. I give the House my emphatic asssurance that the Government will do everything they can in order to bring that about.
As the House well knows, the European Commission negotiates on behalf of the Community, and at the recent
440
Birmingham Council the European Commission was clearly mandated to move towards a satisfactory resolution of the negotiations with the United States.
The hon. Gentleman asked what steps the Government have taken to "protest", to use his language, to the President of the American Administration. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been constant communication with the American Administration in order to ensure that the dialogue is maintained.
It is, as I say, much to be regretted that we have now moved to this dangerous stage. The question of retaliation will have to be considered in the light of discussions within the Commission, but in the end it is a matter for the Council. Much the most important thing that could be achieved is not to move to retaliation but to the restoration and, hopefully, the successful outcome of the talks.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was this Government who played the leading role in bringing agriculture into the Uruguay round, and that we brought the EC kicking and screaming into that agreement? Does he understand that a successful settlement of the discussions will cause considerable difficulties to agriculture in Europe? He knows my interest in that. Does he agree that agreement is essential for world trade in general and for the economy of Britain in particular? In the negotiation that the Commission is currently conducting, is there a qualified majority of members of the Council who would support a settlement to which, currently, the Commission is refusing to agree because of a minority of nations which are being particularly intransigent?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend has profound experience in the role that agriculture has played in the general conduct of the Uruguay round. I recognise the specific problems caused for the agricultural industry, but many of those have flowed from the reform of the CAP which has been an important step in moving to a point at which we can, hopefully, resolve the outstanding issues of the Uruguay round. I know that the House will understand if I say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is responsible for the detailed negotiations under our presidency, has been resolute in the energy and dedication that he has applied to that task.
I cannot comment on the existence of a qualified majority because no such position has been tested. These matters are, in the first case anyway, open to resolution of the Council by qualified majority, but we have not reached the stage where that has been tested.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the President of the Board of Trade accept that the House and country will be looking to him, as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, and to the Government, to prevent a potentially fatal escalation of the confrontation and to secure agreement? However, will he accept that the position of the Government and the EC would have been substantially weakened had the vote last night gone the other way? Is it not crucial that the EC is able to maintain and secure a united position to prevent the escalation of a trade war?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman illustrates clearly the interrelationship of so much of our commercial and foreign policy within the Community. For Britain to have a proportionately important influence, it is important that

441
we should be seen to be at the centre and committed to the process that we were discussing yesterday. It is very much our view that the worst deterioration that could take place would be from a tit-for-tat consequence to the American lists that have been published today. We shall do everything we can, as President of the Community, to bring the matter back to the conference table and, hopefully, resolution.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in the GATT round over a considerable period, particularly relating to textiles. As he will be aware, the apparel and textile industry has sales of about £15 billion a year and still employs nearly 500,000 people. We wish to see that continue. He will also be aware that the MFA was extended to the end of this year in the hope that there would be a settlement in the GATT round. Can he assure British industry generally that the MFA will be extended on its present terms beyond the end of this year for as long as is necessary?
Mr. Heseltine: I certainly know of my hon. Friend's interest in textiles, and in other industries—[Laughter.]—although we find it easier to agree with her views on textiles. I can go a long way to reassure her on this occasion, if not on others, that the Commission is negotiating the extension of the multi-fibre arrangement until the GATT round is concluded.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is an indictment of the European Community that it has allowed agriculture to dominate when agriculture represents only 10 per cent. by value of world trade? May we be assured that a strong position will be taken in the negotiations by Her Majesty's Government, who will demand that manufacturing industry, particularly textiles—in Bradford, for example, 12,000 people are employed directly in that industry—will not have its interests put to one side in the interest of agriculture?
In particular, will we press for the period of the MFA to be retained for at least 10 years to protect the industry and the jobs that rely on it? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 450,000 jobs in textiles and clothing in Britain depend on there being proper, progressive trade negotiations, that the stealing of copyright designs must be prevented and that there must be more access to markets over trade barriers that are far too high in many countries? I have referred to some important aims that must be achieved if industry is to have confidence.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman makes some points with which I agree. The disquieting aspect of the negotiations is that the interests of an important but, in proportionate terms, relatively small industrial sector in world terms is at the centre of the difficulties that frustrate us. That is true in the European Community and in the United States. The agricultural interests are politically of great significance on both sides of the Atlantic. That has been the stumbling block which has prevented us from making progress.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, from the point of view of the self-interest of the parties to the GATT negotiations, a whole range of industries has much to benefit. Indeed, the overwhelming self-interest of the countries concerned is to proceed with GATT. But there is
442
no escaping the fact that there are areas of political difficulty in trying to deal with the problems of agricultural surpluses or subsidies.
Mr. David Madel: As America is about to begin the lengthy process of changing its Administration, will the British Government be arguing at the European Council that no retaliatory action should take place until America's new Administration is in place? As it is a long time until 20 January, will the Commission soon be starting informal talks with President-elect Clinton and his Administration to see what their policy is likely to be?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is for the Commission to discuss how it pursues the negotiations on behalf of the Community. Without doubt, the matters to which my hon. Friend refers will be discussed. I have no doubt that at the informal meeting of Ministers, which is due to take place tomorrow under my presidency, those matters will be raised. But there is no immediate power for a particular country to take over responsibility for negotiations that are properly those of the Commission.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who represent manufacturing constituencies—albeit their industries, especially in the aerospace sector, have been devastated by Government policy—are greatly concerned at the possibility of an escalating trade war? Is he aware that it is not good enough for him to hide behind discussions that have taken place in the European Community? What pressure has he put on the French Government to end the problems that have been created by the intransigence of the French farming community?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know from reading the newspapers that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is President of the Agriculture Council, was present in Chicago while discussions between Commissioner MacSharry and Mr. Madigan were taking place. He was not negotiating—it was not his task to do that—but he was there to make clear the strong sense of commitment that this country has, as President of the Community, by being as close to the negotiating machine as possible. So there is no doubt that, in every conceivable way open to us, we have sought to make progress in the negotations. But in the end, we are dealing with sovereign states and the self-interest of those states, and no powers are available to us to compel people to do what they do not want to do.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his negotiating position has widespread support and that it is vital to avoid a cycle of retribution and retaliation which would damage us as a major trading nation and do considerable damage to third world producers? Does he think that there is any prospect in the negotations ahead of detaching oilseed from the GATT agenda? Might that be a possible way forward?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which I hope will be heeded. There is no reason technically why the two issues should not be separated, but those who have some idea of the ways in which the negotations are proceeding see no reason why we cannot conclude a satisfactory GATT round. The margins of

443
division are very narrow indeed. To be frank, it would seem incredible if such narrow differentials precluded a satisfactory outome to the round.
My hon. Friend raises a point with which the whole House will agree. We spend a huge amount of time—we have today—discussing aid to the third world. No aid programme within our gift could in any way equal the benefit to the third world that would come from a satisfactory outcome of the GATT round.
Mr. Terry Rooney: The President of the Board of Trade will be aware of the deeply difficult trading conditions facing the textile industry. Is he aware, for example, that the industry, particularly in Bradford, is delaying investment decisions because of the lack of a conclusion to the MFA situation and GATT? Will pressure be put on the United States in particular in Geneva to remove artificial and protective tariff barriers that are themselves in contravention of GATT?
Mr. Heseltine: The negotiations in Geneva will be multilateral. Great progress has been made, but not the whole way, and it will be for the Commission, which will represent us in Geneva, to secure a deal, which must then be presented to the Council of Ministers for approval.
The point made by the hon. Gentleman adds to the concern that hon. Members have expressed. This is not just a question of tariff walls being erected: it is the uncertainty that flows from that. Understandably, the textile industry is hound to ask about the future and, if it is unable to get certain questions answered, will delay investment. All that is part of the cycle of deteriorating confidence that the failure to achieve success creates.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not a disgrace that the European, and particularly the French, agricultural lobby—probably the most subsidised and protected industry in Europe—should be allowed to hold the GATT round and the whole global trading system to ransom? The amount of intervention and protection that the industry has enjoyed since the war is surely the best argument against political interference in industry, intervention in business and protectionism in agriculture, textiles, coal, steel or any other industry.
Mr. Heseltine: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it does not quite reflect how the negotiations in Chicago unfolded. Commissioner MacSharry went as far as he could reasonably have been expected to go to secure a closing of the gap between the two sides. I wish to put that firmly on the record. However, those political self-interests exist to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention, and I hope that no country will put the sectoral interests of a small part of its economy against the overwhelming interests of the world trading economy.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm that, as the Chair or President of the relevant Council of Ministers, he is the nearest thing in the European Community, and certainly in the House, to a politician taking responsibility in this matter? Is not the surplus of oilseed, to which he referred as a casus Belli, controversial both in the European Community and in this country? Was it not exported around the world, including to the United States, with the
444
assistance of public money? If so, has not the use of public money—unwisely in that case—prejudiced the reactivation of world trade?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman asks me to confirm what everyone knows—that the level of subsidies in oilseed is one of the causes of concern that has led to the threat of retaliatory action. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into the precise details of what is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the further breakdown and delay in those talks will be greeted with dismay in the agricultural community? Will he assure us that he will do everything in his power to urge on the parties—both the United States and the European Community—the necessity of cracking that last part of the agreement? Then, and only then, will we be able to take the matter forward.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I give the unreserved assurance that he seeks. The whole House will accept that only the most naive economists argue that we should try to support the prosperity of our agriculture by impoverishing the rest of the economy. Nothing is more likely to help to create the markets for agricultural products than a buoyant restoration of the confidence of the world economy.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that it will be an unmitigated disaster if we cannot get out of the difficulties with the GATT round, not least in areas like Wales, where a number of American companies have invested? The uncertainty created must have a detrimental effect on possible future investment. In seeking a compromise, will he give an undertaking that there will he no compromise on the environmental dimension, which has had some consideration in the background to the negotiations?
Mr. Heseltine: I am not aware of an area where environmental divisions separate the negotiators. Naturally, I accept that, if the GATT round were to fail and we were to proceed into a trade war, that is as dangerous a situation as we could envisage, given the present state of the world economy. It would be bad in any circumstances, but it would be catastrophic in the present circumstances.
Mr. Gary Waller: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the impressive exporting success of the British textile and apparel industries in recent years? Does he accept that a successful GATT agreement must encompass greatly strengthened rules and disciplines, and better access to other markets for our products? Does he agree that the British textile and clothing industry wants not protection but a fair marketplace where it can compete with other countries?
Mr. Heseltine: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend feels that, because he represents a textile area and has a considerable knowledge of the subject. I readily acknowledge that industry's success in export markets, as in the domestic market. I certainly agree that, if we are to have international machinery for trade negotiations of that sort, it must carry with it the assumption that people will stick by the rules. That is one reason why it is so important that the oilseed dispute be resolved.
Mr. Thomas Graham: The President of the Board of Trade will recognise that that is another of the Prime Minister's predictions that has failed miserably. Many of us have lost thousands of jobs in our constituencies. What contingency plan will the Government put into operation to help some of the companies which, if a trade war takes place, could face the inevitable—unemployment, bankruptcies and closures? What plans do the Government have in the meantime?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman can have no concept of the scale of the disaster that a trade war and a failure of GATT would have. No conceivable Government action can substitute for the scale of the marketplace which would be denied them by this development that we are discussing today. There is no conceivable level of tax that could be raised, or whatever it was, to produce the subsidies to support the companies for the orders that they would lose. It is utterly naive not to realise the awful dilemma that the trading economy of this country would face if we see this development proceed as badly as we fear.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the United States Government's action in raising tariffs, which is clearly a crude negotiating tactic to try to force a settlement of the Uruguay round quickly and on their terms? It would be wrong if the EC retaliated in kind, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the Council of Ministers does not do so. Does he agree that the effects of a tariff war would be to turn the world recession into a world slump, which would be a disaster for our industries and for all industries throughout the world?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend comes close to the analysis that I have been trying to give the House. However, in trying to make progress in the matter, one must recognise that the Americans have been pursuing the oilseed dispute through the GATT machinery and their case has been found to be substantiated through the existing machinery. There is therefore no gain for me in trying to raise the temperature in that fragile situation. A possibility raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was that we could separate the two issues and make progress with the GATT arrangements, which are now close to potential resolution. We could then seek ways of resolving the oilseed dispute, which remains under existing GATT arrangements.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Maastricht treaty alters almost every section of the treaty of Rome, often in considerable detail. However, not one item, word or dot of the agricultural elements in that treaty is altered. Would it not have been helpful in the negotiations if moves had taken place to tackle, through the Maastricht treaty, the agricultural problems?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must have missed out on the fact that there has been a major reform of the common agricultural policy, which was negotiated with considerable success and in which the British Government played a major role. The object of the exercise was to change the regime, and that has been concluded.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the shock and horror in British industry, particularly at the consequence of an international trade war, bearing in mind how relatively large a proportion of
446
our gross national product we export around the world compared to our Community partners. Will he therefore make it clear to those of our partners in the Community whose unreasonable intransigence stands in the way of reaching a successful conclusion to the GATT round that we shall oppose any reciprocal tit-for-tat trade war arrangements proposed within the Community unless they are prepared to be reasonable in finding a solution?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House that, per capita, we have the largest exports of any nation of our sort in the world: so there is no doubt about the damage to our economy that such a threat poses. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not get drawn into where that retaliatory process might end. Certainly the Government will do everything they can to ensure that it does not begin.
Mr. David Trimble: There is a tremendous disparity between the amount of time that the House has spent discussing the Uruguay round—which, if successful, could lead to a considerable increase in world trade and the reflation that our economy needs—and the amount of time that we have spent discussing the treaty on European union which, if implemented, would result only in further deflation.
Is not part of the problem the incredibly complex and cumbersome machinery within the European Community that has prevented effective decision making and allowed narrow political self-interest—not just in France, but in the Commission—to obstruct progress? Is it possible for the Council of Ministers not just to give mandates to the Commission, but to instruct the Commission on what it should do?
Mr. Heseltine: That is exactly what the Council of Ministers did at Birmingham: it instructed the Commission to conclude a negotiated settlement of the outstanding agricultural issues with the Americans of the Uruguay round so that the Commission could proceed to Geneva for the wider dialogue. That is precisely what the Council of Ministers, under our presidency, did. The discussions in Chicago were conducted by Commissioner MacSharry on behalf of the Commission, and it is fair to say that he moved the position of the European Community in order to meet the American position. Perhaps the Americans should consider whether they could have reciprocated more than they did.
Sir Peter Emery: I think that the House will thank my right hon. Friend for emphasising third world countries, as reaching an agreement is even more important to them than it is to the industrial world. My right hon. Friend will know my interest in the issue as I was responsible for the general agreement when we were both Ministers together at the Department of Trade and Industry in the 1970s.
While an absolute solution across the board is desirable, if it obviously becomes impossible to achieve that in time to meet the fast track with the American Congress, will my right hon. Friend examine more closely the possibility of contracting out the oilseed from the general agreement? I believe that that is legally possible, and it would mean that the whole agreement could go forward, with the exclusion of the agreement between Europe and America. In that way the Commonwealth and

447
the third world could benefit from the general agreement, and the resolution of the separate agreement could be left to a later date.
Mr. Heseltine: I look back on our time together at the DTI in the 1970s as among the happiest years of my life, and I am glad that my hon. Friend shares those memories.
There are two issues: the dispute over oilseed under the existing arrangements in the GATT; and, coincidentally, negotiations proceeding to a new GATT. It would be possible to separate the two, which might enable us to make progress towards the new agreement, but there is no doubt that, in the real world, the same people are negotiating and the same subjects being discussed. Therefore, the escalation of the existing oilseed dispute into a trade war would significantly colour the atmosphere in which we tried to make progress on GATT.
Theoretically, we could separate the two issues and make progress on the GATT front. That would be desirable, but the human and political dimensions make it harder to achieve progress in that way than if we could simply process both arrangements in one package.
Dr. Kim Howells: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that a senior Minister from the French Government was cited on Radio 4's "World at One" as "celebrating" the breakdown of the GATT talks? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is difficult for the British people to place much faith in the European Commission and the Council of Ministers when those organisations appear to be paralysed by a numerically small but politically powerful lobbying farming group? During the remaining period of his presidency, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his rhetoric and artillery on that lobbying group as he did on the British miners?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must realise that, where there is a strong national interest—there is in France —the country involved would he a party to the GATT negotiations in its own right were it not represented by the Community. Therefore, difficulty would undoubtedly arise as national Governments negotiated, and we would find ourselves in a not dissimilar position as we do now with the Commission negotiating on behalf of the 12 countries.
It is arguable that the Commission is empowered to conclude an agreement in the GATT machinery, and the French Government would have to decide what to do about that. That is the legal position, but, obviously, in the give and take of the real world, the interests of France must be considered by the Commission in the same way as it would consider the interests of all Community members. The Commission is empowered to negotiate and reach an agreement, which is what it was instructed to do.
It is of considerable importance that the credibility of the Commission as a negotiating bloc should not be diminished by what is happening. I have made it clear that Commissioner MacSharry discharged his responsibilities in that manner, and I hope that French Ministers will not undermine the position. We have made it as clear as we believe is relevant that Mr. Delors should act as President of the Commission, not as a French citizen.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on a conservative estimate, a
448
successful resolution of the GATT talks would allow improvements in the gross national product of £30 billion a year for Europe alone? Does he also agree that France is the second largest food exporter in the world and, as the largest beneficiary from the common agricultural policy, has a specific responsibility to ensure that it demonstrates its Community credentials—not just theoretically by treaty ratification, but practically, by putting pressure on its massively over-subsidised and over-numerous farmers?
Mr. Heseltine: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. If I remember the figures correctly. the agricultural interests of France are 5 per cent. of its economy, so the overwhelming proportion of French people stand to gain from a GATT resolution. The politics in France are no doubt difficult, but the politics of the GATT machinery present challenges and difficulties for all of us. That is a sacrifice worth making in each country in various ways, because the overall gain in national and world self-interest is so obvious. It is calculated that about $200 billion of additional annual world output stands to flow if we reach an agreement on the GATT round.
Mr. Richard Caborn rose—
Madam Speaker: Am I right in observing that the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when the statement was made?
Mr. Caborn: That is not true at all. I have been in the Chamber ever since the statement was made—indeed, I entered the Chamber specifically to hear it.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not on my list as having been in the House when the Secretary of State made his statement, but he must ask his question if what he says is the case.
Mr. Caborn: It is the case that some people consider the questions asked. Having heard all my colleagues ask their questions, I wish to explore a different aspect of the statement. That is why I entered the debate late.
Having heard every word that the President said, may I ask him to advise the House on whether he will take the initiative inside the Council of Europe to split the negotiations between oilseed and GATT? Is that possible and practical? Can he take that initiative to give new directions to the Commission's negotiating team? We are in a strong position to do that.
Mr. Heseltine: As President of the European Community, the Prime Minister, together with his colleagues, will take a continuing interest. I cannot say that it will be a new interest, because we have kept closely in touch with all events, but ultimately it is the Commission's responsibility. Therefore, we are in a good position to be able to constantly remind—
Mr. Caborn: It is the politicians who instruct the negotiators.
Mr. Heseltine: No, conducting negotiations is not a political responsibility, but the Commission's. However, there is a constant interchange between the politicians and the Commission's bureaucrats, as there is between politicians and negotiators across the Atlantic. There is a constant dialogue on all matters, and most of those involved are talking to each other on an extended basis. The House should have no doubt that we as a Government

449
will do everything that we properly can to bring about a successful conclusion, which will necessitate the restoration of the dialogue.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will welcome the assurance from the Secretary of State that the involvement and interest of the British Government will continue. We find it delightful—nay, delicious—that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said on behalf of the Liberal party that he thought that Mr. Madigan, when negotiating on behalf of the United States, was concerned about the vote in the House last night—the more so since the vote took place 24 hours after he had pulled out of the negotiations.
I should like to give the Secretary of State certain messages to take away from the House. He was asked whether the deadline might be extended to take into account President-elect Clinton's not taking office until March. I caution him against that advice; we ought to stay within the deadline set by the G7, which is the end of the year.
The third world has an immense interest in a successful conclusion to the GATT round, if it is to gain access to our markets and be able to pay back its debts. We are thankful for small mercies. The Secretary of State has announced only about $300 million-worth of retaliatory tariffs on wine, linseed oil and wheat gluten—not the $1,000 million-worth originally suggested. The House is not interested in tit-for-tat tactics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned the meeting of Foreign Ministers on Monday, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a meeting tomorrow on this subject. We urge the Government and the Secretary of State to use the influence of the presidency to ensure that no tit-for-tat tactics are begun.
Secondly, we ask that the oilseed problem be taken out of the negotiations and made subject to arbitration, so that the industrial side of the GATT negotiations can reach a successful conclusion, in the interests of the world and of ridding the world of recession.
My final plea is that we hear more from the President on this subject in the weeks to come.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Americans were offered arbitration by the Commission on the oilseed dispute, and refused it. It
450
would certainly be a way forward but it cannot be imposed —only offered. I understand the strong feeling expressed by hon. Members on both sides that the last thing we want is a tit-for-tat trade war. I confirm that it is also the last thing the Government want, and that we will do everything possible to prevent it.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should try to stick to the deadline at the end of the year. Opening these things up only brings in a new range of complications and everything begins to unravel. The incentive to keep within the deadline is that it would keep us within the American fast-track procedure—which it would also be unwise to open up again.
I think that I was the first to mention today that those who will suffer most are the least privileged and least well-off people and economies of the world. We all stand to gain a great deal, and I assure the House that I will keep it in touch if there is anything that we can add to what I have said today. We will continue to deploy every energy to making a success of the Uruguay round.

BILL PRESENTED
  TRADE UNION REFORM AND EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
  Mrs. Secretary Shephard, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Michael Forsyth and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, presented a Bill to make further reforms of the law relating to trade unions and industrial relations; to make amendments of the law relating to employment rights and to abolish the right to statutory minimum remuneration; to amend the law relating to the constitution and jurisdiction of industrial tribunals and the constitution of the Employment Appeal Tribunal; to amend section 56A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; to provide for the Secretary of State to have functions of securing the provision of careers services; to make further provision about employment and training functions of Scottish Enterprise and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise; and for connected purposes: And the same was read a First time, and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
Orders of the Day

  Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.44 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is one of the engaging aspects of this House that we can move from the highest political drama on a worldwide perspective to focus somewhat more narrowly. This is my first opportunity of welcoming to the Front Bench the hon. Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey)— to posts which we will endeavour to ensure remain Opposition posts.
  This is a technical Bill of restricted scope. It is limited in three important ways. First, it deals only with the management functions of the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service which have been subject in the past to transfer of functions orders—essentially the powers to settle the terms and conditions of civil servants. Secondly, it deals only with those functions in so far as they relate to members of the home civil service or the Northern Ireland civil service. Thirdly, it seeks authority to redistribute those powers only to people who are in the service of the Crown.
  The Bill is a technical one. Its purpose is to resolve a legal barrier to the better management of the civil service. At the moment, the Government are constrained from devolving to Departments and agencies many detailed matters concerning the management of their staff. As a result, the present legal framework requires a highly centralised degree of control of the management of the civil service which is inimical to the good management of the many different and varied businesses of Departments and agencies.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Chancellor acknowledge that when such powers have been devolved to what are called quangos, such as the Development Board for Rural Wales, there have been unmitigated disasters of administration resulting in large losses of public funds and cases of near corruption? There was a serious court case in Cardiff only the day before yesterday involving just such a problem. What will he do to ensure that these quangos are maintained with some degree of accountability and control by Whitehall?
  Mr. Waldegrave: At the moment such powers cannot be devolved—that is the whole point. I will come to the extent to which, under so-called discretions, some devolution is allowed at present. I reassure the hon. Gentleman—he is perfectly right to raise the matter—that nothing in the Bill removes the accountability to this House of such agencies, or the ultimate responsibility of Ministers or Departments of State for them. I shall argue that it is in the interests of good management that some management accountability should be devolved, but accountability to this House and to the Public Accounts Committee must and should
  452
  remain. If anything has gone wrong, it is the job of this House, the PAC and the press—and everyone else—to ensure that accountability remains.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: When authority has been transferred to agencies in the past, Ministers have been reluctant to answer letters and we have had difficulty asking questions in the House. Can we have an absolute assurance that Ministers will be answerable, both to questions in the House and to correspondence from Members of Parliament? Decisions such as that taken at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea, which is causing a great deal of anxiety, must not be allowed as direct ministerial responsibility to the House for them would not exist.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. Better arrangements for the reporting of letters from the chief executives of agencies to this House will be put in place, and rightly so.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Long overdue.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I agree. Market testing, which is the issue at DVLA—
  Mr. Donald Anderson: No, it is not.
  Mr. Waldegrave: What is at stake is an examination of the framework of the agency—a three-year re-examination of the framework agreement. That can look across the board at whether full privatisation is in order or whether market testing is, or whether the work should continue to be done there—but that is not relevant to the Bill. Those are policy issues for which Ministers are rightly accountable. They cannot be devolved, and they would not be under this or any other Bill.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I know that the Minister genuinely believes what he is saying, but if he talks of accountability, can he explain what happened recently? A chief executive of an agency was sitting beside a Minister talking to three Members of this House about the future of the DVLA. That chief executive had a proposal to dispose of 3,000 jobs at the agency. Not only did he not disclose it to the Members who were present, but the Minister sitting beside him was unaware of it, as was the Secretary of State for Wales, who is responsible for jobs in Wales. Where is the accountability in that?
  Mr. Waldegrave: It is perfectly legitimate to raise these issues in the context of a potential privatisation, if that is at stake—or of market testing, if that is—but they are nothing to do with this Bill. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that whatever exchanges took place on that occasion—I was not present—Ministers remain accountable for these policies, and so they must. Ministers will rightly be called to account in the House in the way in which I am being called to account for the behaviour of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. There were many opportunities to question him.
  If I made a prolonged speech defending privatisation or market testing, I would be ruled out of order, but I will go as close as possible to the bounds of order in justifying those policies. The Bill does not deal with the devolution of executive functions but with the potential to devolve from Ministers to chief executives of agencies—properly and for the first time—power to negotiate terms and conditions of service. That is sensible.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I should like to pursue the issue of the DVLA. The document clearly states that the alternative to privatisation is contractorisation. One of the advantages held out for contractorisation as an alternative to outright privatisation is that there is no need for legislation. However, it removes many functions from ministerial control and leaves only discretionary functions, with officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister be more precise about the status of the document and state exactly the responsibility of the Minister in relation to an agency which had been hijacked in such a disreputable way?
  Mr. Waldegrave rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I urge the Minister not to stray too far along that route. Hon. Members should stick to the terms of the Bill.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is indeed a point of order.
  Ms. Mowlam: It certainly is. It would be useful to clarify the terms of reference and the implications of the Bill before the debate proceeds further. The Minister says that the Bill is technical, has limited scope and relates only to the delegation of powers on pay and conditions. But that is crucial because when those powers are delegated down, public expenditure will be ratcheted down. My hon. Friends have given precise examples. The manager of a contracting-out unit will be able to decide on pay and conditions for his work force and the matter will not come to the House. It is crucial to discuss those issues because if we do not, the Minister will be getting away with murder.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady was beginning to argue on a point of substance and not presenting an issue for the Chair. If hon. Members allow the Minister to make progress on explaining the Bill, they will be in a better position to judge and question him.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order. There are two interpretations of the Bill. The Minister says that it is technical and narrow but others, as came out in the debate in the other place, and trade unions see it as part of a continuum. They see in the Bill momentum towards privatisation. On Second Reading we should be empowered to look beyond the precise words of the Bill, especially in the light of what has happened in my constituency and to people in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) who work in the DVLA. The Bill can be construed as a step on the road to privatisation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be so, but let us hear what the Minister has to say. When he has finished, hon. Members will have a good chance to speak because there are not many names on the list. Let us start on the Bill and see what is in store for us.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The rules preclude me from directly quoting the Opposition spokesman in the House of Lords but I draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that that spokesman covered the whole circuit and was finally quite satisfied that none of these issues was raised. If I were allowed, I
  454
  could quote the words of Lady Turner of Camden, the Opposition spokesman, who said she quite understood that none of the issues was raised by the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Redcar properly spoke about a much more limited devolution. I shall come back to that. The hon. Lady asked about the effect of devolving the setting of terms and conditions and whether they would get better or worse. That matter is entirely germane to the Bill, but it has nothing to do with privatisation because nothing in the Bill affects privatisation, market testing or contractorisation. The Opposition spokesman in the Lords accepted that.
  Ms. Mowlam: If the Bill delegates power to negotiate pay and conditions down to a level such as that at the DVLA, contractorisation, lower wages or changed terms and conditions are possible. Therefore, it is well within the scope of the Bill to discuss the DVLA and other such institutions.
  Mr. Waldegrave: There was contractorisation and market testing for many years before the Bill was presented and before the DVLA was an executive agency. They cannot be germane to the powers sought in the Bill.
  Mr. Wilson: I am making an intervention, but perhaps it should be a point of order because I do not think that it is in order for the Minister—doubtless unintentionally—completely to misrepresent the Opposition spokesman in the Lords, who accepted that the Bill was not a vehicle for privatisation but said that the Opposition objected to the manner in which it was apparently intended to hive off civil service functions to the market. The Minister is welcome to read what my noble Friend said.
  Mr. Waldegrave: We are making heavy weather of this. The spokesman in the Lords said that she objected to our policy of privatisation and market testing, but the passage makes it quite clear that she accepted that the Bill does not—
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: If I were allowed under the rules to read the passage, I should be delighted to do so. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I know that we are recovering from yesterday—
  Mr. Hoyle: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want any more sedentary remarks.
  Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps I may be allowed to proceed with an explanation of the Bill. The Opposition spokesman in the Lords accepted that the Bill had nothing to do with privatisation. She objected to the policy of privatisation, which is not in the Bill. The noble Lady said:
  "We accept that the Bill itself is not a vehicle for privatisation but we still object to the manner in which apparently it is intended to hive-off Civil Service functions …"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 1299.]
  I shall attempt to demonstrate that the Bill is much less exciting than the Opposition hope. At the moment, the Government are constrained from devolving to Departments and agencies many detailed matters concerning the management of their staff. As a result, the present legal framework requires a highly centralized

  455
  degree of control of the management of the civil service which is inimical to good management. The Bill is intended to rectify that, while maintaining intact the principle of ministerial accountability to Parliament. It does not contain new powers—or any powers whatever—to facilitate the privatisation or contracting out of Government activities. Privatisation and contracting out, where appropriate, remain important planks of Government policy. When we need new powers to achieve our aims in that area we shall present proposals accordingly. This Bill, however, relates only to the management of the civil service and is not a vehicle for that.
  Secondly, the Bill does not in itself change the terms and conditions of any civil servant in any way. I think that that issue was mentioned by the hon. Member for Redcar and I will return to it. Thirdly, the Bill affects neither the normal rights of staff in the civil service nor the usual process of consultation with the civil service trade unions at an appropriate level. I shall have more to say about that, and about the detailed operation of the Bill's powers. Having briefly outlined what the Bill is, and what it is not, it may be helpful to put it in a wider context.
  I have not consulted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but if Opposition Members felt that the House should engage in a wider debate on the collection of issues involved in the management of the public service, I should be perfectly willing to put that to my right hon. Friend. We could then discuss issues connected with privatisation, market testing and other policies relating to our approach to the management of the public sector. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Redcar would find that an attractive offer, but in any event I should be happy to speak to my right hon. Friend.
  Ms. Mowlam: Of course we welcome the chance to debate market testing and competitive tendering in Government time. The Secretary of State eventually had to give a promise to that effect in private negotiations to try to get the Bill through the House of Lords. Would it not have been better, however, if he had had the decency to debate issues of market testing and competitive tendering in the House of Commons before embarking on their implementation?
  Mr. Waldegrave: Market testing has been going on for many years; indeed, I think that examples can be found dating back to the last Government. As I have said, I think that a wider debate is a good idea, and I shall put it to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am now slightly confused about what the Bill will do. Whether the provisions are drawn narrowly or broadly, the Secretary of State is plainly seeking powers—hence the Bill. I thought that he was seeking the power to delegate in regard to terms and conditions of employment, and I thought that he went on to say that that would not change anyone's terms and conditions of employment. If that is so, what is the point of seeking such powers?
  Mr. Waldegrave: It could lead to changes, but such changes would have to be negotiated in the normal way, as I shall explain.
  Mr. Field: In his Mansion house speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an important point when he said that, from now on, it would be Government policy to examine every change that the Administration might wish to initiate and to consider the employment consequences. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that, if such consequences result from the Bill, his promise will be triggered at some stage?
  I can see why that will not happen now, because the powers now being sought only "could" result in such consequences. Our worry is that, if the Bill confers the power to lay down terms and conditions of contract, at some stage not only pay but the number of workers may be cut. We want a guarantee that at that stage—in view of the important statement made by the Chancellor—the Government will consider the employment consequences of their every action.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will ask my officials to check, but I do not believe that the Bill has any direct implications of that kind. We do not seek to devolve the powers that have always been enjoyed by the Minister for the Civil Service —the Prime Minister—or by the Treasury, which control civil service numbers. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, they used to exercise manpower control; that obtained under both Labour and Conservative Governments. I do not think that any provision in the Bill will lead directly to a change in numbers. Of course, in management terms the need may arise for such a change, but nothing in the Bill will alter the powers available to Ministers or managers in that regard.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State denying that one of the powers to be delegated by the Bill is the power of wage bargaining? Presumably, that must of necessity lead to different wage rates in the public service in different parts of the country and in different undertakings. Such a development can only represent another step along the road to privatization—more of the preparation of turkeys for Christmas which represents the Government's current policy.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I do not see how any particular outcome relating to numbers can he assigned to a Bill which devolves pay negotiation powers. I suppose that it could be argued that higher wages mean fewer employees, but that strikes me as a paradoxical argument for the hon. Gentleman to put.
  Let me make a little more progress, particularly as I wish to respond directly to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Like all Governments since the war, we have inherited a civil service containing many extremely able people—I doubt if I need to convince the House of that—and has high ideals in regard to public service. Equally, however, that civil service has struggled for many years with outdated management structures. The structure of the civil service is highly hierarchical. It was designed to apply to a small civil service whose purpose would be to advise Ministers on policy. It is a Victorian structure. That, I think, is common ground between the parties. I believe that the Opposition accept the principle of the "next steps" agency, although they opposed it originally. I think that they now agree that it is sensible to try to organise the delivery of services with more devolved accountability, and more clearly specified units of managment. It is not sensible to operate a great centralised hierarchical structure. The powers conferred

  457
  by the Bill are necessary to make the required change a reality—or, rather, to simplify the process that will lead to it.
  So far, we have created 75 agencies under the so-called "next steps" initiative, and nearly as many executive units which are run along the same lines. All are directly accountable for achieving clear and published targets to improve the quality of service and efficiency. It is all part of a refocusing on the absolute necessity for the civil service to deliver a better value service to the public, as its customers and paymasters: I make no apology for that. There is nothing special about such proposals. I would guess that all large organisations, public and private, constantly need to re-evaluate their performance. In particular, they need to check constantly that they are continuing to achieve their aims as effectively as they can —and, under the banner of the citizens charter, we have been trying to make that possible.
  To the civil service, that new emphasis on the quality of output—on measuring what we do, and establishing whether it constitutes an improvement—represents something of a challenge. The aims of the citizens charter campaign, however, also recognise that better services can be achieved only if management structures and systems are increasingly driven from the customers, patients and clients upwards, rather than operating a hierarchical top-downwards, Whitehall-downwards system. That is what I have been trying to explain.
  Local staff and local managers should be given discretion, within the minimum of centrally imposed regulations, to deliver the services that their own customers need. The concept of Government as a single business with a single client—the public—is dead; it does not work. The real task is to meet the needs of the many individual customers of the Government's many different kinds of business. If we are to do that, we must increasingly enable the managers of those businesses to run their organisations in ways that represent the most appropriate and effective approach to their particular circumstances.
  In the civil service, as in any other organisation, if we are to unlock the enormous potential and commitment of managers and staff, we must increasingly trust them to know what is best, and give them the freedom—together with the accountability—to achieve their objectives. It is against that background that the need for the Bill has emerged.
  The management of the civil service is carried out under the royal prerogative. The power to determine the terms and conditions of civil servants—their working hours, pay, allowances, and so on—is delegated by the Crown, by civil service Order in Council, to the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Since 1968, those powers have been transferred to and fro between the two central Departments, frequently by means of transfer of functions orders.
  Mr. John Garrett: Why is the civil service regulated by Order in Council under the royal prerogative? Why cannot the Civil Service Act establish its status and, in particular, its duty to the Crown?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is lost in the mists of time. Since the 19th century, that has always been the case. It is, perhaps, another relic of the great 19th-century reforms; but it serves us fairly well, and it can be modified from time
  458
  to time as new needs develop. I note the hon. Gentleman's desire for a great blockbuster Bill in this area. If there were a need for it, no doubt my officials would advise me of it. They are always keen to have such Bills.
  The power to determine terms and pay is, as I have said, delegated to the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Since 1968, these powers have been transferred to and fro. In the present organisation, however, the Treasury is given the responsibility for determining pay, grading, expenses, allowances, holidays, hours of work and other related personnel matters. The Minister for the Civil Service regulates the conduct of civil servants and those other conditions of service which are not allotted to the Treasury. These responsibilities relate entirely to what can broadly be called the personnel management of civil servants. They do not, for example, extend to the statutory powers of Ministers or civil servants, to policy-making, and so on.
  As things stand, surprisingly perhaps, the Treasury and the Prime Minister cannot lawfully delegate those functions to the Departments and agencies; they cannot be delegated to another Minister—the relevant Secretary of State, for example—let alone to agencies which are responsible for the day-to-day management of the staff that they employ. Whether it is sensible or not—I do not think that it can be—decisions affecting the working conditions of all 560,000 or so civil servants must conform to rules laid down by the two central Departments, and those rules, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, must then be obeyed.
  What the central Departments can do and have been doing is to grant to individual Departments and executive agencies discretions under which they can manage defined aspects of personnel policy, but that is a pretty poor substitute for real delegation and is hedged about by all kinds of obscure legal restrictions. Because of those legal constraints, the Treasury and the Minister have at present to grant those discretions within the framework of principles and rules, and references back to the centre for approval, however unnecessary they may be. Although, therefore, the central Departments can give operational Departments and agencies a degree of freedom over the terms and conditions of service of their staff, they cannot make them genuinely responsible and accountable for them. Accountabilities become blurred, alibis get written and unnecessary procedural obstacles can all too easily be placed, or be seen to be placed, in the way of Departments and agencies managing their affairs as effectively as they can.
  Ms. Mowlam: The Minister began by arguing that accountability would not be changed by the Bill, that accountability would still be strong. The argument that he has just given as the whole point of achieving delegation rather than discretion is that it would delegate responsibility and accountability. He cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that that is precisely what one can have in this respect. A sensible Parliament will not attempt to manage in detail the things for which it is responsible. Ministers retain overall responsibility. If those to whom we delegate manage badly, we are responsible. It was very foolish of Nye Bevan to say, in that famous phrase, that if a bedpan is dropped in the health service the Minister should hear about it. That is no way to run an

  459
  organisation. The attempt to continue to run organisations in that way has ended. Surely the Opposition, by accepting the agency programme, have understood that. I am disappointed if the hon. Lady wants to go back to that. If the delegation does not work or management is badly carried out, however, we are still responsible for having appointed the person concerned and for the policies within which he works, and we must take the responsibility. It would be crazy to try to run any great organisation in that old way. It would produce the kind of sclerotic organisations. which provide bad service for our people. But that does not mean that the House cannot call a Minister to account for any failure to use that delegation sensibly.
  Mr. Frank Field: I believe that the Chancellor of the Duchy was in the House on Monday at social security Question Time, when we raised the question of some of our constituents who were claiming the new disability living allowance. The relevant Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said that this was something which had been delegated to the Benefits Agency, and which the agency should improve. Technically, therefore, the Minister answered questions—but only to tell us that it was someone else's function to run the service properly. Clearly that is better than saying that he would not even answer questions, the Table Office refusing those questions, but it is a different ball game from when the Minister himself had to answer to the House for initiating a new benefit and there being an enormous cock-up over it.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The new system is far more honest and open. In the old days, Ministers pretended that they knew the details of the administration of great Departments. Under every Government, that was always a myth. Now, a Minister in whose Department, or in an agency of whose Department, what the hon. Gentleman referred to as a cock-up is made is still ultimately responsible for that. It is perfectly legitimate to explain which bits of the chain have failed, if failure there has been, but accountability still rests firmly with the House, and nobody can escape that.
  Mr. Terry Davis: Does that mean that Ministers accept responsibility for the recent failings of the National Rivers Authority and the Development Board for Rural Wales?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being immediately familiar with the cases to which he refers. There is a difference between non-departmental public bodies, which was the old style of devolution, and agencies. The former are not agencies and do not necessarily have nearly such clear accountability. An agency has a framework agreement with the Department which sets out the policy, and the lines of accountability are very clear. It was one of the weaknesses of the previous model, which goes back many years to the Attlee Government, that those old-style quangos very often did not have any clear line of accountability to anybody. I do not know whether that deals with the particular cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Davis: I was not referring to the failings under the Attlee Government—I was referring to much more recent
  460
  failings which were the subject of two reports to the Public Accounts Committee. If the Minister does not know the answer, and I can understand that, will he at least give an assurance that he will look at those reports and then write to me and other members of the Committee saying whether it is the Government's considered view that Ministers accept responsibility and are accountable for these appalling wastes of public money?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will certainly look at the cases that the hon. Gentleman has raised and write to him. The very fact that the matters were before the Public Accounts Committee must mean that they were proper ones for accountability to the House.
  Ms. Mowlam: On the point of accountability, the Secretary of State has just said that accountability would be back to the PAC. It is important to clarify this; otherwise, he may be slightly misleading the House as to the difference between discretions and the delegation of powers in this Bill. Under this Bill, as I understand it—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—it is not back to the relevant Minister; it is back from the delegated person—whether it be in a "next-steps" agency or a long way down the Department—back to the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service; and the only people to whom they are accountable are the members of the PAC. The PAC does a very effective, efficient job, but it does it post facto. Is that the only course of accountability—back through that chain of management structure—that will be available?
  Mr. Waldegrave: We are again going far wider than this poor little Bill. The structure of accountability of accounting officers—normally permanent secretaries, but in some cases now the heads of executive agencies—for their financial duties runs in the way it always has run, to the Public Accounts Committee. Nothing in this Bill comes anywhere near touching any of those issues. This shows what an interesting debate we shall have when we have the wider debate which I fear that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rule out of order today.
  Mr. Davis: I emphasise to the Minister that I was not referring to the responsibility of accounting officers to the PAC; I was referring to the accountability of Ministers. That is the question that I want him to address in correspondence.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall be delighted to do so. There is nothing in this Bill immediately relevant to that issue.
  The power of delegation cannot be achieved simply by altering the Order in Council, because from time to time all these responsibilities have been transferred between the Treasury and the Minister by transfer of functions orders. Therefore, they are all the responsibility of a named Minister and one cannot, I am told, achieve what we want to achieve by altering the Order in Council.
  The Government's legal advice is that the power to delegate must be taken by primary legislation and not by the prerogative—hence this Bill.
  I turn now to the Bill itself. Clause 1(1) allows delegation to take place but limits the power to delegate in three ways. The functions to be delegated must be management functions—none of the wider policy issues that we have been discussing; they must have been the

  461
  subject of transfer of functions orders, as they have all been; and they must relate to the management of the home civil service.
  The scope of the Bill is also limited in a most important way by subsection (2). Delegations can be made only to another servant of the Crown. "Servant of the Crown" is a functional definition covering people who are in the employment of the Crown. That means that the Bill cannot be used to transfer civil service personnel management functions outside the public service. The Bill can have no effect, therefore, in enabling the contracting-out or privatisation of Government organisations. Its provisions are circumscribed by clause 1(2) so that the central Departments will be able to delegate their management powers only to Ministers, civil servants, statutory office holders, members of the diplomatic service, the armed forces, and so on. That broad, but restricted, definition has been adopted to give the Government the maximum flexibility over delegations to people who are currently, or who may be, employed in relevant positions, such as chief executives of "next steps" agencies.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of clarification, how can the fact that it is possible to delegate those powers to members of the diplomatic service be reconciled with the argument that the Bill affects only the home civil service?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The functions are those of the home civil service, but if a distinguished ambassador chose to apply for a particular job or, as an ambassador, was offered a job running a particular part of the home civil service, it would seem foolish to exclude him. There was some discussion of that point in the House of Lords. Lord Russell thought that, if powers could be delegated to members of the armed forces, there was a great danger that we might move to a military dictatorship. Others thought it wrong that retired colonels should be excluded from the chance to obtain such jobs. Both suggestions are fantastic. The provisions of the Bill merely mean that people employed in the Crown service could occupy positions to which certain home civil service functions were delegated. They do not cover any of the diplomatic service's functions.
  The remainder of clause 1 deals with the conditions under which delegations may be made. Subsection (2) allows the central Departments to attach conditions to a delegation if they wish. Subsection (3) allows them to require that the delegation must be carried out by the person to whom it is delegated, while subsection (4), conversely, allows sub-delegation. Those subsections therefore enable the central Departments to delegate to a Minister and require him or her to exercise the power in person, contrary to the usual position; or, for example, to delegate to an agency chief executive but to permit him to have those powers exercised on his behalf by another Crown servant. The legal background to all this is set out in more detail in the notes on clauses which have been made available in the Vote Office.
  Clause 1 is the meat of the Bill, and the remaining clauses build upon it. Without wearying the House with details which might best be left for consideration in Committee, I should explain that clause 2 mimics the effect of clause 1 for the minority of civil servants whose terms and conditions are determined not under the Order in Council but under powers granted in the statutes which
  462
  govern the organisations in which they work—for example, Customs and Excise, the Office of Fair Trading, the regulators of the privatised utilities, and smaller bodies. In such cases it is usual for the statutes to require the Treasury to give its consent to the determination of the terms and conditions of those staff by the head of their organisation or their Secretary of State.
  Clause 2 allows the relevant central Department to create the equivalent of a delegation by waiving its powers to approve terms and conditions of service. The same safeguards come into place in this situation as in clause 1. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 2 allow for the statutory power of approval to be waived, subject to whatever conditions seem necessary, and allow the person who waives consent to require the holder of the power to exercise it personally if they see fit. Lastly, subsection (4) covers those cases where the sanction of two Ministers is required to the determination of terms and conditions—typically, the Treasury and the sponsoring Secretary of State—makes any delegation subject to their joint approval.
  Finally, clause 3 deals with Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland civil service is making progress with its own citizens charter and "next steps" initiatives with the same efficiency and quality of service objectives as their mainland counterparts.
  In Northern Ireland, the Department of Finance and Personnel exercises the same responsibilities for the Northern Ireland civil service as the Treasury and the Minister do here. The Bill allows for the introduction of the Order in Council, subject to the negative resolution procedure, provided that it has the same effect on the management of the civil service in Northern Ireland as the Bill does in Great Britain.
  Lest there be any doubt, I should perhaps make it clear that the Bill does not force the Treasury or the Minister to delegate anything to anyone. There is no requirement in the Bill to decentralise or delegate: the power is an enabling one. Nor could the central Departments force a delegation on an unwilling Minister or official, which would otherwise be unlikely but possible. In practice, delegations will proceed only where the parties concerned agree that delegation is appropriate. The power allows the central Departments to set any conditions on a delegation that they think fit, and to vary, extend or withdraw them depending on how things work in practice.
  Equally, as regards the rights of civil servants as employees, I can assure the House that the Bill gives no powers either to the central Departments or to the recipient of any delegation to change the terms and conditions of any civil servant without conforming to the normal procedures and processes of consultation with unions and staff. Where arrangements for consultation with the unions are specified—in the national pay agreements, for example—those arrangements will continue to apply. Where, outside those agreements, the central Departments propose to delegate functions, the national unions will be given the opportunity to comment on such proposals. Where the recipients of a delegation wish to exercise the powers delegated to them to change the terms and conditions of service, again staff and their representatives will be consulted appropriately. So although the parties to any consultation may change as a result of delegations, there will be no change in the principles involved.
  Mr. Garrett: The right hon. Gentleman is skating over the Bill without touching on the fundamental point about it. There was a long discussion in the House of Lords as to whether the Bill was a privatisation measure—which, of course, it is not. The big change embodied in the Bill is the end of the national civil service. That is the point of the Bill: agency employees—at present, civil servants—will be subject to the terms and conditions, employment regulations, recruitment and training policies and rights peculiar to the agency concerned. Instead of having a national civil service, we shall have a conglomerate of agencies, all with different terms and conditions.
  Many of us think that the national civil service, which was set up in 1854 following the Northcote-Trevelyan report, has been one of the glories of the nation. The Minister cannot scoot through Second Reading without explaining to the House that the end of that national civil service is precisely what he proposes.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has at last accepted that the real question is whether we want devolution in the civil service. That is what the Bill is partly about, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to raise that question, although I shall argue forcefully that the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, designed to allow for a tiny central policy-making civil service of a few thousand people, are quite inappropriate to the management and organisation of hundreds of thousands of people delivering services to the public. Following the acceptance across the party divide of the "next steps" agency programme, I had thought that that was now more or less common ground.
  I visited Companies house the other day and asked how much movement there was between that organisation and the rest of the civil service. Apparently, there is virtually none, and there has never been much—except, very occasionally, at a very senior level. The idea that our great service agencies have been a unified structure in the sense that people have moved from one to another is a myth. That is the heart of the argument.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South is perfectly right: I believe it necessary to trouble the House with the Bill because we want to introduce—and believe it right for the people of this country that we should introduce—more variegated styles of employment in our great public service. Many agencies already come to us saying, "We have negotiated something with our people that they want, but it does not coincide with the national terms and conditions." The agencies cannot implement what they have negotiated without surmounting an immensely complicated system of hurdles set up when the Treasury was, in effect, the personnel department of a small central civil service. I argue that those arrangements are wholly inappropriate to the needs of 1992.
  Perhaps I could go a little further and say what I think will happen when the Bill is enacted, because the hon. Member for Redcar and I should debate this. The central Departments will use the powers that the Bill grants them to examine areas of personnel management and establish those which may best be decided by Departments and executive agencies as a whole, or by a particular Department or agency which has a justified claim to determine some aspect of its management without reference to the centre. Personnel management matters in
  464
  the civil service will be progressively devolved to the most appropriate level within the civil service. I am sure that that must be right.
  There will always be a clear line of accountability for delegations made in this way. I come back to the point which was rightly raised earlier by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Ministers will be accountable to the House in the normal way for the exercise of powers that they receive from the Treasury or the Minister for the Civil Service. When the central Departments delegate to officials such as agency chief executives, Ministers in the central Departments can and should be challenged on the delegation and the use to which it has been put, as they can be now on matters where they have granted Departments and agencies management discretions.
  I should also perhaps reassure hon. Members—this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South—that the Bill will not hamper the maintenance of the common standards which we all wish to see protected in the civil service. I think that we would all agree that this country has been fortunate, since the reforms to which the hon. Member referred, in having the support of a civil service which is politically impartial, honest in its dealings with the public and, in the enormous majority of cases over 100 years or more, incorruptible. Those core standards will remain the basis of employment in the civil service, and they will be maintained in the form of central rules. The bath water may be disposed of, but that particular vital baby will not be.
  Ms. Mowlam: Will the Secretary of State explain how he expects those core rules to be kept? If he accepts that particular agencies can negotiate deals at local level and if, as he says, he wants to continue with contracting out and privatisation, when that has happened does he expect the private buyer to have the core rules written into its company rules? That is contrary to company law. How on earth will he make it stick?
  Mr. Waldegrave: We are talking here about delegations to Crown servants, and the rules stick then because they remain policy. There are other matters which are not actually in the contracts or in the negotiated agreements but which are policy matters, such as equal opportunities employment or the rather good record of the civil service on the employment of disabled people. They are not negotiated agreements, but policies that Ministers will continue to maintain as they do now, whether in agencies or not. It is essential that they do so, and I am sure that the Labour party would not have come to see the agency programme as a sensible one if we had not been willing to make it absolutely clear at the time that such matters would be retained as central policies.
  Mr. Terry Davis: I should like to put two questions to the Minister before he finishes. Will he tell the House whether it is Government policy to delegate the decision on how many people should be employed in a particular agency or operation—a most important aspect of personnel management—and whether it would be a question not only of the total number of people employed but of the number by grade, a variation which can be an extremely important managerial decision? Secondly, if the Bill has no connection whatever with market testing, in what way will the Government give the House a chance to debate market testing?
  Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, perhaps the hon. Member for Hodge Hill was not in the Chamber when I said, as part of the general discussion that we had earlier on matters going wider than the Bill, that I thought it right to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the case for having a debate in Government time on those wider issues, which are controversial and which are a matter of party division in a way in which I hope to demonstrate that it is not necessary for this Bill to be. That is a fair suggestion by the hon. Member.
  On the hon. Member's first point, nothing in the Bill changes the situation in relation to numbers. For many years, long before agencies, decisions about how many people were needed to carry out particular functions in particular parts of the civil service were taken, in effect, by managers themselves, although the legal power rested then with Ministers, as it does now because those actual number controls, in so far as they are still exercised centrally, are not delegated in this Bill.
  Mr. Garrett: This is wrong because it was never up to managers to decide how many staff were required in a particular division or unit of a Department; it was a highly centralised arrangement—a matter of establishment officers and their staff inspection branches.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I absolutely agree, but it was establishment officers in particular Departments. I was a civil servant many years ago in the Cabinet Office, and it was the Cabinet Office establishment officer—I remember that his name was Mr. Day—who was responsible for taking me on. Or it may have been the late Lord Trent or the late Lord Rothschild. But it was still not a matter to be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of the day —it was delegated to the people running the little unit in which I worked, and the legal powers remain the same.
  To summarise, the Bill represents another small but important step in dismantling the barriers which civil servants currently face and which prevent them from being organised in a way which allows them to give of their best. I put on record, although I hope I do not need to do, that I have greatly admired our civil service from both within and without. There is immense enthusiasm and commitment there and I am convinced that we must never cease to look for ways to allow their better expression and more efficient use. It is on that basis—a less fundamental, perhaps less interesting, but still important basis—that I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.35 pm
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: The Secretary of State began to give away the full import of this small and limited Bill in his closing words when he said that he wants the Bill to go on the statute book because it will allow civil servants to be organised in such a way that they can do their best. Of course we want civil servants to do their best, but since, as he has made clear on numerous other occasions, the Secretary of State believes that the civil service will do its best through the mechanisms of privatisation, market testing and contracting out, it shows the force of the argument that the Opposition tried to put forward at the beginning of the debate, that the Bill is a facilitator, an enabler which will make that possible. It shows that we can debate those broader issues.
  However much we welcome the Secretary of State's willingness to offer a debate on competitive tendering,
  466
  market testing and contracting out, his offer comes a little late in the day. Although we welcome it and we will see his strength in Cabinet in achieving that debate in Government time as soon as possible, it is a little disingenuous, having gone through years of market testing already and when part of the concern about the Bill arises because these issues have not been aired in Parliament. If the Secretary of State were serious about giving the House the chance to debate the matter, he would have done it some months ago and not introduced it almost as a sop now to keep us quiet.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I do not blame the hon. Lady for not recalling this, because she was not in her present post, but there was a whole day's debate on this very subject on the Queen's Speech not long ago.
  Ms. Mowlam: The chance to debate it for a day on the Queen's Speech is obviously welcome. The difficulty is that, as the Secretary of State himself has made clear with this small Bill, when we look at the complexity of the issue, many hon. Members want the chance to discuss the full impact of market testing. The Secretary of State has made it clear elsewhere that he believes that the private sector can do things better than the public sector. If we are talking about 560,000 civil service jobs going into the private sector, the House deserves more than a day of debate on the Queen's Speech.
  The Secretary of State also said that he did not want us to get too excited about the Bill because it was so little, so wee, so minor. In view of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that implicit in the Bill is the end of the national civil service with Whitley terms and conditions that have served industrial relations in the civil service so well for so long, we will get excited about the Bill, not just tonight but in Committee and at Third Reading because of the full implications of the system that the measure will help facilitate.
  The Secretary of State began by looking for common ground and said that he was sure that there was common ground here. I am sure that there is, and the Opposition agree with some of his comments. There is always room for better management and the Government are no exception in that regard. The Opposition would like to see improved services delivered more efficiently to customers because we believe that the customers have a right to quality services. The reforms to which the Secretary of State referred will inevitably mean change. Hon. Members are aware that people do not find it easy to accept change and, in that respect, the civil service is no exception.
  As the Minister said, the Labour party welcomed earlier reforms. The "next steps" executive agencies were welcomed by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this year. However, as my colleagues have pointed out today, there is still understandably great concern about the accountability of those agencies.
  The difficulties were clear with the disability living allowance. In respect of difficulties, the Benefits Agency is one of the worst. The difficulties stemmed from accountability to Parliament. The decision to print in Hansard letters from chief executives of next steps agencies was not taken as a result of open government. The Minister described that decision as a generous gift from the Government. The truth is that if my hon. Friend the

  467
  Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) had not campaigned month after month for those letters to be printed, they would not have been printed. It is up to Opposition Members to improve accountability. That accountability has not been improved as a result of the efforts of the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues.
  The Minister said that the Bill had limited scope. He parroted Lord Howe who, in another place, said that it was a minor measure, of limited scope and that it was a short, technical Bill. If the Bill were simply about decentralisation of limited pay and service conditions within the civil service; if it were just about pay, terms and conditions; if it were—as the Minister tried to portray it tonight—just about flexibility, improved management and decentralising decision making closer to where decisions are taken, we should in principle have no trouble with an efficiency management Bill that did not affect the nature of the national civil service.
  However, the Minister and I are well aware that that is a facade and a smokescreen. As my colleagues have argued tonight, the Bill is about the end of the national Whitley conditions for negotiations. That will change the nature of the civil service.
  Members of another place and the press have realised that. The 560,000 members of the civil service are also aware of that, because their jobs will be on the line as a result of the Bill. Whether the Government call this hiving off, contracting out, market testing or privatisation, we must place on the record the fact that the nature of the civil service will change.
  The Minister tried to limit this small, technical Bill to the isolated issue of pay and conditions, unrelated to the other things happening in the civil service. The Minister has been body-swerving. The fact is that the Bill will be a ratcheting down mechanism on public spending, regardless of the quality of service provision. When managers have to meet financial targets and goals, they will have to act in terms of budgets set. We must bear in mind the fact that the main financial part of those budgets is pay. That is the bottom line. The result may be a lack of sick pay and holiday entitlements. It may affect pay and redundancies.
  The Government tried to offer the miners a redundancy package, saying that if the miners did not take advantage of it within a certain period, it would not be available. In the same way, under market testing the Government will set the financial targets and the cuts will have to be made in-house in a desperate effort to save jobs. That is why the Bill is insidious.
  The Minister referred to Northern Ireland. Many of the people to whom I spoke in Northern Ireland over the past two or three days are deeply concerned about the impact of the Bill on Northern Ireland and about the provisions tacked on to the Bill in clause 3. As it stands, apart from Committee and Third Reading, there will be no opportunity to debate the implications for Northern Ireland specifically.
  The Minister tried to say that the Bill would have no impact on the fair employment provisions in Northern Ireland, particularly in terms of equal opportunities and the problems in Northern Ireland. It is important to recognise that people in Northern Ireland are very worried about the delegation of pay and conditions.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady is right to raise that important point and I hope to still some of those concerns not just in relation to employment policy in Northern Ireland, but in a range of other employment policies. This kind of Bill can stir up anxieties, but the concerns to which the hon. Lady refers are completely unfounded. There is no need for people in Northern Ireland or anywhere else to worry about the wider employment policies. which may or may not be adequate, but which are not affected by the Bill.
  Ms. Mowlam: If a Department or "next steps" agency is free to negotiate its own pay, service conditions, holiday allowances, entitlements and hours, and if that is the flexibility that the Minister is talking about, why is it not on the face of the Bill that equal opportunities and fair employment in Northern Ireland are sacred? In respect of the courts, it will be the Bill and not our debate that matters.
  When similar questions were raised in the other place, instead of providing specific answers, Lord Howe referred to what may be considered areas of delegation and then recounted a list similar to that provided by the Minister tonight. The list gives a flavour of what might occur. It is illustrative, not exhaustive—hypothetical rather than definitive. If the Minister acknowledges correctly that there is much worry about the Bill, why does he not allay that concern by making it clear in Committee what is and what is not delegated?
  The Minister referred to transfer of functions orders and what has been delegated in the past. Will he clarify the issue on the face of the Bill to allay what he considers to be totally unfounded worries and fears?
  Mr. Waldegrave: We cannot clarify matters that are not based on statutes, but are policies. It is impossible to clarify in statutes separate policies such as equal opportunities in employment. That is not a matter for statutes, accepted in the framework of the law of the land. It is a matter for employment policy of the civil service. It has nothing to do with this Bill or any other.
  Ms. Mowlam: I take the Minister's point and in the day-long debate on CCT and market testing, which the Minister has promised to use his great powers and influence in Cabinet to obtain, I look forward to hearing a commitment to equal opportunities and protection of those rights, if that is the proper forum for such commitments, so that those fears about what is happening in the civil service can be allayed.
  The Minister said on several occasions tonight that the Bill is technical and has little influence. To put the Bill in context, I want to refer to a paper that was circulated to all Departments last year. That paper was entitled
  "Selling Government Services into a Wider Market."
  Paragraph 2 said:
  "The Government's policy is to restrict the size of the public sector and in general the presumption is that services should wherever possible be provided by private sector rather than public sector."—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members may say, "Hear, hear". However, if that is the case, the Government cannot have it both ways. If they want it primarily in the private sector, they cannot argue that there is a level playing field for the civil service to bid against external contractors. The Minister made exactly the same point when he spoke to the Institute of Directors

  469
  in July and talked about the revolution that he is leading in Whitehall, introducing the entrepreneurial spirit into the corridors of power. He added:
  "Whenever it was in the interests of the taxpayer and user the Government would prefer to privatise."
  If it is his intention that with market testing there will be a level playing field and fair competition in-house and outside, I am sure that we will leave that matter for another debate. However, it raises questions about the full intent of the introduction of the Bill.
  The Minister explained very well the—excuse me, that sounded like a compliment. The Minister explained the structure of the Bill in terms of the delegation of responsibilities that would alter in the Cabinet and central civil service departments and what would happen when those changes were enacted. If the measure is so technical, simple and modest, why did he feel unable to consult civil service unions before he introduced it? He met them all on 3 June to discuss a number of matters.
  The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 4 June and it was not until 8 June that the Minister considered it worth while to write to the civil service unions. That does not create a very good climate. The Minister assures us that there will be discussions at local level between civil servants and that the consultation procedure is good. However, why did he not consider it reasonable to have open discussions with civil service trade unions? If they are scared and fearful about what the legislation means, surely it would have been common sense or common decency for the Government to discuss the Bill with them before it was presented in the House of Lords.
  Discussions would have made a difference to the response that the Minister received. On Second Reading, the House of Lords objected very strongly. The Minister had to meet colleagues in the other place to get the Bill through. That caused great concern to many people in the other place.
  The Minister argued that the Government have already delegated functions. That is true. Under TFOs, delegations have taken place, but, actually, it is only discretions that have taken place, not delegations. The Minister's only argument for change is that it would be slightly simpler because the present structure is impractical. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it. He says that the system needs to be changed because it is impractical and needs to he simplified, but, to reassure people, he goes around saying that he is not going to use it when passed. The Minister looks confused. In a letter to the Council of Civil Service Unions of 26 June, in answer to a set of questions, he said:
  "We are not committed to introducing any particular delegations as a result of this Bill … There is no shopping list and no work has been commissioned to provide one."
  The Minister cannot have it both ways. If there is a desperate need to revolutionise the corridors of power and allow the entrepreneurial spirit to come in, and if simple delegation would help to achieve that, it would be much better for the Minister to be straight and say, "Yes. We want to introduce a lot of delegations. We are going to get things moving fast." The speed with which the Government are moving on market testing and so on suggests that that is their absolute concern; to deny that they will adds to the fear and confusion.
  The Minister referred to the problem of accountability. He tried to assure the House that accountability would work as well as it does now with the "next steps" agencies.
  470
  As hon. Members have pointed out, there is great doubt about the value, speed and perspicacity of the present system of accountability. As I understand the technical detail of the Bill, the Carltona principle, which has always been the basic principle of accountability, will also be changed by the difference between discretion and delegations. "A civil servant is the Minister so acting," is the Carltona principle as we understood it in the past.
  As clauses 1 and 2 state, accountability will not be directly to the Minister; it will be from a "next steps" agency or an individual in a Department, back up through the Treasury to the Public Accounts Committee. That is not positive, straight accountability to the House; it is a further watering down of accountability to the House. The PAC performs a very useful function, but it is always post facto. It always looks for value for money after the money has been spent. Many of the changes that the Minister is talking about introducing—not on the face of the Bill but in terms of market testing and competitive tendering which the Bill helps to facilitate—will radically change the nature of the civil service. That means that we need to look at accountability much more than we have had the chance to do so far. The Minister has often argued that
  "not only power but accountability has been centralised upwards to Ministers and Parliament."
  The Bill will enable more accountability to be decentralised. We have all those management decisions on pay and conditions being decentralised, and we now have accountability being decentralised. It is difficult to understand, but accountability to whom? If there is a fiddle in the Inland Revenue or a leak in a Ministry of Defence department that has been decentralised by the Bill, who will be accountable? The PAC will be accountable years later. That is not accountability as we have known it—directly to the Minister—in the past. That will change the nature of the civil service as a national body and decimate what we know the civil service to be.
  We will certainly carefully scrutinise the Bill in Committee because it will have an impact on the future of the civil service. The Minister talked about great respect for the civil service, how valuable it is and how it has worldwide respectability. That is absolutely true. Many countries in eastern Europe have turned to our civil service for advice when setting up their own civil services. If the Bill is passed with the decentralisation of pay and conditions, linked with market testing and contracting out, we will have a very different civil service. Some of that is already happening.
  We are well aware that high standards and quality of service are already beginning to decline, not as a result of the Bill but because of what the Bill would facilitate in different parts of the civil service in order to accommodate tenders for market testing. One way to accommodate tenders is to lower pay and conditions and do away with holidays and sick pay; others such as statistical requirements of the Civil Service Commission have already been lowered in the past year. The breadth and depth of the information that it is keeping has changed. Similarly, at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, statistical requirements have been lowered again, at the very time when European requirements in respect of statistical information on food safety are being raised. As a response to the decentralisation of decision making, we already have those alterations. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned the

  471
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the 3,100 jobs that are challenged there. That is exactly the difficulty when one decentralises pay and conditions.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is the purpose of the civil service to provide a good service to the public or is it to employ large numbers of people doing rather inefficient things? [Interruption.]
  Ms. Mowlam: One of my colleagues has said that the hon. Gentleman has probably outlined the purpose of the Cabinet rather than of the civil service. Clearly, the civil service exists to perform a public service. Like others, civil servants are taxpayers and consumers of services. They also have a right to decent pay and conditions and to be valued, because morale is an important part of doing a good job. With respect to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), it is not a matter of if people are valued and have decent pay and conditions we will have a decent civil service. Historically, we in Britain have valued that.
  Quality of service could be affected by the decentralisation of pay and conditions in another way. At present the civil service has a great deal of expertise, whether it is in taxation, European Community law or public law in general, which it is difficult to match outside the civil service. The civil service has a great fund of valuable information and well-trained people.
  The impact of changes such as those in the Bill will not be that the private sector will take over different parts of the civil service; it will be that the civil service will go to the private sector. It will work in exactly the opposite way. The skill and expertise will be lost and the public will suffer as a result.
  I should like to mention briefly two other possible results of decentralisation and the delegation of powers on pay and conditions. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that impartiality has always been important in the civil service. Impartiality has been the bedrock of civil service pay and conditions, but it will not be embodied in any private company rule book. Private companies have a duty first and foremost to their shareholders. When the Government decentralise pay and conditions—the Secretary of State looks confused—as a precursor to privatisation, the first duty will be to the shareholders.
  It is intended that both the consumer affairs and legal services divisions of the Office of Fair Trading will be market tested. The OFT could well face bids from the very companies that it is supposed to regulate. That is the sort of confusion which will result from decentralisation and making market testing easier.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I do not wish to slow down the hon. Lady's speech, but I was not looking confused. It is just that we are on another subject again. The Bill is about the delegation of personnel matters to Crown servants, not private companies.
  Ms. Mowlam: I take the point. We had that discussion at the beginning of the debate. The Secretary of State cannot divorce the delegation of powers on pay and conditions to different parts of the civil service from preparing the ground for further market testing. The Bill
  472
  will enable the Government to do that. The changes will have an impact on the impartiality, confidentiality and, ultimately, value for money of our national civil service.
  The hon. Member for Colchester, North asked about the costs and who the civil service was there to serve. Some of the contracting out and tendering that has taken place in the civil service has resulted in a worsening of conditions and services. That is the lesson that the Secretary of State has failed to learn.
  On this measure, as on so many other policies, the Government are driven solely by ideology dogma rather than common sense and best practice. The Opposition want efficient services and flexibility of management. The Secretary of State may want flexibility of management and decentralisation of decisions, which we welcome, but it is not necessary to do away with the national Whitley negotiating conditions. Those conditions have led to good practice and good industrial relations in the civil service.
  The Secretary of State is not decentralising for flexibility and improved management; he is facilitating and enabling competitive tendering and privatisation. The way in which he pretends that this is a simple Bill gives hypocrisy a bad name.
  We will take the matter up in Committee and we will lobby hard during the coming months. Unless the Secretary of State changes his attitude, the Opposition will vote against the Bill on Third Reading. When I came into the debate today I received a memorandum from the Home Office which said that there had been a general circulation of memoranda asking for future works on privatisation to be presented by the end of November. That is what is going on behind the scenes. We will use the Bill to enable us to have the debate in the House now and later.
  7.4 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We seek a fresh statement from the Leader of the House on the utter chaos that now surrounds the announcement of the timetable on the Maastricht Bill. When the Prime Minister made his statement in Prime Minister's Question Time today he confirmed the report that he was prepared for the Third Reading to be delayed until after the second Danish referendum in May, at the earliest. During business questions the Leader of the House made it clear that the Committee stage is unlikely to resume for three weeks, although last night the Government rejected our amendment to delay the Committee until after the Edinburgh summit in five weeks, on the grounds that thousands of jobs would be lost and an issue of principle was at stake.
  Tonight we have heard that Downing street is briefing the press, although not the House, that the Bill may not complete its passage through both Houses until September or October 1993. We have also heard that the Liberal Democrats, and not this House, had advance warning of, and accepted, such a timetable, despite what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said last night and today about issues of principle and job losses, which required his party to support the Government last night.
  It is now clear that a series of shoddy deals has been done. The House has been kept in ignorance and misinformed. We need a fresh statement on the Government's real intent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The Chair is not aware of that information. I am also not aware of whether the Leader of the House intends to make any further statements. I have no doubt that the Government will have taken note.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the serious nature of the information, and as the Government scraped home yesterday by three miserable votes—they were bailed out by the Liberal Democrats—would it not be a good idea, especially as the Government are denying Parliament information when they were supposedly so concerned about Parliament yesterday, for you to consider suspending Parliament while we find out about the skulduggery in which the discredited Government are indulging? The Government are at sixes and sevens on this discredited Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not really a matter for the Chair. I have no plans to suspend the House. I have already informed the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the Front Bench will have taken note.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The information came about only as a result of the question that I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon. If I had not asked the question, we would not have been privy to the information or the double-dealing that has taken place between the Government and the discredited army led by the Home Guard captain.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a similar point of order. I can add nothing further to what I have already said.
  Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that yesterday's vote is shrouded in double-dealing and dirty tricks. I am sure that many Conservative Members who went through the nightmare of arm-twisting, intimidation and threats by the Conservative Whips will now have cause to ponder the con tricks to which they have been subjected.
  My main point is that, clearly, the Liberal Democrats have been party to the elaborate con trick that has been played on Conservative Members. I am sure that some facility could he made to the lone Liberal Democrat Member in the House to explain the exact role that the Liberal Democrats have played in the matter.
  Mr. Alan Williams rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to raise the same point of order, I have already dealt with it and I shall deal with it no further.
  Mr. Williams: On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is a different point I shall take it.
  Mr. Williams: As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if what we have heard is true, it constitutes a grave contempt of the House and of the Chair. I realise that we cannot embroil you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, al this stage in wrangling between the parties, and that it is not for you to comment on the contempt that the Cabinet has shown to Conservative Back Benchers, but it would be
  474
  appropriate if we asked, through you, whether between now and 9 o'clock the Leader of the House can come here to explain what is being furtively explained at the moment behind closed doors to journalists.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a similar point of order, even though I had informed the right hon. Member that I had dealt with it.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are rising on the same point of order, I shall not accept it, as I have dealt with the matter.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
  Dr. Godman: Yes. Could I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Madam Speaker and her predecessor expressed the utmost concern about statements of that import being made at press conferences and not from the Dispatch Box. It is a scandalous state of affairs, especially where Back Benchers are concerned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have taken note. I call Mr. Robert Ainsworth.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hesitate to correct you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is Peter.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) told us that Opposition Members intend to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, for reasons which have nothing to do with the Bill. That seems to be becoming a habit with Opposition Members. Last night, they voted against a motion for reasons which had nothing to do with the substantive motion. If Opposition Members spent more time focusing on the substance of what was under discussion and less time making party political points, they might do themselves and the House a service.
  The Bill is a small and largely technical piece of legislation, although the Opposition seem to have vested it with a sinister significance which is wholly out of place. Having said that, the Bill is important, because at its heart lies the Government's commitment to creating a public service which truly, effectively and with the maximum attention to cost-efficiency meets the demands of the people—its customers.
  We can justifiably be proud of our civil service, which in many respects is the envy of the world. As the hon. Member for Redcar suggested, it has formed the model adopted by much of the developed and developing world for the way in which they conduct their affairs.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has paid a tribute to the integrity and impartiality of the civil service. Those qualities are clearly recognised on both sides of the House, and are not in dispute.
  I am sorry that some hon. Members seem to mistake this inoffensive Bill for an attack on the civil service, or an attempt to undermine its excellent work. The reverse is true. The Bill seeks to enable the civil service to develop management structures which will assist its undertakings.
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, the key to the proposals is delegation, which means devolving authority from centrally controlled personnel offices to departments and agencies.

  475
  I do not suppose that it is widely known outside Whitehall that the power to determine terms and conditions for civil servants, who operate across the vast spectrum of our national life in many different parts of the country, rests solely with the Treasury and with the Under-Secretary of State for the Civil Service. Decisions which affect the working lives and conditions of more than 0·5 million civil servants rests with two central Government Departments.
  The measures contained in the Bill are designed to give Departments and agencies control over those matters, and that seems to be welcome. The Bill will enable—most importantly, it will not compel—the Treasury and the Minister with responsibility for the civil service to devolve authority for personnel matters to Departments, where that is appropriate.
  Hon. Members who have spent time in commercial life know that people operate at their best when the lines of communication are clear and close to home. That fosters self-confidence and personal motivation. Increasingly, with the development of "next steps" agencies, senior managers in Government Departments are taking on responsibilities which were previously the preserve of the mandarins and that is right.
  Nothing breeds responsibility like responsibility and nothing fosters enthusiasm and diligence more than trust. The Bill underpins the trust that we are increasingly conferring upon senior managers in the civil service. There is no responsibility without trust, and it works both ways. It is no good making people accountable if they do not have the freedom to back up their own judgment.
  On a wider level, the Bill will encourage greater flexibility in the provision of public services, which is both needed and welcome. I say that it is welcome in the knowledge that the House may shortly have to consider some measures which are most certainly needed but which may not be entirely welcome. It is therefore a pleasure to be able to speak in favour of the Bill, although no one should doubt the willingness of Conservative Members to support difficult measures when they are necessary.
  I am sorry that Opposition Members seem to think that the Bill is more difficult to accept than it really is. One should never underestimate the ability of some people to make scare stories out of good news.
  When it was first announced that the Bill would come before the House, newspaper headlines screamed about the "privatisation of the civil service". Not for the first time, Opposition Members seem to be unable to distinguish truth from the fiction of their own creation.
  The hon. Member for Redcar described the Bill as insidious and a threat to jobs. We must make it clear that the Bill in no way changes the terms and conditions of any civil servant. It does not affect the normal rights of staff or the usual consultation procedures, and it in no way affects the legitimate rights of trade unions.
  I fear that the Opposition's attitude to the Bill has betrayed the fact that, once again, their commitment to reform and to improving the civil service is half-hearted at best. They pay lip service to it, but time after time they show that they are not really interested. Instead, they show a commitment to the public sector unions—I suppose that that is not surprising in view of their close relationship
  476
  —which too often give precedence to their own sectional interests over the interests of the people they are there to serve.
  Ms. Mowlam: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Sir Robin Butler, in his Redcliffe-Maude memorial lecture, talked about the new generation of civil service trade union leaders being forward-looking and
  "less dogmatic about retaining traditional and uniform patterns of management where change can be clearly shown to be in the interests of their members and the public they serve"?
  That is the view not just of Labour Members but of Sir Robin Butler, ex-head of the civil service.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Had the hon. Lady listened to an earlier part of my speech she would have heard me pay tribute to our civil servants and the work that they do. However, there is no denying that there remain areas of activity where sectional trade union interests still come before the interests of the public. Many of the Government's reforms in recent years have gone a long way towards improving that situation.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement in firm and bold terms. I am sure that he is well loaded with examples. Perhaps he can just give us one.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am talking about a general attitude, which is well known to Conservative Members and will be widely recognised in the country. I speak as someone who has served for some years on a local council in central London. I am only too familiar with the attitude of the public sector unions and the precedence that, not always but all too often, they place on their own interests at the expense of members of the public. Hon. Members recognise that well, and the country knows about it.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that there have been considerable differences in the attitudes taken by different trade unions, and that some have been a great deal more positive than others about the changes in the public service during the past few years? Therefore, any generalisation of the kind just made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) does not fit the facts.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be wrong if my remarks were interpreted in a generalised way, because I am talking about incidents and tendencies of which we are well aware.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I am genuinely curious. The hon. Gentleman now protests that it would be wrong to take his attitude as a general one but, when challenged to give a specific example, he said that he was referring to a general approach.
  Mr. Ainsworth: That was on a different point. If the hon. Gentleman does not yet understand the point that I have been trying to make, I do not think that he ever will.
  Sadly, the attitude of which I have been speaking goes hand in hand with a tendency towards centralisation. Therefore, it is not surprising, though perhaps somewhat depressing, that Opposition Members appear to deride the idea of delegation that lies at the heart of the Bill.
  Mr. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman may know something about the government of inner London, but he

  477
  knows nothing about the civil service. Is he aware that the agency concept, the idea that Departments should be broken up into budget and responsibility centres, originated on the Labour Benches?
  Mr. Ainsworth: In that case, I am surprised at Labour Members' attitude tonight.
  I am pleased to say that the confusion displayed by Opposition Members did not extend to their colleagues in another place. As has been pointed out, the noble Baroness Turner supported the principle at the heart of the Bill and made it clear that she did not regard it as a blueprint for privatisation. I am sorry to find that Opposition Members in this House seem to disagree.
  The Bill is not about privatisation. Here, I quickly suppress any comment about Treasury forecasters, and merely say that the idea that the Bill will result in a wholesale abandonment of bowler hats and furled umbrellas for designer suits and white socks is utter nonsense.
  As my right hon. Friend said, the Bill in no way alters the fundamental accountability of Ministers and civil servants to Parliament. The Bill clearly enables Departments to set whatever conditions they may think appropriate to the delegation that they extend to those responsible for carrying out public duties. I hope that those conditions are not set too tightly, so that the business of encouraging devolved responsibility, with the attendant benefits to which I have referred, may progress apace, although proper monitoring, which is ensured by the Bill, will continue to be vital.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for Redcar said, real benefits from the Government's reforms of public services are becoming clear. Since 1979, more than £2 billion has been saved by cutting waste and improving efficiency.
  Earlier today, I was fortunate enough to attend an impressive presentation by the National Audit Office. I am only sorry that more hon. Members could not find the time to listen to what it had to say. It is doing an excellent job in bringing cost-effectiveness to our public services and institutions.
  Mr. Garrett: There is something else that the hon. Gentleman does not know. The Government fought bitterly against the establishment of the National Audit Office. I was a sponsor of the National Audit Act 1983 and I know the extent to which the Government tried to stop it. A cross-party alliance of Back Benchers got that Act through.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am talking not about history but about what is happening today. I was most impressed by what the National Audit Office had to say today about its work. It gave specific examples of the real-costs benefits which are accruing from its work. I applaud its efforts and wish it well.
  There is a new spirit of accountability abroad in our public departments. Opposition Members continue to deride the development of that spirit, not least through the citizens charter.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to relate that new spirit of accountability to the experience which he may have had, and which most of us have had, with the Benefits Agency?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I should be delighted to spend a great deal of time discussing the new spirit of accountability in Wandsworth council, on which I served for six years, where it is applied to enormously beneficial effect. The Benefits Agency has been dealt with by hon. Members at great length.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that Opposition Members have no serious commitment to improving the quality of public services in Britain. That has been fairly obvious for some time. Their attitude tonight simply confirms their negative approach. Unfortunately, they have mistaken the Bill's true purpose and, in common with recent practices, are seeking to make party political points out of a perfectly innocuous piece of legislation. It is, however, legislation which forms an integral part of our commitment to ensure that the British people get the best from our public services, which is what they deserve.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I shall not be following the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) down the path, whatever it was, that he trod. My hon. Friends' interruptions showed that he does not have any real knowledge of civil servants or the civil service.
  I regret that the Secretary of State so hastily left the Chamber after delivering an inadequate speech, remembering that many of the problems associated with the Bill lie at his door. Much uncertainty has been spread by his refusal to consult the civil service trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) pointed out that they met him one day and he did not even inform them that the Bill would be introduced in the other place the following day. It is hardly surprising that suspicion should abound when that type of treatment is meted out.
  Hon. Members have referred to some remarks made in the other place by Baroness Turner. We should be clear about exactly what she said and did not say, and I shall quote from her speech. After referring to the poor handling—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot do that. He can only paraphase a speech made in another place.
  Mr. Hoyle: The point of my noble Friend's speech was that it was the ultimate intention of the Government to bring about the privatisation of the civil service, even though this might not be the Bill by which that would be achieved. That flies in the face of everything that the Secretary of State has said. No wonder civil servants are alarmed.
  Let us not forget that the Whitley committees will be destroyed. They have represented a wonderful system of negotiation for over 70 years. They have provided a forum not only for good industrial relations in the civil service but for achieving understanding and consultation. At present, employment conditions in the civil service are the responsibility of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.
  I suppose we should not be surprised at the Bill being presented because, since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, the civil service has been messed about with in one way or another. On taking office, Mrs. Thatcher set Lord Rayner to work. We were told that the exercise was designed to increase efficiency, and we are now told that

  479
  this measure represents another step down that road. Without seeing much sign of greater efficiency, many jobs have been lost.
  It is claimed that the Bill is necessary because of the citizens charter. We are told that this is a small technical measure, but those with experience of such matters know that we must dig deeper and consider the enabling legislation that will result from it. Despite what the Secretary of State said, the Bill allows responsibility to be delegated away from the Treasury and Cabinet Office, which, as I say, have previously been responsible for civil servants' conditions.
  Ministers will no longer need to obtain the agreement of the civil service unions even over the terms and conditions that are being delegated—a point that my hon. Friends and I are anxious to stress. Any individual agencies that are established under the measure can vary the terms and conditions of the service for which a delegated authority exists. That, too, can be done without the agreement of the Treasury, and certainly without the agreement of the civil service unions. No wonder civil servants are alarmed over what is termed a small technical Bill.
  The spectre of privatization—unfortunately, we cannot discuss that tonight—was raised by the actions of the Secretary of State. We recall his speech on 1 June last, in which he referred to competitive tendering. He made it clear that the process that had been imposed on local councils for blue collar jobs such as refuse collection would be extended to central Government, with white collar jobs being affected. He went on to talk about law, accounting, engineering, architecture and science. He was not referring to a small number of civil servants, for about 130,000 jobs could be put at risk.
  No wonder there is alarm and despondency in the civil service. The Secretary of State claims to be a great admirer of the civil service, but he has not been particularly helpful to the service in his past actions.
  As I explained, the Bill will allow the Government or any delegated representative to vary conditions of service without the agreement of the Treasury or the unions, the only exceptions being areas regulated by law. The only such part of the employment conditions is the principal civil service pension scheme. Clearly, there are many matters about which civil servants are right to be alarmed.
  For example, we are right to ask about equal opportunities. What about the possibility of sex and race discrimination? There are numerous issues to be considered, including pay, leave and hours of service. All could be swept away. They will all be subject to change as a result of the Bill. All agreements reached centrally through Whitley between the Treasury and the unions could be overturned without recourse once the measure becomes law. Yet it is described as a small technical Bill.
  There will be no need for the Minister to specify to whom a delegation is being made, yet the civil service unions are having difficulty trying to obtain information about the way in which the measure will be implemented. The Minister may be able to withhold authority for certain functions from the person to whom he has delegated matters. Nor is it clear whether it will all be within public knowledge or be done by private arrangement.
  Many problems have resulted from the attitude of the Secretary of State. After all, the right hon. Gentleman had
  480
  no consultation with the unions before the Bill was introduced in the other place. Only pressure brought by the unions and my hon. Friends has resulted in any consultation. Much remains to be explained to those who work in what even Conservative Members agree is our great civil service.
  It is a vague Bill. The future of many people is at stake, and their conditions of employment are under threat. They should be consulted, because many of them are saying that, instead of, "Yes, Minister," they should be asking, "What are you hiding, Minister?" Much alarm has been spread because of the lack of consultation. It is wrong that suspicion and despair are being caused in the civil service by the Government's refusal to show the whole of their hand in this matter.
  The trade unions are showing a responsible attitude and asking reasonable questions, such as what functions will be delegated. That is a fair question, given the promises that have been made to them. I have a list that has been compiled, but we are not in a position to know whether it is a full and final list. Another important question is, to whom will those functions be delegated? Not only those who work in the civil service but all of us who may have to use the agencies need to know. When and over what period will that delegation take place? What conditions will be established by or in the agencies?
  Another point that has not been satisfactorily explained by the Secretary of State is why those moves are being undertaken. Surely there should not only be consultation but a time limit should be set for those consultations. We would all feel much easier if the Secretary of State could assure us tonight about what monitoring of the delegated authority will take place.
  Differing views have been expressed on both sides of the House. Opposition Members have asked about the agencies that have already been set up and about the inadequacies of those agencies. Again, the Secretary of State did not reply properly. It would help civil servants to know what formal review, if any, will be undertaken to see whether value for money is being obtained for the public. Should not a regulatory authority also look at the work of those agencies?
  One of my hon. Friends has already said that what is happening is the break up of our national civil service, which is the envy of the rest of the world and to which we owe so much. I ask the Government not to hide their real intent behind a technical Bill. The Government's ultimate aim came to light in the other place. Although it may not be in the Bill, it will be achieved in other ways. It can cause only despair and a lowering of morale when we are told that the Government's ultimate aim is complete privatisation.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by the hon. Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who made some constructive points, which I have been thinking about. Although the hon. Lady's points are well informed, I am none the wiser about why she objects in principle to the Bill and intends to vote against it.
  The Bill ensures better management of the civil service by allowing different parts of it to develop their own strategies on matters such as pay, grading and general

  481
  conditions of service. Surely that is a laudable objective. The Bill neither changes the terms or conditions of existing civil servants' pay, grading or structure, nor does it contain new powers to privatise or contract out.
  It is the job of Government to ensure that the civil service is best organised and managed to deliver a better quality and value of services to the public. From the tone of the debate so far, it would appear that only the Conservative Government have had the courage to tackle barriers that impede better value and services. The creation of the "next steps" agencies—now 75 in all—is a remarkable progression towards better services for consumers. In a previous incarnation I served on the National Consumer Council and I have had a great deal of interest in protecting consumer services.
  If we take the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as an example, much has changed—and for the better. The days are long gone when Joe public had to wait months for his driving licence. Now customers come first. All DVLA staff go on customer care courses. They now sort out their own mistakes and deal with their customers directly, rather than allocating them to a complaints committee, using vast amounts of paper. They have abolished an elaborate and inefficient structure of working parties, which they have dismantled in favour of decision-making by line managers. Buggins' turn is out and promotion is now on merit. Managers have clear targets. For example, it was recently specified that 90 per cent. of driving licences must be issued within 13 days. Last year they took 16 days and before it became an agency it took months.
  Opposition Members understand that old-style civil service staff management is giving way to flexibility. Staff can now be hired on a variety of part-time arrangements, giving work opportunities to, for example, working mothers and people with other family commitments to work part time rather than on an eight-hour shift. The Bill will enable those people to find new opportunities for work.
  The Efficiency Unit was set up in 1979. I understand from what I have read that more than 750 scrutinies have saved more than £2 billion—I cannot prove it—by reducing waste within the civil service.
  The Government are also determined to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. We should look at the record. We have now eliminated unnecessary form filling—27,000 forms have been scrapped and a further 41,000 revised. One begins to wonder how many forms exist. Will my hon. Friend the Minister let me know at some point?
  Improved management is a keystone of the Government's policy. The Opposition cannot and should not object to civil service managers, as good managers, having a clearer idea of their objectives and responsibilities and much greater freedom to recruit their own staff to achieve those. We all believe that better quality services will be delivered to the public only if the management structures and demands are driven upwards from the customer to relate to customer demand, rather than downwards from senior managers at Whitehall issuing edicts saying what is best for us.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reassured us that the Bill is about efficiency and localised rather than centralised control of personnel, and nothing whatever to do with privatisation, about which the Opposition are concerned. We do not want a highly centralised system of control which, as we all know, helps to perpetuate the old-boy network.
  482
  While protecting the existing terms and conditions of the civil service, the Bill gives local managers greater flexibility to offer better pay, grading regimes, working hours and disciplinary arrangements, and leaves Ministers and Parliament accountable under the new powers of delegation specified in the Bill.
  Performance-related pay is a key feature of the citizens charter. Some 95 per cent. of civil service pay is now covered by performance-related criteria. Therefore, productivity improvements, speedier delivery of service and improvements in unit cost performance are vital targets. The Bill enables Ministers to delegate and ask for more local accountability, thereby removing a current legal impediment to greater accountability, productivity and performance. It is well worth supporting.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: On a superficial level the Bill is simple enough: it allows the delegation of civil service personnel management from central Departments—the Treasury and the Minister with responsibility for the civil service in the Cabinet Office—to departments and agencies. It was introduced with such confusion and lack of consultation in the House of Lords that it led to a chaotic debate. The Lords who spoke for the Government appeared to have only the most tenuous grip of the subject. There was confusion throughout their Lordships' House, where the legislation was seen as a privatisation measure. In fact, it has nothing to do with privatization—Government organisations can and have been privatised without the legislation.
  However, the Bill raises important issues. It involves the delegation of personnel management to agencies. Although the Government say that power will be delegated to departments and agencies, it will move to agencies. It is unlikely that the Treasury or the Minister with responsibility for the civil service will allow delegation to a central Whitehall Department. The Bill tries to establish the autonomy of agencies in order to enable the agency chief executives to depart from national civil service rules of employment, and terms and conditions of service.
  As agencies cover more of the civil service—the late-lamented project manager for setting up the "next-steps" agencies forecast that 90 per cent. of the civil service would be covered by agencies within a decade—the Bill will mean the end of a national civil service. That is at the heart of the debate. Most Crown servants will join an agency, not the civil service or a national service. They will be employed within the rules of the agency, not national civil service rules. The Bill's ultimate objective is to have Government services in a conglomeration of agencies, all with their own terms and conditions.
  I cannot see why the agency concept requires that fragmentation. In a large corporation there can be profit centres and subsidiaries, but employees can still be on common terms and conditions. I have worked for large multinational companies that had a multiplicity of profit centres and subsidiaries with common terms and conditions, and a common grading system. The virtue of such corporations is that they ensure a common corporate identity and ease of movement from one part of the business to another. A collection of agencies—which is

  483
  what our civil service will become—will not have a public service identity or ethic, which will cause substantial problems.
  The result would be a Government consisting of a number of separate businesses. I must confess that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I first proposed the agency concept in a 1972 Fabian tract "Administrative Reform—the Next Steps"—and I am glad that the agencies are called "next steps" agencies. However, we were fresh from the Fulton committee, which developed the idea of delegation within departments to responsibility and budget centres. It was a natural progression for the two of us to extend the concept to a Department that was a collection of agencies. But the crucial point was that it was still a Department. We envisaged departmental agencies within Departments, operating on the personnel and management system of the parent Department, with career opportunities for moving from the agency into the central, policy-making divisions of a Department.
  The problem with the agency concept as developed by the Government is that it separates technical and executive grades in an agency from the mandarin administrators in the policy divisions. That policy flies in the face of all the experience gained since the Fulton committee. The separation of mandarins from managers is the biggest single problem in our civil service—and always has been. The Fulton committee put its finger on that problem, which has never been addressed.
  The losers will be the staff. An agency management can tear up national agreements with trade unions and impose its own. There will be no obligation on agency management to consult the staff on changes in terms and conditions or business plans. Agencies already exist that do not consult trade unions on business plans or forecasts. There will be no public service standard for the treatment or development of staff. It will mean the end of the civil service as a model employer.
  Under the Bill, all civil service-wide conditions and guarantees could be swept aside—pay, leave, hours and equal opportunities. There would be no guarantee of consultation on aspects such as recruitment arrangements, and training or promotion procedures. Those matters will be delegated to chief executives, who are paid performance pay to cut costs. It is a crucial factor that the chief executives who are paid to cut costs will take the money out of the quality of terms and conditions of the agency employees.
  I have not heard a Minister address the fact that there is now a fundamental contradiction within the Government policies on agencies—agency chief executives are beginning to say so. The Bill embodies the principle of chief executives having greater autonomy. However, compulsory market testing and contracting out, as outlined in the "Competing for Quality" White Paper, contradict the responsibilities of those chief executives. A chief executive has no autonomy if he or she is made to contract out a major part of the agency's activities.
  The Government override the autonomous powers of agency chief executives by demanding that some of the agency's functions must be contracted out. Agency chief
  484
  executives will find themselves running a rump of services. The concept of the executive agency will be negated if the executive functions are compulsorily contracted out.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Eight hon. Members hope to catch my eye and I understand that the Front-Bench teams wish to start their winding-up speeches at 9.20 pm. If hon. Members co-operate by limiting the length of their speeches, I may be able to call all those wishing to speak.
  7.58 pm
  Dr. John G. Blackburn: The debate has been enhanced by the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). That is particularly true of his opening remarks, stating in clear and honest terms that the Bill was not about privatisation. He is absolutely right. He continued to describe how the Bill legislated on an agency basis. I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman's concept of the Bill.
  I pay a warm and generous tribute to civil service staff. There is not one hon. Member who does not owe them a great debt for the work that they do on our behalf, as we in turn work for our constituents. In 1979 the civil service employed more than 730,000 people. By November last year, that figure had been reduced to 553,000. I do not applaud that, in itself. With staff reductions on that scale, anyone in public or political life would want certain quality criteria to be met as a result. I suppose that we would all say that we want a good service—there is no dispute about that. I also happen to believe that we are getting a good service.
  I have spent a lot of my life searching for value for money—indeed, I even wrote a book about it. I am a dedicated disciple of the idea. I think that the civil service bears wonderful testimony to value for money in the public sector. I can say as firmly and as surely as I have ever said anything that the savings resulting from these exercises have amounted to more than £2 billion. I am sure that all hon. Members have their own ideas about how we might use that money in our constituencies—on health, and so on. I value those savings immensely.
  Three times this evening I have heard Opposition Members say that, as a by-product of this Bill, contracts would be torn up and conditions of employment abandoned. I want Ministers to know that the allegations that I have heard three times this evening—that holidays will be abandoned and that sick pay will be taken away from civil servants in these agencies—are intolerable. In Committee and on Third Reading, I want to hear an absolutely positive statement from the Government that none of this will happen.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned Earl Howe's speech in another place. Interestingly enough, having looked through it, I did not find that he said that this was a tiny, technical Bill. I will check again in the next 24 hours, but I have read his speech, delivered on 29 October and reported at column 1298 of the House of Lords Hansard. When Members read it at their leisure, they will find that he did not say the words that they have attributed to him.
  I believe that the service given to the public by the civil service has been a success story. I am quite happy to shout that out loud and clear. It came about because of a new spirit in the civil service. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) that morale in the service is at an all-time low. On the contrary, a fine

  485
  spirit is alive in it. It was encouraged by the introduction of the citizens charter, and management techniques have also improved. Clause 1(2) is all about management procedures.
  The civil service can only be as good as the managers who run it. A great many secondments take place now; managers go and learn in the private sector from national corporations like those that the hon. Member for Norwich, South mentioned. There, they obtain new skills for their jobs and become better managers. I am sure that agencies will provide a better service. I may be accused of prophesying here, and I confess that I do not know whether what I have said will come true, but I sincerely trust that it will.
  My next point will be of interest to all Members of this honourable House who represent constituencies in the provinces. Along with the delegation of powers and improved management techniques, we want more and more of the civil service to be located outside the metropolis. Four out of five civil servants are already employed outside it. With the grace of God and a fair wind, quite a number of them are coming to heaven—by which I mean the black country. A further 700 civil servants have just arrived, with a newly-equipped centre.
  I am not here only as a representative of my constituency; I am also here to tell the truth. The truth is that I am angry about a letter that I received from the Home Secretary, dated 3 November. I have been fighting a battle to have the prison service headquarters relocated to Derby, but it has not happened. Nevertheless, we shall continue to seek the relocation of civil servants and their managers to our area.
  I believe in private enterprise, in market forces and in value for money. I am very pleased, for instance, that the meteorological office has at last started to believe in those things too. In the past two years it has generated 17 per cent. more revenue by selling its services. That is marvelous— [HON. MEMBERS: "Selling more weather?"] Certainly.
  Time and again I have had dealings with the passport offices because constituents have had difficulties getting their passports, but I am pleased to note that the Peterborough office which serves my constituency can now deal with applications in only seven days.
  The Bill is worthy of consideration and of being passed. If we approach its few clauses in the right spirit in Committee and on Third Reading, I believe that it will improve the civil service in ways of which the House will be proud. I commend the Bill to the House.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) suggested that some of the Government changes to the civil service are responsible for the weather. If that is the case, Conservative Members in Cornwall and other tourist areas should be worried about the weather last summer. However, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's claim will stand up to much scrutiny. The Bill is unlikely to have such far-reaching consequences.
  I have some sympathy for Ministers who say that some of the concerns expressed by Labour Members have been outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill's scope is narrow but I understand why Labour Members have raised issues such as the management and future of the civil service, because
  486
  the Bill inevitably raises such questions. The Minister failed to give adequate assurance about the Government's intentions on how the Bill should be used. I hope that at the end of the debate we shall hear more about what change the Government envisage.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said that the Labour party was in favour of decentralisation and that the Bill paved the way for the break up of the civil service as we know it, but the hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. Decentralisation of the civil service and the delegation of management powers is a move away from the present centralised structure. That is the choice confronting hon. Members. Some Labour Back Benchers clearly said where they stand on that choice but the hon. Lady did not make clear where the Labour party stands.
  The Liberal Democrats in the other place and in this House have always made it clear that we support the principle of decentralisation contained in the Bill. It is ironic that the Government should lay so much stress on decentralisation when so much of what they do in other areas is centralisation. The Minister should blush when he speaks about the Government's commitment to decentralisation. We welcome the delegation of powers. That change in the public and private sector reflects modern ideas about how people work best and how organisations are best managed. In an organisation as large as the civil service that is especially relevant.
  Mr. Wilson: Being in favour of decentralisation is rather like being in favour of good weather. Is the hon. Gentleman also in favour of fragmenting pay, grading, holiday arrangements and conditions of service within the present national civil service? In line with recent events I expect that he is in favour.
  Mr. Taylor: Decentralised power has to include pay and conditions. We have made that clear in our policies and some Labour Members have attacked us for it, but one assumes from some of Labour's policies, not least its devolution policy, that it holds the same view. Labour's position on that must seem peculiar to Scottish Labour Members. Labour attacks those who argue for decentralisation and devolution of power and attack us for admitting the logical conclusion, that decisions on pay arid other structures will be taken at local level. It is hard for Labour to argue its measures for Scotland and Wales and, ultimately, for the regions of England while at the same time maintaining a monolithic structure for delivering those measures. That is peculiar and does not seem to make sense.
  I hope that the Minister will address some of the concerns that are raised by the Bill. Some of them were addressed in the other place, not least as a result of Lord Russell's contribution. Changes welcomed by the civil service unions have been made and the legislation has been clarified. It is deeply ironic that the Minister charged with responsibility for the citizens charter should introduce a Bill with so little notice and consultation because that is wholly contrary to the principles that he is in office to espouse. The trade unions and the staffs involved have some justification for making that complaint. Ministers acknowledge that, because we understand that in the other place and in dealing with the representatives of those staffs they have accepted that the matter was not well handled.

  487
  I hope that lessons will be learned from that. If the Government paid more attention to what their rhetoric means that mistake would not have occurred.
  We need detailed reassurance from the Minister about the role of the recognised unions in the Government's plans. Will local management have to deal, as it should, with the recognised union representatives? The Bill does not mention that but refers to staff and representatives, although one would expect reference to recognised trade unions. There is some concern that the rights of representation will be changed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) knows, the Government's record on GCHQ has not been good.
  Mr. Nigel Jones: I represent many thousands of civil servants at GCHQ. They are magnificent people at management level and throughout the structure. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the banning of trade unions at GCHQ remains a scar on the Government that should be removed at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Taylor: I agree, but I had better not pursue the matter or I shall be called out of order.
  The Government's plans about representation are not clear and there is no reference in the Bill to recognised trade unions. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about that because if he does not the concerns will be much greater. How will consultation be managed? How will the staff know what is being proposed, the time scale and the scale of the measures, and how and in what form will the staff affected be able to present their point of view and make sure it is taken into account?
  I should like to ask the Minister about accountability to the House. Many hon. Members hold the view that the changes to the executive agencies and the way in which hon. Members can hold Ministers to account for what is happening in their Departments has not worked effectively. It is not just a matter of putting on record the replies from executive agencies. Constituents often raise issues that go to the root of policy and its effective implementation, but my letters to Ministers have been referred to the executive agency for reply as a matter of day to day management. I have often felt that that was not right—that the issues that I was raising were issues for the Minister. It also creates complications for any Member of Parliament who is trying to deal successfully with his constituents' problems. I think that the process should be reviewed.
  I do not see why Ministers should not seek advice about what is happening from those who are responsible, but I feel that they should be aware of the problems and of the response to those problems, and should draw some conclusion about whether their general policy guidance and the decisions that they have made are being applied effectively.
  The Liberal Democrats have no difficulty with the principles espoused in the Bill. We agree with the proposals for decentralisation in what the Minister has described—and I agree with him—as a limited piece of legislation. Nevertheless, I feel that it is incumbent on the Minister to go into more detail about the changes that are envisaged, and the effect that they will have. It is scarcely conceivable that Ministers have—as they claim—put in
  488
  hand the assumption of a power without having any plans, views or even notions about where that power will apply, whom it will affect and how those people will be affected.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It does not surprise any Conservative Member that the official Opposition have chosen to oppose the Bill. Inherent in every Labour speech that we have heard is the fact that the party does not understand the concept of producer dominance—the concept that a service can be ruined by the fact that it is dominated by the producers, rather than by the customers or clients. At the risk of deviating from Government policy, I rather welcome Labour's opposition to the Bill; it gives new boys like me an opportunity to have a go, and thus provides Labour Members with the chance of a little sport.
  I approved very much of the speech made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I am delighted that he and his hon. Friends are again riding to the Government's rescue. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman must make an effort to reveal some daylight between his colleagues and Conservative Members. I therefore appreciate his point about timing and consultation. Let us be practical, however. The Bill does not change the pay or the conditions of employment of one civil service employee; it merely delegates certain authorities in respect of those matters. The idea of embarking on a long period of consultation with trade unions exemplifies what is currently wrong with the civil service; it is impossible to decide anything, or to make the service respond quickly to the changing circumstances of the modern world.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the legislation which led to compulsory competitive tendering in local authorities did not change the conditions of even one employee, but led to the present circumstances in which tens of thousands of people throughout the country —people who formerly worked in low-paid jobs in relatively secure conditions—now work for slave labour rates, enjoying very few conditions of that kind? Does the hon. Gentleman welcome that development?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. He knows that competitive tendering in the health service and in local authorities has saved millions of pounds.
  When I fought the 1987 general election, one of the problems experienced by the Conservative party in Scotland—particularly in Glasgow, Central—was the fact that, although a huge amount of competitive tendering had proved very beneficial for English voters, competitive tendering had not begun in Scotland. It was thus very difficult to explain its benefits to the Scottish people. Since 1987, competitive tendering has been widely introduced in Scotland, saving millions of pounds, and I am pleased to say that at the last election we started to win back Scottish seats. [Interruption.] I should be interested to know whether the Opposition are suggesting that it was ever possible for the Conservatives to win Glasgow, Central, but that is a separate point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is not about competitive tendering.
  Mr. Jenkin: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  489
  The philosophy behind the Bill is surely about better enabling the best practices of business and the private sector to be brought to bear on the problems of the public service. The civil service—by no means all of it, as was suggested earlier, but the generality of it—used to offer only three real perks: virtually total job security, complete anonymity and protection from the customer, and an index-linked pension at the end. In exchange, employees used to accept low status, low pay, poor morale and the dissatisfaction involved in providing a relatively poor service. In contrast, the private sector, when successful, demonstrates freewheeling dynamism instead of bureaucratic sclerosis. I pay tribute to those who work hard in the civil service, and who provide a good service. Nevertheless, when I hear people say that our great civil service is what has made the United Kingdom such a great country, I sometimes wonder whether they are aware of the irony of what they are saying.
  The philosophy behind the Bill is concerned with transforming public services: first, by increasing efficiency; secondly, by improving accountability; and, thirdly, by enhancing cost control. I do not apologise for that last item. Running an efficient civil service is all about effective cost control. It is extraordinary that some Opposition Members should complain that the whole exercise is aimed at reducing costs, as though that were a sin.
  To achieve efficiency, we must first accept the reality that Ministers cannot possibly be accountable and manage everything for which their Departments are responsible. The Bill accepts that reality. Good managers manage mostly by exception; that is what allows Ministers to decide overall strategy, and to target specific areas of concern. The Bill enhances that capability. Ultimately, management is about finding the right people, not just about making strategic decisions. It is about deciding priorities, allocating resources and leading, motivating and inspiring. That is what is so often lacking in public services. The key ingredient in its achievement is the delegation of responsibility. Whatever job is involved, the higher the degree of self-motivataion that is required for that job, the more satisfying it will be when it is done well.
  Managers often fail to recognise that the best talents for a task are usually just waiting to be discovered in the person who is already doing the job. That is the philosophy that the Bill seeks to apply, not just to the formal top structure of the civil service but right to the grass roots. It seeks to establish, in place of management accountable to the lowest common denominator of talent or intelligence, management which raises motivation, expectations and aspirations to bring out the natural talents of employees at every level. That can be found in any really successful business. Such businesses contain people whose work enhances their own sense of well-being and purpose.
  Although the Bill is not about privatisation, Conservative Members should not be bashful. We have seen a dramatic transformation of management and efficiency in privatised companies such as British Telecom, British Gas and the water companies. We need the same cultural change in parts of the public service which cannot be privatised. Again, the private sector provides the experience and examples on which the public sector should draw in terms of accountability.
  This is not to be dogmatic. There is a huge variety of examples and experience in the private sector. For example, a company for which I worked—Ford—is a
  490
  unitary single generic product company, in contrast with Hanson Trust, where there is a huge variety of subsidiaries achieving a multiplicity of things. The scope and nature of delegation remain very important in both circumstances, but accountability in both cases is in doubt. Good government of both companies rests in the hands of the directors, just as good government of Government Departments and all their responsibilities rests in the hands of Ministers.
  Setting the hare running on such matters as the dilution of the Carltona principle or the exact detail of pay negotiating machinery misses the point entirely. We want accountability which is flexible and effective and which works—accountability as much to service users, clients and customers, as ultimately to Ministers and Parliament.
  Hon. Members have complained about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, for example, but we are now light years ahead of the chaos and inefficiency of that agency. So we have efficiency and accountability, both leading to better cost control. The Audit Commission and the Public Accounts Committee will still be able to expose the inefficiency where services fall short of the required standard.
  With such a beneficial transformation of public services in progress, the only possible complaint can be that the Bill does not go far enough. What about those hoary old red chestnuts, Labour's notorious local authorities—it would be too boring to name them—which have become bywords for extravagance, waste and ineptitude? How can we frame different legislation to tackle the inefficiencies there? No wonder so much cynicism regarding this measure is expressed from the Opposition Benches. They pick away at the sawdust in our eyes because of the motes in their own. One would take their criticisms more seriously if they appeared to care one jot.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has said that we are light years away from the inefficiency at the DVLA, or DVLC, which is within my constituency. That sentiment puts him at odds with his own Front Bench Members, who are ever ready to compliment the centre on the quality and efficiency of its work.
  Mr. Jenkin: The agency status of DVLC in Swansea has transformed the management, and I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. But it is the agency status that has achieved that.
  Mr. Anderson: The agency status came into being in April of last year. No one can seriously claim that there has been any increase or decrease in the quality of the product since that time. There were teething problems in the 1970s, but the quality of the product has been very high -indeed since the mid-1970s.
  One other matter that puts the hon. Gentleman at odds with his Front Bench is his suggestion that the philosophy behind the Bill is the transformation of the public service. Surely the whole essence of the selling of this Bill by those on the Government Front Bench is that it is really a rather unimportant Bill. I noticed that the Secretary of State, in opening, called it a "poor little Bill". He talked about "a technical Bill of limited scope", not the transforming Bill which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

  491
  In another place, it was suggested that the Bill was an exercise in good management and delegation, an exercise in decentralization—hardly the hallmark of this Government's policies, certainly if we look at local authorities.
  There has clearly been a wish on the part of the Government to down-sell this Bill as technical and of little consequence. Indeed, one wonders why they found it worth while to bring this so little, so poor Bill before the House at all. On the other hand, we on the Opposition side and those in the other place see that this Bill could pave the way for privatisation.
  One reason why we are a little alarmed and suspicious is that, on 1 June, the very day before the Bill was introduced in the other place, the Secretary of State gave what is known as The Sunday Times speech, in which he talked about a revolution in the organisation and delivery of our public services, a revolution that would affect both users and their providers. That was the context within which the Bill was introduced. Perhaps it is simply the practice of this Government, as was seen so dramatically over the Maastricht Bill, to speak to different audiences with different tongues. So the Government can hardly be surprised that we are suspicious of the motives behind the Bill.
  We note, for example, that the Efficiency Unit envisages not less than a quarter of our civil service being privatised. We know that there has been little debate on this, but I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has given an undertaking to the House that he will put pressure on his own business managers to ensure an adequate debate in the House on that theme.
  So what is the true interpretation? Is it a little Bill, a Bill of little consequence, the Minister's "poor little Bill", or is it something which, although technically on the strict reading of the words is indeed that, has much larger implications? We clearly have much scope for suspicion about the motives of the Government, and they have only themselves to blame because of the nature of their rhetoric —the bonfire of controls, the rolling back of the frontiers of the state, and so on. As they press on dogmatically against the public service with an unchecked wish to destroy the public service as we know it today, they can hardly be surprised if we seek to oppose them.
  I make no apology for seeking to illustrate the dangers created by this Bill by taking an example in my constituency, the DVLA, because I am confident that, as I hope to show the House, a number of lessons can be learnt about the dangers of setting off along this route.
  Last Friday, for example, I, together with all my colleagues from West Glamorgan, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is present now, and two of my colleagues from Dyfed, attended a remarkable meeting called by the civil service unions over the future of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in my constituency. There were more than 600 civil servants there, all anxious about their jobs and the clear threat to their jobs provided by the Government's proposals.
  The Government now seek to put a gloss on a leaked document from the chief executive saying that it was all part of a routine exercise and perhaps should not be taken too seriously; that it was one of several options and it was
  492
  premature to criticise it; and indeed that Ministers had not yet made a decision on it. The effect of the position envisaged in that document—the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will know how important this agency is to the employment structure of an area of high unemployment—would be the loss of more than 3,000 jobs. He and the House will understand the anxieties of the work force there because of the uncertainties raised.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the DVLA, and, having lived in that area for many years, I realise that the loss of the DVLA from his constituency would greatly increase unemployment. But I believe that the hon. Gentleman has clarified the position by saying that there is no Government proposal to do what he has stated. There is a continuing policy of looking at various agencies and Departments and, as has been said, far more civil servants have moved from London to the various districts than the other way round.
  Mr. Anderson: I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the document, and to note its terms and tone. If the proposal is adopted, and as the chief executive has properly admitted that there is no way in which jobs would remain in Swansea following contractorisation, it would mean a complete reversal of the policy of dispersal of civil service jobs to areas of high unemployment. There would be no way in which the Government could have control over the siting of those jobs once they had been put out to the private sector. That is the stark reality of the effect of the Government's proposals.
  Let me briefly cover some of the broader issues that arise from the chief executive's proposals. I invite the House to consider the tone of the document. We are talking not about someone setting out options but about the clear advocacy by the chief executive of a particular solution—contractorisation—which can lead to one outcome alone: the moving from Swansea of the 3,000 jobs. The social effects are mentioned only in a rather sad aside— something to be considered for a public relations exercise rather than to be treated as fundamental. When I give the Minister a copy of the document, he will no doubt see the reason for the profound anxiety to which it gives rise.
  The Bill can be seen as a step along the road towards privatisation, just as the internal reorganisation of Government Departments towards company status is a step in that direction. Matters of considerable constitutional and legislative importance and of accountability arise. I invite hon. Members to consider examples such as the vehicles inspectorate, the very integrity of whose system is under threat. If the testing of heavy goods vehicles were taken away from the civil service, something of much value would be destroyed.
  The chief executive's document considers how best to avoid legislation—and, in effect, parliamentary scrutiny —by keeping a residue of perhaps 150 jobs at the centre and sending the rest to the private sector; who knows where?
  The threat to a unified public service has already been referred to, and I shall not develop the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends on that subject.
  Standards of pay—regional pay and the downgrading of pay in areas such as mine where market forces are less

  493
  strong—are also a cause for concern. The whole pay structure may be downgraded in Northern Ireland, for example.
  Another worry is the politicisation of the civil service as a result of the process. The chief executive's document is not the product of a neutral civil service. We are talking here about civil servants who have adopted the Thatcherite political culture and who know that, if they dance to the tune of their political masters, they will get what they want. In their eyes, that is the way to promotion. I make no apology for criticising Stephen Curtis, the director of the DVLA, because, in writing the document, he stepped outside the civil service and became a quasi-politician, thus laying himself open to the criticism to which all politicians are subject.
  There is a conflict with social objectives. The Secretary of State for Wales was unaware of the contents of the document. As happened with the mines, he will be brought in after the event even though the matter is so important to the Welsh economy.
  Finally, the document is in profound conflict with the dispersal policy of previous Governments. The DVLA was sited at Swansea by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who was then in a Labour Government, precisely to bring a major job creator to an area that had become an area of high unemployment because of the pit closures. If, as is envisaged in the document, those jobs go to the private sector, they cannot and will not be kept in Swansea, as is readily acknowledged. They will go we know not where —probably to an area which does not need them quite as badly as Swansea. The proposals drive a coach and horses through the proper view of Government that such jobs should be dispersed.
  That is the nature of the anxiety affecting the city of Swansea. I hope that the Prime Minister will allay that anxiety by repudiating the document, even though it is very much the product of the philosophy that has wreaked such damage in the country as a whole. I hope that 'we shall have a debate on the document, which shows the extent to which the Government are out of touch. I believe that we have every reason for being suspicious of the Bill. In line with their previous record, the Government are fattening the service for market. The Bill is a step along the road to privatisation and away from the unified public service that has served the country so magnificently over the years.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: Time is short, so I shall confine my remarks to two matters of concern and one point of complaint.
  The first matter of concern is accountability. We are told that the Bill relates largely to "next steps" agencies and, as the Minister knows, our experience of those agencies' accountability has not been good. I hope that the situation will improve. The Bill facilitates the delegation by Ministers of certain functions to the heads of agencies and further down the structure. Clearly, we should be concerned about the degree of accountability to the House not just as regards fiscal rectitude but on policy matters. How will that accountability be secured and what steps will be taken to ensure that the House is fully informed about the agreements and arrangements that are made below ministerial level by the chief executives of the agencies?
  494
  The second matter of concern is that, although the Bill facilitates the delegation of certain functions, we are not told exactly what functions may be delegated. A number of functions were mentioned in another place. I believe that arrangements for performance pay and starting salaries of new staff were referred to. It is clear that a large range of functions can be delegated, excluding only pensions and so on.
  As the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said, the Bill opens the way for the break up of the unified civil service. If full advantage is taken of the scope of the Bill, it will result in the break up of the unified civil service. It will lead to a structure whereby different agencies deal with different functions and operate as almost self-sufficient units with different terms and conditions of employment.
  That will give rise to regional variation, and to my hon. Friends, my constituents and me that is a very sore point. As the Minister knows, Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. We have a low-wage economy. We are the poorest part of the United Kingdom and, relatively speaking, we have been getting poorer. The Bill opens up an appalling vista. The extent to which we have been relatively disadvantaged under the present Government will now be used as a basis on which to disadvantage us yet further through regional agreements that will reduce the pay of a significant number of people in the public service. That is a matter of very great concern. I ask the Minister to tell the House whether the Government intend to use the Bill as a way of moving towards regional rates of pay. When he has dealt specifically with that, I should like him to address further the question of accountability to ensure that new arrangements for terms and conditions made by persons to whom the Bill enables delegation to be made can be raised and debated in the House.
  That brings me to my point of complaint. It relates to clause 3, which authorises legislation for Northern Ireland by negative resolution. As the Minister knows, that means that the Order in Council, which will be the Northern Ireland equivalent of this Bill, will not be debated in the House at all.
  Strictly speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker was very kind to me: the comments that I made earlier about Northern Ireland were not in order, since the Bill does not itself make changes in regard to Northern Ireland. So one is not in a position, strictly speaking, to debate the detailed effect of the Bill, because it does not affect Northern Ireland; it is a question of the Order in Council, which is not only unamendable but undebatable. It is a shoddy way of legislating, and the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for having any part of it. It degrades the House.
  I would have liked to take up some specific matters with regard to Northern Ireland, but obviously the Minister cannot reply. I cannot complain about that, because I know that Northern Ireland Office Ministers had intended to be on the Front Bench this evening but were unavoidably prevented from being here.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: Given the nature of the Bill before the House, I must declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. Since the Minister looks interested, I ought also to explain to him that the very reasonable fee

  495
  that the union pays for my services is donated in its entirety to the Dundee Labour party, so I have no personal gain whatever from my relationship with NUCAPS. I wish that were the case with every hon. Member.
  No one on the Opposition Benches has been in the least convinced by the arguments from the Government Benches that this is an inoffensive Bill or simply a technical one with a relatively restricted scope, because it is only one piece of a much larger jigsaw that the Government are steadily putting together—a jigsaw that includes market testing, contractorisation and, as the Minister admitted, full-blown privatisation.
  It is important that the House sees the Bill in the context of all these other measures—that it does not simply shrug the Bill through but sees it for what it is: another important step on the road to the privatisation of the civil service. Although the Bill may not say that directly itself, it is part of a move in that direction.
  I listened carefully to the Minister when he introduced the debate but he did not really set out the Government's case for bringing the measure forward. If one wants to find out the Government's case, one must look at the record of the debate in the other place, particularly in Committee, when the Government spokesperson explained why the Government believed the Bill to be necessary.
  It was explained that there is, for example, no existing statutory authority for transferring functions or responsibilities from Ministers down to heads of Departments or agency chief executives, and that the Bill now creates the statutory authority for that transfer of responsibility and functions to take place.
  It was pointed out that the Government had identified a need to delegate selectively, either by function or by Department or indeed by agency. It was explained that so many of these transfers will be taking place in future that the existing transfer of functions orders would be unable to cope, so there was a need for a statutory basis on which transfers could take place.
  It was also pointed out in the other place that Ministers' existing discretion partially to pass power down the line does not properly decentralise responsibility, because always in the end there is a need to refer back to the Minister for the Civil Service or to the Treasury; the Bill means that, in the delegated areas, there will now be no need to refer back either to the Minister for the Civil Service or to the Treasury, and the chief executives in agencies and departmental heads will be free to get on with it—free to manage, as the Government describe it, when what they really mean in delegated areas is that they will be free from accountability through Ministers to the House. —
  There has been some debate over which functions are to be delegated, but according to the Government's own notes on clauses, these are the functions relating to the management of the civil service. The notes on clauses go on to explain that these management functions will now be delegated to the extent, and subject to the conditions, thought appropriate by the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service.
  The Minister said tonight that powers to determine manpower levels would not be delegated, but we have only his word for that, because the Bill says that they may be delegated to the extent and subject to the conditions which
  496
  are thought appropriate by the Minister and by the Treasury. So if some Minister in the future decides that it will be appropriate to delegate the determination of manpower levels in the civil service, the Bill will give him the right to do it.
  There is no point in Ministers giving us assurances from the Dispatch Box about what they will and will not do; even a paper like the Tory Daily Telegraph says that it can no longer take what the Government say at its face value, because there is always a U-turn the next day and the Government do something different from what they said originally.
  So it is not good enough to have assurances from the Dispatch Box. If it is not written into the Bill that certain powers cannot be delegated, we must assume that all powers can be delegated if Ministers feel it worth while doing so.
  There will be no debate about which functions will be delegated immediately: they relate to recruitment, pay, working hours, holidays and so on. Once responsibility for those areas is delegated, certain consequences are inevitable. The Minister claimed at one point that none of this would change the terms and conditions of civil servants in any way, but those national agreements which have previously been arrived at between Ministers and the civil service unions are now completely undermined. Individual Departments and agencies will be able to vary any condition of service for which a delegated authority exists without the agreement of the Treasury or the civil service unions. That must inevitably affect recruitment, promotion, pay and any other conditions of service outside pensions.
  If the Bill becomes law, Ministers are giving themselves the power to tear up national agreements which they have previously reached with the civil service unions.
  In the other place, fears were expressed that the Bill was a privatisation measure, and the answer was that this was not so, because the Government had only changed the way in which staff were managed. It was explained that, although the terms and conditions of staff in Departments and agencies might increasingly differ from some abstract civil service norm, they would still remain civil servants. But one can still be a civil servant and work under very different terms and conditions from those one enjoyed previously under a national agreement in a national civil service.
  The Government are driving towards the breaking up of the national civil service and agreements arrived at, and ensuring that there is a reduction in pay and conditions for many individuals.
  The Minister has said that chief executives and departmental heads have no powers to change the terms outwith normal procedures; he stressed that the normal procedures included the national agreements which made provision for consultation with unions, and he assured us that, before anything changed, the unions would be consulted.
  The two Liberal Democrat Members who took part earlier in the debate staged a touching scene between them. One of them asked whether banning the unions was not a scar on the record of the Government. I agree with him that it is, in the way in which they have banned trade unions at GCHQ. But equally, what the Liberal Democrats are supporting in the Bill, along with the Government, undermines trade unions throughout the civil service.

  497
  It is not enough to consult trade unions about local agreements; they are national unions, which seek national agreements for all their members wherever they happen to work, and the Bill completely undermines this. So it was a case of crocodile tears by the Liberal Democrats to say how much they cared for trade unions when they support a Bill which undermines the position of the unions in the civil service.
  We are also told that the Bill has no direct connection with contracting out. It may have no direct connection, but the indirect connection is obvious. The management of departments and agencies has been delegated down to chief executives. The responsibility for recruitment, appointments and terms and conditions of service has been transferred from Ministers to chief executives. National agreements with trade unions have been torn up. One does not need to be Sherlock Holmes to discover what will happen next because it is already happening in the "next steps" agencies in the civil service.
  I will be writing to the Minister about the situation in the Central Office of Information, where the chief executive has recently taken up the market testing initiative. He put the print section office in Lambeth out to tender. Eight bids were received, the lowest from a company called Williams Lea, which was duly awarded the contract. The unions insisted that, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the acquired rights directive, their members must transfer to the new employer on existing pay and conditions.
  The COI took legal advice and had to agree with the trade unions. The new employer was informed, but its reaction was astonishing. The new employer agreed to pay the existing wages and observe the conditions, but only if it was allowed to increase by a significant amount the bid which had won the contract. Even more astonishing was the fact that the chief executive agreed to that proposition, and the company was allowed to up its low bid and add on significant sums to meet the requirements of the European directive on wages and conditions for workers.
  That is an absolute scandal. If that sort of thing happened under a local authority, the officials would be sacked and the councillors thrown out of office and surcharged. However, no one is doing anything about the situation in the COI. The chief executives in "next steps" agencies should be subject to even greater parliamentary scrutiny, not less, as will happen under the Bill. That is why it is very important that we consider such matters.
  9 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), I am a parliamentary adviser to a civil service trade union. In my case, it is the Inland Revenue Staff Federation. Like my hon. Friend, I derive no personal benefit from that work, but the IRSF contributes to the salary of my secretary at the House of Commons.
  I am also a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I was very interested to hear tributes to the work of the National Audit Office from no fewer than four Conservative Members. I wish that they had been present during our debate last week about the work of the PAC. However, they paid handsome tributes this evening to the work of the NAO.
  498
  I must make three points, the first of which has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). He reminded the House that the National Audit Act 1983, which created the NAO, was opposed by the Conservative Government. Secondly, I must point out that the NAO is not an agency. The NAO, which has done sterling work in making savings for the taxpayer, is a department of the House and has nothing to do with "next steps" agencies. Finally, the fact that the NAO can point to savings of £2 billion is a measure of the Government's waste of taxpayers' money.
  The NAO is much less enthusiastic about "next steps" agencies than are some Government supporters. If Conservative Members want proof of that, they need only look at the NAO report on the vehicle inspectorate, the first "next steps" agency, and examine the proceedings of the PAC earlier this year on that subject.
  The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and Government spokesmen have told the House that the Bill does not change pay or conditions for civil servants. Frankly, that is disingenuous. If it is not the purpose of the Bill to change the pay and conditions of civil servants, what is its purpose? The Bill is obviously intended to do that, and that is the reason for delegating the authority to chief executives and other managers in agencies and possibly in Government Departments.
  The Minister was anxious to assure the House that the Bill is not concerned with privatisation or market testing. It is not a question of what is in and what is not in the Bill. What is important is what is behind the Bill. What is behind the Bill is the Government's policy of market testing and privatisation. That is accepted and understood by civil servants.
  The Bill is a paving measure for market testing. The Minister said that we can have a debate on a date as yet unknown. He also said that we have already had a day's debate on the issue in the debates on the Queen's Speech. He is being disingenuous again. A debate on the Queen's Speech is a debate about the Government's policy for the coming year. It is no substitute for a debate on a particular policy, any more than it is a substitute for a Second Reading debate.
  I would have expected the Government to arrange a debate in Government time about their policy of market testing before they proceeded with it, but they are proceeding with it anyway. There is already a drive towards market testing without any debate or authority from the House. Only last week The Times carried an advertisement inviting tenders for typing, secretarial and office support services in the Inland Revenue. That is happening without hon. Members being given any opportunity to debate the very important policy considerations that are involved in that advertisement. There has been no opportunity to debate the effect on the confidentiality of taxpayers' records of the privatising of the Inland Revenue's typing services. Indeed, there has been no opportunity to draw to the attention of the Government the noose into which they are putting their own heads.
  I represent Birmingham, Hodge Hill. Adjacent to my constituency is Solihull. There are several Inland Revenue offices in Solihull, including the office where staff do typing for policy reviews, and the office—some of my constituents might be employed there—in which they type press releases in advance of the Budget. If those press releases

  499
  are typed by the employees of private companies, how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer guarantee the total confidentiality that is given to Budget contents?
  Not long ago, a Chancellor of the Exchequer was forced to resign as a result of a leak of Budget contents, yet the Government are now going to privatise that essential typing service. I do not think that they realise what they are doing, but they have not given Opposition Members who understand what they are doing an opportunity to tell them before tonight, and it will be too late when they arrange a debate at some unknown date in future.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is saying that if each agency is privatised we will have to watch out for leaks, but in the same breath he says that leaks are already happening. I do not understand.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is probably too young to remember that, in the 1940s, a Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an inadvertent leak to a journalist which was printed and which led to his resignation. It had nothing to do with civil servants; he was a Member of the House—a Minister. I am drawing attention to the opportunity in future for leaks, because the essential service of typing and secretarial support services will be privatised.
  I listened to the contribution from the Liberal Democrats with great interest. I was not aware that their policy of devolution involved breaking up the civil service —by devolution, decentralization—or that they plan to have local departments of social security, local tax gatherers, local customs and excise, and, no doubt, local rates for VAT. They tell us that it is all going to be local and there will be local pay and conditions to go with it. I must tell the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that if we have local pay and conditions for civil servants in Devon and Cornwall, experience does not tell us that they will get higher wages; experience tells us that there will be lower wages. The Northern Ireland spokesman, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), was absolutely right to draw attention to the effect on civil servants in the Province if the Government are allowed to go ahead with the Bill.
  The Bill will break up the civil service, as many of my hon. Friends have said. It is designed to ensure not only delegation to departments and chief executive agencies but local pay arrangements. Local pay arrangements will inevitably mean a drive to reduce wages and introduce worse conditions for civil servants not only in Ulster but in Scotland, Wales and the regions of England. It will be a case of driving down the wages at a local level of civil servants who, at the moment, enjoy higher wages as a result of the solidarity and unity that come from being members of a progressive trade union.
  The Bill is about doing to clerical jobs in the civil service what the Government have already done to dirty jobs in the health service.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I shall raise several small points, as many major points have been covered by my colleagues. The Minister stressed the difference between policy and strategy on the one hand and implementation on the other hand. Of course, it is not
  500
  quite so simple as that. Very often, implementation creates policy. Because of new technology, many of the activities of the civil service are essentially footloose and could effectively be located anywhere. I am not sure whether it is intended to delegate to chief officers of agencies the power to decide a location—not necessarily the location of an entire unit, but the balance of staffing between locations.
  Hon. Members heard that it is not intended to allow chief executives of agencies to determine staffing levels, but presumably it will be left to them to determine the location of staff. That could run counter to the dispersal policy followed by Governments, although insufficiently vigorously, over the years. It would be helpful to have clarification of the balance to be struck between that policy, regional policy and this new policy.
  The Minister said that it was possible for any conditions that the Government saw fit to be imposed on any delegation. To allay the anxieties that we have been assured are unfounded, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline the conditions that he intends to impose on any delegation to agencies. Delegation can be extremely creative and helpful in liberating the talents and abilities of staff.
  However, there is a danger that delegation will not liberate. Labour Members are anxious that the Bill is simply a cost-cutting exercise. If terms and conditions are to be addressed, there will be a great temptation simply to seek the cheapest possible alternative. I should like to know whether the Government intend directors of agencies to be genuinely free to strike their own deals. I and many of my hon. Friends have been lobbied today by representatives of the universities, which were under the impression that they were free to strike wage deals with their staff. However, when the universities struck a deal that they could afford they were told by the Government that it was not acceptable. We must be told whether chief executives will have freedom in such circumstances.
  I have also been told by some national health service staff in Scotland that if they get trust status they will not be obliged to put services out to competitive tender; they will be able to retain them in-house. Will chief executives of agencies be free to decide not to contract out some elements of their activities? Again, we should have some knowledge of the Government's intention.
  The logic of delegating implementation is that chief executives will be free to construct their own reward systems. If they construct their own reward systems, there is an obvious logic in allowing separate cultures to develop. If agencies are allowed to develop their own cultural systems, that will inevitably lead to the break up of the ethos of the civil service.
  It is accepted by the Opposition, though the Government seem to be unwilling to accept it, that there is a difference between the ethos of a privatised organisation and that of a centrally directed civil service. I should like to see some changes in the civil service. There is an over-cautious element to the civil service ethos, but the civil service values service above economy. The balance between equity and economy will need to be addressed by the Government and by directors of agencies. At present it is not clear how the Government want that balance to be struck.
  Presumably, the Government want to give directors of agencies the power to determine their own structures. That could lead to the abolition of existing hierarchies and

  501
  systems of promotion. It would diminish the extent to which staff can be transferred between departments and would change the comparability of area-based systems.
  Moving to a completely decentralised subcontractual system is an interesting idea. I am not sure whether that move is the Government's intention, but it was certainly suggested by some Conservative Members tonight.
  I do not want to give the impression that Opposition Members are dominated solely by the producer interest. I do not believe that the civil service exists simply to employ people, but many people in the civil service are genuinely worried about the future and the direction in which the Government are moving. Creating anxiety is not the best way to encourage good results.
  The Government must clarify the extent to which decentralisation and deregulation will go. We are dealing with the potential destruction of a unified civil service. Part of the strength of the civil service is the commonality and shared culture of its members. I seek clarification from the Under-Secretary of State about the extent to which there will be abdication of responsibility, as distinct from decentralisation. I should be keen to hear the shopping list of activities to which the Bill is intended to apply. Until we know that, it is difficult to judge how far the Government intend to take it and how far we ought to react.
  Finally, I want clarification of the parameters within which delegation is to be exercised. The difference between delegation and abdication is that the former gives powers downwards, within a clear framework. It is not clear from the Bill what that framework will be and whether there will be any rules. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that he had proposals in mind. I should like to hear what they are.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) complained about the absence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from the Front Bench. I must make it clear that the right hon. Gentleman informed us that he would have to leave early to take part in "Question Time", and I assure the House that the Opposition are delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is representing Conservative party interests on "Question Time" tonight.
  Equally, I have no complaints about the fact that the Liberal Benches have been gloriously deserted for some time. I understand that they have gone back to their constituencies to prepare for crucifixion.
  Another matter may need to be clarified. There have been references to the Earl Howe, and I could see some puzzled brows as hon. Members wondered whether the dead sheep had made a comeback. The Earl Howe is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House of Lords. It is something of a puzzle why the Bill, which impinges on many subjects but not on agriculture and fisheries, should have been in the hands of that Minister. I can only think that it is because he is probably the best-qualified Minister to sell a pig in a poke, or a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to the view taken by Baroness Turner, our colleague in the House of Lords who dealt with the Bill. He shamelessly misrepresented what she said. Our little exchange earlier apart, it is important to put it firmly on the record that she said that she accepted
  "that the Bill itself it not a vehicle for privatisation"—
  I would put in parentheses, "in itself" but she added:
  502
  "we still object to the manner in which … it is intended—
  I put the emphasis on the word "is"—
  "to hive-off Civil Service functions to the market."
  She rightly said that "We"—the Opposition—
  "do not believe that … the functions will be any better performed—on the contrary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 October 1992; Vol. 539, c. 1299.]
  I hope that that puts beyond any doubt what Baroness
  Turner did and did not say on the matter.
  I recommend hon. Members to read the speeches in the Lords by Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose experience was most impressively brought to bear. I do not think that anyone who reads the debates, or who considers what underlies the legislation, could for one moment accept the dismissive and almost self-deprecating tone of the Chancellor of the Duchy, who told us what a pathetic little measure this is. I do not know whether we were supposed to feel sorry for him because he has been left to mop up legislative trivia, after having been in charge of great affairs of state. When Tories are self-deprecating they are often at their most devious.
  What ever else it is, the Bill is not a modest technical measure; it is fundamental to the operation of the civil service and therefore of Government. The Earl Howe—it sounds a bit like an American jazz singer—was rather more lucid in spelling out what the Bill was about. He said:
  "But the time is past when it was right, if it ever was, for the Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service to regulate in detail the personnel arrangements ("—
  he probably said "open brackets"—
  "pay, grading, recruitment ages and qualifications, holidays, hours of work, appraisal systems and so on) for half-a-million civil servants. This Bill will enable the central departments to delegate that responsibility to others who are, in relation to their individual businesses,"—
  "businesses" is an interesting choice of word—
  "better placed to take such decisions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 1992; Vol. 538, c. 12.]
  Earl Howe was spelling out how, as a result of the Bill, pay, grading and conditions would no longer be negotiated—an important point—far less apply on a national basis, but would be broken down into the individual businesses. There is nothing modest or technical about that move. It is deeply fundamental.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby immediately identified the seriousness of the matter. He said:
  "The Government are proposing reforms which are equal in significance and importance to those made over 100 years ago in an entirely opposite direction by Sir Stafford Northcote. That was then the basis: centralisation, uniformity, standardised recruitment, stopping log-rolling and all that kind of thing. The Civil Service has been built on the traditions that were then laid down. Now the Government believe that there is an opportunity, and probably a need in certan ways, to do something drastic in order to try to revitalise, if you like … What the Government are doing is so indefinite and imprecise, yet full of potential threats to jobs, that your Lordships' House cannot expect those of us who are deeply concerned with the Civil Service"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1992; Vol. 538, e. 1064.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be quoting from speeches made in the other place other than those of Ministers.
  Mr. Wilson: I need not pursue the point. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with his tremendous experience in this area and as a former holder of the position held by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, recognised the fundamental nature of the Bill and was deeply offended by it. Moreover, he was deeply offended by the fact that a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which I understand

  503
  is historically a non-political position in terms of controversial legislation, should be putting such a measure through.
  I find it offensive that a deception should be practised on Parliament by a Minister telling us that something as basic as this is a modest technical measure, a poor little thing of a Bill. It is not. I might accept it if it came from the used-car wing of the Conservative party, because they have no understanding of history or historical precedent within the civil service or of traditions that go back 100 or 150 years, but I do not believe for one moment that the toff wing, represented by the Chancellor, suffers from any such delusions. If he does not suffer from such delusions, what he told the House was an intended deception.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is a little bit out of order and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it. We can have a perfectly legitimate argument about this, but no one is attempting to deceive anyone else.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will wish to withdraw that.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall, with pleasure, withdraw it. I hope that the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will find it acceptable if I say that to call it a poor little thing and a modest technical measure is a misrepresentation of the Bill. It is neither of those things.
  What problem does the Bill seek to address? Is there some great wave of corruption in the civil service or some terrible ill within it that needs something as drastic and fundamental as this? The Earl Howe told us quite the contrary. He said that there is no political jobbery and that the Civil Service Commissioners ensure that appointments are won on merit. He reassures us about all the standards of the civil service in which all of us would want to believe. Therefore, there is no problem of that nature for the Bill to address.
  The problem is to match the "next steps" agency with administrative devolution. Again, none of my hon. Friends finds a great problem with that concept. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and others have clearly said, not only do we not oppose fundamentally, but we have had much involvement with and responsibility for, the concept of the devolution of the civil service into agencies and to the whole "next steps" programme.
  To achieve administrative devolution, which is what is nominally intended, there is no need to break up the national civil service. We do not have to destroy Whitley council terms of pay and conditions. The reasons for doing that are to fragment, compartmentalise, isolate and break down the civil service into free-standing businesses—the phrase used in the other place—and we know what the next step is from that accomplishment.
  The next step is precisely what is happening now at the DVLA in Swansea. Let us not be disingenuous about it. Written on the face of the Bill are the precise consequences that can flow from what is in the measure. It cannot privatise, it cannot contractorise and it cannot of itself produce market testing. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and others rightly pointed out, the Bill is a necessary part of the jigsaw. It is the forerunner of various other measures and the sort of thing that is now happening in Swansea.
  504
  Let us examine the Swansea situation. In my experience, relatively limited though it is, I have never seen a document such as the one before us about Swansea. We are used to treachery, to thousands of jobs just being cast aside and to the hidden agendas that result in closure announcements. But the concept of a man who is responsible for the employment of 4,600 people sitting down and putting pencil to paper in such terms is monstrous.
  Let us first define the problem that calls for such a draconian solution for the DVLA in Swansea. Above the name and a not very striking photograph of Mr. Stephen Curtis we are told of the success of 1991–92 by the public sector DVLA:
  "We broke new ground by winning the contract to licence small ships against fierce competition from the private sector",
  he claims. In a tribute, he goes on:
  "Meeting our customers' needs could not be achieved without the committed efforts of our staff."
  They should put that on the walls as a testimonial to their efforts and as an interesting commentary on Mr. Curtis's concept of loyalty.
  The document is required reading for this debate and to know what underlies the legislation. Mr. Curtis was then charged with the task of setting out the future framework for the DVLA. It is done with astonishing crudity, even if it was not meant for other eyes. The idea that anyone in that position could write such material and not believe that, even at levels of senior management, people would make sure that it reached the public domain is as naive as it is contemptuous of the people who work in that establishment.
  Having outlined the virtues or joys of contractorisation —one of which is that it does not need legislation, as opposed to privatisation—Mr. Curtis concludes:
  "It would therefore be necessary to make most staff at DVLA redundant."
  He goes on to give the costs of doing that and adds:
  "In addition to these costs, the Swansea buildings would be likely to become a white elephant."
  Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend might care to ask how a man who so lightly penned such a document, envisaging the destruction of 3,000 jobs, could hope to retain the loyalty of the work force.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend's question is rhetorical. The views of the work force are probably unprintable. I shall not try to describe them.
  Mr. Curtis goes on to find that there remains a role for Government, the Secretary of State will be pleased to hear. That role is to pay indemnity money to the contractors for the costs that they would incur in making 3,000-odd people redundant.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Has the hon. Gentleman ever visited the DVLA in Swansea? I come from the area and recall the time when it was the DVLC under a previous Labour Government. In those days, the carpets were stripped out every two years and new carpets put in when they were not needed. The building was decorated when that was not needed. Does the hon. Gentleman know—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief and to the point. They should not be speeches.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry that we did not hear the end of the story. I am sure that it was good news for the carpet manufacturing industry in its day. The account that the chief executive gave in his foreword to this year's annual report scarcely squares with the horror stories detailed by the hon. Gentleman. I must admit that I have not visited the DVLA, but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously deeply concerned about those matters, has managed to visit the debate at 9.30 at night. With his interest and awareness, he must have known of the topicality of the Swansea issue, which has been discussed by hon. Members throughout the debate.
  The Government are to engage in indemnity for redundancy costs under the programme envisaged by the chief executive of that agency. At this point, we come to the Secretary of State's role as Minister with responsibility for open government. Mr. Curtis, chief executive of the DVLA, has strong views on open government. He says:
  "For the present, while we are considering the issues … there is little we could say to unions and staff that would be helpful. Uncertainty … is a strong stimulant to unease and industrial action. Also"—
  this is classic—
  "given the close links between unions at DVLC and local MPs, it would be likely to lead to Parliamentary Questions and requests to meet Ministers."
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Let there be no doubt that there are close links. There must be if we are to guard our people against wishes of people like that chief executive and the dangers that will flow from Government policies.
  Mr. Wilson: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Curtis therefore recommended that the whole exercise should remain confidential. Were it not for some public spirited public servant ensuring that the document did not remain confidential, nobody in the DVLA, the House, the media or south Wales—certainly not the Secretary of State for Wales—would have had any idea what was going on.
  The Minister must comment tonight not only on the content of that document, the fate of 3,000 people in Swansea and the whole concept of regional policy as opposed to the privatisation programme. He must comment again on the attitude underlined in the document and the contempt for any apology, for open government or for consultation with those affected. That is what is at stake in the document and the Minister should say tonight, without further consultation or messing about, that the uncertainty for those people and their families' lives and for the south Wales economy should be ended now. The document should be consigned to exactly where it belongs —the bin—and Mr. Curtis should be sent along to put it there in person.
  The document is supremely arrogant, written by a man who believes that he is licensed to make such proposals. That is the direct link between the Bill and that document. If those freestanding businesses are established, with the power to negotiate wages and conditions of staff down to the last jot and tittle, and if, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) so rightly said, they are entitled to discriminate on a regional basis to achieve the lowest common denominator of wages, we are entitled to believe that they will also have the powers mentioned in the document to close down, strip bare, asset-strip, privatise, and flog off to their friends in the private sector. That is the document's significance in the context of the Bill.
  506
  It is not a purely Welsh matter, although it is obviously mainly a Welsh issue, and a deeply important one. I shall not take the time of the House by reading the list of other jobs affected. However, jobs are affected in smaller but significant numbers as follows: 44 in Birmingham, 47 in Chelmsford, 150 in London, 46 in Manchester and about 100 in Scotland. Many other Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency centres throughout the country will be affected. In all those places the duplicity of the chief executive of the DVLA towards his own staff has implications and ramifications.
  There have been some good contributions to the debate and some illuminating ones—not least from the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). He informed us that in a previous parliamentary foray he had been the Tory candidate in Glasgow, Central. It must be a relief for him to have ended up in Colchester, North, where there are 35,213 Tory votes, which must provide a contrast with his last electoral outing.
  He was able to be frank on the subject. He said, in a self-effacing way, that we should not be bashful and that the legislation was about privatisation. Of course, the legislation is a move towards privatisation. I read in "Dod" that the hon. Gentleman is indeed as precocious as he sounds—it says that he was born in 1959 and was president of the Cambridge Union in 1962. He has been progressing ever since, via Glasgow, Central.
  The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) made an interesting speech. He rightly said that it was not a technical Bill, but contained something much more substantial. He said that if it meant interfering in the wages, conditions and the reasonable expectations of civil servants, he would object to it. That is to his credit.
  I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann on both regional pay rates and the treatment of Northern Ireland in the legislation. As a Member with a Scottish constituency, I often take exception to the way that Scottish business is treated in the House, but we are well treated compared with the way in which Northern Ireland legislation is handled, which is a disgrace. As there is a separate Northern Ireland civil service and separate legislation, for the issue to be lumped in a clause in the Bill without any opportunity to debate it is wrong. That is no way to treat the jobs, careers and structure of government in Northern Ireland.
  We shall oppose the Bill, although not tonight, as we shall give the Government the opportunity to answer some of our objections to it. We shall work on it in Committee and explore not merely what is on the face of the Bill, but what underlies it. If no improvements have been made by Third Reading, we shall oppose it.
  I think it fair to ask the Minister to deal specifically, firmly and in plain language with the points raised about Swansea. That is a fair request in the light of the importance of the subject in today's deliberations. On top of everything else that is happening in this country, the idea of holding the axe over the heads of such a large number of people in a part of the country that has suffered so much economic recession, depression and loss of jobs is intolerable. The document is in the public domain and the Minister has the opportunity tonight to say that it has, and will have, no standing in Government eyes.
  9.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): It is not often that the House has the opportunity to debate the civil service, and today we have had a vigorous and wide-ranging debate. On behalf of the Government, I am grateful for that, and I shall try to respond as briefly as possible to the wide range of issues raised by colleagues.
  It has emerged clearly from the debate that there is common ground on our commitment to an effective and efficient civil service. We all believe that to be of great importance. We all stand on the constitutional ground —the need for a professional civil service serving all Governments with the same dedication. That is fundamental to the British system of administration, and experience of other countries and other times shows that we cannot take it for granted. The Government, like all parties in the House, are wholly committed to continuing that tradition. I welcome the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) in support of that commitment and I congratulate them both on their excellent speeches.
  We cannot and must not be complacent about the civil service, however. It employs a great many people and costs a lot of money. That is a simple matter of fact, not a criticism. Provision for the civil service in 1992–93 was about £19·4 billion. It is the duty of the Government and this House—through, for instance, the Public Accounts Committee, and I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) in his place—to ensure that we get the best possible value for money from this expenditure and the best possible quality of service for our constituents who use the services provided by the public service.
  I should like to take this opportunity, since I have been given the information, to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) about forms. His question was perhaps rhetorical, but I have the answer: the total number of forms in the main Departments in 1989 was 86,982. That sounds an awful lot, but there was a reduction of 36,004 between 1982 and 1989, so a great deal has been achieved. Nevertheless, we are still an active and perhaps sometimes intrusive organisation.
  The Government have a clear agenda for the public service. There is certainly no hidden agenda for public service reform. The Chancellor of the Duchy gave a full explanation of the Bill in his speech. The Government are just as open on other matters—on our view of "next steps", on the citizens charter, on market testing, and on contracting out. It is the worst-hidden agenda in history. The Opposition may not like some of the ideas that we propose, but they are being broadcast loud and clear.
  Some reference was made to my right hon. Friend's speech to The Sunday Times conference. It offered a clear exposition of the Government's policy, but the Bill has nothing to do with privatisation or contracting out. It is about delegation within the public service, not outside it. It builds on the great success of the "next steps" initiative, which has enjoyed welcome bipartisan support.
  I was delighted, as was the whole House, to learn of the claim to authorship of the "next steps" concept by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). He certainly seems to have used the language before anyone else. We have had good reports from the Treasury and Civil Service
  508
  Select Committee. In addition, I should like to quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition, delivered when he was shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) for reinforcing what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said at that time. He said that it is
  "obviously very much in the public interest that"
  the delivery of public services
  "is carried out with the greatest efficiency and effectiveness".
  Next comes an important sentence, the truth of which I am glad that the hon. Member for Govan acknowledged again today:
  "It should certainly be our priority to ensure that services are run in the interests of consumers and that any injection of public resources results in a commensurate improvement in the service to the customer".
  That stress on the importance of the customer is fundamental, and it is good to hear that it is common ground.
  In the same speech, the Leader of the Opposition talked about continuing with "next steps":
  "I do not think there would be merit in a new Government seeking to uproot all the plants in the garden … and then expect them to grow well" —
  so the Opposition endorse the "next steps" agency concept.
  I think that the House recognises the limited scope of this Bill. It was explicitly affirmed by the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who has told me that he could not stay for the wind-up speeches. He speaks with great experience of these matters, and this is indeed a Bill of limited scope, as was recognised in the other place.
  Our position on market testing and contracting out is controversial, but it is accepted that this Bill is a technical measure with no direct impact on such policies. I hope and believe that good management is not a partisan issue.
  The hon. Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spoke about consultation with staff on the Bill. They exaggerated the importance of what did or did not happen. However, in retrospect we regret that we did not discuss the Bill more fully with staff before it was introduced in the other place. In mitigation, may I say that we have always seen the Bill as highly technical and limited, although I think that in retrospect we underestimated the scope for misunderstanding.
  I emphasise that strong steps have been taken and that we have frequent and exhaustive consultation on the matter. There have been detailed written replies to twenty-two questions asked by the unions. There were two long, late-night meetings in the interval between Second Reading and Committee in the other place, and another high-level meeting in the interval between Committee and Report. We have provided additional written information to the unions, a further meeting is planned on 13 November, and officials have responded to every point raised by the unions, which have recognised and appreciated the steps that we have taken.
  Before dealing with larger questions about pay discretions and accountability, I should like to deal with the matter of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. We all respect the constituency concern of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and it was appropriate that he should raise the matter. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said—that all possible options for the future of the DVLA have to be examined

  509
  as a normal part of reviewing its framework document, which expires in April 1993. The trade unions will be invited to give their views on the matter. It is worth bearing in mind—this is perhaps a new point—that a similar process was undertaken before the DVLA became an agency and the current framework document, with all that it implies, was agreed. No decision has been taken; consultation will, of course, take place before any decisions are made; and local employment conditions will naturally be a relevant consideration in reaching decisions.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: This is not an academic exercise because in the document the chief executive advocates, in effect, the closure of the centre with the loss of about 3,000 jobs. To avoid uncertainty and anxiety, will the Minister give a clear undertaking that the chief executive's conclusion will not be implemented and that those jobs will remain at the centre in Swansea?
  Mr. Jackson: It is appropriate for the Government and the agency to look at all the possible options for its future. Any anxiety and distress is attributable to those who leaked the document. It is perfectly appropriate for such matters to be considered and it is right that they should be considered confidentially until it is appropriate for people to be consulted about the proposals.
  Mr. Wilson: It is rather sad that the Minister blames the people who leaked the document rather than the person who wrote it. Has he any comment about the person who wrote it and, more particularly, about the terms in which it was written? Will he address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mr. Anderson) that the document is not a neutral appraisal but contains a degree of advocacy, that it is deeply disturbing and that it casts a shadow over the jobs? Does the Minister feel any responsibility to give any reassurance to the thousands of families in south Wales who are deeply worried?
  Mr. Jackson: It is appropriate that there should be a careful look at all possible options for the future of the DVLA and other organisations. I repeat assurances that my right hon. Friend and I have given, that no decisions have yet been taken, that consultations will take place before any decisions are made, and that local employment will be a relevant consideration in reaching decisions.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister understand that those of us on the Public Accounts Committee understand that the new London police computer will be programmed in either the Philippines or Indonesia because it is much cheaper to do it that way? We are not debating options, but the removal of huge sections of civil service work to countries where there is cheap labour. That is not just a qualitative but a quantitative change in the amount of available work.
  Mr. Jackson: I must press on. I cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said, because I am not informed about it, but I feel that he should bear in mind the importance of achieving a balance between value for the taxpayer's money and the effectiveness of the service.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised a point about the use of the negative resolution procedure. The orders in question will be used as a technical and enabling measure, like the Bill itself. In itself, the procedure will have no direct effect on the terms and conditions of staff. The principles will be discussed fully
  510
  during the Bill's passage, and the orders must conform to the powers contained in the Bill. The operation of all delegations which take place in Northern Ireland will be subject to consultation with the relevant staff interests.
  Pay discretions have been a central issue, raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Norwich, South, for Warrington, North and for Redcar. All of them supposed that the Bill would make a difference to the pay and conditions of staff. Let me tell them—and the hon. Member for Hodge Hill, who spoke especially strongly—that the Bill is not needed to implement discretions on pay, a number of which are already in place. What it allows is the formal delegation of authority to determine pay.
  It has long been Government policy to give Departments and agencies more responsibility for pay when that is cost-effective. My hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and for Surrey, East were especially strong on that point, and stated the underlying philosophy very well. The Bill will not affect the rate at which the process takes place.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, North was wrong in what he said about the position of the trade unions under the new arrangements. All the new long-term pay agreements that are concluded with the civil service unions contain provisions for consultation and negotiation on the introduction of alternative pay arrangements, and those arrangements will continue under delegation.
  Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jackson: I will, but I am running out of time.
  Mr. Hoyle: I interrupt the Minister only because he referred to something that I said. Is he now saying that the conditions negotiated centrally under Whitley will continue?
  Mr. Jackson: I am saying that national agreements will continue in force, but some of those agreements already provide for local negotiations between the agency chief executives and the trade unions. Many terms and conditions are not subject to national agreements at all. That has long been the case, and I think that it must be right to ensure that the details of pay and conditions fit the needs of what have been described as businesses—that is, I think, appropriate language for what are often very business-like organisations—and enable them to deliver services effectively to users, while providing value for money.
  Staff are already aware at all times of who settles terms and conditions. That is already done with discretions, and it will be the same with delegations. At national level, we shall inform the unions of proposed delegations and give them an opportunity to comment; at local level, we shall consult departmental trade unions on the use of any delegated power to change terms and conditions. Nothing in the Bill will directly affect the terms and conditions of civil servants. Delegating has no effect on the legal rights of staff or, indeed, on the normal processes of consultation. This is a Bill that enables, not a Bill that determines.
  Let me deal briefly with the issue of market testing which, although it is not directly raised by the Bill, has been raised by a number of hon. Members. Market testing is outside the scope of the Bill, but we do not see it as an ogre sent to destroy the civil service, as some Opposition

  511
  Members seem to—at least, that is what their language implied. It is part of the Government's duty to ensure that the citizen and the taxpayer receive the best value for money, and the highest quality of service. That need not be a partisan point, and I am sorry that it has to an extent become one today.
  I quote from a speech made by Councillor Jeremy Beecham, the Labour leader of Newcastle city council. This is what he said about the experience of market testing and compulsory competitive tendering in local government:
  "The purchaser-provider split and the development of service level agreements between the provider of central services within authorities and client departments have caused a re-examination of performance, with generally beneficial results."
  He said in the same speech:
  "Local government has to recognise that the public is not intrinsically interested in who is providing a service but in what kind of service they receive."
  Those are very wise words from the leader of Newcastle city council. They are in the spirit of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition in his Royal Institute of Public Administration lecture about the importance of always maintaining a clear eye on the consumer-customer perspective. Those points were well made by those people and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North.
  The question of accountability has been an important theme in this debate. It was raised especially by the hon. Members for Redcar, for Norwich, South, for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Upper Bann.
  I think that the hon. Member for Redcar slightly misunderstood the position. For the "next steps" agencies there are two channels of accountability. First, there is the channel of the agency chief executive to the Minister and, through the Minister, to the House of Commons. I have direct personal experience of that from my previous job in the Department of Employment, where I was the Minister responsible for the Employment Service. I very often met hon. Members from all parts of the House to talk about the business of the Employment Service and to exercise that parliamentary accountability for the activities of the service. The other channel is that of the accounting officer—where appropriate, the agency chief executive—to the Public Accounts Committee.
  The hon. Lady seemed to think—perhaps I misunderstood her—that the effect of these developments is that only the latter channel remains. That is not correct; both channels will remain. On the broad issue of accountability, I believe—I speak with some personal experience in this—that the "next steps" agency programme will help to enhance accountability. That point was well recognised by the hon. Member for Truro, speaking from the Liberal Benches.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South evoked—but did not, I think, support—the old monolithic concept of the civil service: the idea of a uniform, unified organisation
  512
  employing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people all on the same pay and conditions arrangements, with strong central control driven on the one hand by the Treasury and on the other by the idea of the accountability of Ministers to Parliament for everything, including, in Bevan's words, the fall of the bedpan in the hospital.
  We are bringing forward a new concept of public service which I think is generally supported. The hon. Member for Truro was speaking in that sense. That concept recognises the diverse nature of the many functions—the many businesses—which exist within the civil service, breaking those down into functional units, delegating responsibility as close as possible to the customer and enabling relocation to take place. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West, and the hon. Member for Govan. Delegation, to answer the latter's specific point, tends to lead to relocation. Delegation of responsibilities, bringing things closer to the public and then setting the relationship between the centre and the agencies within the terms of a contract, a framework agreement, monitoring, annual reports to Parliament, I believe will in practice strengthen the accountability to the House of those institutions and organisations in the civil service.
  The hon. Member for Truro raised a point about the boundary between policy matters and operational matters and I want to take up the specific details of what he said. There has been some debate about whether the shift from the monolithic concept to the devolved concept constitutes the break up of the civil service. Many hon. Members stressed this point. To pick up the phrase used by the hon. Member for Norwich, South, I do not believe that the civil service identity depends upon uniformity of pay and conditions across the whole of the service. The hon. Member for Truro said some sensible things about that. The hon. Member for Swansea, East, on the contrary, used some rather over-heated language. It is not merely a uniform set of terms and conditions of service which defines the civil service. The civil service is bound together by the nature of its work in support of the Government of the day and by professional and behavioural standards and duties which derive from the nature of its business as a Crown service. Nothing in the Bill detracts from that fact. The guiding principle is ministerial accountability to Parliament, and that remains. We shall, of course, publish details of delegation for the benefit of the House.
  We have had a useful debate, which has afforded us a rare opportunity to consider the future of the civil service. I hope that there will be further opportunities. The Bill is a technical enabling measure and, although there may continue to be differences of opinion about the broad question of the future of the civil service, I believe that there is, and should continue to be, common ground as regards the details of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Unemployment (Jarrow)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the intolerably high unemployment in my constituency, which is getting worse daily.
  I was born and bred in Jarrow and have lived there all my life, and I am proud to represent that constituency. As I said in my maiden speech in 1979, Jarrow is a proud constituency, populated by honest, hard-working people: miners, not millionaires; shipbuilders, not shipowners; builders, not bankers; and engineers, not racketeers.
  It is 56 years almost to the day since 200 proud men and Ellen Wilkinson, our then Member of Parliament, left Jarrow to go on their historic crusade to London demanding the right to work. I was born—and later educated at an elementary school—within 200 yd of the start of that march. Those men marched to London not for an extra slice of bread or bowl of soup but for the right to work and the dignity of a pay packet. If one good thing has come of the savage cuts in the mining industry, it is that it has focused the nation's attention on the plight of the unemployed—as the Jarrow march did in 1936.
  The town of Jarrow was destroyed. Ellen Wilkinson wrote a book entitled "The town that was murdered". Such is the scourge of unemployment in Britain that people throughout the country could write similar books about their own communities. Month after month, we hear of increases in the unemployment figures, and it makes my blood boil when Ministers shed crocodile tears at the Dispatch Box.
  I speak with some knowledge about unemployment. I have been unemployed on numerous occasions. I have had to stand in a queue at Victoria road, Hebburn, and sign the book with a one and a half inch pencil tied to a 2 ft piece of string so that no one could steal it. I have known the indignity of being on the dole, and I get very annoyed when I hear statements from the now discredited Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that unemployment is "a price worth paying". The Government just do not know how unemployed people feel. They do not know what misery they are causing.
  Since 1979, the last pit in my constituency has closed. The last coking works have closed at Monkton and Hebburn. The last steelworks has closed in Jarrow. The last shipyard and ship repair yard has closed, and on the site of the shipyard where my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and I were chairman and secretary of the shop stewards committee there is now a housing estate. The biggest dry dock on the east coast of England—Palmers dock in Hebburn—lies dormant.
  Many of the miners in my constituency who have finished work at Boldon colliery and Monkton coking works have transferred to Westoe and Wearmouth, where the pits are now threatened with closure.
  Mr. John Cummings: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for all the assurances given by the President of the Board of Trade to the House and for all the evidence given to the Select Committee by the chairman of British Coal, British Coal is today dismantling the winding apparatus at the colliery where the coal-raising shaft for
  514
  Vane Tempest is situated? By subterfuge and deceit, it is working towards the inevitable closure of Vane Tempest and the sacking of 900 workers, many of whom no doubt come from my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Dixon: I fully endorse the comments of my hon. Friend, and I wish to refer to that later in my speech. Incidentally, Madam Speaker, although I forgot, I had every intention at the beginning of my speech, since this is the first opportunity I have had since you were elected Speaker of the House, of congratulating you. You know how pleased I was when you were given that position, but this is the first time that I have spoken in the House since then.
  I would also like to talk about shipyard workers. Many of them who worked in Jarrow and Hebburn were transferred to Swan Hunter. What has happened now? Swan Hunter is going to shed 1,400 jobs. During the Falklands dispute, workers in the shipyards on the River Tyne toiled around the clock to get the task force finished. But as soon as the Falklands dispute was finished, they were finished too.
  It is a repeat of what happened in 1936 after the Jarrow march. My father worked in Palmers yard at Jarrow. He was paid off, sacked in 1934 when the yard was closed and did not get another job until the second world war, when he was taken back into the shipyard. Then men were fined if they did not work overtime. That is the sort of situation that the workers on the Tyne feel prevails today.
  If the Government do not assist the shipyards, there will be no shipbuilding industry in this country. I hope that the Minister will take note of the representations being made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who are to meet him next week. I hope that the Government will place that order for the helicopter landing ship as early as possible and perhaps save some of those shipyard workers' jobs.
  It is rather a coincidence—the Minister kindly reminded me of this before the debate—that six years ago I had an Adjournment debate on this very night, when it was the 50th anniversary of the Jarrow march. I referred then to the shipyard workers and suggested that orders for the type 23 and the second AOR should be placed at Swan's as early as possible.
  For the first time in living memory, no ships are being built on the south side of the River Tyne. We are the only maritime nation in the world that has no maritime policy, and the way things are going, we will be the only island nation in the world that has no shipbuilding industry.
  Mr. Bill Etherington: I represent an adjoining constituency which is very similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). We now have no shipbuilding industry whatever in Sunderland, North. The remaining colliery, which my hon. Friend referred to earlier, is now the largest employer in the constituency, and it is under threat. The situation in the north-east, as I am sure the whole House is aware, is the worst in mainland Britain. If Wearmouth colliery closes, the largest employer in Sunderland, North will be the police station. That is the way things are.
  I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that what we are looking for is not various development agencies or fine words from Ministers. We would like the President of the Board of Trade to tell us in the north-east

  515
  that he will bring forward policies which will take us back to the prosperity that we had in 1979, when the present Government inherited a good area in the north-east, which they have completely destroyed.
  I find it appalling that all we keep being told is that we are going to be given small amounts of money through various development agencies which are doing nothing whatever to improve the situation in the north-east in the context of a failed national policy.
  Mr. Dixon: I fully endorse the comments of my hon. Friend. Indeed, I worked at Pickersgills, Bartons and Thompsons, and the other yards that are no longer there. There is no shipbuilding at all in the Sunderland area. Not only are no ships being built on the south bank of the River Tyne, but if Westoe, Wearmouth, Easington and Vane Tempest collieries were to be closed, for the first time in history there will be no coal mined in county Durham. That is the situation today.
  Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield): My hon. Friend will recall that people from Jarrow and throughout the Durham coalfield travelled south to Mansfield and the area that I represent. As a result of the Government's latest announcement, thousands of them face redundancy and losing their homes once again. Will my hon. Friend address that point and the fact that those people will have to move again to find work, when there are more than 3 million unemployed people in Britain?
  Mr. Dixon: I will address that point if there are no more interventions. I agree with my hon. Friend. The experience in Ellen Wilkinson's famous book, "The town that was murdered" can be repeated throughout the country.
  Almost 5,000 men and women are out of work in Jarrow at the moment. That is 22 per cent., but percentages do not count. Someone who is out of work is 100 per cent. unemployed. Percentages make no difference to people who are on the dole. South Tyneside district comprises my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). More than 10,200 men and women are out of work in that area, and to that we can add another 3,750 who have been removed from the official unemployment count by the Government's massaging of the unemployment figures. The unemployment figure in south Tyneside is more than 25 per cent.
  Westoe colliery, which is threatened with closure in South Shields, is the fourth largest employer on south Tyneside. If it closes, 1,200 more men will be thrown on to the unemployment register. If we add that figure to jobs in related industries, we are talking about more than 2,000 more people being made unemployed. Of those who are out of work, almost one third have been out of work for more than 12 months. That is the size of the problem in our area.
  On Saturday 24 October, I attended a conference called "Working together against unemployment in Jarrow", organised by Roy Merrin and the Churches of Jarrow. Each of the major denominations in the town was well represented, along with Dr. David Jenkins, the Bishop of Durham, the Rev. John Nicholson, the Baptist Union's area superintendent, and Bishop Ambrose Griffiths of the Hexham and Newcastle diocese of the Roman Catholic Church.
  516
  During that conference, four unemployed people gave personal testimony to show how unemployment was affecting them. They all spoke of the growing sense of isolation, loss of self-confidence and inability to make choices in many aspects of their daily lives. Two of them told of how they had become so depressed at being without paid employment that they required hospital treatment. Two also spoke of their feelings of guilt and frustration at having to sponge off members of their family for basic necessities of life.
  Another contribution was made by a woman whose shipyard worker husband experienced regular bouts of unemployment. Even in the shipyards that are working at the moment, men are often made redundant for periods. She told how the uncertainty of her situation had created budgetary problems which caused tensions in the family.
  The contributions of those five people had a moving effect on the conference. I only wish that a Minister had been present to hear them speak. Those people know what it is like to be out of work. If a Minister had been present, we might not hear nonsensical statements about unemployment being a price worth paying. Similarly, we would not hear Lord Tebbit talking about people getting on their bikes. The Government should be aware that the young and active get on their bikes to look for work. They do not take with them the parks, libraries, community centres and old people's homes. They are left behind, and there is an imbalance in the population.
  Half the population of the borough of South Tyneside is wholly or mainly dependent on welfare benefits. Forty-one thousand poll tax payers qualify for rebates. There is serious disability in 15,000 households where attendance allowances or serious disability allowances are received. There are thousands on the disabled registers at jobcentres. There are 5,000 people on the long-term sick register. There are 11,000 widows, and 22,000 people are claiming income benefit. Approximately 2,000 families receive family income supplement. One third of the children on the school rolls receive free meals. Those are the people the Government hit when they talk about public expenditure cuts. Those people have nothing at the moment, and they must rely on state benefits. It is about time the Government realised that.
  I do not want to be too critical. The Minister has drawn the short straw in having to reply to a debate on unemployment. I honestly believe that the best long-term policy would have been for a few more Conservative Members to vote with us on the confidence motion last night, followed by a general election in a month, and a Government who will deal with unemployment. However, that did not happen. Many Conservative Members chickened out and we are left with the present Government. The Liberal Democrat Benches are as full tonight as they usually are for such debates.
  I shall give the Minister some short-term measures to provide immediate help for my constituents. I have discussed this matter with the leader of South Tyneside council, Councillor Albert Elliott, and the deputy leader, Councillor Stephen Hepburn. In South Shields, there is a business enterprise zone, and it has to be replaced. Tedco presently operates a 140-unit business enterprise centre in South Shields. More than 50 firms currently occupy 122 units on the site and employ about 200 people. The freehold of the premises was sold by Plessey to Interconnection Systems Ltd. in 1991. ISL is the most

  517
  successful manufacturer of printed circuit boards in the United Kingdom. That shows how shipyard workers can be retrained for that industry.
  To meet ISL's expansion plans, it requires the rest of the site which at present is occupied by Tedco. To facilitate that extension and the possible creation of 300 jobs, Tedco has applied for Department of Trade and Industry assistance to build a new business enterprise centre on a 4·5 acre site at the Viking industrial park in Jarrow. The new 5,000 sq ft centre will include 111 managed workshop units and space for Tedco's support and training activities, and will create another 150 jobs on top of the 200 that would be transferred from South Shields.
  The Government could give resources to a business development programme which would identify job opportunities and retention within the existing business community. The Government could introduce enterprise status for the Boldon business park, which is where Boldon colliery used to be, a highly successful park which is capable of development, and also for the Monk ton site of the now derelict cokeworks which requires reclamation. That could be made into an enterprise zone to attract jobs and workshops. The Government could give resources to the Viking industrial park on the site of the old Jarrow steelworks along the riverside.
  The Government could give assistance to the community-based training enterprise network, which would deal with long-term unemployment. That would follow the example of the Low Simonside initiative, but it would be a mobile service. It would be aimed at providing advice and assistance for the long-term unemployed such as mature adults who have not worked since the shipyards and steelworks closed during the early 1980s. It would assist women who gave up employment after marriage and might wish to rejoin the work force. It would provide assistance to youngsters who have never experienced a working environment. Those groups require assistance.
  The final and simplest way in which the Government can assist in the short term relates to housing. Hundreds of construction workers in south Tyneside do not have jobs. The council has 9,741 applicants on the housing waiting list and 4,600 on the housing transfer list. It has £22 million in the bank from the sale of council houses. House building is the most labour-intensive industry. We have the need—thousands of people waiting for houses and thousands of people wanting to be transferred to other houses, £22 million in the bank, and hundreds of people unemployed. The simple solution is to allow the council to spend the money, let construction workers go back to work, and let people go into the houses that they require. It does not take a mathematical genius to work that out. There are people in the Cabinet who can split an atom but cannot boil a kettle.
  When I was chairman of South Tyneside housing committee, we were building 800 houses a year. This year, the council is building none. Council house building has been brought to a halt. The only houses that are being built are a couple of bungalows, and they are being built by apprentices. When I was chairman of the housing committee in 1979, the housing investment programme allocation was £30 million in 1992 values. This year it is £5 million, which is one sixth of what was allocated for building and modernising council houses in 1979.
  I shall conclude now, because I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the points that I and my hon. Friends made. My hon. Friends the Members for
  518
  Mansfield (Mr. Meale), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for Easington (Mr. Cummings), for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) have been present for the debate, and it is good to see them here. I hope that the Minister will be as constructive as I have been in the points that I have made in this Adjournment debate.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on securing this debate. He rightly pointed out that six years ago to the very night, 5 November 1986, he opened an Adjournment debate on the same subject and made the same points that he made tonight. I should like to remind him of a few points that he made in that debate. He looked forward to the possibility of a general election. Things do not change too much. On that occasion he said:
  "The first opportunity to go to the polls after the Jarrow crusade of 1936 was in 1945, when a Labour Government were swept in with an overwhelming majority. It is to be hoped that after the 1986 march, when we go to the polls next year or the year after, the people will do the same as in 1945." —[Official Report, 5 November 1986; Vol. 103, c. 1061.]
  We have had two general elections since then. Tonight the hon. Gentleman looked forward to another general election. If there is another general election in the next few years the result will be the same as that of the previous two general elections. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will yet again receive the overwhelming endorsement of the British people.
  Mr. Dixon: Not in Jarrow.
  Mr McLoughlin: Perhaps not in Jarrow. I accept that that might be hoping for a little too much, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that we would put up a spirited fight.
  I may not have time to respond to all the points that hon. Members made. The hon. Member for Jarrow obviously commanded the support of his colleagues in his speech. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in due course about any points that I do not have a chance to cover tonight. As he rightly pointed out, there will be a meeting next week between my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and representatives from the local community. Some of the points raised tonight will be addressed at that meeting.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the town of Jarrow has been associated with high levels of unemployment. The Government accept that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in the south Tyneside travel-to-work area is higher than any of us would wish. I am especially conscious that for too many years south Tyneside has been in the unenviable position of having the highest or near-highest unemployment rate in Great Britain.
  However, without wishing to minimise the problem, I note that, despite the increases in unemployment that have occurred generally since the early 1990s, there are 3,000 fewer unemployed people in Jarrow constituency than there were six years ago to the night, when the hon. Gentleman last raised the issue on the Adjournment. It is also noteworthy that the northern region as a whole has shown remarkable resilience in the current recession, with

  519
  unemployment having risen by about 33 per cent. compared with 78 per cent. in the United Kingdom nationally.
  Rises in unemployment are of course regrettable, but long-term job security depends on success in controlling inflation. Had interest rates not risen when they did, and had the Government allowed inflation to rip, that would have been far more damaging to jobs in the long run. Our success in controlling inflation and interest rates—both now at their lowest since 1988—is a prelude to a resumption of soundly based, non-inflationary growth and a revival of employment prospects.
  We can all fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the possible closure of Westoe pit and other collieries. I am sure that, like the other 20 pits subject to the full Government review, its future will be examined meticulously against the background of energy policy generally.
  The hon. Member has referred to an action plan in response to the closure of Westoe colliery, which I understand has been drawn up by the South Tyneside Regeneration Group. I congratulate the group on reacting so quickly to the possible closures, which I stress again are subject to the review announced by the Government.
  The plan contains some interesting proposals, including, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, some relating to training and involving Tyneside training and enterprise council, and I understand that Tyneside TEC is closely associated with the regeneration group. As the hon. Member may be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked all the TECs covering areas that might experience pit closures, including Tyneside TEC, to draw up contingency plans. Those plans are to be based on a package of special measures and extra resources, which I shall outline later.
  I am sure that the training proposals in the regeneration group's plan will be taken on board by the TEC in its contingency plan for the area, and will in due course be considered sympathetically by my Department, when all the contingency plans in other areas involved are considered.
  The regeneration group's plan also contains some proposals outside the responsibility of my Department, including a possible business centre, an enterprise zone, and recommendations for clearing derelict land. All those seem to be very practical suggestions, and I know that such initiatives have played a valuable part in regenerating other areas of industrial decline. I am sure that the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment will give the regeneration group's proposals careful consideration in the context of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  It would not be proper for me to speculate on the outcome of the energies review. However, in case at the end of the day Westoe colliery is scheduled for closure, the hon. Member will be interested to hear about the contingency measures that have been put in place by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  In the case of closure, all unemployed people in targeted areas, to be defined by the TECs, will be eligible for a full assessment of the options open to them and of the help they need; those assessments will be of up to five days per
  520
  individual. Every unemployed person in the targeted areas will also be given immediate priority access to a range of help, including employment training; support in setting up their own business; temporary work; participation in voluntary activities; job clubs; travel-to-interview grants and, where appropriate, removal costs. For young people in the affected areas there will be a guarantee of the continuation of apprenticeships and of youth training programmes.
  My right hon. Friend recently met the chairmen of the TECs covering the coal closure areas and, as I mentioned earlier, has asked them to prepare contingency plans for each of their areas, incorporating the employment and training measures I have just outlined. The TECs concerned, including Tyneside TEC, are drawing up such plans, in collaboration with British Coal Enterprise, the Employment Service, the local authorities and other local agencies and voluntary groups. Up to £75 million in this financial year and the next will be made available to the TECs for the implementation of these plans, should they be needed.
  I thought it proper to outline in some detail the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I must also mention, if only briefly, the important measures to help regenerate the coal closure areas announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Those include enhanced assisted-area status for some areas, possible enterprise zones, and provision of premises and infrastructure. Some of those measures were outlined and requested by the hon. Gentleman. There is obviously a determination to consider those proposals.
  I recognise that any closure would not have an impact simply on those losing their jobs, or even just on their families, but would affect the whole community. That is why both my right hon. Friends have laid great stress on the importance of all the agencies in the local areas concerned being actively involved and working together.
  Despite the high level of unemployment in the area, and the possibility of the closure of Westoe, it would be wrong to assume that it is all doom and gloom in the south Tyneside area—far from it. As I am sure the hon. Member is well aware, there are many successful companies in the area, making a wide variety of products.
  Inward investment has also been attracted from the far east. A substantial amount has ended up in the south Tyneside area.
  Recent good news includes the winning of contracts by NEI for the construction of a network of 13 electricity substations in Malaysia, and for the complete design-and-build responsibility for a major sub-station in Cardiff. Over the past year this company has won orders in excess of £65 million.
  Last month Press Offshore purchased the Mercantile docks in the hon. Member's constituency. The company intends to use the site to build units for the offshore industry and 100 local jobs should be created at about the turn of the year.
  I should also like to highlight the work of the Tyne and Wear development corporation in bringing new investment to the area; and since its designation in 1987 it has invested some £31 million in south Tyneside. Two of the corporation's major projects are the Viking industrial park in Jarrow, which has long-term potential for 1,500 jobs.

  521
  The matters that I have outlined show movement in the right direction. I will not have time to cover the other points.
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the management of the electricity companies in connection with the pit closure programme, under the Commissioners' investment policy guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Alison
  The Commissioners take an active interest in those businesses in which they invest and this includes regular discussions with the chairmen of companies in which they have substantial holdings, primarily to discuss a range of ethical questions. From time to time, on matters where the Church has expressed concern, they can use their position as shareholders to reinforce that concern with these chairmen and this is what they are doing in the case of the proposed pit closures.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime, Northumbria
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet representatives of the Northumbria police authority to discuss the continuation of urban crime fund resources.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 22 October, at column 553. My right hon. and learned Friend is currently considering a request from Northumbria police authority for a meeting.

  Le Trong Khai
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to reply to the letters of 19 February and 22 April from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South regarding the family of Le Trong Khai (ref. L301037/PO4731/92).

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This case is one of about 30 cases involving Vietnamese boat people raised with hon. Members by Ms. Frances House, all of which are being considered together. We are awaiting further information from Ms. House on some of the cases, but I hope that this will be forthcoming and that I will be able to send the hon. Member a substantive reply to his letters shortly.

  Mrs. Zarqa Begum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by Mrs. Zarqa Begum (Ref. IMP B490251/2/S) submitted to him 318
  by the hon. Member for Bradford, West; when the application was refused; when the hon. Member for Bradford, West was notified of the refusal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The application was received on 22 January 1992. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) wrote to the hon. Member on 11 March explaining that inquiries were being made and that the compassionate circumstances would be taken into account when a decision was reached. The application was refused on 21 July; it was subsequently reconsidered but again refused on 10 September. I have agreed to meet the hon. Member to discuss this case on 5 November.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department after what interval a right hon. or hon. Member can expect a substantive reply to letters concerning the immigration and nationality department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In most cases 35 days.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to establish an independent complaints procedure for the immigration and nationality department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The arrangements for dealing with complaints are currently under review in the light of the principles in the citizens charter. The arguments for introducing an independent element, which have not hitherto been found persuasive, will be considered in the course of that review.

  Fire Regulations
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations 1992 and associated guidance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering the many comments on the proposed regulations and guidance received during the consultation period which ended on 1 September. He is concerned to give proper consideration to those comments before deciding on the form which the regulations and guidance should take.

  Terrorist Suspects (Interviews)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The full tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects will begin, on a trial basis, on Tuesday 1 December 1992. All forces in England and Wales will tape record interviews with terrorist suspects in line with current practice for other criminal suspects under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These trials, which will run for up to two years, will be carefully evaluated before any decision is taken to extend formally the code of practice on tape recording under the 1984 Act to cover terrorist cases.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name each of the asylum seekers who have died in detention since 1990; what public reports were made on the circumstances of their deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Two asylum seekers have died in detention during this period. On 16 June 1990, Mr. Kimpua Nsimba died in the Harmondsworth detention centre. The coroner's inquest into his death recorded on 4 March 1991 a finding of suicide by asphyxia and hanging. On 8 October 1991, Mr. Omasase Lumumba died in Her Majesty's prison Pentonville. I understand that the coroner's inquest is due to take place on 8 February 1993.

  Changes in the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police by offence group

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Offence group

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Change in numbers compared with previous year

  Violence against the person

  7,887

  2,286

  2,961

  8,488

  2,647

  2,845

  7,544

  3,768

  15,543

  17,206

  18,714

  7,703

  5,674

  Sexual offences

  -524

  -736

  -1,683

  305

  681

  -188

  1,234

  1,228

  2,470

  1,375

  3,204

  -689

  379

  Robbery

  -668

  2,524

  5,276

  2,555

  -718

  2,771

  2,573

  2,557

  2,613

  -1,196

  1,726

  3,032

  9,128

  Burglary

  -16,072

  74,353

  99,991

  87,008

  2,952

  84,582

  -26,226

  64,923

  -31,516

  -82,312

  8,138

  180,883

  212,651

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  -25,110

  47,326

  139,682

  152,702

  -49,929

  102,057

  76,088

  119,804

  48,132

  -120,731

  81,486

  361,649

  386,710

  Fraud and forgery

  -4,134

  -12,787

  1,425

  16,430

  -1,310

  4,302

  8,674

  -1,336

  -455

  897

  617

  13,419

  26,833

  Criminal damage

  14,197

  38,981

  27,277

  31,087

  25,502

  54,524

  41,124

  44,624

  5,373

  4,962

  36,161

  103,361

  87,696

  Other notifiable offences

  -338

  -449

  597

  86

  4,783

  1,184

  1,765

  -41

  2,631

  3,365

  4,935

  3,505

  3,491

  Total notifiable offences

  -24,762

  151,498

  275,526

  298,661

  -15,392

  252,077

  112,776

  235,527

  44,791

  -176,434

  154,981

  672,863

  732,562

  Public Houses (Violence)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (i) how many prison sentences were imposed on persons found guilty of physical violence against landlords or landladies of public houses in 1991;

  (2) how many orders of exclusion from public houses have been enforced on persons found guilty of physical violence against landlords or landladies in 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: Information is not held centrally on the number of offenders convicted of offences of violence against landlords or landladies of public houses.

  Data held centrally show that in 1990 there were 101 exclusion orders made excluding offenders from licensed premises. This information may be under-recorded, because police forces are not always able to supply us with the relevant details. Provisional data for 1991 will be available before the end of 1992.

  Accommodation Agencies Act 1953
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prosecutions under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 each year since 1962.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: Information is given in the table. Data for 1962 to 1974 and 1990 are not available. Information collected centrally for 1990 does not identify offences committed under this specific Act from other summary offences. This will also apply to 1991 data when available.

  Duty Psychiatrists
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made towards using the funds announced in the "Autumn Statement 1991" to finance the establishment of duty psychiatrist schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  Arrangements for administering the financial provision designated for local, court-based duty psychiatrist schemes have been worked out in consultation with the Department of Health, and we hope shortly to be in a position to invite bids for funding to support the operation of such schemes.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the change in numbers of each serious crime since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: The information is contained in the table:

  Number of prosecutions under the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953, 1962–90 England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1962–74

  1—

  1975

  2

  1976

  2

  1977

  9

  1978

  2

  1979

  —

  1980

  4

  1981

  3

  1982

  5

  1983

  4

  1984

  5

  1985

  3

  1986

  221

  1987

  5

  1988

  2

  1989

  5

  1990

  1—

  1 Not available.

  2 12 of these cases were heard on the same day in Sheffield.

  Smoking and Drinking (Young People)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many publicans have been prosecuted over the last 10 years for selling alcohol to persons under the age of 18 years;

  (2) how many shopkeepers have been prosecuted over the last 10 years for selling cigarettes to children under 16 years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The table shows the formation held centrally on the number of

  321
  prosecutions for the illegal sale of alcohol on licensed premises to persons under the age of 18 and for the sale of tobacco to children under the age of 16. We are unable to distinguish the number of publicans and shopkeepers involved.

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for illegal sales of alcohol and tobacco to children 1981–90

  England and Wales. Number proceeded against

  Year

  Alcohol1

  Tobacco2

  1981

  410

  17

  1982

  323

  7

  1983

  307

  29

  1984

  314

  45

  1985

  274

  28

  1986

  296

  17

  1987

  333

  18

  1988

  673

  29

  1989

  747

  66

  1990

  574

  83

  1Licensing Act 1964, Section 169(1); Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983, Schedule (Section 3) para 4(1).

  2The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Section 7.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is being given to providing bus priority designated lanes with priority at traffic signals on main routes in Belfast.

  Mr. Atkins
  An experimental scheme was introduced on Ormeau road earlier this year and a further scheme is planned for 1993.

  Irish Republican Army
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representation has been made by him and his predecessors to eastern European states and the former Soviet Union to obtain information on the supply of weapons and explosives to the Irish Republican Army.

  Mr. Mates
  Discussions have taken place with several eastern European Governments and with the Government of Russia. Concern about the supply by Libya of Czechoslovak-made Semtex explosive to PIRA led to the conclusion of the convention on the marking of plastic explosives. The Government will continue to pursue all leads about the supply of weapons and explosives to the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a table showing for each county court, and in total, the costs incurred by his Department since 1990 in actions taken recovering community charge arrears.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The enforcement of community charge is dealt with by the magistrates courts. The estimated cost of community charge enforcement in magistrates courts from 1 April 1990 to 30 June 1992 was £8·2 million. It is not possible to break this figure down between individual magistrates courts.

  Terrorist-related Crimes
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many bail applications for terrorist-related crimes were lodged in Northern Ireland in each of the past two years; how many were successful; and what was the total cost to the Exchequer for each year of these applications.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of bail applications made in respect of scheduled offences in 1990 and in 1991; and the number of such bail applications which were successful were as follows:

  Applications for bail in respect of scheduled offences

  1990

  1991

  Applications made

  1,035

  1,573

  Applications successful

  562

  746

  The cost to the Exchequer of these applications is not available and could not be made available except at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the past three years; for each of the past three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. I will not make a statement.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for two agencies,—the Public Record Office and Her Majesty's Land Registry. Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of both agencies and I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. Arnold to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  The Chief Executive is presently absent from the Office and, as Principal Establishment Officer of the Public Record Office, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question as set down below, since this is a matter delegated to the Office under the terms of the Agency's Framework Document.

  I enclose tables giving the information you seek in respect of the Public Record Office.

  If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask me.
  323

  Public record office

  Staff in post: 1 April 1992

  Number

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  Grade 6

  6·0

  Grade 7

  21·0

  Grade 8

  20·0

  Grade 9

  20·5

  Grade 10

  44·5

  Grade 11

  48·5

  Grade 12

  4·5

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·5

  Typing Manager

  1·5

  Personal Secretary

  3·0

  Typist

  6·5

  Conservation Officer D

  1·0

  Conservation Officer E

  4·0

  Conservation Officer F

  13·0

  Conservation Officer G

  11·0

  Museum Support Grade 2

  1·0

  Museum Support Grade 3

  7·5

  Support Manager 1

  1·0

  Support Manager 2

  8·0

  Support Manager 3

  16·0

  Support Grade Band 1

  41·5

  Support Grade Band 2

  141·0

  Total

  426·5

  Casual staff

  Typist

  1·0

  Support Grade Band 2

  2·5

  Staff costs 1991–92

  £6·742 million

  Public record office

  Estimated staff in post: 1 April 1993

  Number

  Grade 3

  1·0

  Grade 5

  3·0

  Grade 6

  4·0

  Grade 7

  24·0

  Grade 8

  22·5

  Grade 9

  25·0

  Grade 10

  54·0

  Grade 11

  62·0

  Grade 12

  5·5

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1·5

  Typing Manager

  1·5

  Personal Secretary

  3·0

  Typist

  8·0

  Conservation Officer D

  1·0

  Conservation Officer E

  4·0

  Conservation Officer F

  16·0

  Conservation Officer G

  8·0

  Museum Support Grade 2

  1·0

  Museum Support Grade 3

  8·0

  Support Manager 1

  1·0

  Support Manager 2

  8·0

  Support Manager 3

  16·0

  Support Grade Band 1

  38·0

  Support Grade Band 2

  151·0

  Total

  467·0

  Casual staff

  Support Grade Band 2

  6

  Estimated costs 1992–93

  £7·200 million

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:
  324
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question concerning staff numbers by grade and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figure for 1992–93 in the Land Registry.

  The table attached indicates the permanent staff in post by grade at the beginning and end of 1991–92 and an estimate of the total at 1 April 1993. Costs, both inclusive and exclusive of superannuation expenditure, for permanent staff in 1991–92 and an estimate for 1992–93 are also shown in the table.

  Her Majesty's Land Registry

  1. Staff in post

  Actual staff in post

  Estimated staff in post

  1 April 1991 Permanent

  1 April 1992 Permanent

  1 April 1993 Permanent

  Grade 2

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 3

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 4

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Grade 5 (legal)

  14·0

  17·0

  17·0

  Grade 6 (legal)

  18·0

  19·0

  20·0

  Grade 7 (legal)

  89·5

  84·0

  81·5

  Legal officer

  7·0

  4·0

  2·5

  Grade 5

  4·0

  4·0

  3·0

  Grade 6

  20·0

  23·0

  23·0

  Grade 7

  45·0

  46·0

  47·0

  SEO

  295·0

  290·5

  282·0

  HEO

  601·0

  592·5

  580·0

  EO

  2,152·0

  2,103·5

  2,050·0

  AO(SDP)

  53·5

  44·0

  30·0

  AO

  3,236·0

  3,137·0

  2,996·0

  AA(DP)

  316·0

  284·0

  267·0

  AA

  1,158·5

  966·0

  865·0

  Chief typing manager

  12·0

  11·0

  11·0

  Typing manager

  73·0

  72·5

  72·5

  Senior personal secretary

  2·0

  1·0

  2·0

  Personal secretary

  8·0

  7·0

  8·0

  Typist

  786·0

  776·0

  770·0

  Trainee typist

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Support manager 1

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Support manager 2

  4·0

  4·0

  2·0

  Support manager 3

  51·5

  54·5

  53·0

  Support grade band 1

  204·0

  188·0

  166·0

  Support grade band 2

  890·0

  822·0

  783·0

  Night watchman

  4·0

  3·5

  3·5

  Total

  10,047·0

  9,557·0

  9,139·0

  Note: These figures relate to permanent staff, part-timers are counted as half.

  2. Staff costs

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 (estimate) £ million

  124·221

  129·100

  (144·031)

  (149·450)

  Note: The figures in brackets include superannuation costs.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.
  325
  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not held centrally and can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Citizens Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which organisations, in each principal sector, have been targeted to receive a copy of the citizens charter; and what progress has been made to date in ensuring that all public bodies affected by the charter's recommendations have a copy of Cm 1599.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In July 1991 the head of the home civil service, Sir Robin Butler, wrote to permanent secretaries of civil service Departments about the citizens charter and its implementation. Copies of the White Paper were made available to them. In addition, agency chief executives, the chairmen of British Rail and London Regional Transport, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the London Boroughs Association, the Association of London Authorities and the Convention of Scottish Authorities were also sent copies.

  Many other bodies were informed of the White Paper's availability including the general managers of the regional health authorities, district health authorities, family health services authorities, special health authorities, chief executives of national health service trust hospitals. the chief officers of police, the chief probation officers and the secretaries of clerks of magistrates courts committees. The White Paper was advertised widely. To date, 20,246 copies of the White Paper have been sold; 455,617 copies of the popular version—"A Guide to the Citizen's Charter"—have been distributed, free of charge.

TRANSPORT

  M40
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken regarding congestion at junction 9 of the M40 motorway.

  Vehicle inspectorate staff numbers and costs 1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Grade 4

  1

  60,979

  1

  62,098

  Grade 5

  1

  50,290

  1

  53,285

  Grade 61

  4

  275,143

  4

  188,081

  Grade 7

  24

  820,042

  25

  877,616

  Senior Executive Officer

  9

  243,497

  11

  304,923

  Higher Executive Officer

  17

  379,147

  23

  530,432

  Executive Officer

  44

  768,546

  58

  1,048,324

  Administrative Officer

  168

  2,093,197

  208

  2,681,370

  Administrative Assistant

  270

  2,569,375

  251

  2,570,298

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  43

  1,194,976

  40

  1,182,348

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  106

  2,412,859

  101

  2,377,924

  Professional and Technical Officer

  457

  8,901,040

  456

  9,101,455

  Assistant Vehicle Examiner

  77

  1,209,971

  90

  1,426,562

  Enforcement Manager2

  0

  0

  7

  174,300

  Senior Traffic Examiner2

  0

  0

  31

  694,418

  Traffic Examiner2

  0

  0

  175

  3,046,378

  Senior Personal Secretary

  2

  32,708

  2

  34,753

  Personal Secretary

  3

  49,981

  3

  46,572

  Typist

  34

  398,861

  35

  453,804

  Support Grades

  8

  81,660

  8

  95,486

  Industrials

  345

  4,826,892

  314

  3,806,833

  Casuals

  0

  0

  30

  211,083

  Total

  1,613

  26,369,164

  1,874

  30,968,343

  326
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department has invited Oxfordshire county council to undertake a study to investigate and determine measures to improve traffic conditions at this junction.

  M11
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the construction of a motorway services area by Trust House Forte at Birchanger on the M11.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The chief executive of Forte Restaurants wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State on 6 March to explain that his company had stopped work at Birchanger pending completion of the Government's review of motorway service area policy. My right hon. Friend announced the outcome of that review on 6 August, and my officials are to meet the company shortly to discuss a resumption of work at the site.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Steve Norris
  The numbers of staff for each of the Department of Transport's Agencies, by grade and their cost for 1991–92, and the estimated figures for 1992–93 are shown in the tables. TRL and DVOIT became agencies on 1 April 1992; the 1991–92 figures for DVOIT are included in DVLA's figures for that year. All staff costs shown include superannuation and earnings-related national insurance contribution provision.
  327
  1 1991–92 figures include Early Retirement costs

  2 The Traffic Examiner Organisation have been funded from the Inspectorate since 1 April 1992

  Driving standards agency staff numbers and costs 1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Grade 5

  1·0

  53,233

  1·0

  56,496

  Grade 6

  2·0

  90,844

  1·3

  58,746

  Grade 7

  6·0

  217,608

  6·0

  225,040

  Senior Executive Officer

  14·0

  380,407

  13·0

  384,706

  Higher Executive Officer

  25·0

  523,385

  25·0

  552,171

  Executive Officer

  39·0

  655,921

  40·0

  712,271

  Administrative Officer

  111·0

  1,444,832

  113·0

  1,620,782

  Administrative Assistant

  201·0

  1,910,364

  168·0

  1,763,372

  Chief Driving Examiner

  1·0

  34,778

  1·0

  36,691

  Deputy Chief Driving Examiner

  2·0

  59,083

  2·0

  62,332

  Assistant Chief Driving Examiner

  12·0

  318,276

  11·0

  284,563

  Supervising Examiner

  108·0

  2,370,956

  105·0

  2,342,088

  Senior Driving Examiner

  372·0

  7,105,903

  345·0

  7,084,897

  Driving Examiner

  1,158·0

  20,204,213

  1,071·0

  19,296,820

  Personal Secretary

  2·4

  34,758

  2·0

  30,348

  Typist

  7·0

  78,072

  8·0

  89,346

  Telephonist

  1·0

  11,468

  2·0

  22,337

  Paper Keeper

  4·0

  31,186

  4·0

  32,901

  Support Grades

  32·0

  290,097

  22·0

  210,664

  Industrials

  2·0

  20,616

  2·0

  20,880

  Total

  2,100·4

  35,836,000

  1,942·3

  34,887,451

  Transport research laboratory staff numbers and costs 1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Grade 3

  1

  59,237

  1

  81,504

  Grade 4

  1

  55,354

  1

  59,668

  Grade 5

  6

  292,719

  5

  269,082

  Grade 6

  23

  1,000,564

  23

  1,087,824

  Grade 7

  80

  2,800,284

  81

  3,036,259

  Senior Executive Officer

  4

  126,557

  3

  105,490

  Higher Executive Officer

  9

  209,587

  10

  225,796

  Executive Officer

  19

  335,997

  21

  347,787

  Administrative Officer

  46

  588,189

  44

  612,250

  Administrative Assistant

  5

  61,885

  4

  52,507

  Senior Scientific Officer

  84

  2,209,828

  82

  2,330,767

  Higher Scientific Officer

  69

  1,477,665

  72

  1,651,953

  Scientific Officer

  80

  1,301,621

  79

  1,395,699

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  12

  163,398

  15

  211,476

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  10

  265,760

  11

  315,238

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  11

  219,678

  10

  233,630

  Professional and Technical Officer

  12

  228,673

  15

  283,396

  Senior Librarian

  1

  28,270

  1

  30,318

  Librarian

  4

  79,598

  4

  85,932

  Assistant Librarian

  3

  40,075

  3

  43,127

  Senior Information

  1

  21,481

  1

  23,038

  Senior Personal Secretary

  2

  35,166

  2

  38,237

  Personal Secretary

  20

  302,429

  19

  315,976

  Typing Manager

  1

  17,575

  1

  18,821

  Typist

  6

  78,653

  6

  84,212

  Telephonist

  3

  35,775

  3

  38,367

  Support Grades

  26

  508,015

  25

  494,968

  Industrials

  97

  1,188,111

  84

  1,177,610

  Casuals

  8

  42,000

  10

  50,000

  Total

  644

  13,774,144

  636

  14,700,932

  Vehicle certification agency staff numbers and costs 1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Grade 5

  1·0

  48,509

  1·0

  49,623

  Grade 6

  1·0

  42,560

  1·0

  43,900

  Grade 7

  4·0

  138,546

  4·0

  140,981

  328 329

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Senior Executive Officer

  0·5

  12,136

  0·0

  0

  Higher Executive Officer

  3·0

  58,711

  2·0

  44,486

  Executive Officer

  8·0

  132,771

  8·0

  139,847

  Administrative Officer

  17·5

  183,241

  16·0

  199,715

  Administrative Assistant

  4·0

  51,126

  3·0

  38,899

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  10·0

  232,035

  11·0

  277,858

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  25·0

  520,122

  21·0

  495,578

  Professional and Technical Officer

  3·0

  56,539

  2·0

  35,100

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  16,235

  1·0

  13,298

  Typist

  4·0

  48,463

  3·0

  31,593

  Support Grades

  1·0

  11,690

  1·0

  10,064

  Industrials

  1·0

  9,995

  1·0

  9,525

  Total

  84·0

  1,562,679

  75·0

  1,530,467

  Driver and vehicle licensing agency staff numbers and costs

  1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93

  Vehicle inspectorate staff numbers and costs 1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Grade 3

  1

  61,557

  1

  64,729

  Grade 4

  1

  59,023

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  5

  252,521

  4

  213,071

  Medical Officer

  7

  302,809

  8

  370,431

  Grade 6

  7

  305,831

  6

  278,631

  Grade 7

  37

  1,268,700

  24

  874,580

  Senior Executive Officer

  87

  2,386,372

  45

  1,288,161

  Higher Executive Officer

  275

  6,135,751

  170

  3,925,551

  Executive Officer

  683

  11,862,833

  437

  7,905,676

  Administrative Officer

  1,735

  23,014,092

  1,676

  23,257,112

  Administrative Assistant

  1,962

  20,959,503

  1,838

  20,716,748

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  1

  26,774

  1

  28,388

  Professional and Technical Officer

  2

  43,653

  2

  43,475

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  17,598

  1

  18,067

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  17,484

  1

  18,229

  Personal Secretary

  21

  327,518

  18

  297,515

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  22,340

  1

  23,290

  Typing Manager

  6

  99,824

  5

  86,726

  Typist

  96

  1,283,031

  89

  1,263,097

  Telex Operator

  1

  13,213

  1

  13,774

  Support Manager

  17

  263,926

  16

  266,223

  Support Grades

  243

  2,822,448

  226

  2,771,040

  Casuals

  85

  729,466

  61

  545,766

  Stores Officer

  4

  75,733

  4

  79,720

  Total

  5,279

  72,352,000

  4,635

  64,350,000

  DVOIT staff numbers and costs estimates for 1992–93

  1992–93

  Grade

  Numbers

  Costs £

  Grade 4

  1

  61,928

  Grade 5

  1

  55,269

  Grade 6

  3

  142,444

  Grade 7

  14

  510,125

  Senior Executive Officer

  39

  1,240,394

  Higher Executive Officer

  93

  2,478,385

  Executive Officer

  246

  5,292,263

  Administrative Officer

  44

  682,330

  Administrative Assistant

  42

  555,744

  Personal Secretary

  4

  65,592

  Total

  486

  11,084,474

  Marine Directorate
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspectors are employed by the Marine directorate; and if he will give details of the number of(a) United Kingdom-flagged vessels and (b) flag-of-convenience tonnage covered by inspectors of the Marine directorate in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Norris
  There are at present 190 marine surveyors employed within the marine directorate.

  The numbers of inspections of United Kingdom vessels were:

  Numbers

  1989–90

  4,021

  1990–91

  3,503

  1991–92

  4,174

  331
  The numbers of foreign ships inspected were:

  Numbers

  1989–90

  1,782

  1990–91

  2,197

  1991–92

  2,397

  Commuter Fares
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the level of commuter fares in London relative to other EC capital and major cities; and if he will make a statement on Government policy with regard to this situation.

  Mr. Norris
  It is difficult to compare fare levels internationally because each transport system has a different fare structure and few European cities are as large and complex as London. In 1991–92 fares on London Buses and the Underground were 17 per cent. and 7 per cent. higher in real terms than 10 years earlier; Network SouthEast fares were 19 per cent. higher. Over the same period, average real weekly earnings have increased by 40 per cent. in London. So fares increases have been more than matched by increased ability to pay. The Government believe that it is right to strike a balance between contributions from users, and subsidy from taxpayers. If one pays less, the other of necessity pays more.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions his Department has made to the International Maritime Organisation on the subject of the maritime transport of plutonium.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to both Wilton Park under its

  Natural Resources Institute staff numbers and costs by grade

  1991–92 (actual)

  1992–93 (estimated)

  Grade

  Man years

  Cost £

  Man years

  Cost £

  Unified Grade 3

  1·00

  65,248

  1·00

  68,770

  Unified Grade 5

  4·00

  204,697

  3·51

  188,438

  Unified Grade 6

  21·77

  964,275

  23·60

  1,091,842

  Unified Grade 7

  96·21

  3,327,165

  100·59

  3,645,976

  Senior Scientific Officer

  79·04

  2,110,342

  96·65

  2,424,496

  Higher Scientific Officer

  68·51

  1,377,374

  66·63

  1,406,194

  Scientific Officer

  45·50

  697,428

  41·65

  673,708

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  20·59

  253,641

  21·20

  273,289

  Senior Research Officer

  10·86

  231,353

  11·34

  242,115

  Research Officer

  1·10

  20,082

  0·37

  6,997

  Librarian

  0·20

  6,733

  —

  —

  Assistant Librarian

  1·75

  23,063

  2·00

  27,384

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  1·00

  22,004

  1·00

  23,020

  332
  chief executive, Geoffrey Denton, and to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Anthony Beattie. I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Geoffrey Denton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992

  Thank you for your question asking Wilton Park to list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93.

  The answer to your question is as follows:

  Listing of staff 1991–92

  Numbers

  DS4

  1

  DS5

  5

  EO

  3

  AO

  4

  SPS

  11

  PS

  2

  Cat Man III

  2

  Chef II

  3

  Industrial

  28

  Total costs

  £503,503

  Forecast 1992–93

  Numbers

  DS4

  1

  DS5S

  1

  DS5

  4

  EO

  3

  AO

  4

  PS

  3

  11

  Cat Man III

  2

  Chef II

  3

  Industrial

  28

  Total costs

  £536,545

  Increase year on year

  3·76 per cent.

  1Part time.

  2Four part time.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  Lady Chalker has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about staff and their costs in executive agencies.

  I enclose a table giving the information you require.
  333

  1991–92 (actual)

  1992–93 (estimated)

  Grade

  Man years

  Cost £

  Man years

  Cost £

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  1·00

  19,574

  1·00

  20,478

  Professional/Technology Officer

  2·00

  32,555

  2·00

  34,055

  Experimental Worker

  17·34

  156,074

  7·53

  72,674

  Senior Information Officer

  1·00

  26,031

  1·00

  27,272

  Information Officer

  2·30

  39,904

  2·00

  36,344

  Assistant Information Officer

  1·24

  17,371

  1·00

  15,047

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1·00

  21,527

  1·00

  22,521

  Senior Executive Officer

  3·00

  84,547

  2·41

  69,721

  Higher Executive Officer

  7·68

  164,872

  10·12

  226,023

  Executive Officer

  21·75

  365,557

  19·08

  333,389

  Administrative Officer

  43·10

  501,709

  43·25

  532,170

  Administrative Assistant

  3·02

  22,414

  2·27

  17,350

  Support Grade Band 1

  5·61

  63,882

  7·50

  91,896

  Support Grade Band 2

  10·76

  92,238

  14·24

  143,029

  Personal Secretary

  12·14

  177,530

  14·14

  214,957

  Technical Grade 1

  —

  —

  5·00

  68,668

  Typing Manager

  2·00

  32,999

  2·00

  34,324

  Typist

  7·94

  99,077

  9·39

  121,963

  College Sandwich Course Students

  6·43

  55,112

  3·66

  32,419

  Graphics Officer

  0·07

  916

  0·50

  6,517

  Mapping and Charting Technical Grade 1

  0·58

  8,559

  1·00

  15,125

  Agricultural Advisory Officer I

  19·21

  795,323

  17·80

  770,215

  Agricultural Advisory Officer II

  7·36

  217,088

  5·00

  153,611

  Economic Adviser

  1·00

  33,602

  0·51

  17,532

  Deputy Regional Veterinary Officer

  2·00

  105,881

  2·00

  111,111

  Chargehand

  0·87

  10,163

  0·17

  2,209

  Craftsman

  5·03

  55,505

  0·84

  10,531

  TOTALS

  537·04

  12,503,415

  535·95

  13,273,280

  Visiting Musicians (Visas)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when visas were issued by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to five musicians, led by Qadi Muhammad Tufail, born on 10 July 1935, to tour the United Kingdom at the invitation of the Al Falah Youth Organisation of Bradford; when that post was notified that all members of the group had been issued with work permits by the overseas labour section of the Department of Employment; when visit visa applications were made on behalf of the group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information about this case, we have asked the high commission in Islamabad for a full report. We shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to accommodate the request by Denmark for amendments to the treaty on European union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As presidency, the United Kingdom will use the proposals submitted by the Danish Government as the basis for discussion with partners on agreeing the framework for a solution at Edinburgh.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the International Atomic Energy Agency has the authority to conduct 334
  special investigations at facilities that have not been previously reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment has been made by his Department of the effectiveness of the non-proliferation safeguards set out in the International Atomic Energy Agency document INFCIRO/153; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  An assessment of the effectiveness of IAEA safeguards is provided in the agency's annual report. The 1991 report stated:
  "it is considered reasonable to conclude that the nuclear material placed under safeguards remained in peaceful nuclear activities or was otherwise adequately accounted for".

  Previous annual reports have recorded similar findings.

  The agency's report also recorded, however, that:
  "Inspection activities carried out pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 reveal that Iraq had not complied with the obligations under its safeguards agreement to declare certain nuclear activities and place all relevant nuclear material under safeguards".

  In the light of the discoveries in Iraq and other recent developments, the board of governors has considered at length ways in which the agency's safeguards system might be further strengthened. As part of this exercise the February board of governors reaffirmed the agency's right, under safeguards agreements concluded under the non-proliferation treaty, to undertake special inspections including locations other than those declared by states. A proposal for the early provision of design information on new and modified facilities was also accepted.

  At its June and September board of governors meetings, the IAEA examined proposals which would give the agency important additional information on exports and imports of nuclear material and on exports of certain relevant equipment and non-nuclear materials. The agency's member states are examining options for providing such information.
  335
  The agency's board will continue to examine improvements in the strength and cost effectiveness of the agency's safeguards activities from time to time. The United Kingdom attaches great importance to the subject and will continue to play a full part in these discussions.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications his Department has had with his counterparts in Russia and other states in the Commonwealth of Independant States relating to the funding of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials have frequent bilateral contact with counterparts from the Russian Federation and CIS states during meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency's general conference and board of governors at which various matters are discussed including the funding of the IAEA.

PRIME MINISTER

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that concessions to Denmark on citizenship in relation to the treaty on European union will be extended to the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom is committed to ratifying the treaty on European union as it stands.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to the Danish Government's proposals relating to article 8 of the treaty on European union.

  The Prime Minister
  A Danish proposal was agreed by the Folketing on 30 October. This will now be discussed by EC member states. The presidency's task is to take forward this discussion, and to reach a framework agreement on a solution for Denmark at the Edinburgh European Council.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what tax advantages nationals of other member states resident in the United Kingdom who take advantage of the provisions of article 8b of the treaty on European union will continue to enjoy.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom tax position of nationals of other member states will continue to depend on their individual residence and domicile status. This status is not expected to be significantly affected by the provisions of article 8b of the treaty on European union.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards ratification by other member states of the treaty on European union in the absence of ratification by Denmark.

  The Prime Minister
  The Birmingham European Council reaffirmed the importance of concluding ratification of the Maastricht treaty as soon as possible. All member states, including Denmark, are working towards this. The treaty cannot, however, enter into force until all member states have ratified.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received in favour of British citizens becoming European citizens.

  The Prime Minister
  None. European citizenship is supplementary to national citizenship and in no way replaces it. We in the United Kingdom remain responsible for deciding who shall be nationals of this country.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if, as President of the European Council, he will make further representations to the Indonesian Government to stop all repressive actions in East Timor around the 12 November anniversary of the massacre in Santa Cruz cemetery.

  The Prime Minister
  The Indonesians are already fully aware of the views of the British Government and of our European Community partners.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if, as President of the European Council, he will request the Indonesian authorities to allow a diplomatic mission to Dili, East Timor, for the period including 12 November.

  The Prime Minister
  No. Diplomatic Missions in Jakarta are able to visit East Timor and do so.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is applied to fiscal and monetary policy.

  The Prime Minister
  The principle of subsidiarity is set out in article 3b of the treaty on European union and applies to all areas of Community competence.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of minimum wages fixed by wages councils on the number of recipients of and sums spent on family credit in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible to identify families receiving family credit whose wages are covered by wages councils. The benefit is payable to any low-income family with children irrespective of whether or not their wages are fixed by wages councils. The biggest determinant of the size of a family credit award is the number and ages of the children rather than variations in the level of wages.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the costs involved in setting up the compensation recovery unit; and what were the unit's running costs in 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 15 June at column 387.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines are issued to local DSS offices in assessing victims of domestic violence when they seek access to social fund loans or grants.

  Mr. Scott
  National guidance on dealing with social fund applications is contained in the social fund guide, a copy of which is in the Library. Paragraphs 5400 to 5405 provide guidance on applications for community care grants to help an applicant move to different accommodation. Paragraph 5404 states that, where an applicant is moving out of the accommodation following a breakdown of a relationship, a higher priority may be given to cases where there has been domestic violence, if a payment will help to protect the applicant and any children from risk. No specific guidance is given in relation to budgeting and crisis loans.

  District managers as area social fund officers are also required to give guidance to social fund officers on both the nature, extent and urgency of needs within the locality and the high, medium and low priority needs which may be met from the district budget. This guidance may include advice on the priority of applications from victims of domestic violence.

  In addition, social fund officers, in determining applications, are required to consider the individual circumstances of each case. Where domestic violence is relevant to the application, this will be taken into account.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in east Edinburgh have qualified, or do qualify, for payments under the cold weather payments scheme since its inception in 1991.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 4 November 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many households in East Edinburgh have qualified, or do qualify, for payments under the cold weather payments scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Edinburgh East constituency is covered by the Agency's East Lowlands and Lothian Central Districts. During 1991, only customers of the Galashiels office, which forms part of the East Lowlands District, qualified for Cold Weather Payments. Details are available in the Library. It is not possible to give an exact figure of how many customers may
  338
  have future entitlement except at disproportionate cost. However, based on figures for those claiming Income Support in November 1991, it is estimated that approximately 25,100 customers claiming from those Districts may qualify for a Cold Weather Payment should the area be triggered. Parliamentary constituencies and District boundaries do not correspond however and a proportion of these will live outside the constituency.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has commissioned two reports from external consultants in the last three years. In 1990, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock reported on a time recording and billing system for the department and in 1992, BDO Binder Hamlyn was commissioned to report on financial and accounting systems for the department.

  The Crown prosecution service has commissioned six reports from external consultants in the last three years. In 1990, Scoll Ltd. reported on computer security policy and KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock reported on the training and development needs of CPS managers. In 1991, Yale Consulting reported on local area network strategy. In 1992, Intact Ltd. reported on the cabling specification for the new CPS headquarters building. This led to the further commissioning of the same consultants to provide technical monitoring of the cabling installation. Axsis Ltd. was commissioned to do a telecommunications strategy scoping study and this led to the further commissioning of a full telecommunications strategy study. Also in 1992, Energy Conscious Design performed an energy and environmental audit of the new headquarters building.

  The Serious Fraud Office commissioned five reports from external consultants in 1992, and none in 1990 and 1991. They are as follows:

  Information systems strategy scoping study: Hedra.

  Information systems security study: Admiral plc.

  Information systems architecture study: Systemhouse International (Europe) Ltd.

  Accommodation space planning study: Morgan Lovall.

  Analysis of system faults at Citygate House: systemhouse.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hens
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of laying hens.

  Mr. Soames
  Improved welfare standards need to be set on a European Community basis. We are currently expecting Commission proposals on the welfare of laying hens.

  Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to protect the catch allocated to British fishermen from quota hoppers.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom's registration and licensing arrangements restrict access to our quotas.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the entire EC budget is spent on the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  The common agricultural policy accounts for approximately 60 per cent. of the EC budget.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to encourage the growing of alternative crops on set-aside land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The EC rules on the new arable area payments scheme allow a wide range of crops to be grown on set-aside land for specified non-food uses. Although member states are not required to implement these arrangements in full in the first year of the scheme, the United Kingdom has done so. I know that a number of growers will be taking advantage of this opportunity.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to implement the revised set-aside arrangements in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  An explanatory booklet on the arable area payments scheme was published in early September and copies were placed in the House Library. The booklet contains detailed information about what growers must do if they wish to claim area payments in 1993 and about the related set-aside requirements, including the management conditions and the arrangements under which crops can be grown on set-aside land for non-food use. Claim forms will be available next year.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made to date on the preparation of the draft directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Soames
  We are still awaiting proposals from the Commission.

  Marketing Boards
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to introduce his proposed legislation to reform marketing boards.

  Mr. Gummer
  We intend to introduce legislation to promote improvements in agricultural marketing when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Diversification
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific measures he has undertaken to assist Britain's farmers to diversify.
  340
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by his Department to encourage farmers to diversify their businesses.

  Mr. Curry
  Since the farm diversification grant scheme was introduced in 1988, farmers in England have received free advice and £7·6 million in grants to help them to diversify. Over 40 per cent. of farmers are now diversified. We are backing this up with a number of regional seminars to encourage planning authorities to follow through the revised planning guidance issued earlier this year by the Department of the Environment.

  Ewe Premium
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the decision to investigate farm partnerships after the special ewe premium was due for payment.

  Mr. Curry
  Before making payments under the 1992 sheep annual premium scheme we are required by European Community regulations to examine claims from partnerships to establish that they satisfy the headage payment limit rules. This work is being done as quickly as possible.

  Footpaths
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet members of the Ramblers Association to discuss footpaths over agricultural land.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no such plans at present, but I am always ready to meet the Ramblers Association to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Food Manufacturing
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to food manufacturing companies.

  Mr. Gummer
  We provide support for the food industry through financial assistance and by promoting its interests at home and abroad.

  Sea Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made with his studies into the stocks of sea bass.

  Mr. Curry
  Studies are well in hand to ensure a proper assessment of the effects of the new management measures introduced in 1990.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date he expects bovine spongiform encephalopathy to be eradicated from cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  I am confident that the measures taken by the Government should be sufficient to bring about the disappearance of BSE. There are already encouraging signs to support this view, but it is impossible to predict how long this process will take.

  Farm Incomes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on farm incomes.

  Mr. Curry
  Forecasts of 1992 income will be published in the new year, together with revised estimates for 1993.

  Plant Health and Pesticides HQ
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent correspondence his Ministry has had with York city council, and property developers in York about the site for his Department's new plant health and pesticides headquarters.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department received last week, and has already replied to, a general inquiry on this matter from York council development services. There has been no other recent correspondence between my Department and interested parties in York.

  Wildlife Conservation
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effects of the set-aside regulations on the conservation of wildlife, both flora and fauna.

  Mr. Curry
  We are currently funding a range of studies on the agronomic and environmental effects of short and longer-term set-aside, including changes in the botanical composition of set-aside land, the effects on wildlife habitats and the potential for conserving and restoring such habitats on set-aside land. This involves assessing a number of complex factors over time and final results are not yet available.

  Imported Wild Birds
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available on mortalities in imported wild birds.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department's latest report on mortalities in imported captive birds, relating to imports in 1991, is now available and copies are being placed in the Library of the House. The figures show a fall in the number of birds imported from 176,000 in 1990 to 129,000 in 1991, but the average mortality rate in transport and post-import quarantine rose from 12–3 to 14·8 per cent. Although variation in mortality rates is to be expected, this increase is unacceptable and urgent improvements are clearly needed.

  There is a clear correlation between mortality and the size of individual consignments. We are therefore pursuing vigorously proposals for limiting the size of consignments with the International Air Transport Association, whose live animal regulations are to become mandatory under Community law. We are also opening consultations with interested organisations on the introduction of consignment limits in the United Kingdom. From this month new checks are being made on all commercial imports of birds into Great Britain. We are pressing the European Commission to introduce proposals for further specific measures for wild birds under the directive on protection of animals during transport. The United Kingdom
  342
  presidency is also giving high priority to discussions in the Environment Council on a proposed new Community regulation on the wildlife trade which would provide for specific controls on species are particularly vulnerable to transport.

  The Department will be discussing with interested parties a programme to recognise the competence of quarantine operators. In addition, further training courses will be held for veterinarians supervising quarantine premises.

  The Government fully appreciate the concern about this issue and is determined that any trade in wild birds is conducted in humane conditions and in accordance with strict conservation safeguards.

  Sheep and Goats
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the random slaughterhouse survey of blood samples from sheep and goats carried out under directive 91/68/EC was concluded; if he will publish the findings of the survey; if any samples taken as part of the survey under directive 91/68/EC were screened for maedi visna; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Soames
  The slaughterhouse survey for brucella melitensis and contagious agalactia in sheep and goats and for brucella ovis in sheep was concluded in June 1992. None of the diseases was confirmed. A total of 3,234 of the samples taken were screened for maedi visna, and these results will be made available to the sheep and goat health scheme advisory group.

  Equines
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken by his Department to check values of equines being submitted to his Department for export; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Department ensures that the valuations are determined by qualified valuers or the appropriate judges of breed societies.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to implement fully the EC directive on the welfare of animals in transit.

  Mr. Soames
  Proposals were issued for public consultation on 15 October 1992.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects to lay the regulations relating to the EC directive on health and safety in the workplace relating to(a) health and safety (general provisions), (b) provision and use of work equipment, (c) manual handling operators, (d) workplace (health, safety and welfare), (e) personal protective equipment at work and (f) health and safety (display screen equipment).

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations—previously referred to as the
  343
  Health and Safety (General Provisions) Regulations—were laid before Parliament on 8 September 1992. The other regulations relating to the EC directive on health and safety in the workplace are expected to be laid before Parliament by early next month.

  European Community Funds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much financial assistance has been given to(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Glasgow and (c) Strathclyde by way of each of the four objectives of the European Community's social fund in each of the past three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available in the form sought, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Training
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responses she has received to the proposals in the White Paper "People, Jobs and Opportunity", in respect of(a) giving employees information about company training policy and (b) making training contracts more easily enforceable; and what further action she intends to take.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has received some 75 responses from a range of organisations and individuals, including a number of firms. I am most grateful to all those who commented.

  Many respondents saw the first proposition as an important adjunct to the "Investors in People" standard. They believed that employers would welcome guidance on effective policies for developing and training their employees, and communicating these policies throughout the work force. However, many replies pointed out that a major strength of the "Investors in People" standard is that it is voluntary, driven by business needs and by real commitment from top managers. It is also flexible enough to be relevant to individual circumstances. Accordingly, the Department plans to involve employers in drawing up detailed guidance on creating and communicating effective training policies. We do not propose to introduce legislation, as a clear majority of respondents opposed this.

  The great majority of respondents did not support the idea of changing the law on the enforceability of training contracts. Most considered there was not a widespread problem and, even among respondents from the main sector where problems had been reported, there was no general agreement that legislation was required. Given the prevailing view, we propose not to take further action on this proposition.

EDUCATION

  Special Needs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children in Essex have had statements of special educational needs; and if he will make a statement on the situation in Essex.
  344
  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992, Essex local education authority was responsible for 4,923 children with statements of special educational needs—around 2·3 per cent. of the county's school population.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children in special needs schools in Essex have not had statements.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992, there were 2,606 pupils registered at special schools in Essex local education authority. Approximately 7 per cent. of these pupils did not have statements of special educational needs, most of whom were undergoing formal assessment prior to a statement being issued.

  Research
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to publish all research sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Forman
  No; most research reports are published, but the Department needs to consider each case on its merits and no blanket undertaking to publish can be given.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each education authority the number and proportion of mandatory student grants which had not been paid at 31 October.

  Mr. Forman
  This information is not collected centrally. I am, however, most concerned by any reports of delays in making payments, and my officials will investigate vigorously any complaints which are received.

  Four-year-olds
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list in rank order the proportion of four-year-olds in each local education authority who start school at the beginning of the academic year.

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not available in the form requested, but details of pupils aged four admitted to infant classes between September and December 1990 are given in statistical bulletin 5/92 which is available in the Library.

  LINC Projects
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the discussion papers prepared for the development of the LINC projects, 1989–92, which received a grant from his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  Proposals for the development of the language in the curriculum—LINC—project were set out under category XXIX in the education support grant circular sent to all local education authorities in England in July 1988, a copy of which is available in the Library. This followed publication of the Kingman report in March 1988 which recommended that an in-service training scheme be undertaken to increase teachers' knowledge about language.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the number of pupils excluded from each grant-maintained school for the school years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on permanent exclusions from LEA and grant-maintained schools over a two-year period starting with the summer term 1990 has been collected under the national exclusions reporting system—NERS. The purpose of NERS is to provide a basis on which to review the working of the existing statutory procedures on exclusions. The information received is currently being analysed. NERS returns were made on a confidential basis and it would not be appropriate for me to disclose information on individual schools without the agreement of their governing bodies.

  Open University
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice he has received from the Open university's visiting committee concerning the university's grant needs for 1993.

  Mr. Forman
  The visiting committee's advice is contained in a report which has been placed in the Library.

  College

  Title

  Name

  Date of appointment

  Kingshurst

  Principal

  Valerie Bragg

  January 1988

  Macmillan

  Principal

  John Paddick

  January 1989

  Djanogly

  Principal

  Matt Andrews

  September 1988

  Dixon's

  Principal

  John Lewis

  September 1989

  Leigh

  Principal

  Virginia Waterhouse

  January 1990

  Emmanuel

  Principal

  Bill Smith

  September 1992

  Harris

  Principal

  Lyndon Jones

  January 1990

  Bacon's

  Principal

  Peter Jenkins

  September 1990

  Britschool

  Principal

  Anne Rumney

  January 1990

  Brooke

  Principal

  Gareth Newman

  September 1990

  Haberdashers'

  Director

  Roy Baldock

  November 1990

  Thomas Telford

  Headmaster

  Kevin Satchwell

  January 1991

  ADT

  Chief Executive

  Richard Painter

  October 1990

  Landau Forte

  Principal

  Peter Shackleton

  September 1990

  The only new appointment is that of the principal at Emmanuel college. The appointment or departure of a principal is a matter for the college itself.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the pupil-teacher ratios for each local education authority in England for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools, in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  Pupil-teacher ratios for maintained primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England in January 1991 are published in statistical bulletin 2/92 which is available in the Library. Information for January 1992 is not yet available.

HEALTH

  Ozone
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account she has taken of the implications for health care of continuation of ozone depletion(a) at present rates for 20 years and (b) thereafter at an exponential rate.
  346
  A copy of the report has been passed to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which will be responsible for determining the Open university's grants from 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library the latest report of the visiting committee for the Open university.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the final report of the Open university's visiting committee.

  Mr. Forman
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will update his answer of 15 July,Official Report, columns 722–23, on principals of CTCs; and if he will list the colleges which have changed principals and the reasons for the departure of the original principals.

  Mr. Forth
  The names and dates of appointment of the current principal, or equivalent, of each CTC are as follows:

  Mr. Sackville
  The possibility of long-term depletion of the ozone layer is of serious concern and Government policy remains the earliest possible phasing out of the production of ozone-depleting chemicals. The achievement of this will mean that depletion does not continue at present rates for 20 years.

  Exposure to ultraviolet radiation—UV—is an important factor in the number of cases of skin cancer which develop and levels of UV at ground level are influenced by changes of levels of ozone in the stratosphere. However, these are only one factor influencing the numbers of skin cancers. Seasonal variations in solar UV levels and short term variations due to cloud cover and local weather conditions are far in excess of any variations anticipated as a result of ozone depletion. The main risk factor which is believed to account for the increase seen in the incidence of skin cancer is the increased extent to which people expose themselves to the sun. The programme of work following the publication of "Health of the Nation" in July includes work to halt the increase in skin cancers.

  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect on human health of continuing production of HCFCs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am advised that while HCFCs do have some ozone-depleting potential, they cause less damage than CFCs even in the short term. Further, HCFCs are, of course, needed to ensure that they are only used where they are vital to replace CFCs. The European Community will therefore be seeking to bring HCFCs under strict control in this month's review of the Montreal protocol.

  With regard to the health effects of ozone depletion, I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 19 October 1992 and 30 October 1992 at columns 79–80 and 939 respectively.

  Listeria
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to prevent imports of food products contaminated with listeria.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Food Safety Act 1990 and its subordinate legislation provide a statutory framework to protect the public from food which fails to meet food safety requirements, whatever its origin. We are not aware of any evidence of a problem with listeria contaminated food imports requiring special steps.

  Broomfield Hospital
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the closure of a ward at Broomfield hospital; and what action can be taken to reopen the ward.

  Mr. Sackville
  Broomfield hospital is one of six hospitals which comprise the Mid Essex hospital services NHS trust. Through much greater efficiency, the trust exceeded its contract performance by more than 1,000 cases during the first six months of the current year. As a result ward B8, a general surgical ward, has been closed temporarily as it is not needed to maintain contracted levels of patient treatment.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide details of the reason for the delay in the joint trust application by Walsgrave and Coventry and Warwickshire hospitals; and what assessment he has made of the need to change the legal position in this regard.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The decision on Walsgrave and Coventry and Warwickshire's application has been deferred along with two other applications because of the need for the Walsgrave national health service trust to undertake further internal consultation with its staff. Consideration is currenty being given to an amendment to the National Health Service Trusts (Consultation on Dissolution) Regulations 1991.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 18 May,Official Report, column 63,
  348
  if she will analyse the figures stated for expenditure on establishing NHS trusts into the different categories of expenditure linked in her answer.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 26 October 1992 at columns 478–80 and on 3 November 1992 at column 180.

  Waterlogged Soils (Infant Mortality)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has available on links between waterlogged soils and variations in the infant mortality rate; if she will commission further studies into the theory of such a link; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no plans to commission research in this area, although we are always willing to consider suitable proposals.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will suspend the chairman of the West Midlands health authority with immediate effect.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. Sir James Ackers has welcomed Sir Roy Griffiths' assistance in looking at management within West Midlands and is working closely with him to ensure arrangements are in place for the most effective management of the health services for the people of the west midlands.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the audits, reports and investigations commissioned by her Department concerning the West Midlands regional health authority or any of its component districts in the past two years; and if she will itemise(a) those whose final report has been received with dates, (b) those whose draft report has been received with dates and (c) those which have not yet reported.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department frequently receives a wide range of reports on health and management matters from West Midlands regional health authority, districts and family health services authorities.

  Child Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the application of the purchaser/provider split to local authority child care provision.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for local authorities to determine the appropriate structure for the delivery of children's services having regard to their child protection duties and the general child care requirements imposed upon them by the Children Act 1989 and associated regulations and guidance.

  Royal Northern Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received on the future of the Royal Northern hospital site in Islington; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The North East Thames regional health authority is currently in discussion with the
  349
  Bloomsbury and Islington district health authority regarding the future ownership and use of the Royal Northern site. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Chessels, the regional chairman, for further information.

  Medical Audit Commission
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state(a) the annual budget of the Medical Audit Commission for 1991–92 and 1992–93 and (b) the main categories of its expenditure.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: The medical audit initiative, which was introduced and funded by the Government as part of the national health service reforms, is funded by the NHS Management Executive, health care directorate.

  Medical audit has received a substantial investment, which remains necessary to accomplish the major transformation in professional attitudes and working practices which it entails. The sums allocated in the years in question were:

  (i) £60 million in 1991–92, and

  (ii) £42 million in 1992–93.

  A capital allocation was made for two years, ending in 1991–92 for comupters and software. Family health service audit funding has been built into normal allocations from 1992–93. The same will happen to HCHS funding when it has become firmly established, except for about £10 million retained centrally to fund work by the medical royal colleges and others to establish standards of best practice.

  Most of the money is spent on employing medical audit support staff, a new profession within the NHS which is already demonstrating the potential to make a major contribution to improving patient care. Funds also pay for computers and doctors' time spent organising audit and continuing medical education. The above sums do not include the cost of doctors' time—about a half clay a month—spent attending audit meetings.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he consulted with the charities in commissioning the consultants GAH Group to advise on aspects of a national lottery on charitable donations; when he proposes to meet them to discuss the advice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government do not as a rule consult third parties before commissioning research advice. I plan to meet representatives from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations next week for general discussions on the national lottery; and we are continuing consultations with other organisations in the charity and voluntary sector.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he consulted with the football pools companies, in commissioning the consultants GAH Group to advise on aspects of a national lottery on the football pools industry; when he proposes to meet them to discuss the advice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government do not as a rule consult third parties before commissioning research advice. I plan to meet soon representatives from the pools industry for general discussions on the national lottery.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 914, where the contract for the research work awarded to GAH Group was advertised; when it was advertised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Government competitive tendering procedures do not invariably require the advertising of invitations to tender. Selected firms were invited to tender for the contract. The invitation was issued on 24 July 1992, and the contract was let on 10 August.

  Pitchford Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the current position in relation to Pitchford hall.

  Mr. Key
  I do not propose to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Murderers
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment have been released and thereafter convicted for a further murder since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: A total of four individuals, having been convicted of murder and subsequently released from life imprisonment, have thereafter been convicted of a further murder since 1985.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: As the information sought is extensive, I shall provide the hon. Member with a list of those I have appointed since becoming Secretary of State for Scotland and who currently hold their appointments. I am also arranging for copies of the list to be placed in the Library of the House. It shows the body on which they serve, the length of the appointment and, where appropriate, the remuneration. Information on relevant qualifications held, and on appointments, other than those of chairmen and deputy chairmen, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Home and Health Department
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the extent to which the grants awarded by the Home and Health Department are giving value for money; and if projects are being vetted adequately.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: Grants are awarded by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department for many projects falling under that Department's areas of responsibility. In each case, strict guidelines and conditions are laid out relating to the use of grant aid and must be accepted in writing by prospective recipients prior to any funds being advanced. Thereafter, projects are monitored and evaluated on a regular basis throughout the life of the grant aid and, where appropriate, the annual accounts of the recipient bodies are required to be submitted to the Department. Increasingly, grant recipients are being required to produce business plans and are being set performance targets. All these measures serve to assist value-for-money examination and I am content that the projects are being vetted adequately.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.
  352
  Sir John Cope
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executives of the Royal Mint, Central Statistical Office, and Valuation Office agencies. A copy of the question has been passed to each and they have been asked to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. D. Garrett to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to respond to your above Written Question concerning the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and estimates for 1992–93.

  The information you require is set out on the attached sheet.

  Royal Mint

  Numbers Employed and Employment Costs

  1991–92 (Actual)

  1992–93 (Estimated)

  1. Staff Costs

  a. Wages/Salaries

  £16,883,000

  £17,595,000

  b. Other employment costs

  £3,274,000

  £3,681,000

  Total

  £20,157,000

  £21,276,000

  2. Staff Numbers

  a. Industrial

  656

  647·5

  b. Non-Industrial

  384

  379·5

  Total

  1,040

  1,027·0

  Non-Industrial Grade Breakdown

  3. Grade

  Numbers

  Numbers

  G3

  1·0

  1·0

  G4/5/6

  5·0

  5·0

  G7

  11·0

  11·0

  SEO/SPTO/SSO

  28·0

  27·0

  HEO

  17·0

  17·0

  EO

  50·0

  53·0

  AO

  95·0

  93·5

  AA

  16·5

  13·5

  SPS

  1·0

  1·0

  PS

  6·0

  6·0

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  1·0

  Typists

  8·0

  8·0

  Telephone Operator

  1·0

  1·0

  Senior Messenger

  2·0

  2·0

  Car Driver

  3·0

  3·0

  Messenger

  5·0

  5·0

  Cleaner

  5·0

  4·5

  Curator 'F'

  1·0

  1·0

  HPTO/HPO

  19·0

  21·0

  PTO/PO

  79·0

  76·0

  HSO

  4·0

  3·0

  SO

  15·0

  15·0

  TG1

  1·0

  2·0

  P and GSD

  3·0

  3·0

  Laboratory Assistant

  0·5

  0·5

  Engraver 2

  5·0

  5·0

  Engraver 3

  1·0

  0·0

  Total

  384

  379·5

  Letter from W. McLennan to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992.

  As Chief Executive of the Central Statistical Office I have been asked to respond to your Parliamentary Question of 28 October to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about staff numbers and costs.

  The attached gives numbers of staff for the CSO by grade and their salary costs for 1991–92, and estimates for 1992–93 as requested.

  I also enclose a summary of the CSO financial account for 1991–92, and our provision for 1992–93, which show a breakdown of running and capital costs.
  353

  Central Statistical Office staff numbers and costs 1991–92

  Grade

  1991–92 Average staff1 in post (numbers)

  1991–92 Salary costs2 (£s)

  Grade 1A

  1·0

  78,665

  Grade 2

  1·0

  59,434

  Grade 3

  3·0

  157,748

  Grade 4

  1·0

  46,908

  Grade 5/6

  22·0

  950·157

  Grade 7

  69·0

  2,012,780

  Senior Executive Officer

  35·5

  886,350

  Senior Assistant Statistician/ Assistant Statistician

  23·5

  446,252

  Higher Executive Officer

  139·5

  2,661,887

  Executive Officer

  277·5

  4,147,744

  Administrative Officer

  387·5

  3,878,150

  Administrative Assistant

  65·00

  581,052

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1·0

  20,446

  Graphics Officer

  3·0

  53,256

  Senior Information Officer

  1·0

  23,582

  Information Officer

  1·0

  19,301

  Assistant Information Officer

  1·0

  12,411

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  1·0

  18,588

  Librarian

  1·0

  18,423

  Assistant Librarian

  1·0

  10,092

  Typing Manager

  2·0

  33,243

  Senior Personal Secretary

  3·0

  51,799

  Personal Secretary

  22·0

  327,706

  Typist

  16·0

  158,073

  Support Manager III

  1·0

  11,101

  Support Grade Band I

  6·0

  64,690

  Support Grade Band II

  17·5

  142,415

  Proof Reader

  —

  3,439

  Sandwich Students

  —

  48,644

  Total

  1,103

  16,924,336

  Central statistical office staff numbers and costs 1992–93

  Grade

  1992–93 average staff1 in post projected (numbers)

  1992–93 salary costs2 (£s)

  Grade 1A

  1·0

  81,375

  Grade 2

  1·0

  63,106

  Grade 3

  3·0

  165,992

  Grade 4

  1·0

  49,588

  Grade 5/6

  25·0

  1,097,079

  Grade 7

  75·5

  2,291,149

  Senior Executive Officer

  46·0

  1,098,966

  Senior Assistant Statistician/ Assistant Statistician

  725·5

  433,386

  Higher Executive Officer

  156·5

  3,062,872

  Executive Officer

  325·0

  4,942,119

  Administrative Officer

  435·0

  4,536,299

  Administrative Assistant

  66·0

  553,072

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1·0

  21,121

  Graphics Officer

  3·0

  52,506

  Senior Information Officer

  1·0

  24,403

  Information Officer

  1·0

  20,388

  Assistant Information Officer

  1·0

  13,358

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  1·0

  18,328

  Librarian

  1·0

  19,317

  Assistant Librarian

  1·0

  15,582

  Typing Manager

  2·0

  28,498

  Senior Personal Secretary

  3·0

  54,264

  Personal Secretary

  22·5

  331,926

  Typist

  16·0

  183,073

  Support Manager III

  1·0

  11,668

  Support Grade Band I

  6·0

  62,306

  Support Grade Band II

  19·0

  164,363

  354

  Grade

  1992–93 average staff1 in post projected (numbers)

  1992–93 salary costs2 (£s)

  Total

  1,240

  19,396,104

  Notes:

  1 Part-time staff counted as 0·5

  2 Salary costs include:

  (i) basic salary

  (ii) allowances

  (iii) London weighting (where applicable)

  (iv) casual salaries

  (v) overtime/travel time

  Receipts and Payments Account for the year ended 31 March 1992 and Provision for year ending 31 March 1993

  1991–92 Outturn £'000

  1992–93 Provision £'000

  Running Costs

  Staff Costs

  18,995

  23,020

  Post and telecommunication

  692

  950

  Accommodation

  4,167

  4,604

  Computers and office machinery

  1,746

  1,556

  Stationery and supplies

  197

  210

  Printing and binding

  224

  203

  Library and publicity

  225

  262

  Consultants fees

  300

  676

  Payments for statistical surveys

  299

  277

  Payments to other government departments

  4,892

  5,724

  Other expenses

  32

  108

  Total running costs

  31,769

  37,590

  Capital

  Computers

  2,032

  3,744

  Telecommunications and office machinery

  67

  81

  Furniture and supplies

  297

  939

  Total capital

  2,396

  4,764

  Payments to civil superannuation vote

  79

  114

  Total gross payments

  34,244

  42,468

  Less receipts appropriated in aid

  1,151

  2,231

  Net cost of operation

  33,093

  40,237

  Letter from R. R. B. Shutler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  In your question to the Chancellor ref: 203 you ask for a list by grade of the number of staff within the Agency and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated 1992–93 details.

  The information you have requested is detailed on the attached table.

  Valuation Office Agency

  Average staff in post by grade

  Actual 1991–92

  Estimated 1992–93

  Professional staff

  Chief executive

  1·00

  1

  Grade 3

  2·00

  2

  Grade 4

  3·33

  3

  Grade 5

  22·17

  22

  Grade 6

  171·00

  180

  Grade 7

  429·95

  444

  355

  Actual 1991–92

  Estimated 1992–93

  Senior valuer

  629·83

  671

  Valuer

  261·87

  281

  Graduate valuer

  159·41

  113

  Assistant valuer

  171·59

  167

  Cadet valuer

  281·29

  265

  Sandwich course student

  39·40

  75

  Vacation student

  3·16

  —

  HEO technician (casual)

  —

  107

  Total

  2,176·00

  2,331

  Non professional staff

  Grade 6

  5·00

  5

  Grade 7

  15·08

  12

  Senior valuation executive

  42·25

  40

  Staff officer

  199·75

  200

  Valuation technician

  937·41

  930

  Valuation clerk

  870·04

  850

  Revenue assistant

  1,045·33

  1,384

  Secretarial/typing posts

  340·32

  340

  Support grades

  21·82

  23

  Total

  3,477·00

  3,784

  Grand total

  5,653·00

  6,115

  £ million

  £ million

  Staff costs

  Salaries, wages and allowances and social security costs

  96·554

  112·241

  Other pension costs

  14·406

  15·200

  110·960

  127·441

  Inland Revenue (Headquarters)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the revised cost estimates of the new Nottingham headquarters building for the Inland Revenue; and what are the expected annual savings to the Treasury.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The construction work for the project for a new Inland Revenue building in Nottingham is currently at the tendering stage. Consequently the cost estimates for the various work packages remain, at present, commercial-in-confidence. It is fully expected that the outturn will be within the agreed budget for the project.

  The currently estimated annual net accommodation and pay savings are around £12 million from 1996–97 following completion of the project.

  Housing Loans
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of mortgage interest relief at source payments are currently made to households earning(a) over £50,000 per annum, (b) over £35,000 per annum, (c)under £20,000 per annum, (d) under £10,000 per annum and (e) under £5,000 per annum.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates for 1992–93 based on projected information from the 1990 family expenditure survey and the 1989–90 survey of personal incomes are in the table.

  Range of total income with percentage of total cost of mortgage interest relief

  £

  Per cent.

  Up to 5,000

  4

  5,001 to 10,000

  6

  10,001 to 20,000

  38

  356

  £

  Per cent.

  20,001 to 35,000

  37

  35,001 to 50,000

  9

  Over 50,000

  6

  Total

  100

  Inheritance Tax Exemptions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make it his policy to allow public access to information on successful applications for conditional inheritance tax exemption where the conditions referred to within the application refer to public access to land.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Reasonable public access is required to all scenic land which is conditionally exempt from inheritance tax. The heritage advisory agencies, including the Countryside Council for Wales, can supply information about public access to heritage land including conditionally exempt land. To protect taxpayers' confidentiality, the conditionally exempt land cannot be separately distinguished.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to overturn conditional exemptions from inheritance tax payments where it has been proved that the conditions set out concerning public access have not been fulfilled.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The undertakings providing for public access to land and buildings which have been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax are monitored by the relevant heritage advisory agencies. Where breaches cannot be resolved in discussion between the agencies and landowners, the agencies will notify the Inland Revenue. To date, there has been no occasion on which they have had to do this. Undertakings providing for public access to conditionally exempt chattels are monitored directly by the Inland Revenue.

  If an owner refuses to observe any undertakings given in respect of conditional exemption, inheritance tax is charged on the current value of the property. This provides a powerful incentive for the owner to honour the terms of the undertakings.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to ensure that all public rights of way granted as part of conditional exemptions from inheritance tax appear on subsequent editions of ordnance survey maps.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Definitive public rights of way which result from the conditional exemption from inheritance tax of scenic land will appear on subsequent Ordnance Survey maps. Decisions on what other paths or forms of public access are shown on the maps are a matter for the chief executive of Ordnance Survey.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to apply the definition of public access outlined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 when evaluating applications for inheritance tax exemptions under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. The heritage advisory agencies advise the Inland Revenue as to what constitutes reasonable
  357
  public access to land for which conditional exemption from inheritance tax is claimed. The access arrangements for each case are considered individually on the basis of its own facts. Adopting the approach in the 1949 Act would allow the landowner to deny public access in some circumstances where it is currently sought in return for the conditional inheritance tax exemption.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for each year since 1986, in Wales,(a) the number of successful applications for conditional exemption from inheritance tax, (b) the number of such applications related to land and (c) the minimum total estimated value of such land.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of designations for conditional exemption from inheritance tax of all types of heritage property in Wales could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Since 1976 there have been five successful applications for conditional exemption of heritage land in Wales. Where conditional exemption from inheritance tax is granted it is not necessary to establish the value of the land.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution his Department will be making to the energy review; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  My Department will be playing a full part in the review.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by type, number of seizures and weight all drug seizures made by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise at Heathrow airport during each of the past 12 quarters.

  Sir John Cope
  The number of drug seizures by type and weight made at Heathrow Airport in each of the past 12 quarters is as shown in the table.

  Schedule

  Period and type

  Seizure numbers

  Weight (in grammes)

  Numbers

  December 1989

  Amphetamine

  3

  12·016

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  127

  536,326·400

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  2

  4,401·500

  —

  Cannabis resin

  88

  14,194·204

  —

  Cocaine

  32

  22,307·420

  —

  Diamorphine

  44

  39,507·421

  —

  LSD

  3

  —

  973

  Other

  11

  232·580

  —

  March 1990

  Amphetamine

  5

  8·880

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  116

  229,290·850

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  2

  41·000

  —

  Cannabis resin

  113

  104,705·080

  —

  Cocaine

  31

  23,635·880

  —

  Diamorphine

  28

  18,173·790

  —

  LSD

  1

  —

  1,000

  Other

  17

  214·180

  —

  June 1990

  Amphetamine

  4

  500·610

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  113

  37,348·640

  —

  Cannabis resin

  90

  10,809·129

  —

  358

  Period and type

  Seizure numbers

  Weight (in grammes)

  Numbers

  Cocaine

  31

  45,814·310

  —

  Diamorphine

  25

  30,995·307

  —

  LSD

  1

  —

  2,000

  Other

  24

  19,847·900

  —

  September 1990

  Amphetamine

  7

  52·630

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  117

  73,209·380

  —

  Cannabis resin

  96

  5,989·670

  —

  Cocaine

  43

  28,081·270

  —

  Diamorphine

  28

  16,315·237

  —

  Other

  28

  513·380

  —

  December 1990

  Amphetamine

  5

  18·420

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  97

  62,694·410

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  1

  1,000·000

  —

  Cannabis resin

  100

  13,400·642

  —

  Cocaine

  49

  66,001·440

  —

  Diamorphine

  37

  28,521·501

  —

  LSD

  5

  —

  8,000

  Other

  23

  1,869·346

  —

  March 1991

  Amphetamine

  2

  2·860

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  91

  90,643·710

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  3

  400·000

  —

  Cannabis resin

  98

  28,377·849

  —

  Cocaine

  41

  25,902·270

  —

  Diamorphine

  26

  33,554·600

  —

  LSD

  7

  —

  17,931

  Other

  27

  2,612·600

  —

  June 1991

  Amphetamine

  7

  7·000

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  102

  124,899·773

  —

  Cannabis resin

  110

  9,054·729

  —

  Cocaine

  44

  46,080·060

  —

  Diamorphine

  18

  18,539·900

  —

  LSD

  3

  —

  500

  Other

  22

  1,377·980

  —

  September 1991

  Amphetamine

  8

  183·300

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  96

  36,512·832

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  1

  2·000

  —

  Cannabis resin

  93

  8,897·526

  —

  Cocaine

  52

  85,184·410

  —

  Diamorphine

  14

  25,041·096

  —

  LSD

  4

  —

  12

  Other

  21

  4,548·513

  —

  December 1991

  Amphetamine

  8

  10·000

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  78

  209,314·390

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  2

  11·900

  —

  Cannabis resin

  60

  7,209·640

  —

  Cocaine

  53

  39,960·895

  —

  Diamorphine

  12

  9,332·050

  —

  LSD

  2

  —

  4

  Other

  18

  626·910

  —

  March 1992

  Amphetamine

  3

  863·700

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  103

  150,090·401

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  1

  250·000

  —

  Cannabis resin

  84

  5,422·590

  —

  Cocaine

  55

  34,487·361

  —

  Diamorphine

  20

  26,574·310

  —

  LSD

  2

  —

  1,646

  Other

  12

  332·600

  —

  June 1992

  Amphetamine

  1

  1·000

  —

  Cannabis herbal

  66

  63,873·070

  —

  Cannabis liquid

  3

  531·500

  —

  Cannabis resin

  58

  17,988·348

  —

  359

  Period and type

  Seizure numbers

  Weight (in grammes)

  Numbers

  Cocaine

  33

  47,032·780

  —

  Diamorphine

  11

  7,445·892

  —

  LSD

  1

  —

  520

  Other

  22

  18,711·380

  —

  September 1992

  Cannabis herbal

  98

  211,494·040

  —

  Cannabis resin

  45

  7,101·980

  —

  Cocaine

  41

  53,366·000

  —

  Diamorphine

  20

  17,087·500

  —

  LSD

  3

  —

  3,006

  Other

  25

  1,914·100

  —

  1 For LSD the number of tablets rather than weight is shown.

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new(a) footpaths and (b) bridleways in Wales have been created as a direct result of granted exemptions on inheritance tax, since the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, in each year since 1984; and if he will list the location of the footpaths and bridleways in each instance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The public have access to approximately 20 miles of footpaths and bridleways over scenic land in Wales which is conditionally exempt from inheritance tax. A breakdown of this figure by year of designation cannot be provided due to the taxpayer confidentiality rules.

  Public access was already allowed to some of these paths and bridleways before the exemption was given, but the conditions attached to the exemption will have put the access on a more secure basis.

  The Countryside Council for Wales is able to supply information about access to heritage land, including conditionally exempt land, although the land will not be identified as conditionally exempt.

  VAT Penalties
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the findings of his review into value added tax penalties on companies.

  Sir John Cope
  The reviews of misdeclaration penalty and default surcharge are due to report in time for decisions to be taken as part of the 1993 Budget strategy.

  Taxpayers (Interviews)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Inland Revenue staff are permitted to make tape recordings of interviews with taxpayers without the knowledge or consent of the taxpayer; and if he will include provisions in the taxpayers charter and in departmental guidance manuals so as to preclude such recordings being made.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Existing guidance for inspectors of taxes tells them that they should not make a tape recording of an interview.

  Self-employment (Tax)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the simplification of tax for the self-employed.
  360
  Mr. Dorrell
  A further consultative paper entitled "A Simpler System for Assessing Personal Tax" has been published by the Inland Revenue. This takes forward the discussions on simplification of the personal tax system. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he intends to introduce to implement paragraph 2 of proposed article 130R of the treaty of Rome, included in the Maastricht treaty on European union.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  It falls to the European Commission to make proposals for measures to implement obligations under the treaty of Rome. The Government fully endorse the considerations set out in the second paragraph of article 130R as it will be amended by the Maastricht treaty. During the United Kingdom's presidency of the Environment Council, we have been laying particular emphasis on the need to integrate environmental protection requirements into other policy areas.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are being taken to counter the extra opportunities for smugglers as a result of EC measures which will make movement through EC countries easier.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: It is a central objective of all changes to customs controls for the single market, that effectiveness against smuggling should be maintained. Following a thorough review of their anti-smuggling controls, customs have been creating new flexible anti-smuggling teams and important results have come from the risk-based targeting methods which they employ.

  Customs are working with other enforcement agencies, trade associations and individual transport companies to sign memoranda of understanding under which they assist customs to detect drug smugglers who are using their facilities. Customs are also developing closer co-operation with our Community partners. They have signed maritime and aerial surveillance memoranda of understanding with France and Spain and are in the process of concluding one with the Netherlands. The fight against smugglers will be further assisted in the single market by the customs information system. This network, which I launched in October allows information to be exchanged electronically between all 12 member states.

  VAT
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what limit the recent agreements in the EC on the harmonisation of rates of VAT place on the amount by which the VAT starting threshold can be raised.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: The recent agreements in the EC will not affect the level of the VAT registration threshold which is governed by the EC Sixth VAT Directive and current United Kingdom legislation.
  361
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider raising the VAT threshold to £50,000 and beyond.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: The EC Sixth VAT Directive which the then United Kingdom Government agreed in 1977 constrains increases in the VAT registration threshold to what is needed to maintain its value in real terms.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is currently giving to problems relating to the current VAT penalty regime.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: The second phase of the review of the serious misdeclaration penalty regime was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement in March 1992. Wide ranging consultations have since taken place with the relevant trade and professional bodies. In addition, Customs have issued a consultative paper on default surcharge inviting comment on how the system might be made both more effective and acceptable.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ozone-destroying Substances
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution when assessing the best available technology not entailing excessive cost for the prevention of the release of ozone-destroying substances.

  Mr. Maclean
  HMIP is responsible for authorising releases from those processes prescribed under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The Act requires an operator of a prescribed process to either prevent releases of prescribed substances or where not practicable, to minimise releases and to render them harmless. In implementing this requirement, a balance must be made between the costs of these techniques against the potential environmental harm, such as possible damage to the ozone layer, resulting from proposed releases. This is the basis of the requirement to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—BATNEEC.

  In granting authorisation HM inspectorate of pollution will have regard to the advice provided in the relevant chief inspector's guidance note including the need to use BATNEEC.

  One of the most significant industry sectors as far as potential releases of compounds posing a threat to stratospheric ozone levels, most notably some volatile organic compounds, is that covering the production and storage of chemicals.

  The first nine guidance notes covering this sector will be published shortly. They will provide detailed guidance on the release of VOCs and in particular will place extremely tight release limits on those substances, covered by the Montreal Protocol which have been identified as posing a threat to ozone levels. Guidance is also given on preventing fugitive releases from all parts of such processes.

  On publication, copies of all chief inspector's guidance notes are placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which companies have made applications to 362
  release ozone-destroying substances under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and how many have been turned down.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by his Department in utilising the powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to outlaw the release of ozone-destroying chemicals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991 set out the industrial processes and the main substances to be controlled under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  The regulations are enforced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local authorities who are required to ensure industry uses best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent, or minimise and render harmless the release of prescribed substances. The substances prescribed for release into the air include oxides of nitrogen, organic compounds and halogens and their compounds, which are ozonede-depleters.

  To date HMIP has received just over 500 applications and local authorities some 6,300 in England and Wales. Details of all these applications and authorisations issued as a result are not held centrally.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many shipments of clinical waste have been imported for incineration within the United Kingdom in each of the past five years; and if he will specify the tonnage imported in each instance.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has no record of clinical waste being imported before 1 January 1992. Since then, 463 tonnes in 71 separate shipments have been notified to the Department under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Wastes Regulations 1988 as having been imported for incineration in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to prohibit the incineration of wastes containing heavy metals, organochlorines and other organic halogens.

  Mr. Maclean
  Waste incineration processes are tightly controlled under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Since 30 September 1992, operators of all existing waste incinerators have had to apply under the Act to either Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution or their local authority, depending on the size of the plant or the sort of waste being incinerated, to obtain authorisation to undertake the process. Any authorisations given will include conditions covering such matters as combustion conditions and release limits to ensure the protection of public health and the environment. These conditions must be designed so as to ensure the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—BATNEEC—to prevent or minimise releases of prescribed substances from the plant, and to render all unpreventable releases harmless. I, therefore, see no grounds for a general prohibition on the incineration of wastes containing heavy metals, organochlorines and other organic halogens.
  363
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to undertake a full assessment of problematic waste streams going into incineration.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is already a considerable amount of research into the incineration of various types of waste. The objective is to determine the conditions required to minimise the release of pollutants, and to render harmless any unpreventable releases.

  Chlorine (Stratosphere)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what level of chlorine loading in the stratosphere is regarded as the maximum that the United Kingdom will accept as a condition for signing a revised Montreal protocol in Copenhagen;

  (2) what are the maximum periods of stratospheric chlorine loading (a) above 2ppbv and (b) above 3ppbv that the United Kingdom is prepared to accept as a condition for signing the revised Montreal protocol in Copenhagen.

  Mr. Maclean
  We will be pressing for the Montreal protocol's controls to be tightened to require the earliest possible phase out of ozone-depleting substances, in order to achieve the lowest possible level of chlorine loading in the stratosphere.

  Waste Streams
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set goals and time scales for the reduction of priority waste streams.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom is participating in several European Community "priority waste streams" groups comprising representatives from business, national and local government, consumer and environmental organisation. The groups aim to agree common targets and objectives within the Community for the treatment and handling of a number of difficult waste streams, including used tyres, chlorinated solvents, scrap vehicles, clinical waste and demolition material. The United Kingdom is leading on clinical waste, and has also initiated a research project on the recycling of demolition wastes.

  Members' Correspondence
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are issued to his Department for the processing of correspondence from hon. Members; and what is the average delay between receipt of correspondence from, and the date of response to, an hon. Member.

  Mr. Howard
  Guidelines to officials in my Department stress that all ministerial correspondence should be dealt with as soon as possible, and every attempt is made to achieve my Department' objective of replying to hon. Members' letters within three weeks of receipt.

  It is not possible to identify from my Department's records, an arithemetical average length of time taken to reply to hon. Members.' letters. However my Department's objective of a reply within three weeks of receipt, was achieved for 60 per cent. of letters from hon. Members' received in the first six months of this year. Seventy-seven per cent. were replied to within four weeks, and 90 per centre within six weeks.

  March Consultancy Group
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy changes he will implement as a result of research undertaken for the Department by March Consulting Group.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has commissioned four studies from the March Consulting Group. Three of these are for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and concern pollution control for petrochemical and petroleum processes, and for processes involving sulphonation. The group is required to identify both the various processes being undertaken and the best available techniques being used worldwide to control polluting releases. The results of these studies will be used by the inspectorate in the chief inspector's guidance notes covering those processes. The fourth is on the use of chlorofluorocarbons in the United Kingdom refrigeration and air conditioning industries. The Government are committed to the earliest possible phase out of CFCs, and are now considering what further action might be taken in the light of March Consulting Group's report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what essential uses of hydrochlorofluorocarbons his Department has identified in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector.

  Mr. Maclean
  HCFCs are needed in the short to medium term in this sector to ensure the swiftest possible move away from the use of CFCs.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are currently provided by his Department to companies involved in the incineration of clinical waste concerning the safe deposit of toxic ash following the burning of such waste.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department is satisfied that ash from incinerators burning clinical waste can be safely deposited at landfill sites licensed and designed to accept such waste without risk to public health or the environment. Waste disposal authorities formulate licence conditions and monitor sites to ensure that no hazard arises.

  My Department has published definitive guidance on the landfilling of waste in waste management paper No. 26 and on disposal licensing in waste management paper No. 4. Copies of both these documents have been placed in the Library of the House. Guidance will shortly be issued on the management of clinical waste in the revised version of waste management paper No. 25.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant in aid the Rural Development Commission received in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1979–80 the development commission was issued a grant of £16·126 million to meet expenditure of £18·257 million. For 1992–93 grant in aid of £11·969
  365
  million was approved by Parliament, prior to the 1992 summer recess, for the Rural Development Commission enabling it to spend up to £38·939 million. In both years, the balance between grant in aid and gross expenditure is accounted for by receipts.

  Biodiversity Agreements
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the involvement of non-governmental organisations in the drafting and negotiation of future treaties and agreements related to biodiversity.

  Mr. Maclean
  Non-governmental organisations were involved throughout the preparations leading up to the agreement of the convention on biological diversity, in particular through the Advisory Group on Biological Diversity.

  We will continue to involve non governmental organisations in taking forward this convention and in other biodiversity-related work.

  Hazardous Waste (Imports)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of imports of hazardous waste in(a) 1981 and (b)

  Mr. Maclean
  There was no requirement for information on hazardous waste imports to be supplied to the Secretary of State until the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 came into force on 1 October 1988. During the 1988–89 financial year, approximately 52,000 tonnes of hazardous waste were imported. This figure comprises estimates from 1 April to 30 September 1988, and collected data thereafter.

  Water Pollution
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many incidents of water pollution on Britain's bathing beaches were reported in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Maclean
  No data are held centrally for 1980. The results for the 1992 bathing water survey are not yet available. In 1991, 76 per cent. of the United Kingdom's 453 identified bathing waters met the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the EC bathing water directive.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in Britain are supplied with water that does not reach the EC regulated standard.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on drinking water quality in England and Wales is contained in "Drinking Water 1991", the second annual report by the chief drinking water inspector, published in July 1992. Copies have been placed in the Library. It is planned to publish shortly a similar report on drinking water quality in Scotland.

  Controlled Wastes
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action has been taken by his Department and other relevant authorities to clarify to users of ozone destroying substances the circumstances in which these chemicals are to be considered controlled wastes for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
  366
  (2) what guidance has been issued, and when further guidance will be available to users of ozone destroying substances that are considered controlled wastes, concerning their obligations under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

  (3) which authorities are responsible for enforcing section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as it applies to ozone destroying substances that are considered controlled wastes; and what action they have so far taken to enforce section 33 so far as it applies to ozone destroying substances.

  Mr. Maclean
  Section 33(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which came into force on 1 April this year, makes it an offence to treat, keep or dispose of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Controlled waste is defined in section 75 of the Act. The Controlled Waste Regulations, which refine and extend the definitions of controlled waste, were also brought into force on 1 April. Guidance on those regulations was issued to local authorities, including waste regulation authorities, in a joint circular from the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and my Department—DOE circular 14/92—published on 21 May 1992.

  Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 imposes a duty of care on those holding controlled waste to take reasonable steps to prevent a breach of section 33. Guidance for waste holders on how to discharge this duty, including advice on how to decide whether a substance is controlled waste, was issued in a code of practice published jointly by the three Departments in December 1991. The definition of controlled waste and the provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the Act are not specific to particular substances or sectors of industry, nor is the advice on those sections.

  It is intended that section 33 together with the waste management licensing system in the Act will be brought fully into force on 1 April 1993, and further advice on the operation of waste management licensing will be issued before then.

  Waste regulation authorities, as the authorities who will have the duty of granting waste management licences, will be mainly responsible for the enforcement of section 33 of the Act, but there is no restriction on the right to instigate prosecutions for offences under section 33.

  Bird Pests
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the proposed general licences to kill or take certain birds will fully discharge United Kingdom obligations so far as they relate to his Department's responsibilities under the 1979 EC birds directive;

  (2) if he has consulted the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the proposed general licensing system to control the shooting of bird pest species under section 16(1) (c), (d) and (i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and whether the committee has approved the form and scope of the proposed licences;

  (3) whether the constituent bodies of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee had submitted their opinions on the proposed general licensing system to control the shooting of bird pest species by the final date of submission; and what steps have been taken to obtain them;
  367
  (4) if he has consulted the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the proposed general licensing system to control the shooting of bird pest species under section 16 (i), (j) and (k) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and whether the committee has approved the form and scope of the proposed licences.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are satisfied that the proposed general licensing system for pest bird control will meet the requirement of the EC birds directive and provide a sensible basis for pest control in the United Kingdom.

  Officials of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee have been fully involved with those from my Department in the development of the licensing system and have provided the scientific advice on which the licences will be based. In discharging the special function of the country councils to jointly advise on nature conservation matters affecting Great Britain as a whole, committee officials have liaised with their counterparts in the country councils. The councils received the public consultation paper, issued in July, setting out the Government's proposals. The Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage have responded directly to the Department.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 October,Official Report, column 347, if he will set out a summary of the advice on radiological equivalence of radioactive wastes from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; and when he expects to reply to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee report.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's report offers advice on the technical basis of British Nuclear Fuels' proposals and their likely radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom. I expect to reply to the report after consulting colleagues.

  Neighbour Noise
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue new guidelines on neighbour noise to local authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 contains provisions for controlling statutory nuisances, including noise. In September, my Department and the Home Office issued joint guidance to local authorities and the police on the control of noise from parties.

  Wildlife Habitats
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he is proposing to provide greater protection to sites of special scientific interest in order to prevent destruction of wildlife habitats.

  Mr. Maclean
  The additional safeguards for sites of special scientific interest announced by this Government in September 1991 came into effect on 2 January 1992. Guidance to local authorities and others on how our policies for the conservation of our natural heritage are to be reflected in land use planning, and development control, are to be set out in a planning policy guidance note, which will be published shortly.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, how many households in the network installer area including the Lancashire, West constituency qualify and have been improved under the home energy efficiency scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit or disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Within the network installer area that contains the hon. Member's constituency, 2,494 homes have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme grant since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the network installer area covering the Falkirk, East constituency have been improved under the home energy efficiency scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  Within the network installer area that contains the hon. Member's constituency, 2,119 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis was made of the benefits to local communities of the first round of city challenge pacemaker authorities before deciding to embark on a second round.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The decision to go ahead with the second round of city challenge was announced in February 1992. The pacemaker authorities began implementing their action plans in April 1992. However, analysis of pacemaker bids helped to inform the decision to embark on a second round and on the bidding guidance for that round. The guidance stated that one of the main aims of city challenge was to support the development and implementation of locally devised and time limited plans for the regeneration of disadvantaged areas within our cities which will significantly benefit the residents of those areas.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations have enterd into agreements with developers which require them to employ local labour.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. Although the use of local labour is encouraged, a contractual requirement specifying that local labour must be used would be in contravention of United Kingdom legislation, the treaty of Rome, and European Community works and supplies directives.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions on which boards of urban development corporations have met in public.
  369
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The boards of the urban development corporations do not meet in public.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each urban development corporation the total amount of Government finance they have received since their inception.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total amount of Government grant in aid the urban development corporations have received, up to 31 March 1992, is as follows.

  £ million

  Birmingham Heartlands

  Nil

  Bristol

  35·233

  Black Country

  141·643

  Central Manchester

  43·500

  Leeds

  39·038

  London Docklands

  1,347·500

  Merseyside

  291·386

  Sheffield

  49·725

  Teesside

  160·071

  Trafford Park

  91·581

  Tyne and Wear

  142·066

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require the boards of urban development corporations to meet in public.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have no plans to require the boards of the urban development corporations to meet in public. UDCs have the discretion to admit the public to discussions on land use planning matters and most choose to do so.

  London Forum
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for the London forum.

  Sir George Young
  My hon. and learned Friend announced on 21 October that Sir Allen Sheppard had agreed to be the first chairman of the London forum, and that Sir Hugh Bidwell has agreed to be a deputy chairman. The Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage have' agreed in principle with Sir Hugh that the forum should merge with the London tourist board, of which Sir Hugh is the chairman. The merger will create a single powerful private sector body to promote London overseas, with the aim of maximising business investment in the capital and expanding London's role as a centre for tourism and culture.

  The London forum will share an executive organisation with London First, a new private sector initiative of which Sir Allen is also the chairman. London First is a private and public sector partnership harnessing business skills to enhance London's attractions. It will improve the "product" which it will be the forum's job to promote internationally. A common supporting organisation under chief executive Stephen O'Brien will ensure close coordination of the efforts of the two bodies.

  Sir Allen is now taking forward the development of a business plan for the forum, with a view to launching the new body around the turn of the year.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an independent body to oversee the implementation of procedures under the EC directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Council Tax
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that disabled persons living in band A properties will be entitled to a reduction in their council tax liability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The scheme of council tax reductions for people with disabilities will ensure that no one pays more council tax in respect of additional accommodation which they need because of a disability. If a dwelling is allocated to band A, any additional accommodation cannot have resulted in an increase in council tax liability, and no reduction is therefore appropriate.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent in total on transitional relief and the community charge reduction scheme; and what was the original estimate of the amount required.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department has so far paid out £1,950 million in transitional relief and community charge reduction scheme grant. Further grant payments totalling about £500 million will be paid this and next year. Early estimates put the cost of the schemes at about £2,830 million.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a table showing for each collecting local authority in England the latest figures available of uncollected community charge and the percentage of the total community charge that this figure represents;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing for each collecting local authority in England the amount of uncollected domestic rates in 1989–90 and the percentage of the total rate that this figure represented.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department does not collect figures for the amounts of domestic rates and of community charges outstanding. Figures for community charge arrears outstanding at 31 March 1991 were published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in "Revenue Collection Statistics 1990–91 Actuals", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Figures for uncollected domestic rates are not available, although the chartered institute has published gross arrears of domestic and non-domestic rates at 31 March 1990 in "Rate Collection Statistics 1989–90 Actuals", a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each collecting local authority in England how much was bid by
  371
  that authority for Government funds to cover the set-up costs of the council tax and how much his Department gave to each authority in 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Authorities were not asked to bid for funds to cover the costs of implementing the council tax. Independent consultants, CSL Ltd., were employed to advise on these costs. They estimated that the revenue costs of implementing the council tax would be £114·6 million. The Government agreed to pay 75 per cent. of these costs by way of a special grant of which £56·74 million will be paid to authorities this year, and a further £29·23 million will be paid in 1993–94 on receipt of audited claims. The allocation to billing authorities of this grant is given in Special Grant Report (No. 4) approved by the House in June this year, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The other 25 per cent. of costs will be met through revenue support grant.

  In addition, supplementary credit approvals to the value of £41·2 million are available to authorities in respect of capital expenditure they incur on implementing the council tax.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what items of local authority expenditure were included in the Government's calculations of council tax set-up costs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This Department employed independent consultants CSL Ltd to advise on the total cost of preparing for the introduction of the council tax by April 1993. The costs, both revenue and capital, taken into account by the consultants covered staffing, accommodation, computer hardware, computer software, stationery, publicity and training.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each housing authority in England the amount of unapplied capital receipts from(a) housing sales and (b) other capital sales.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Separate figures for housing receipts and other capital receipts are not available.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each county council in England the total amount of unapplied capital receipts.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total usable receipts for each county council in England as at 31 March 1992 are shown in the table.

  £000s

  Avon

  2,150

  Bedfordshire

  1,250

  Berkshire

  1,500

  Buckinghamshire

  600

  Cambridgeshire

  1,000

  Cheshire

  1,500

  Cleveland

  55

  Cornwall

  1,400

  Cumbria

  1,250

  Derbyshire

  2,175

  Devon

  3,000

  372

  £000s

  Dorset

  1,000

  Durham

  1,132

  East Sussex

  1,178

  Essex

  726

  Gloucestershire

  2,075

  Hampshire

  5,000

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,549

  Hertfordshire

  6,000

  Humberside

  1,000

  Isle of Wight

  250

  Kent

  3,800

  Lancashire

  2,000

  Leicestershire

  2,100

  Lincolnshire

  4,005

  Norfolk

  1,225

  North Yorkshire

  1,350

  Northamptonshire

  3,000

  Northumberland

  600

  Nottinghamshire

  1,500

  Oxfordshire

  4,000

  Shropshire

  1,000

  Somerset

  4,800

  Staffordshire

  1,500

  Suffolk

  1,000

  Surrey

  4,000

  Warwickshire

  2,100

  West Sussex

  8,100

  Wiltshire

  1,191

  Montreal Protocol
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals Her Majesty's Government will make at the forthcoming preparatory meeting for the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government, together with our EC partners, will be proposing that the phase-out dates for production and consumption of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1 trichloroethane be brought forward to 1 January 1996 with an interim cut of 50 per cent. for 1,1,1 trichloroethane and 85 per cent. for the other substances by 1 January 1994. In addition, we shall be pressing for tight controls on HCFCs to be introduced and a freeze on the production and consumption of methyl bromide at 1991 levels by 1995.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 July to the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton),Official Report, column 833, if he will make a statement on the reasons for the time taken to prepare the report on the 1991 English house condition survey.

  Sir George Young
  The 1991 English house condition survey began in September last year and has involved three separate surveys—a physical inspection of 25,000 dwellings, interviews with households and a postal survey of local authorities and housing associations. Data collection for the last of these surveys will be completed this month. Results will be published just as soon as the analysis is completed.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue a public consultation paper on the removal Crown exemption from planning legislation.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend has today issued a public consultation paper on the removal of Crown immunity from planning law. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales also propose shortly to issue public consultation papers as regards Scotland and Wales.

  The consultation paper proposes that all Crown bodies should be required to apply to the local planning authority for planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area consent, and hazardous substances consent, and to the Secretary of State for National Heritage for scheduled monument consent in the normal way.

  There will be some exceptions to these requirements, principally where national or prison security is involved, and for trunk road proposals, which are already subject to statutory procedures equivalent to town and country planning procedures. In the case of national security, it is intended to make provision in the legislation for a certification system whereby the appropriate Minister or official would certify projects which would be exempt from the legislation on grounds of national security. A similar procedure will apply to prison security.

  The Government consider that it would be inappropriate for the enforcement provisions of the planning legislation, particularly those which contain criminal sanctions or permit the local authority to enter land, to apply to the Crown. It is proposed that in lieu of the enforcement provisions and injunctive or criminal proceedings the "enforcing" authority would be able to apply to the High Court for a declaration of the rights of the parties. If the Crown is shown by a declaration to have acted in breach of planning control, it would, of its own accord, remedy the position.

  One consequence of the proposals will be that Crown developers will be legally required to undertake environmental impact assessments of their proposals, as required by EC Directive 85/337, in the same way as other developers, replacing the non-statutory arrangements in DOE circular 15/88, Welsh Office 23/88.

  The statutory regimes in part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for outdoor advertisement control and tree protection will also apply to Crown land, subject to certain modifications and exceptions.

  These proposals will be embodied in primary legislation when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Supplementary Credit Approvals
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the supplementary credit approvals for(a) improvement grants and (b) other purposes.

  Mr. Howard
  Provisional awards of supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—for mandatory house renovation grants will be notified to local authorities shortly. On the SCAs issued by my Department for other purposes, we have already announced to local authorities our intentions for 1992–93. The SCAs themselves will be issued by 30 September 1993.

  Rating Revaluations
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources will be made available to the Valuation Office in connection with outstanding rating appeals from the 1990 revaluation of non-domestic property.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's existing expenditure plans in respect of Valuation Office agency rating services are set out in figure 119 of the Department's annual report for 1992. This shows the following provision over three years:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  115·3

  1993–94

  115·4

  1994–95

  118·2

  This provision covers work on outstanding and new rating appeals against the 1990 rating list, and work in connection with the 1995 general revaluation.

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in relation to the Darwin initiative.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Consultations with interested institutions and organisations are continuing. I expect to make a statement later this year.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the first results will be available from the national household waste analysis project, currently being undertaken by Warren Spring laboratory and Aspinwalls on behalf of his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The first phase of the project—developing the methodology —has been completed and a report should be available by the end of 1992. Preliminary results from the first samples will be available from Warren Spring laboratory from the beginning of 1993. A full report of the 1992–93 results will be available in the late summer of 1993.

  Recovery and Recycling
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any consideration has been given to making a cradle-to-grave analysis of potential benefits to be gained from combining recovery and recycling facilities with incineration and energy recovery facilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have been studying the concept of combining recovery and recycling facilities with incineration and energy recovery facilities. The DTI's energy technology support unit started a five year research programme on the concept in 1991. Preliminary results will be published in due course.

  Water Supplies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment the Office of Water Services has made of the health and safety danger posed by
  375
  pre-payment water meters in domestic properties in the event of an accident in the home or of heating systems running dry.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: I understand that OFWAT will be closely monitoring inter alia the health and safety aspects of a trial of pre-payment meters by Severn Trent Water Limited. OFWAT has asked the company to produce a leaflet for the customers concerned, giving advice about the precautionary action customers should take if they interrupt their supply by not inserting a pre-paid card to buy further units. However, I understand that all electronic pre-payment water meters enable water to be taken on credit in the event of an emergency.

  Contaminated Land Register
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will improve the clarity of the definition of the areas of land that are to be included in the proposed regulations relating to the contaminated land register.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: It would be our intention to accompany any regulations made under section 143 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 with guidance about their implementation, including criteria for defining areas of registrable land.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider his proposals to include land that has been used for mineral extraction from the contaminated land register.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: Our recent consultative draft of regulations proposed under section 143 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 did not include mineral extraction as a registrable use of land; the proposed regulations would apply only to the most contaminative uses of land.

  Methane Emissions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the contributions to the United Kingdom total methane emissions from landfills in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be.

  Mr. Maclean
  Direct estimates of total methane production from landfills in Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been made. An estimate based on population and waste arising statistics suggests that the figure is likely to be between 10 and 15 per cent. of the total for England and Wales, or between 100,000 and 150,000 tonnes per annum.

  Geopathic Stress
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department is currently carrying out into geopathic stress; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department is supporting studies at Lancaster university to determine the sensitivity in the United Kingdom of vegetation and of plant pathogenic micro-organisms to increased fluxes of ultraviolet-B radiation which may result from depletion of the 376
  stratospheric ozone layer. These studies will feed into the periodic reassessment of available scientific, environmental, technical and economic information required under article 6 of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Procedure
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to bring proposals for reform of parliamentary procedure before the House.

  Mr. Newton
  I informed the House during the debate on the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on 13 July that I hoped to identify a basis of agreement for discussion through the usual channels, with the aim of being in a position to bring forward substantive motions at an early stage once the House returned.

  That remains my intention.

WALES

  Arable Support Scheme
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the arable support scheme for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations concerning the arable support scheme. The rates (converted using the green rate applicable on 22 September 1992) payable in Wales for the main scheme in 1993–94 are:

  Notional compensation

  Payment per hectare

  ECU per tonne

  ECU

  £

  Cereals1 (including sweetcorn)

  25

  116·25

  95·20

  Oilseeds

  152

  477·65

  391·15

  Proteins (including vining peas)

  65

  302·25

  247·51

  Set-aside

  45

  209·25

  171·35

  1 Producers in the simplified scheme (less than 19·78 ha in production) willl receive the cereals rate for all crops grown.

  I have made it clear in my discussions with the farming unions in Wales that this is for one year only and I have asked my Department, in consultation with industry representatives, to examine the available data in order to decide whether for future years a different regionalisation plan might be more appropriate.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to exclude local authorities' grants to charities and voluntary organisations from charge-capping calculation arrangements.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities in Wales should keep their budget requirements for 1993–94, including provision for grants to charities and voluntary organisations, in line with my right hon. Friend's expenditure plans. My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals for the 1993–94 local government revenue settlement in due course.
  377
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to tell local authorities in Wales their allocations of money for collecting the council tax for the next financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cost of council tax administration is one of the categories of expenditure taken into account in determining local authorities' standard spending assessments. My right hon. Friend's proposals for the 1993–94 local government revenue settlement will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each collecting local authority in Wales the latest figures available of uncollected community charge and the percentage of the total community charge that this figure represents.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Arrears of community charges at 31 March 1992

  Amount1 (£000)

  As a percentage of the total debit2

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,866

  10

  Colwyn

  1,148

  8

  Delyn

  983

  6

  Glyndwr

  890

  8

  Rhuddlan

  1,069

  7

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,711

  10

  Carmarthen

  467

  5

  Ceredigion

  801

  7

  Dinefwr

  393

  6

  Llanelli

  978

  7

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  439

  4

  South Pembrokeshire

  521

  7

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,395

  11

  Islwyn

  1,046

  9

  Monmouth

  1,229

  7

  Newport

  3,734

  12

  Torfaen

  1,115

  6

  Aberconwy

  596

  5

  Arfon

  1,117

  11

  Dwyfor

  230

  3

  Meirionnydd

  353

  4

  Ynys Mon

  1,113

  7

  Cynon Valley

  1,072

  11

  Merthyr Tydfil

  547

  6

  Ogwr

  1,130

  5

  Rhondda

  498

  5

  Rhymney Valley

  1,822

  10

  Taff Ely

  1,676

  9

  Brecknock

  279

  3

  Montgomeryshire

  325

  4

  Radnorshire

  113

  2

  Cardiff

  6,560

  10

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,131

  5

  Port Talbot

  704

  7

  Lliw Valley

  449

  4

  Neath

  804

  6

  Swansea

  3,057

  7

  Total Wales

  44,361

  8

  1 The arrears shown include both 1990–91 and 1991–92 charges.

  2 The total debit is the amount actually billed to chargepayers, net of deductions, in respect of 1990–91 and 1991–92 charges.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each Welsh district council the amount of unapplied capital receipts from(a) housing sales and (b) other capital sales.
  378
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Usable capital receipts at 31 March 1992

  Housing £000

  Other £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  24

  0

  Colwyn

  585

  42

  Delyn

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  863

  160

  Rhuddlan

  469

  16

  Wrexham Maelor

  41

  21

  Carmarthen

  609

  0

  Ceredigion

  0

  137

  Dinefwr

  0

  746

  Llanelli

  0

  0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,122

  243

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,264

  327

  Blaenau Gwent

  488

  641

  Islwyn

  0

  0

  Monmouth

  826

  46

  Newport

  6,309

  1,433

  Torfaen

  0

  0

  Aberconwy

  678

  431

  Arfon

  230

  116

  Dwyfor

  71

  0

  Meirionnydd

  0

  0

  Ynys Mon

  82

  84

  Cynon Valley

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1

  169

  Ogwr

  672

  2,086

  Rhondda

  0

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  802

  76

  Taff Ely

  469

  0

  Brecknock

  692

  200

  Montgomeryshire

  1,348

  22

  Radnorshire

  343

  59

  Cardiff

  749

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  6,436

  0

  Lliw Valley

  939

  467

  Neath

  548

  210

  Port Talbot

  656

  553

  Swansea

  420

  1,758

  Total

  27,736

  10,043

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each Welsh county the total amount of unapplied capital receipts.

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

  Usable capital receipts at 31 March 1992

  £000s

  Clwyd

  0

  Dyfed

  267

  Gwent

  7,080

  Gwynedd

  333

  Mid Glamorgan

  414

  Powys

  27

  South Glamorgan

  1,551

  West Glamorgan

  236

  Total

  9,908

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each collecting local authority in Wales how much was bid by that authority for Government funds to cover the set-up costs of the council tax and how much his Department allocated to each authority in 1992–93.
  379
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh charging authorities did not bid for funds to cover council tax preparation costs. The Government commissioned the consultants CSL Group Ltd to estimate the costs to local authorities in England and Wales of preparing for the council tax. CSL estimated that Welsh authorities would spend £9·2 million–£7·98 million on revenue costs and £1·24 million on capital costs. My right hon. Friend accepted CSL's conclusions for Wales in full and has made £5·985 million special grant available to Welsh charging authorities to cover 75 per cent. of the revenue costs. The remaining 25 per cent. of the estimated revenue cost is supported through revenue support grant. My right hon. Friend has also issued supplementary credit approvals totalling £1·24 million to cover capital costs.

  Details of the special grant are set out in the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1992 which received the approval of the House on 24 June 1992. Special grant and supplementary credit approval allocations for each charging authority in Wales are as follows:

  Council tax preparation costs 1992–93: allocations to charging (district) councils

  Special grant £

  Supplementary credit approvals £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  146,626

  30

  Colwyn

  122,360

  25

  Delyn

  134,515

  28

  Glyndwr

  91,011

  19

  Rhuddlan

  133,456

  28

  Wrexham Maelor

  233,138

  48

  Carmarthen

  118,574

  25

  Ceredigion

  144,829

  30

  Dinefwr

  82,613

  17

  Llanelli

  157,876

  33

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  152,842

  32

  South Pembrokeshire

  96,950

  20

  Blaenau Gwent

  159,840

  33

  Islwyn

  133,882

  28

  Monmouth

  161,964

  34

  Newport

  274,682

  57

  Torfaen

  184,770

  38

  Aberconwy

  121,682

  25

  Arfon

  118,074

  24

  Dwyfor

  71,289

  15

  Meirionnydd

  87,750

  18

  Ynys Mon

  156,168

  32

  Cynon Valley

  135,366

  28

  Merthyr Tydfil

  122,073

  25

  Ogwr

  264,744

  55

  Rhondda

  163,052

  34

  Rhymney Valley

  203,908

  42

  Taff Ely

  188,813

  39

  Brecknock

  89,027

  18

  Montgomeryshire

  112,828

  23

  Radnor

  53,689

  11

  Cardiff

  580,797

  120

  Vale of Glamorgan

  234,950

  49

  Port Talbot

  104,260

  22

  Lliw Valley

  129,254

  27

  Neath

  134,317

  28

  Swansea

  383,031

  79

  Total

  5,985,000

  1,240

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each collecting local authority in Wales the amount of uncollected domestic rates in 1989–90 and the percentage of the total rate that this figure represented.
  380
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not collected centrally. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the CIPFA publication "Rate Collection Statistics 1989–90 Actuals" which provides figures for combined domestic and non-domestic rate arrears.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the outstanding amount of money uncollected on the poll tax.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities in Wales reported that, at 31 March 1992, arrears of community charges for the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 totalled £44 million that is equivalent to about £20 for each chargepayer.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many housing association houses have been built in Alyn and Deeside since 1979;

  (2) how many council houses have been built in Alyn and Deeside since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 404 council houses and 168 council flats were built in Alyn and Deeside between 1 January 1980 and 31 August 1992. A total of 103 houses and 114 flats were built by housing associations in the area in the same period.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of unfit homes in Wales in 1979 and in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Such information is only available from house condition surveys. From these, the estimated numbers of unfit dwellings were 90,900 in 1981 and 79,900 in 1986.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the forecast for the number of new rural housing units to be built in Wales for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of households in Wales where the classified head of the household is over the age of 65 years; what percentage of such households are(a) owner-occupied (i) with or (ii) without a mortgage or (b) renting from (i) a local authority or (ii) a housing association; and what percentage rent is from private landlords.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 1986 Welsh inter-censal survey indicated that 299,000 households were headed by a person aged 65 or over. Of these households 59·6 per cent. were owner-occupiers (of which 7·4 per cent. were with a mortgage and 92·6 per cent. were owned outright), 31·3 per cent. rented from local authorities or new towns, 1·7 per cent. from housing associations and 7·4 per cent. from private landlords and other tenures.

  Food Premises
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of food premises in Wales were inspected by each local enforcement authority in each year since 1988;
  381
  and what were the equivalent percentage figures for (a) food manufactures, (b) restaurants and caterers and (c) food retailers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the percentage of food premises inspected or visited has been held centrally only since 1991 and is given in the following table (1). Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House with equivalent percentage figures for (a) food manufacturers (b) restaurants and caterers and (c) food retailers.

  Percentage of food premises inspected or visited

  Enforcement authority

  Percentage

  County Councils

  Clwyd1

  13

  Dyfed1

  24

  Gwent1

  12

  Gwynedd

  9

  Mid Glamorgan

  33

  Powys1

  27

  South Glamorgan1

  16

  West Glamorgan

  44

  District Councils

  Aberconwy1

  25

  Alyn and Deeside

  98

  Arfon1

  12

  Blaenau Gwent1

  53

  Brecknock1

  84

  Cardiff1

  57

  Carmarthen1

  40

  Ceredigion1

  55

  Colwyn1

  40

  Cynon Valley1

  47

  Delyn1

  51

  Dinefwr1

  48

  Dwyfor

  26

  Glyndwr

  59

  Islwvn

  44

  Llanelli1

  25

  Lliw Valley

  97

  Meirionnydd1

  51

  Merthyr Tydfil1

  44

  Monmouth

  37

  Montgomeryshire

  73

  Neath

  67

  Newport1

  43

  Ogwr1

  32

  Port Talbot

  79

  Prcseli Pembrokeshire

  77

  Radnor1

  92

  Rhondda

  100

  Rhuddlan1

  23

  Rhymney Valley

  38

  South Pembrokeshire1

  26

  Swansea1

  56

  Taff Ely1

  58

  Torfaen1

  53

  Vale of Glamorgan1

  71

  Wrexham Maelor

  39

  Ynys Môn1

  79

  Port Health Authorities

  Barry1

  100

  Beaumaris

  66

  Caernarfon

  2 Nil

  Cardiff1

  64

  Chester1

  Nil

  Milford

  89

  Newport1

  96

  Swansea1

  64

  1 Excludes figures for the first quarter of 1991. This was only required on a voluntary basis.

  2 Arfon borough council act as port health authority for Caernarfon.

  Nursing Appeals
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of state for Wales if he will publish the number of clinical regrading nursing appeals that are yet to be determined in Wales; and what is his target for completion.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of clinical grading appeals outstanding in Wales are as follows:

  Number

  At employing authority level

  403

  At regional level (Welsh Appeals Committee)

  1,310

  At national level (Negotiating Council)

  170

  Employing authorities are on course to have completed appeals at the local level by the end of this year. Efforts are being made to speed up the appeals process at regional and national levels, but while further appeals continue to be lodged it is not feasible to forecast when the entire process will be completed.

  National Parks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to introduce environmentally sensitive area-type payments within all the national park areas of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have previously announced my intention to designate Preseli, which includes part of the Pembrokeshire coast national park, as an environmentally sensitive area. The Tir Cymen scheme which offers grants for the conservation of the farm landscape is also available to farmers in parts of the Snowdonia and Brecon Beacons national parks. In addition national park authorities have the discretion to enter into agreements with farmers which encourage environmentally friendly farming.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed in the aerospace industry in Wales; and if he will provide a geographical breakdown of those figures.

  Mr. David Hunt
  According to the latest available estimates, for September 1989, there were 9,300 people employed in the aerospace industry in Wales. A geographical breakdown of these figures would breach the guidelines for protecting confidential data relating to a small number of businesses.

  Rents
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average housing association rent in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average council house rent in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average council house rent in Wales in 1992·93 is £29·74p per week.

  "Women First"
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of "Women First: a guide to health services for Women in Wales" have been(a) produced and (b) distributed by his Department to date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 350,000 copies of the booklet have been produced and to date, approximately 325,000 have been distributed.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the councils in Wales who have appointed crime prevention co-ordinators to date; how many local authorities have submitted bids for crime prevention moneys under the urban programme; and what is the total value of these bids in accordance with each local authority area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Crime prevention co-ordinators have been appointed by seven of the county councils, the exception being South Glamorgan. Information is not held centrally about such appointments by district councils.

  I have received the following bids for 1993–94 for funding of crime prevention and related initiatives under the urban programme:

  Authority

  No. of schemes

  Bid for 1993–94 £

  Clwyd county council

  2

  45,122

  Alyn and Deeside district council

  1

  16,400

  Dyfed county council

  1

  57,290

  Gwynedd county council

  1

  40,000

  Cynon Valley borough council

  2

  61,904

  Taff Ely borough council

  3

  108,422

  South Glamorgan county council

  2

  307,000

  Vale of Glamorgan borough council

  2

  163,000

  Number of establishments subject to

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Issue of improvement and emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (Voluntary and compulsory)

  County Councils

  Clwyd3

  935

  0

  79

  0

  Dyfed3

  3,019

  0

  3

  0

  Gwent3

  1,015

  0

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  441

  0

  14

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  39

  0

  8

  0

  Powys3

  235

  0

  22

  0

  South Glamorgan3

  744

  0

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  1,444

  0

  265

  0

  District Councils

  Aberconwy3

  303

  47

  50

  0

  Alyn and Deeside

  585

  326

  516

  0

  Arfon3

  93

  19

  69

  0

  Blaenau Gwent3

  201

  89

  29

  0

  Brecknock3

  412

  13

  109

  0

  Cardiff City3

  1,794

  34

  546

  0

  Carmarthen3

  383

  58

  389

  0

  Ceredigion3

  594

  9

  543

  0

  Colwyn3

  402

  70

  99

  0

  Cynon Valley3

  251

  19

  0

  0

  Delyn3

  457

  0

  228

  0

  Dinefwr3

  225

  5

  104

  1

  Dwyfor

  150

  2

  68

  0

  Glyndwr

  410

  67

  196

  0

  Islwyn

  230

  75

  102

  8

  Llanelli3

  101

  25

  56

  1

  384

  Authority

  No. of schemes

  Bid for 1993–94 £

  West Glamorgan county council

  2

  38,670

  Port Talbot borough council

  2

  109,500

  Lliw Valley borough council

  2

  6,900

  Swansea city council

  3

  57,950

  Total

  23

  1,012,158

  Bids under the urban programme normally cover a three year period; the figures show the bid for the initial year.

  Proposed Legislation (Representations)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to present copies of all official representations on proposed legislation made to his Department, in the form of deposited papers to the Library unless the body or individual making the representation demands otherwise.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is usual practice to deposit such representations in the Library of the House.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inspections of food premises have been carried out by each local authority in Wales under the Food Safety Act 1990; and how many of such inspections have resulted in(a) the issuing of improvement and emergency prohibition notices, (b) informal warning letters or (c) the voluntary closure of companies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At present information is available only for 1991. This is given in the following table1.
  385

  Number of establishments subject to

  Enforcement authority

  Number of inspections of food premises2

  Issue of improvement and emergency prohibition notices

  Written warnings

  Closures (Voluntary and compulsory)

  Lliw Valley

  180

  24

  166

  0

  Meironnydd3

  155

  28

  107

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil3

  169

  13

  137

  6

  Monmouth

  227

  50

  39

  1

  Montgomeryshire

  475

  188

  235

  2

  Neath

  411

  72

  57

  0

  Newport3

  368

  66

  209

  0

  Ogwr3

  231

  108

  142

  0

  Port Talbot

  329

  11

  72

  0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,220

  26

  281

  2

  Radnor3

  210

  58

  39

  0

  Rhondda

  413

  83

  137

  1

  Rhuddlan3

  156

  24

  13

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  214

  31

  158

  4

  South Pembrokeshire3

  144

  70

  23

  2

  Swansea3

  396

  157

  262

  0

  Taff Ely3

  227

  74

  219

  0

  Torfaen3

  212

  15

  60

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan3

  444

  2

  87

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  293

  124

  97

  1

  Ynys Môn3

  541

  61

  255

  1

  Port health authorities4

  Barry3

  23

  0

  0

  0

  Beaumaris

  15

  0

  0

  0

  Caernarfon

  Nil return—Arfon BC act as port health authority for Caernarfon

  Cardiff3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Chester3

  Nil return

  Milford

  2,186

  0

  11

  0

  Newport3

  63

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea3

  700

  0

  40

  0

  1 These statistics cover work carried out by local authorities under the Food Safety Act 1990, regulations made under it and the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive. They exclude:

  meat hygiene inspections carried out under EC veterinary legislation;

  milk hygiene inspections of production plants;

  inspections carried out by the Wine Standards Board under EC wine legislation.

  2 The number of food hygiene and food standards inspections covers:

  inspection of premises;

  inspection of equipment including cleaning and maintenance equipment;

  inspection of a process or operational procedure;

  inspection of the hygiene or practices of personnel;

  inspection of food (including ingredients, additives and products at any stage of manufacture) or contact materials;

  inspection of labels, labelling equipment and advertising matter and/or

  inspection of records.

  These figures exclude all other visits eg revisits to check compliance with notices, sampling visits and visits to follow up complaints.

  3 Excludes figures for first quarter of 1991. This was only required on a voluntary basis.

  4 For port health authorities this includes the number of consignments and of number of ships kitchens inspected.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effects of acid rain deposition on wildlife habitats in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At present, no comprehensive information is available on the effects of acid rain deposition on wildlife habitats throughout Wales. The Welsh Office is currently funding research, with the Department of the Environment and the Countryside Council for Wales, aimed at providing a better overall picture of the situation.

  Departmental Meetings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) meetings with external organisations and (b) public hearings were conducted by his Department both within the Cardiff headquarters and externally in the latest year for which figures are available; how many
  386
  requests were made for translation facilities at such meetings; and what proportion of such requests were fulfilled.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not held centrally.

  Refuse Collection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tenders for refuse collection or street cleansing are currently(a) run in-house and (b) put out to private companies in Wales; and how many tender-holders have made pre-tax losses in the latest accounting year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average annual incidence of epilepsy due to road traffic accidents in Wales between the year 1989 and 1991; and what percentage this represents of epilepsy from all causes.

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

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of special needs education per child per annum.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The average expenditure for each pupil education in maintained special schools and special education provided elsewhere than at school, is available in table 12.17 of "Statistics of Education in Wales: Schools", No. 5 1991. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Tourism, Clwyd
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of income in Clwyd is generated by tourism.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Road Traffic Injuries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of referrals for behaviour or emotional problems requiring the services of psychologists or psychiatrists in Wales between 1989 and 1991, resulted from injuries sustained in serious road traffic accidents.

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

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales were assessed from 1980 to 1991 as having special educational needs due to severe head injuries(a) sustained in road traffic accidents and (b) from all causes after the neonatal period.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was paid in Wales annually between 1989 and 1991 in(a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) carers' allowance for disabilities due to serious head injuries (i) as a result of road traffic accidents and (ii) from all causes.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made to reduce the hours junior doctors work.
  388
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest progress report on junior doctors' hours shows that, at the end of August, the number of junior doctors in Wales still working in hard pressed posts in excess of 83 hours per week has been reduced to below 5 per cent.

  The Welsh task force is striving to ensure that the target date for reducing all junior doctors hours to a maximum of 83 per week by 1 April 1993 is met.

  Building Industry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently employed in the building industry in Wales; and what was the equivalent number in each of the past five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In June this year there were 37,000 employees employed in the construction industry. The equivalent number for each of the last five years is given in the table.

  Employees in the construction industry in Wales

  Thousands1

  1987

  43

  1988

  44

  1989

  46

  1990

  46

  1991

  42

  1 Quarterly estimate series.

  Source: Employment Department.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for central funding for the Welsh museum schools service.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am considering this in the public expenditure round but in doing so I am taking into account that five local education authorities already fund the service and the possibility of continued support from these and other sources.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the council of the National Museum of Wales regarding the rules for the generation of income from European Community research grants by the national museum and any compensatory withdrawal of grant-in-aid under additionality arrangements; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements he will make to strengthen the incentives for the National Museum of Wales to undertake European Community research projects, without loss of income generated.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Our officials have provided advice to the museum on specific queries in relation to a proposed application for European Community research funding.

  The public expenditure arrangements provide scope and flexibility, within the public expenditure survey, for proper consideration of the implications for domestic expenditure of European Community research and development, for the setting of priorities and obtaining value for money. Our officials stand ready to discuss these arrangements with bodies in Wales.

  Health Service
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specialties for which the Welsh Office will be funding capital costs for the new Neath and Port Talbot hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend's statement on 29 October underlined his determination that there will be a new hospital on the site at Baglan.

  The review of health services to be undertaken by West Glamorgan health authority will ensure that the scheme is consistent with the possible need for further investment, including in primary and community health services, in West Glamorgan as a whole and Neath and Port Talbot in particular.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines on the procedure to be followed by the chairmen and non-executive directors of newly-appointed national health service trusts in Wales in appointing to the post of chief executive, as regards advertising the vacancy(a) where a general manager is already in post, (b) where a trust crosses pre-existing unit or health authority boundaries and (c) where there is no general manager in post or where he or she is near retirement or on extended sick leave.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department has issued general guidance on the appointment of executive directors of national health service trusts. The appointment of chief executives is a matter for the chairman and non-executive directors of each trust.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the annual budgets of the training and enterprise councils in West Wales, Mid Glamorgan and Gwent in each year since their creation; and what is the percentage annual change in the central government contribution to each of these TEC budgets.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Comparative information is only available for financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93. This indicates that in the TECs concerned expenditure, budgetsand percentage changes were as follows:

  1991–92 expenditure

  1992–93 budget

  Change Per cent.

  Gwent

  17,390

  17,909

  +2·98

  Mid Glamorgan

  20,039

  20,561

  +2·60

  West Wales

  29,295

  27,911

  -4·72

  Mr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many training places at West Wales TEC, Mid Glamorgan TEC and Gwent TEC there were in each year of their operation; what are the latest current estimates; and what is the percentage year-on-year change in training places at each of those TECs.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Valleys Programme
  Mr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number and percentage rate of long-term unemployed in Wales and the valleys programme area, on a seasonally adjusted basis, for(a) June 1988, (b) June 1990 and (c) September 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number and percentage rate of long-term unemployed in Wales and the valleys programme area are not available on a seasonally adjusted basis. The following table shows unadjusted numbers and rates of those unemployed for more than 52 weeks.

  Valleys area

  Wales

  1July

  Number

  2 Rate

  Number

  2 Rate

  1988

  12,775

  5·2

  47,638

  3·8

  1990

  6,648

  2·8

  23,026

  1·8

  1992

  11,765

  4·8

  41,456

  3·2

  1Unemployed figures by duration are produced on a quarterly basis. The months, for which data have been produced, closest to those requested are given in this table.

  2The long-term unemployed expressed as a percentage of the total workforce.

  Mr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grant paid by year at constant prices and the associated job creation or job safeguarding effects for(a) regional development grant, (b) regional selective assistance and (c) regional enterprise grant in the valleys programme area in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not possible to link payments of grant on a yearly basis to the number of jobs created or safeguarded over the lifetime of projects.

  Payments of grant made to projects in the Valleys Programme Area since 1988–89 are as follows:

  £ million

  Scheme

  1988–89

  1989–901

  1990–911

  1991–921

  RSA

  14·3

  9·5

  7·6

  13·0

  RDG II

  17·3

  8·9

  7·4

  2·8

  REG

  0·1

  0·2

  0·5

  0·3

  1 At 1991–92 prices.

  For projects to which some payment of grant has been made the number of jobs created or safeguarded during the period 1988–89 to 1991–92 is as follows:

  Scheme

  Jobs Created

  Jobs Safeguarded

  RSA

  10,861

  4,301

  RDG II

  10,513

  —

  Note:—Some payments may have been made towards such projects in previous years, some may be made in subsequent years with more jobs created and safeguarded in subsequent years.

  The REG scheme does not specifically require job creation.

  Mr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage male unemployment rate in Wales and the valleys programme area, on a seasonally adjusted basis, for(a) June 1988, (b) June 1990 and (c) September 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Rates for the valleys programme area and Wales are given in the table. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates are only available for Wales.
  391

  Male unemployment rates expressed as a percentage of the work force

  June 1988

  June 1990

  September 1992

  Valleys1

  17·5

  12·8

  18·7

  Wales1

  12·3

  8·0

  13·3

  Wales2

  12·1

  8·3

  13·5

  1 Unadjusted.

  2 Seasonally adjusted.

  Ely Estate, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on a second tranche of financial assistance to Cardiff city council by way of supplementary credit approval for further housing improvements on the Ely council estate.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Decisions on this matter will be taken in due course after discussion about progress with the local authority.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his current estimate of the value of depleted uranium stockpiled at nuclear facilities operated by British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the owners of the material.

  Ozone-depleting Substances
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of what precentage of companies in the(a) electronics, (b) precision cleaning, (c) metal cleaning and (d) dry cleaning sectors view hydrochlorofluorocarbons as the only alternative to the use of chlorofluorocarbons or methyl chloroform; and what is the current level of emissions of ozone-depleting solvents from the (i) electronics, (ii) precision cleaning, (iii) metal cleaning and (iv) dry cleaning sectors.

  Mr. Eggar
  Latest information on the use of CFC 113 and methyl chloroform in these sectors and on the proportion of companies which are considering the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons as an alternative is contained in a report recently commissioned by my Department from Touche Ross management consultants. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. Information on emissions of ozone-depleting substances from the sectors concerned or on companies which view hydrochlorofluorocarbons to be the only alternative is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what position his Department has taken with regard to proposals by CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, for a regulation on hydrocarbon refrigeration.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Committee for Standardisation brings together the national standards bodies of the European Community and the European 392
  Free Trade Association countries. The British Standards Institution is the United Kingdom national member of the European Committee for Standardisation. Through its technical committee structure, the British Standards Institution acts as the main channel for the United Kingdom's input into European standards-making. The determination of the United Kingdom's position on the European Committee for Standardisation proposals concerning hydrocarbon refrigeration is therefore the responsibility of the appropriate British Standards Institution technical committee.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department has taken to promote the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants; and how much funding his Department has spent or committed to research and uptake of hydrocarbon refrigeration technology.

  Mr. Eggar
  Hydrocarbon refrigerants are among the alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons identified in a booklet on refrigeration and air conditioning published recently by my Department in a series entitled "Protecting the Ozone Layer and Safeguarding Your Business".

  No funds have been spent on or committed specifically to the research and uptake of hydrocarbon refrigeration within the past three years. However, my Department and the Department of the Environment operate schemes of financial support for the research, development and diffusion of sound environmental technologies in general and the replacement of ozone-depleting substances is a priority area within those schemes.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department has taken to promote the use of alternatives to HCFCs in(a) refrigeration and air conditioning, (b) foams and (c) solvents.

  Mr. Eggar
  HCFCs cause less damage to the ozone layer than CFCs and their availability is enabling industry to move out of CFCs more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. However, booklets on refrigeration and air-conditioning, foam blowing and solvents published recently by my Department in the series "Protecting the Ozone Layer and Safeguarding Your Business" provide information and sources of advice on alternatives to the use of ozone-depleting chemicals in the sectors concerned.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the percentage of demand for HCFCs within the refrigeration and air conditioning industry which results from servicing, maintenance and leaks.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. However, the problem of loss of refrigerants resulting from servicing, maintenance and leakage is addressed in general terms in a report by March Consulting Group on "CFCs in the UK: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industries", commissioned recently by the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what essential uses of HCFCs his Department has defined in solvent cleaning; and what is the current and projected demand during the next 10 years of ozone-depleting substanes in solvent cleaning.

  Mr. Eggar
  No uses of HCFCs in solvent cleaning have yet been defined as essential for the purposes of exemption from future controls currently under discussion in the context of a review of the Montreal protocol.
  393
  The latest available forecasts of future demand for ozone-depleting substances in solvent cleaning are contained in two recent reports commissioned by my Department: figures for HCFCs are contained in a "Study of Ozone Depleting Substances" by Coopers and Lybrand; estimates for other ozone-depleting substances are contained in a report on "The Use of CFC 113 and 1,1,1 Tricholorethane as Solvents in UK Industry" by Touche Ross, management consultants. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with ICI and Rhôone Poulenc regarding their production and export of HCFC22.

  Mr. Eggar
  Officials in my Department hold regular meetings with both those companies on the question of phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. Both ICI and Rhone Poulenc are participating in international consortiums evaluating the toxicology and environmental impact of HFC32 as potential replacement for HCFC22. ICI announced KLEA32, a new ozone-benign refrigerant, on 1 July 1992.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions his Department has had with Sainsbury's regarding the use of HCFCs;

  (2) what discussions his Department's officials have had with United Kingdom domestic fridge manufacturers regarding the use of hydrocarbons;

  (3) what discussions his Department has had with supermarkets regarding ammonia and absorption refrigeration technology.

  Mr. Eggar
  Officials in my Department and the Department of the Environment have regular meetings with producers and users of ozone-depleting substances. Trade associations representing the interests of supermarkets, and United Kingdom manufacturers of domestic refrigerators and the refrigeration servicing sector are represented at these meetings. The meetings aim to ensure that manufacturers and users are aware of all current and potential options for accelerating the reduction of dependency on ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research his Department has undertaken or commissioned on refrigeration systems in Sweden; and what discussions the Department has had with the Swedish authorities regarding legislation restricting the use of HCFCs in refrigeration systems.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has commissioned no research into refrigeration systems in Sweden though information on relevant technological developments in Sweden and other countries is made available to it from time to time in its regular meetings with United Kingdom producers and users of ozone-depleting substances.

  The United Kingdom and Sweden are both participating in discussions on future controls on the use of HCFCs in the context of the current review of the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department has given industry with regard to hydrochlorofluorocarbon phase-out dates; and what representations his Department has recieved from(a) industry, (b) trade associations and (c) HCFC producers regarding phase-out dates of HCFCs.
  394
  Mr. Eggar
  No dates have been agreed for the phasing-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, but my Department has given advice to industry that HCFCs are transitional substances which are likely to be subject to control and eventual phase-out. A range of views have been received from industry, trade associations and producers of HCFCs concerning the timetable for phasing out HCFCs and discussions are continuing.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with German counterparts regarding hydrocarbon refrigeration technology; and if he will instruct departmental officials to visit the German company DDK Scharfenstein to investigate their domestic hydrocarbon fridge.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for industry to develop the technologies to replace ozone-depleting substances and my Department and the Department of the Environment operate schemes of financial support to assist industry to do this. I understand that organisations representing producers of refrigeration equipment are aware of recent publicity concerning a domestic hydrocarbon fridge under development in Germany.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contacts his Department has made with the German company Aerotech regarding ammonia refrigeration systems.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what policy changes he will implement as a result of recent research on the use of solvents for the Department by Touche Ross.

  Mr. Eggar
  The report by Touche Ross was primarily intended to inform decisions on the timetable for phasing out of ozone-depleting substances which have yet to be taken. My Department will continue to advise and assist industry to switch to alternatives to ozone-depleting substances by the deadlines agreed within the European Communitty and earlier where this is practicable.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice his Department has issued to industry with regard to section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the use of ozone-depleting substances; and what particular industrial processes involving the use of ozone-depleting substances are covered by section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's advice to industry on section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is contained in a booklet on refrigeration and air conditioning published in the series "Protecting the Ozone Layer and Safeguarding Your Business". However, section 33 of the Act deals with the treatment, keeping or disposal of controlled waste. It is not specific to any particular process or processes.

  Point of Ayr Colliery
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the details of the criteria on which British Coal originally decided to close Point of Ayr colliery in north Wales; and in what respects the criteria on which its future will now be assessed differ from these.
  395
  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I accepted British Coal's advice that in order to meet its estimate of its potential market economically, it needed to reduce its present levels of production urgently and subsequently. We also accepted British Coal's advice as to the particular pits that should be closed. The detailed criteria used in making that decision are a matter for British Coal.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe) (Mr. Lester) on 26 October, Official Report, columns 522–23, announcing the terms of reference of the review of the prospects for the 21 pits, including Point of Ayr, proposed for closure by British Coal but not subject to the statutory consultation currently being undertaken by it.

  Staffing Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade and number employed the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93 for the business task force.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested for 1991–92 is as follows. No figures for 1992–93 are available: the business task forces were abolished as part of the reorganisation of the Department of Trade and Industry this summer.

  Business task forces

  Average cost of employing number of staff in grade (including ERNIC)

  Grades

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Grade 3

  2·0

  118

  Grade 5

  7·6

  367

  Grade 6

  2·0

  86

  Average cost of employing number of staff in grade (including ERNIC)

  Grade

  Manufacturing technology division 1991–92

  Information and manufacturing technologies division 1992–93

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Grade 3

  1·0

  59

  1·0

  62

  Grade 5

  5·8

  280

  8·5

  428

  Grade 6

  7·0

  300

  14–5

  648

  Grade 7

  25·5

  842

  51·5

  1,773

  Senior executive officer

  5·6

  141

  11·5

  302

  Senior scientific officer

  9·4

  240

  14·0

  373

  Senior professional and technical officer

  12·3

  336

  18·5

  526

  Higher executive officer

  17·6

  362

  34·0

  727

  Higher professional and technical officer

  0·6

  14

  0

  0

  Higher scientific officer

  1·8

  37

  1·0

  21

  Executive officer

  27·8

  456

  42·0

  716

  Professional and technical officer

  1·0

  19

  1·0

  20

  Information officer

  0·4

  8

  0

  —

  Administrative officer

  19·2

  265

  36·0

  516

  Administrative assistant

  17·7

  194

  35·0

  398

  Senior personal secretary

  1·0

  18

  1·0

  19

  Personal secretary

  10·0

  144

  18·0

  270

  Typist

  1·6

  19

  5·0

  63

  Total

  165·3

  3,734

  292·5

  6,862

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade and number employed, the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93, for the telecommunications and posts division.
  396

  Grades

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Grade 7

  27·6

  911

  Senior Executive Officer

  5·4

  136

  Senior Scientific Officer

  2·8

  72

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  0·6

  16

  Senior Examiner

  0·4

  16

  Higher Executive Officer

  25·7

  528

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1·0

  21

  Executive Officer

  25·0

  410

  Scientific Officer

  2·0

  34

  Administrative Officer

  13·4

  185

  Administrative Assistant

  24·0

  264

  Senior Personal Secretary

  2·0

  36

  Personal Secretary

  8·0

  116

  Typist

  5·0

  61

  Total

  154·5

  3,377

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade and number employed, the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93, for the manufacturing technology division.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows. The significant increase in size in 1992–93 follows the reorganisation of the Department of Trade and Industry in the summer, as a result of which the manufacturing technology division took on extra responsibilities in respect of information technology.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows. Policy responsibility for the film industry was transferred from the telecommunications and posts division to the Department of National Heritage after the general election.
  397

  Telecommunications and posts division

  Average cost of employing number of staff in grade (including ERNIC)

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Manpower

  £000

  Manpower

  £000

  Grade 3

  1·0

  59

  1·0

  62

  Grade 4

  1·0

  54

  1·0

  56

  Grade 5

  4·9

  237

  5·0

  252

  Grade 6

  1·0

  43

  1·0

  45

  Grade 7

  17·6

  581

  15·3

  527

  Senior executive officer

  1·0

  25

  2·0

  52

  Senior scientific officer

  1·0

  26

  1·0

  27

  Higher executive officer

  12·2

  251

  13·0

  278

  Higher professional and technical officer

  1·0

  23

  1·0

  24

  Executive officer

  14·4

  236

  13·5

  230

  Administrative officer

  4·6

  64

  3·0

  43

  Administrative assistant

  12·2

  134

  12·5

  142

  Senior personal secretary

  1·0

  18

  1·0

  19

  Personal secretary

  6·4

  92

  7·0

  105

  Typist

  1·0

  12

  1·0

  13

  Total

  80·3

  1,855

  78·3

  1,875

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade and number employed, the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93, for the competition policy division.

  Insurance division

  Average cost of employing number of staff in grade (including ERNIC)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Grade 3

  1·0

  59

  1·0

  62

  Grade 5

  3·0

  145

  3·3

  166

  Grade 6

  0·6

  26

  1·0

  45

  Grade 7

  10·3

  340

  10·5

  361

  Senior executive officer

  1·2

  30

  1·0

  26

  Higher executive officer

  6·4

  131

  7·0

  150

  Executive officer

  4·0

  66

  4·5

  77

  Administrative officer

  2·6

  36

  2·0

  29

  Administrative assistant

  6·6

  73

  7·0

  80

  Senior personal secretary

  1·6

  29

  2·0

  37

  Personal secretary

  3·4

  49

  2·0

  30

  Typist

  1·0

  12

  2·0

  25

  Total

  41·7

  996

  43·3

  1,088

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade and number employed the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93 for the companies investigation branch.

  Companies investigation branch

  Average cost of employing number of staff in grade (including ERNIC)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Grade 4

  1·0

  55

  1·0

  56

  Grade 5

  2·0

  97

  2·0

  101

  Grade 6

  3·0

  129

  3·0

  134

  Grade 7

  4·0

  132

  5·0

  172

  Insolvency Grade A

  3·0

  139

  3·0

  145

  Insolvency Grade B

  13·0

  471

  15·0

  567

  Insolvency Grade C

  25·0

  700

  24·5

  714

  Insolvency Grade D

  3·0

  70

  3·0

  73

  Investigation Officer

  2·0

  41

  1·0

  21

  Senior Executive Officer

  2·0

  50

  3·0

  79

  Higher Executive Officer

  1·5

  31

  1·5

  32

  Executive Officer

  5·0

  82

  5·0

  85

  Administrative Officer

  10·0

  143

  12·0

  172

  Administrative Assistant

  5·0

  55

  5·0

  57

  Personal Secretary

  6·0

  87

  6·0

  90

  Typist

  1·0

  12

  1·0

  13

  398
  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:
  399

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Total

  86·5

  2,342

  91·0

  2,511

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade and number employed, the staffing costs for the year 1991–92 and the estimate for 1992–93, for the insurance division.

  Insurance division

  Average cost of employing number of staff in grade (including ERNIC)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Manpower

  (£000)

  Grade 3

  1·0

  59

  1·0

  62

  Grade 5

  4·1

  198

  3·5

  176

  Grade 6

  1·0

  43

  1·0

  45

  Grade 7

  13·3

  439

  13·5

  465

  Senior executive officer

  2·4

  60

  2·5

  65

  Higher executive officer

  19·1

  392

  26·5

  567

  Executive officer

  26·2

  430

  24·0

  409

  Librarian

  0·2

  4

  0

  0

  Administrative officer

  13·6

  188

  11·0

  158

  Administrative assistant

  10·2

  112

  10·5

  119

  Senior personal secretary

  0·2

  4

  1·0

  19

  Personal secretary

  4·2

  61

  3·0

  45

  Typist

  0·4

  5

  1·0

  13

  Total

  95·9

  1,995

  98·5

  2,143

  Power Generation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether power is still being generated for supply to the national grid on the basis of merit order of power stations based on generating cost; and whether he will publish the most recent list of power stations by that merit order, together with their generating capacity, power produced and fuel consumption.

  Mr. Eggar
  The National Grid Company is required by its transmission licence to schedule and dispatch plant in accordance with a bid price merit order system, under which generators submit price bids for their stations daily and the cheapest plant hid is used first, within the technical constraints of the transmission and distribution system. Price bids are a matter for the generators. Daily information on bid prices and capacity available is not published but may be obtained from National Grid Company Settlements Ltd. Figures for power produced and fuel consumption are commercially confidential.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by date the meetings he, Ministers or officials of his Department, have had with external bodies or expert consultants on the coal industry since 15 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend and I, and our officials, have had numerous meetings with external bodies and expert consultants on the coal industry since 15 April.
  400
  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows.

  Nuclear Materials Review Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what submissions on physical protection, inventory control and enhanced security were put forward by Her Majesty's Government to the review conference on the physical protection on nuclear materials held between 29 September and 1 October; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review conference.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The Government's aim at the review conference was to ensure that the high standards of physical protection required by the convention on the physical protection of nuclear material were maintained and to urge states which had not already done so to accede to the convention.

  The conference endorsed the important role of the convention in providing an international framework for the physical protection of nuclear material. I am placing a copy of the final statement of the conference in the Library of the House.

  EC Coal Subsidy
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last had discussions with Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan about the differing levels of subsidy on coal production in the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend and I meet both Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan and Commissioner Cardoso from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Energy Select Committee
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, cols. 784–85, to the hon. Member for Newham,

  401
  South concerning availability of his reply to the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Energy 1991–92 (HC 113), by what means his memorandum, and that of the Director General of Electricity Supply, were released to the press; and if he will list the names of journals to which it was sent without a request.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 November 1992]: My Department's memorandum was circulated using our standard method of distribution for press notices, which covers around 450 newspapers, journals, media and other companies and individuals. The Office of Electricity Regulation circulated its press release to its standard distribution list of more than 500 newspapers and other contacts, and sent a copy of the director general's memorandum to the majority of press and media contacts.

  Gas Reserves
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the reserves of gas which he has estimated will meet Britain's requirements have yet to be proved; and what proportion he estimates will come from smaller fields than those which currently provide supplies to the home market.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: My Department's latest estimates of United Kingdom gas reserves were published in the Brown Book—"Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom"—in April 1992. About 37 per cent. of the total are reserves which have yet to be proved by drilling. Reserves in future fields will fall within a wide range, but it is not expected that any will compare in size with the largest fields currently supplying the United Kingdom market.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations he has received in the last three months from businesses wishing(a) to reopen closed pits in Wales and (b) to maintain existing pits under new management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: My Department has not received any representations in the last three months from businesses wishing to reopen closed pits in Wales. It has received a number of representations in relation to taking over existing pits in Wales for operation under new management.

  Expressions of interest in pits are a matter for British Coal, which has a duty to consider carefully applications from responsible organisations seeking licences to mine.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to use members of the reserve forces in support of current operations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence reported to the House by notice last month the call-out of a small number of willing officers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve to support current operations.
  402
  A further need for specialist support available only from the reserve forces has now become apparent, and a number of individuals from the Territorial Army's intelligence and security group (volunteers) have offered to serve on duties in the United Kingdom. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made the Queen's order required by section 12(1) of the Reserve Forces Act, 1980, and has formally called them out under section 11(1) of the Act.

  A number of officers of the Royal Naval Reserve have also volunteered to serve, and they are being called up under the provisions of an Order in Council made in May 1982.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency and defence support agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to my Department's executive agencies under their framework documents. I have therefore asked each chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:

  I am responding to your written parliamentary question, "to ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency and defence support agency for which he is responsible."

  The answer is as follows:

  The number of staff in each grade is given in the table attached. The staff cost (including superannuation) was £59·4 million in 1991–92 and is expected to be £62·9 million in 1992–93.

  Meteorological office staff numbers

  Grade

  Average 1991–92

  Estimated Average 1992–93

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  4

  2

  2

  5

  9

  9

  6

  28

  31

  7

  137

  142

  Senior Scientific Officer

  338

  355

  Higher Scientific Officer

  449

  458

  Scientific Officer

  475

  486

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  542

  506

  Senior Telecommunications Technical Officer

  7

  8

  Higher Telecommunications Technical Officer

  35

  36

  Telecommunications Technical Officer

  47

  47

  Assistant Telecommunications Technical Officer

  33

  36

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  5

  6

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  20

  21

  Professional and Technology Officer

  6

  7

  Senior Executive Officer

  5

  5

  Higher Executive Officer

  11

  12

  Executive Officer

  26

  30

  Adminstrative Officer

  81

  90

  Administrative Assistant

  45

  50

  Clerical/Support

  122

  114

  403

  Grade

  Average 1991–92

  Estimated Average 1992–93

  Industrial

  32

  28

  Locally Entered Overseas

  42

  39

  2,499

  2,520

  Letter from J. A. R. Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:

  In today's written answer the Under Secretary of State for Defence informed you that, as Chief Executive of the Defence Research Agency, I would be replying directly to your question concerning numbers and costs of staff in Executive Agencies.

  The number of personnel employed by DRA on 1 April 1991 was 12,027 and the total staff costs for 1991–92 were £206 million. On 1 April 1992 total personnel numbered 11,187 for whom the costs in 1992–93 will be £211 million. Staff numbers as at 1 October 1992 are 11,267. This number will reduce slightly by the end of the year as a result of my recently announced voluntary redundancy scheme.

  My colleague Roger Warren wrote to you on my behalf in July listing the DRA staffing levels by grade as at 1 April 1992. I have repeated that information below for your convenience. I am afraid a breakdown by grade is not available for 1 April 1991.

  Numbers

  Non industrial staff

  Grade 2

  1

  Grade 3

  8

  Grade 4

  6

  Grade 5

  40

  Pay costs by grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Strength in grade

  Pay/allotment/OT/ERNIC £

  Superannuation £

  Total £

  Strength in grade

  Pay/allotment/OT/ERNIC £

  Superannuation £

  Total £

  Military

  Col/Lt. Col

  1

  44,080

  12,649

  56,729

  1

  46,105

  12,811

  58,916

  Non-Industrial

  Deputy Head

  2

  65,447

  4,287

  69,734

  2

  73,822

  5,484

  79,306

  Teacher

  46

  1,133,407

  68,046

  1,201,453

  47

  1,297,338

  86,490

  1,383,828

  Bursar

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  26,104

  4,109

  30,213

  RO2

  1

  15,892

  2,518

  18,410

  1

  17,229

  2,731

  19,960

  Doctor/Medical/Consultant

  1

  36,660

  5,785

  42,445

  0·5

  12,888

  1,612

  14,500

  EO

  1

  15,208

  2,409

  17,617

  1

  15,854

  2,511

  18,365

  Librarian

  1

  22,100

  3,508

  25,608

  0·3

  6,981

  1,110

  8,091

  HIO

  1

  16,918

  2,680

  19,598

  1

  18,083

  2,867

  20,950

  IO 1

  3

  46,238

  7,333

  53,571

  3

  49,195

  7,794

  56,989

  IO 2

  0·5

  11,165

  1,764

  12,929

  0·5

  11,640

  1,839

  13,479

  Admin Officer

  2

  22,209

  3,511

  25,720

  2·5

  28,952

  4,590

  33,542

  Typist

  3

  34,082

  5,387

  39,469

  3

  32,139

  5,100

  37,239

  SOG(C)

  1

  16,097

  2,551

  18,648

  1

  16,897

  2,678

  19,575

  PIGS(E)

  1

  13,608

  2,154

  15,762

  1

  14,284

  2,261

  16,545

  SG(1)

  1

  9,866

  1,584

  11,450

  1

  10,807

  1,706

  12,513

  School Nurse

  2

  28,926

  969

  29,895

  2

  39,383

  1,336

  40,719

  House Matron

  10

  97,387

  15,502

  112,889

  10

  104,792

  16,692

  121,484

  Industrial

  Senior Store Keeper

  1

  8,315

  1,255

  9,570

  1

  8,718

  1,313

  10,031

  Store Keeper

  1

  8,038

  1,213

  9,251

  1

  8,437

  1,272

  9,709

  L/H Lab

  1

  7,743

  1,179

  8,922

  1

  8,298

  1,250

  9,548

  Labourer

  2

  17,087

  2,275

  19,362

  2

  17,976

  2,396

  20,372

  Housemaid

  8

  68,392

  10,324

  78,716

  8

  71,898

  10,875

  82,773

  Wardmaid

  1

  8,494

  1,137

  9,631

  1

  7,958

  1,198

  9,156

  Exp Wkr (1)

  1

  8,803

  1,329

  10,132

  1

  8,989

  1,355

  10,344

  Exp Wkr (3)

  2

  16,007

  2,416

  18,423

  2

  16,894

  2,543

  19,437

  Exp Wkr (5)

  0·5

  5,796

  875

  6,671

  0·5

  6,030

  922

  6,952

  Caretaker

  1

  7,536

  1,137

  8,673

  1

  7,958

  1,198

  9,156

  Steward (1)

  0·5

  5,969

  902

  6,871

  0·5

  6,192

  946

  7,138

  404

  Numbers

  Grade 6

  197

  Grade 7

  857

  SSO/SPTO/SEO

  1,285

  HSO/HPTO/HEO

  1,558

  SO/PTO/EO

  1,501

  ASO/AO/AA/Sec

  1,160

  Others

  894

  Sub Total

  7,507

  Industrial staff

  Craft

  2,047

  Non-craft

  1,443

  Sub Total

  3,490

  Military staff

  All ranks

  190

  Total

  11,187

  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Letter from Colonel G. H. Wilson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  I refer to your parliamentary question, received on 29 October, which asked the Secretary of State for Defence to list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for each Executive Agency for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93.

  The Duke of York's Royal Military School was established as an Executive Agency of the MOD on 1st April 1992. Attached are staff numbers and costs for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93.
  405

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Strength in grade

  Pay/allotment/OT/ERNIC £

  Superannuation £

  Total £

  Strength in grade

  Pay/allotment/OT/ERNIC £

  Superannuation £

  Total £

  Swim Bath Att

  1

  8,200

  1,198

  9,398

  1

  8,372

  1,261

  9,633

  Totals

  97·5

  1,799,670

  167,877

  1,967,547

  98·8

  2,000,213

  190,250

  2,190,463

  Letter from Mr. J. D. Hankinson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992:

  I have been asked to write to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question.

  Date of Order Paper: 28 October 1992

  Queen Victoria School: Estimated staff and their costs, 1992–93

  Grade

  Number

  Basic pay

  ERNIC

  Overtime

  Superannuation

  Total

  Senior management team

  5·5

  160,589

  14,004

  2,500

  14,326

  191,419

  Teaching and instructional staff

  28·0

  648,923

  49,365

  —

  52,965

  751,253

  Support staff" NI

  20·5

  202,034

  14,091

  22,018

  30,247

  268,390

  1

  13·0

  121,627

  7,614

  5,226

  15,222

  149,689

  67·0

  1,133,173

  85,074

  29,744

  112,760

  1,360,751

  I trust this answer is helpful. Further instructions can be supplied if required.

  Letter from Rear Admiral J. A. L. Myres to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992:

  Hydrographic Office DSA—Parliamentary question

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence to list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each Executive Agency and Defence Support Agency for which he is responsible. The Minister has asked me, as Chief Executive, to reply in respect of the Hydrographic Office Defence Support Agency.

  The information you requested is at the Annex. I hope this is helpful.

  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Letter from I. S. Mitchelson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked him to list by grade, the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each Executive Agency and Defence Support Agency for which he is responsible.

  I attach a table which sets out the information you requested, in relation to SCS (NWE).

  If you require further information or feel that I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.

  Grade

  Financial year 1991–92 Numbers in post

  Financial year 1992–93 Numbers in post

  Administrative staff

  Chief Executive

  1

  1

  Deputy Chief Executive

  1

  1

  Other UK based Civilians

  4·2

  8

  Total cost

  £240K

  £364K

  Professional support staff

  Chief Inspector Adviser

  1

  1

  Principal Educational Psychologist

  1

  1

  Senior Careers Adviser

  1

  1

  Senior Inspection Adviser

  0

  2·75

  S02 (Education)-Major

  1

  0

  Inspector Adviser

  8

  5·8

  406
  Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)
  "31. To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  "Answer: This School has been an Executive Agency since April 1st, 1992, hence it is appropriate to provide the estimated figures for 1992–93. They are as follows:

  Grade

  Financial year 1991–92 Numbers in post

  Financial year 1992–93 Numbers in post

  Advisory Teachers

  12·8

  14·7

  Educational Psychologists

  5·8

  6·4

  Senior Social Workers

  3

  3·4

  Careers Advisers

  3

  3

  Staff Development Officers

  3

  3

  Total cost

  £1,197K

  £1,298K

  Educational staff

  Head teachers

  84

  77·7

  Deputy Headteachers

  78·1

  75·4

  UK based Assistant Teachers

  817·9

  800·2

  UK based Support

  10·8

  11

  Total cost

  £26,588K

  £28,798K

  Locally employed civilians

  Teachers

  286·9

  278·8

  Other Grades1

  946·3

  962·4

  Total cost

  £13,762K

  £13,813K

  1 This category includes miscellaneous support staff such as cooks, cleaners, secretaries etc.

  Letter from D. R. French to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  MAINTENANCE GROUP DEFENCE SUPPORT AGENCY

  1. In response to Parliamentary Question 7256F, seeking the numbers of staff making up the subject Agency and their costs for financial year 1991–92 as well as the estimated figures for this financial year, you are advised that the outturn cost for the Service element in financial year 1991–92 was £126 million with the estimate for this financial year being £123 million. For the civilian element the outturn cost for financial year 1991–92 was £80 million and the estimate for this year is currently £84 million.

  2. Please find at Annexes A and B the required detailed breakdown by rank/grade and number.

  Annex:

  A. Numbers of Service Staff for 1991–92 and Estimated Figures for 1992–93.
  407
  B. Number of Civilian Staff for 1991–92 and Estimated Figures for 1992–93.

  The details have been placed in the Library.

  Letter from M. J. Dymond to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence for details of the number of staff in each grade and their costs in 1991–92 and 1992–93 for each MOD executive agency. As Chief Executive of DGDA I have been asked to reply for my Agency. The table at Annex A (attached) sets out the information requested.

  DGDA staff numbers

  Grade

  Actual average 1991–92

  Forecast average 1992–93

  United Kingdom non-industrial staff

  Numbers

  Numbers

  Open Structure Grade 4

  1

  1

  Open Structure Grade 5

  3

  3

  Open Structure Grade 6

  9

  9

  Open Structure Grade 7

  15

  15

  Senior Executive Officer

  53

  52

  Higher Executive Officer

  176

  165

  Executive Officer

  447

  427

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Administrative Officer

  1,023

  1,006

  Administrative Assistant

  325

  319

  Typing Manager

  2

  4

  Personal Secretary

  2

  3

  Typist

  10

  29

  Support Grade 1

  12

  12

  Support Grade 2

  46

  52

  Support Manager 2

  —

  2

  Support Manager 3

  1

  3

  Total United Kingdom non-industrial staff

  2,126

  2,103

  United Kingdom industrial staff

  7

  8

  Locally entered personnel

  9

  9

  Total non-industrial staff

  2,142

  2,120

  Actual costs £000

  Forecast outturn £000

  Total staff costs (includes pensions and gratuity liability)

  31,464

  33,710

  Letter from Dr. Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their costs for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each Executive Agency and Defence Support Agency has been passed to me for reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  NARO DSA Numbers and cost

  Non industrial grades

  1991–92 Numbers

  1991–92 Cost £

  1992–93 Numbers

  1992–93 Cost £

  Unified Grade 7

  4

  115,781

  4

  120,607

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  71,123

  2

  50,778

  Higher Executive Officer

  10

  168,768

  10

  186,668

  Executive Officer

  12

  190,232

  12

  268,531

  Administrative Officer

  59

  637,628

  57

  680,919

  Administrative Assistant

  39

  211,779

  36

  233,640

  Personal Secretary

  1

  12,262

  1

  12,691

  Typist

  9

  94,644

  9

  93,707

  Senior Professional Technical Officer

  16

  389,141

  16

  426,713

  408
  2. The number of staff in post at the end of 1991–92 and their salary/wage costs for that year were 603 and £10·08M respectively; a grade breakdown is provided in the Annex.

  3. Our staff target for 1992–93 is 639½ and the estimated cost of their salary/wage costs in this year is £11·31M; a grade breakdown is also in the Annex. The difference in staff in this year numbers arises from a number of vacancies on 1 April 1992 and from additional repayment work being undertaken by this Establishment.

  Chemical and biological defence establishment

  Grade

  1991–92 End of year strength

  1992–93 Target

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Non-industrial staff

  Defence science group

  260·5

  282·0

  Medical officers (research)

  5·0

  7·0

  Veterinary officers

  1·0

  1·0

  Defence engineering service

  19·0

  21·0

  Professional photographical class

  7·0

  8·0

  Process and general supervisory

  15·0

  16·0

  Officer support grades

  6·0

  6·0

  Graphics officer class

  2·0

  2·0

  Occupational health nurses

  —

  3·0

  Administration class

  64·0

  61·0

  Secretarial class

  12·0

  12·0

  Stores officer

  3·0

  3·0

  Retired officers

  3·0

  3·0

  Librarian class

  1·0

  1·0

  Investigating officer

  1·0

  1·0

  Fire service officer

  1·0

  1·0

  Total non-industrials

  400·5

  428·5

  Service officers

  13·0

  12·0

  Other ranks

  7·0

  7·0

  Total service staff

  20·0

  19·0

  Industrial staff

  Craft grades

  26·0

  27·0

  Non-craft grades

  156·5

  165·0

  Total industrial

  182·5

  192·0

  Total staff

  603·0

  639·5

  Letter from Major General R. Wood to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  Reply to Parliamentary Question 7256F

  Details of Military Survey DSA staff numbers and costs for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are attached.

  The details have been placed in the Library.

  Letter from Captain D. E. Symonds to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:

  The response to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning a listing by grade of the numbers and costs of staff employed in the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO) DSA, is shown at the Annex to this letter.
  409

  Non industrial grades

  1991–92 Numbers

  1991–92 Cost £

  1992–93 Numbers

  1992–93 Cost £

  Higher Professional Technical Officer

  51

  1,141,447

  45

  1,164,847

  Professional Technical Officer

  260

  4,772,213

  241

  4,734,241

  Stores Officer Grade 'B'

  1

  22,651

  1

  23,670

  Stores Officer Grade 'C'

  4

  69,963

  4

  88,229

  Stores Officer Grade 'D'

  16

  273,354

  16

  272,160

  Instructional Officer

  1

  16,565

  1

  17,458

  Support Grade 1

  4

  43,815

  4

  45,871

  Support Grade 2

  2

  16,200

  2

  16,378

  Processing & General Supervisory Grade 'C

  1

  2,648

  1

  17,000

  Processing & General Supervisory Grade 'D'

  2

  39,620

  2

  30,349

  Processing & General Supervisory Grade 'E'

  1

  35,377

  1

  21,838

  Communications Officer 3

  1

  16,699

  1

  21,776

  Communications Officer 4

  3

  31,686

  3

  32,804

  Senior Photographer

  1

  18,142

  1

  18,531

  Total Non Industrial

  500

  8,193,801

  470

  8,578,686

  Craft

  651

  9,218,268

  626

  8,955,819

  Non Craft

  325

  3,790,171

  308

  3,735,192

  Apprentices

  152

  1,036,890

  147

  1,104,014

  Total Industrial

  1,128

  13,814,523

  1,081

  13,795,025

  Total Civilian Staff

  1,628

  22,008,324

  1,551

  22,373,711

  Captain RN

  1

  43,626

  1

  47,163

  Commander

  3

  123,559

  3

  133,577

  Lieutenant Commander

  5

  147,349

  4

  127,437

  Lieutenant RN

  1

  23,352

  1

  25,245

  Captain Army

  1

  25,206

  1

  27,250

  Chief Petty Officer

  1

  28,224

  —

  —

  Total Military

  12

  391,315

  10

  360,672

  Grand Total

  1,640

  22,399,639

  1,561

  22,734,383

  Letter from Mr. P. Altobell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992:

  Minister of State (DP) asked me to write to you about my Agency staff numbers and their costs.

  Defence Analytical services Agency

  Staff numbers and costs 1991 to 1993

  Number of staff in full-time equivalents

  Estimated staff costs in £'000

  1 April 1991

  1992

  1993

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade 4

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  50

  60

  Grade 5

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  90

  100

  Grade 6

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  40

  80

  Grade 7

  21·0

  19·5

  17·0

  680

  660

  Senior/Assistant Statistician

  6·0

  6·0

  6·0

  100

  100

  Senior Executive Officer

  2·0

  2·0

  3·0

  50

  60

  Higher Executive Officer

  21·0

  20·0

  18·0

  400

  440

  Executive Officer

  45·0

  45·0

  43·0

  750

  780

  Administrative Officer

  35·5

  33·5

  31·5

  430

  430

  Administrative Assistant

  8·5

  7·0

  7·5

  80

  70

  Personal Assistant

  3·0

  2·0

  2·0

  40

  30

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1·0

  1·0

  0

  20

  20

  Warrant Officer (RAF)

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  20

  30

  College Based Sandwich Course Student

  8·0

  4·0

  10·0

  60

  70

  Totals

  156·0

  146·0

  144·0

  2,810

  2,930

  Note:—Staff costs comprise basic salary plus Earnings Related National Insurance Contributions (ERNIC).

  Letter from D. Leadbeater to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992:

  In his reply of 5th November, the Secretary of State for Defence referred to agency chief executives the question:

  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency and defence support agency for which he is responsible.
  410
  I have provided this information in the attached table. However, because of restructuring, we do not have a complete record of our costs on a compatible basis before we became an Agency in July 1992. In consequence the cost figures for both 1991–92 and 1992–93 are estimates, and I have therefore rounded the figures to the nearest £10,000.

  The Defence Operational Analysis Centre was formed as a Defence Support Agency on 1 July 1992; so a comparison of numbers within the agency over the two years is not possible.

  Notwithstanding the above limitation on the use of manpower numbers, I can tell you the numbers by grade and costs for year 1991–92 prior to agency status and my projections for year 1992–93 as follows:
  411

  Rank/Grade

  Average Actual Number 1991–92

  Estimated Number 1992–93

  Scientific Staff

  Grade 4

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 5

  2·0

  2·0

  Grade 6

  8·0

  8·0

  Grade 7

  20·3

  19·5

  SSO

  15·9

  16·0

  HSO

  14·0

  16·0

  SO

  8·5

  7·0

  ASO

  4·2

  3·0

  Services

  Captain RN

  0·9

  1·0

  Commander RN

  1·0

  1·0

  Lieutenant Commander RN

  2·0

  2·0

  Lieutenant WRNS

  0·3

  —

  Colonel (Army)

  1·0

  1·0

  Lieutenant Colonel (Army)

  3·7

  2·0

  Major (Army)

  12·0

  11·0

  Group Captain (RAF)

  1·0

  1·0

  Wing Commander (RAF)

  3·0

  2·0

  Squadron Leader (RAF)

  —

  —

  Support Staff (Non-Industrial)

  Grade 7

  1·0

  1·0

  SEO

  —

  1·0

  HEO

  4·0

  4·0

  EO

  3·7

  4·0

  AO

  12·3

  13·0

  AA

  7·8

  7·5

  SPS

  1·0

  1·0

  PS

  3·0

  3·0

  TM

  1·0

  1·0

  Typist

  2·2

  2·0

  EO/ADP

  2·0

  2·0

  AO/ADP

  2·9

  3·0

  AA/ADP

  1·0

  3·0

  S/Lib

  1·0

  1·0

  Assistant Lib

  1·0

  1·0

  Staff numbers

  Costs

  Grade/Rank

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  MILITARY

  Brigadier

  1·00

  1·00

  49,193

  55,140

  Colonel

  2·00

  2·00

  81,687

  93,622

  Lieutenant Colonel

  3·00

  2·40

  104,252

  96,507

  Major

  8·00

  8·25

  223,849

  265,183

  Captain

  7·00

  7·00

  157,958

  192,427

  Lieutenant

  1·50

  1·00

  33,848

  26,268

  Warrant Officer 1

  6·00

  4·75

  161,887

  128,532

  Warrant Officer 2

  10·00

  12·58

  220,755

  253,899

  Staff Sergeant

  10·00

  9·00

  216,667

  203,912

  Sergeant

  30·00

  33·70

  625,472

  687,164

  Corporal

  69·50

  53·42

  1,136,479

  831,653

  Lance Corporal

  53·00

  52·00

  715,001

  707,354

  Private

  90·50

  70·50

  924,923

  680,837

  Total Military

  291·50

  257·60

  4,651,971

  4,222,498

  CIVILIAN

  Non Industrial

  Grade 7

  1·00

  1·00

  34,161

  34,572

  HEO

  3·00

  3·00

  59,782

  62,136

  EO

  4·50

  4·40

  77,411

  76,107

  AO

  15·50

  18·73

  179,894

  237,034

  AA

  7·50

  8·00

  71,443

  80,100

  Personal Secretary

  1·00

  1·00

  14,474

  15,289

  Typist

  4·00

  4·00

  44,703

  54,030

  Support Grade 1

  33·00

  31·23

  386,614

  415,371

  Support Grade 2

  119·00

  112·79

  307,080

  144,576

  Support Manager 2

  1·00

  1·00

  16,324

  16,358

  Support Manager 3

  2·00

  2·84

  26,010

  36,132

  Defence Couriers

  39·50

  36·33

  627,677

  643,962

  412

  Rank/Grade

  Average Actual Number 1991–92

  Estimated Number 1992–93

  TG1

  1·0

  1·0

  SG1

  1·0

  1·0

  SG2

  1·0

  1·0

  P Photo

  2·0

  2·0

  HPTO

  2·0

  2·0

  PTO

  —

  1·0

  Civilian Staff Total Numbers

  148·1

  150·0

  Cash Costs

  2,937K

  131,678K

  Service Staff Total Numbers

  30·8

  27·0

  Cash Costs

  1,326K

  21,250K

  Total Staff Numbers

  178·9

  177·0

  Cash Costs

  4,263K

  4,418K

  1Costs include basis pay, ERNIC and allowances

  2 Costs include basic pay, ERNIC and overtime

  Letter from Brigadier M. A. Browne to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 5 November 1992:

  In response to your question of the Secretary of State for Defence concerning staff numbers by grade and costs for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency and defence support agency I am replying in respect of the Defence Postal and Courier Service—Defence Support Agency as Chief Executive.

  The staff figures for 1991–92 are the average strength in each grade for the year and the associated costs are the actual outturn figures.

  Those for 1992–93 are the estimated average strength for the year and the costs are my forecast as at 31 September 1992.
  413

  Staff numbers

  Costs

  Grade/Rank

  1991–92

  1992–95

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Industrial

  Chief Steward 1

  2·00

  2·00

  20,148

  24,638

  Steward 1

  2·00

  2·00

  19,115

  20,564

  Steward 2

  2·00

  1·15

  18,598

  11,459

  Mess Hand

  11·75

  11·59

  109,264

  122,139

  Senior Storekeeper

  0·50

  —

  4,823

  —

  Storekeeper

  2·00

  2·41

  17,737

  20,987

  Assistant Storekeeper

  0·50

  —

  4,305

  —

  Driver

  1·00

  1·00

  8,610

  10,438

  Labourer

  —

  2·00

  18,598

  21,535

  Total Civilian

  252·75

  246·47

  3,066,771

  3,047,427

  I hope this information meets your requirements and is helpful in building the overall picture for staffing and costs for Ministry of Defence executive and defence support agencies.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be compiled without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to seek amendment of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to make the stockpiling of weapon-ready plutonium illegal for signatory members.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is our policy to seek an indefinite extension to the non-proliferation treaty, without amendment.

  Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role and function of the Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation; what is its annual budget; how many personnel are assigned to it; in what year it was first established; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Achie Hamilton
  The role of the Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation is to provide rapid and effective monitoring advice in the event of a defence radiological incident. It was established in 1961 and currently consists of around 40 full-time and 60 part-time personnel. Because the constituent teams are integrated into other MOD and naval establishments, a full cost breakdown is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Submarines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements exist covering the use of extremely low frequency radio transmitters in the United States of America for the purpose of communicating with Royal 414
  Navy submarines; and what plans he has to negotiate an agreement for the use of extremely low frequency radio transmitters in the United States of America for the purpose of communicating with Royal Navy submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no such agreements with the United States and no plans to negotiate any.

  RAF Jets (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways the forthcoming 50th anniversary of the introduction of jet aircraft to the RAF will be commemorated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently no plans to commemorate this anniversary.

  Scottish Regiments
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received since 9 April about the proposed amalgamation of Scottish regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 9 April this year, my Department has received some 40 letters which were primarily about the amalgamation of Scottish regiments.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each local government region the number of rescues carried out by search and rescue crews from RAF Leuchars in each of the years(a) 1987, (b) 1988, (c) 1989, (d) 1990, (e) 1991 and (f) 1992 to date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Statistical data are not recorded in the form required.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions in each year between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 1991 search and rescue helicopters from RAF Leuchars have been involved in operations which required them to begin or to continue flying during the hours of darkness;

  (2) on how many occasions since 1 January search and rescue helicopters from RAF Leuchars have been involved in operations which required them to begin or to continue flying during the hours of darkness.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of such operations is:
  415

  Number

  1987

  32

  1988

  33

  1989

  21

  1990

  13

  1991

  19

  11992

  15

  1 Between 1 January and 31 August 1992.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current mandatory training requirements for night flying airmen which are applicable to search and rescue crews based at RAF Leuchars.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Each crew member should complete a minimum of two hours of night flying per month, which includes navigation training, cliff winching training, mountain training and approaches to night landing sites. Crews at RAF Leuchars are exempt from these requirements during the months of May, June and July provided they complete a minimum of one hour of night flying during the previous two calendar months.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rescue missions have been flown by search and rescue aircraft from RAF Leuchars in the years(a) 1987, (b) 1988, (c) 1989, (d) 1990 and (e) 1991; how many of them have involved the rescue of civilians; and how many have involved the rescue of military personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table details the total number of rescues—including incidents such as the transfer of sick or injured people from ship to hospital —carried out by the Wessex search-and-rescue flight at RAF Leuchars in the years in question:

  year

  Military callouts

  Civilian callouts

  Total callouts

  1987

  2

  47

  49

  1988

  3

  57

  60

  1989

  7

  38

  45

  1990

  2

  38

  40

  1991

  —

  66

  66

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Royal Navy and British army equipment exhibition will be held; and on which days it will be open to(a) overseas customers, (b) the press and (c) the public.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Royal Navy and British army equipment exhibition will be held in Aldershot from 5 to 10 September 1993. The exhibition will be open to overseas visitors from 6 to 10 September, to the national press on 5 September only, and to the technical press for the whole week. The exhibition will not be open to the public.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the Defence Research Agency's premises in Dyfed have been used for development or test firing of the RAYO multiple launch rocket system.

  Mr. Aitken
  Management of the Aberporth range was transferred from the Defence Research Agency to the newly formed Directorate General of Test and Evaluation on 1 April 1992. For reasons of commercial confidentiality we do not release details of individual test firings by manufacturers at Aberporth or any of our ranges.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those countries that have used the DRA's facilities at Aberporth in Dyfed in the past five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  Three countries have used the Aberporth range's facilities directly during the past five years: Germany, the Netherlands and the USA. In addition, in 1988, the RAF's central tactics and trials organisation sponsored a major NATO trial involving aircraft from the following NATO countries: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the USA. We cannot, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, release details of trials in which the range's customer was United Kingdom industry but sales, or potential sales, to foreign countries were involved.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all accidents involving airborne missiles that have occurred at the DRA facility in Aberporth, Dyfed since 1979 indicating the country of origin of the missiles involved.

  Mr. Aitken
  There have been no such incidents.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the visit by General Pinochet of Chile to Government property in Britain in 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  The general did not visit Government property.

  Aviation Industry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 24 September regarding the aviation industry.

  Mr. Aitken
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter—which was passed to me by the Department of Trade and Industry—on 3 November.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Huntingdon: —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his Kinsman.
The Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire: —Took the Oath.

Charity Commission: Resources
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the Charity Commissioners have sufficient resources for their part in implementing the Charities Act 1992.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that informative reply. That keeps up the high standard for succinctness for which my old department is well known. But I view with some apprehension the effect of the current spending review. It now appears that the deployment of staff from the winding-up of the Official Custodian's department will take some years. Looking to the future, can the Minister really say that he is satisfied that the commission will be able to cope with all that is involved in implementing these regrettable new provisions in regard to levying fees, charging for publications and also with all the reports and accounts which will come pouring in in their tens of thousands when the relevant sections of the Act come into force?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that he felt some apprehension over the forthcoming public expenditure review. He is not alone. But I do not see any reason why the Charity Commission should not possess sufficient funds. Five years ago they had £6.2 million; in the current year they have £20.7 million, of which £1.2 million was included specifically to meet the provisions of the Act. The commission sent out an explanatory booklet of the Charities Act to every registered charity. It will be able to charge for other more specific items. As to the future, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will know from his own experience in the department in which I have the honour to be an ornament that he would not expect me to comment any further.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is satisfactory that in the past year or two the Charity Commissioners received considerable increases in resources. But is he aware that, thanks to the generous tax concessions made with regard to gifts to charities and the ever-increasing number of charities, it is important to keep in mind that the Charity Commission needs ever-increasing resources?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, everyone believes that everything needs ever-increasing resources. My noble friend is quite right that there have been a great deal of additional demands made upon the Charity Commission, and provision has been made for them. I cannot tell my noble friend whether those demands are such that they will require the resources forever to be increased.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Home Office is required to write the regulations for fund-raising in Part II of the Act and complete a consultation before April 1993, yet they have not even started on it because they are so busy with other matters and there are only two people currently working on it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they are doing well. No doubt the results will be forthcoming in the near future.

Banknotes: Design
3.6 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that on future issues of £5, £10 and £20 banknotes the value in figures is shown much more prominently on each side of the note and in the same relative position for all denominations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the design of banknotes in England and Wales is a matter for the Bank of England. I am informed that the Bank currently have no plans to replace the existing "E" series of notes, which began in 1990 with the issue of the new £5 note and will be completed in 1994 with the issue of a new £50 note. On all denominations in the new series, the value in figures is shown in the same relative positions on both front and back of the note.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Nevertheless, does he not agree that clarity in the matter is more important than artistry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept the need for clarity. But it is also important to remember the need for security against the forger, and therefore it is important to remember the need for a large number of security measures in any given banknote. Those include the watermark, the windowed thread, the pastel colours and the crisp rather than shiny or waxy paper. However, there are disadvantages in having an over-large number. It is important to ensure that those who must accept the notes—the bank tellers and shopkeepers—examine them carefully. The disadvantage of over-large numerals is that they encourage a tendency to look purely at the numerals and at nothing else. We would rather that they looked at the numeral and the rest of the note and therefore guarded against fraud.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that notes of different sizes would avoid the confusion that can easily take place today?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not quite gather the point of my noble friend's question. There are different features on all different notes. For example, there are different historical portraits on each note. There is a portrait of Stephenson on the £5 note, a portrait of Dickens on the £10 note and of Faraday on the £20 note. There are different bold symbols that the Bank included as a result of consultations with those representing the partially sighted. For example, the circle on the £5 note, the diamond on the £10 note and the square on the £20 note. Similarly, there are different colours for all three notes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that for those who do not have good sight, the number 5 is extremely small? Bearing in mind that the new £10 note is almost as small as the old £5 note, is that not likely to lead to confusion? Can the Minister perhaps think about the matter again?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Bank consulted with the RNIB concerning the blind and therefore retained the different sizes for each note. There is a difference of five millimetres between each note, and that allows the blind to distinguish between the three. That decision was made after consultation with the RNIB, and the RNIB was happy with that.
Again, after consultation with those representing the partially sighted, the Bank of England introduced at their suggestion the different bold symbols to allow the partially sighted to tell them apart. On top of that, there are the different pictures on the back. I accept that on both the £5 note and the £20 note—I have two samples in front of me; I regret I do not have a £10 note, but those were the only notes I had in my wallet and the Bank were not prepared to entrust me with samples—the figures are somewhat faint. As a result of representations made on the third note issued, which was the £10 note, the 10 is much clearer. That will certainly be maintained on the fourth note, which is the £50 note.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, was not the noble Lord very near to saying—in his answer about two before the last one—that it was the desire of the Bank of England that it should not be too easy to identify the figures on the note in order that people would look more carefully to see whether the note was authentic or a forgery? Is it not totally out of proportion that the possibility of forgery should take precedence over whether the notes in normal transactions are useful and easily identifiable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the important thing is to maintain a balance between the different requirements. Obviously, we want to make the notes easily distinguishable. That is why I have stressed the large number of distinguishing features on different notes. The numerals are also there; namely, 5, 10, 20 and 50. If one makes the figures too large all people will look at are those particular numbers. They will not look at
1538
the other distinguishing features. The fight against fraud is very important. I am sure that the noble Lord, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, would accept that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. However, it seems that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is central. Of course I accept that the Bank of England and others have tried to look at the matter properly. Almost all Peers—I cannot believe that I am the only one—have difficulty with the present currency. When I am paying a cab, particularly in the half light, I often do not actually know whether I have given the bloke a tenner or a £20 note. Therefore, I believe that the points that noble Lords are raising are rather important. I accept entirely the point about fraud. The fact is that I do not believe that at the moment we have a currency which is particularly good from the functional standpoint. Will the noble Lord at least press the Bank of England on the matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that taxi drivers throughout London will be enormously grateful at being overtipped by the noble Lord. There is a serious point. What I am trying to make clear is that we have to get exactly the right balance. I believe that the Bank of England has got the right balance between encouraging people to look at the whole of the note rather than looking purely at the figures. There were complaints about the clarity of the £5 and £20 notes which were the first two notes to be issued. For that reason the Bank has enhanced the clarity of the third note to be issued, which is the £10 note, and it will do the same on the £50 note. As I keep stressing, there are a great many other distinguishing features that can be looked at. The Bank consulted those representing the partially sighted who were happy with the idea that there should be the bold-coloured symbols of the circle, the diamond and the square on those three notes.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend not accept that most people do not have the time to give minute examination to every note when passing them during the day or the evening?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not expecting my noble friend to spend 10 minutes examining each note. But, as I said, there are a large number of distinguishing features. All it takes is to give a brief glance over the note. As a result of a large amount of what I am told is perception research, if one's eyes are immediately drawn purely to the figure one only looks at the figure and not at the rest of the note.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is an example which the Bank of England could follow? In Scotland notes are examined with great care. The notes printed by the Scottish banks are perfectly easy to read and to differentiate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that we are discussing at the moment the notes issued by the Bank

1539
of England which can be used in Scotland. I note what the noble Lord says about the notes issued by the different banks in Scotland.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, as the only Member of your Lordships' House whose signature once, long ago, appeared on our Bank of England notes, perhaps I may say that at that time I had a great deal to do with the production of banknotes. I found it a very difficult exercise to give satisfaction to everybody. I am sure, however, that the Bank of England will pay due attention to all the remarks made by your Lordships and will do its best to pay heed to them.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. Even I can remember the noble Lord's signature on banknotes. I am sure that the Bank of England will take due note of what the noble Lord has to say.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend has spoken about the increase in clarity of the numeral 10 on the £10 note. When can we expect an increase in clarity in the 5 on the £5 note and the 20 on the £20 note? Moreover, can my noble friend enlighten us as to what symbol will appear on the £50 note in 1994?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot enlighten my noble friend on what bold symbol will appear on the £50 note. As I said, the Bank has used so far the circle, the diamond and the square. I therefore leave it to my noble friend's imagination to try to guess what symbols there are left. As I said, the Bank did highlight the numeral on the £10 note as a result of representations. It has no plans to change the £5 and the £20 notes.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the new banknotes cause great distress to cashiers, taxi drivers and to most women shoppers? Has the noble Lord ever stood in a queue at a supermarket, with a long queue behind him, and tried to examine the notes carefully? He would he howled down if he tried to do that. Can he not be more flexible about this matter and at any rate promise that any new issue will be far more distinct in colour and in symbols?
Lord Henley: My Lords, not everyone, as I have said, is dissatisfied with the new notes. We have discovered that the taxi drivers who carry the noble Lord, Lord Peston, around are eminently satisfied with the overtipping that they receive as a result or what he perceives to be the result. I note what the noble Baroness has to say. It is a matter for the Bank of England. I am sure that it will take note of what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since the £50 note was first issued in March 1981, the retail prices index has increased by 94 per cent? Therefore, does he think it is time to issue a £100 note?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another question, but there are no plans to issue a £100 note.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I have in my hand examples of currency notes from Italy, Germany and the United States of America. All of them have the figures shown with much greater clarity than appear on the paper notes which we are discussing. 1 shall be very glad to let my noble friend borrow them on a sale or return basis.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall be quite happy to borrow my noble friend's notes. It may be that other countries are not quite as wise as the Bank of England in terms of the issue of notes.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we are a great deal better than the United States in this respect because there all the notes are of the same colour and size?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I stressed earlier, there are very important reasons for having different sizes. That is to cater for the needs of the blind who obviously differentiate by means of the different sizes of notes.

Youth Training Guarantee
3.18 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Within what length of time they guarantee to find a youth training place for all 16 to 17 year-olds who register for one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government guarantee the offer of a suitable training place to every young person who is entitled to and wants one; and announced new measures in July to ensure that the guarantee is met. Given the importance of placing young people in training which suits their needs, the speed at which a place is offered will naturally vary from case to case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he appreciate that, while the severe hardship payment remains discretionary, young people may have no visible legal means of support until the guarantee is met? How quickly that can be met is vital. In the light of his Written Answer to me of 27th October, in which he said that he did not have the detailed figures, does he agree that he did not give me an answer to this Question because his records do not permit him to discover one?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Earl rather skates over the fact of the visible means of support. Young people have a great deal of support; for instance, they have child benefit for an extended period up to perhaps January if they leave school in the summer. They are also entitled to income support if they are living alone or if they are disabled. So there are many instances where young people are entitled to support. But we do not believe it the right policy to let young people start on a lifetime of benefit which may mean that they end up on a lifetime of benefit.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount is aware of the anxieties of the

1541
British Youth Council about the increasing amount of youth unemployment and about the increasing number of young people who are not being found a guaranteed training place. If the noble Viscount does not have the figures and cannot tell us exactly how many young people are unemployed, have no guaranteed place and have not taken up any alternative training or education, can he tell us what steps he is taking to try to find out the total extent of the problem?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will understand that this country has probably a better record than most in the European Community on youth employment. However, in order to understand exactly where we are, on 7th July the Secretary of State for Employment asked for monitoring arrangements. For instance, the training and enterprise councils and the careers service are liaising fortnightly to check the progress on meeting the YT guarantee and to pursue individual cases; TECs are providing monthly reports on the action they are taking, and a guarantee liaison officer has been established in all TECs to follow up individual cases and to ensure that suitable YT places can be found for all those who want them.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether a survey has been carried out into whether there is the wide variety of courses that would meet the needs of young people? Very often a young person wants to go on a course but is told that, although that type of course is not available, another type of course is. One boy was told that there was a building course but not a chef's course and he wanted to be a chef, so he did not get on to a course at all.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend highlights an interesting position. More than 450 national vocational qualifications are currently accredited, and YT offers an opportunity to train to at least NVQ level II. The TECs are obliged to organise suitable training programmes in more than 10 occupational sectors. There are bound to be waiting times in dovetailing all these factors in any one area.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, am I right in thinking that training and enterprise councils have been asked to state how many 16 and 17 year-old applicants have had to wait for a youth training place for eight weeks or more? If that is the case, when will the information be available?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is yes—that is, indeed, the case. Again, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has undertaken to provide the Select Committee on Employment shortly with figures concerning the new arrangements.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, if the Minister is right in saying that we have a better record on 16 to 19 year-olds in employment than other European countries, surely the reason for that is that they have an infinitely better record in keeping that age group in education for much longer.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, what we are doing is measuring youth unemployment and we have a better record than the European Community, on average. We are making great strides in keeping young people on at school or in encouraging them to stay on at school. The choice of whether to stay on at school is often left to the very last minute and that poses problems over whether they are actually seeking training places.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while I am not for one moment underrating the value of training, is the Minister aware that the great difficulty now with youth training is that youths are very cynical about taking such a training course and there then being no job at the end of it? That is causing a great deal of cynicism at the moment and is leading to some reluctance about going on training courses. Would the Minister agree with that statement and, if so, what is he doing about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am sad to hear the noble Lord's remarks because the training courses provided by the local TECs are of great value. They give qualifications, and a higher number of NVQs is now being achieved by young people. I think that all young people recognise the value of qualifications but, of course, at the moment—in the recession—it is difficult for people to get the jobs that they want.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Youth Council has recently reported that nearly 900,000—or one in six —people aged between 16 and 25 are now without education, training or work? That is twice the number recorded two years ago. This is a really deplorable situation. What do the Government intend to do about it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Question is about the youth guarantee or the guarantee of a suitable training place, and that is what I have been answering questions on. If people do not wish to put themselves forward for youth training, that is entirely a matter for them, but the Government do not encourage that and are not prepared to fund it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that a guarantee can be meaningful only if made within a specified period of time, and that those who do not get a youth training place within that period of time are entitled to protection from the principles of the Citizen's Charter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any instance where the guarantee has not been met.

Mental Health: Doctor Training
3.26 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps have been taken to monitor the arrangements made by regional health authorities to ensure that there are a sufficient number of

1543
doctors approved under Section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 and that such doctors receive suitable training in operating the Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, these arrangements are monitored by the Mental Health Act Commission and I can assure my noble friend Lord Mottistone that generally they appear to be working well. However, we are always ready to take up any particular problems which authorities and the professional bodies responsible for training may discover.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for her Answer, is she aware that of the three regional health authorities recently approached, two had no training programme for the doctors referred to in my Question? If that proportion of two out of three is representative of the country as a whole, that does not seem to be an acceptable position and it is not covered by my noble friend's answer.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in preparation for today I asked officials to telephone every regional health authority to ascertain the situation. No apparent problems arose, but if my noble friend would like to give me details of those regions I shall certainly take up the matter personally.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, from time to time persons with mental handicap—or learning disability if that phrase is preferred—will be subject to compulsory admission either because of behavioural problems or because there is mental illness as well as mental handicap. Can the Minister give an assurance that in approving doctors under Section 12, and in arranging for training, ample regard is paid to the need for expertise in problems relating to mental handicap?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand the point that is being made and the difference between people with learning disabilities and those who have a mental illness, but we do insist that doctors have three years' post-registration clinical experience, including the equivalent of at least six months full-time psychiatric experience in a post which forms part of a training scheme approved by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, or, indeed, are members of the Royal College or have an equivalent qualification. I believe that the situation is that they take into account also people with learning disabilities.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wonder whether qualification by instruction by psychiatrists is quite enough, but I am content to leave it to the Minister to look into that point.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that regional health authorities do not have the power to compel NHS trusts to include in their standard contract terms what are described as "matters of operational practice"? That would include things such as out-of-hours work and other matters which are required in connection with Section 12 of the Mental Health Act. Can she also confirm that there are still
1544
doctors who appear not to understand the department's guidance and that patients can be admitted to hospital under Section 12 solely in the interests of their own health and treatment—they do not have to be shown as being a danger to themselves or other people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Mental Health Act Commission has put in a lot of effort to ensure that doctors are aware of the recent amendment to the code. With regard to trusts, regional health authorities are still responsible in this area under the 1990 circular.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the answers are not quite what I would have hoped for. Can my noble friend reassure me that, apart from waiting for people like me to provide examples of where RHAs give unsatisfactory answers to the kind of questions we are talking about, she and her department will take the trouble to find out from the RHAs whether they are monitoring the position themselves so that we do not have to do it for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thought I had told the House that that is the case. In the past week we have been in contact with all 14 regional health authorities to ascertain the exact position.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, a briefing from MIND, the National Association for Mental Health, states that it is aware of only one regional health authority which runs training specifically for intending applicants. If MIND is not aware of what is going on, does the noble Baroness believe that that could be the case in the regional health authorities?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I really think that I have answered those questions fully.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Yugoslav visas. Also, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield will repeat a Statement on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade after the first Unstarred Question.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a desire to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The House has before it a short technical Bill to amend the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. The Bill enables the Foreign Compensation Commission to act in those cases where Her Majesty's Government receive, or expect to receive, compensation for losses overseas from, or through, an international organisation or tribunal. The key reason for the Bill is to cope with claims against Iraq following its illegal occupation of Kuwait from August 1990.
As the introductory memorandum to the Bill explains, the commission may presently be empowered to act only where the Government enter into an agreement under which compensation is to be paid by another country or in anticipation of such an agreement. As an independent statutory judicial body, the commission is able to bring special administrative and legal skills into the determination of individual claims which Her Majesty's Government have espoused and into the equitable disbursement of any funds received in settlement.
When the Foreign Compensation Act was passed in 1950 it was not anticipated that there would be a situation in which compensation would flow through an international organisation or tribunal. We now face that very situation as a consequence of the Gulf war.
Last year the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Compensation Commission and Fund in Geneva under the provisions of Security Council Resolution 687. This will cope with the great mass of claims against Iraq that will arise. Some 3,000 of these claims will be British—over 2,000 from individuals—the remainder from companies.
We still wait for Iraq to resume exporting oil in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 which will ensure proper funding for the compensation fund. Meanwhile, the United Nations has given authority for certain Iraqi frozen assets to be temporarily sequestered for compensation and other purposes.
Also, the commission's governing council is well ahead with setting up the necessary administrative machinery. It has agreed many of the criteria against which claims will be assessed. They are based on established principles of international law. The commission is already beginning to receive consolidated batches of claims from governments for assessment. In due course, compensation will be allocated to governments for distribution. As yet it is not clear whether there will be specific amounts nominated for individuals, or whether governments will be given overall sums to allocate themselves. The Government will need also to be prepared to make a final adjudication of large or complex claims should
1546
this be required. Amending the Foreign Compensation Act in the way suggested will provide us with the appropriate means to this end.
In putting forward this proposal, we have taken the opportunity to consolidate previous amendments to Section 3 of the 1950 Act. In future, all those matters which may be provided for by Orders in Council will be listed in one place. I trust that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, we welcome the Bill which, as the noble Baroness has so well explained, meets the need which 'became evident in the aftermath of the Gulf war. We should like to take this opportunity to commend the United Nations on the speed with which it has moved following the end of that war. However, there are several specific points on which it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could clarify the situation.
First, can she indicate how many claims for compensation the Government expect to receive or have already received as a result of the conflict? Secondly, can she advise the House of how the United Nations Compensation Commission will treat claims arising from losses caused by compliance with the trade embargo? Finally, given that the whole system of compensation payments will depend on the resumption of Iraqi oil sales, can the noble Baroness advise the House of any progress that has been made recently towardś achieving a full diplomatic settlement with the Iraqis?
Subject to satisfactory clarification on those points, I should like to assure the noble Baroness that we on this side of the House will be glad to support the Bill.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should like to try to respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. As I said in my opening remarks, we know already of some 3,000 British claims. We do not have the figures for other nations' claims. More than 2,000 of the claims registered here are from individuals. The remainder are from companies. At this moment I cannot give the noble Lord any exact figures for claims from other nations but I will inquire for him of the United Nations whether it has such figures and let him know about them.
The noble Lord also asked whether those individuals who had complied with the trade embargo would be covered by this compensation. I understand that once the embargo was in place everyone was bound by it and therefore they would not be able to claim compensation; otherwise, we would have a never ending situation occurring. I cannot see that there would be compensation for those who newly entered into any arrangement which was caught by the embargo. However, it is for companies or individuals to make claims.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I give some indication of the categories of claims which are envisaged. To help funds flow more quickly once they are available, three categories have been established for expedited claims from individuals by the governing council of the UN Compensation Commission. They

1547
are fixed amounts of 2,500 dollars or 4,000 dollars per person or 5,000 dollars or 8,000 dollars per family for departure from Iraq or Kuwait. They, of course, were the poor souls whom I met in the desert in Jordan as they fled for their lives in September 1990. The higher figures would be payable when an individual or family agree to waive further claims. The lower figure would still entitle them to make further claims. The second category of claim are fixed amounts of 2,500 dollars per individual with a 10,000 dollar family ceiling as an early interim relief for death or serious personal injury, including mental pain and anguish. Those would be adjusted by expert assessors.
The third type of claim will be claims up to 100,000 dollars covering all losses, including individual business losses. The commission will then deal with claims by individuals for more than 100,000 dollars. Company claims for which criteria are being finalised, governmental claims and claims by international organisations are the three final categories which are, as yet, not spelt out. Obviously many people employed in Kuwait were from the sub-continent. The bulk of the claims is expected to be received from them. We do not yet know the individual numbers. When we do have that information, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on the matter.
As regards the noble Lord's third question about the way in which we are proceeding to obtain agreement—or, perhaps, I had better say, gain acceptance—from the Government of Iraq for Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712, I very much regret to tell your Lordships that no progress is currently being made. However, that does not mean that efforts are not continuing; indeed, such efforts are continuing.
I hope that my few remarks in response to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will reassure both him and your Lordships that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. I believe it is right that we should do everything we can to ensure that the necessary administrative arrangements are in place quickly for the UN Compensation Commission in Geneva. We are busy preparing the ground. The claims will be examined as early as possible and then payments will be made to claimants as soon as the funds become available. I hope that your Lordships will give this important Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Boundary Commissions Bill
3.44 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
As you Lordships know, the Bill's purpose is to ensure that the new parliamentary boundaries will be in place in good time for any general election in 1996 or 1997. The present boundaries were set up on the distribution of the electorate in the mid-1970s. The extensive population movements which have occurred since the dates when the last general reviews were
1548
carried out by the boundary commissions have generated all sorts of disparities in different parts of the country. The Bill aims to overcome them.
Both in Committee and on Report my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish sought to move an amendment to adjust the rules under which the Scottish commission works in order to require it to have rather more regard to achieving electoral equality in Scotland and rather less regard to the existence of the local authority boundaries.
I said then that I had a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend's objective. I undertook that I would, together with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, look very carefully at what he proposed in order to see whether it would be possible to do anything to meet his wishes before Third Reading. I am afraid that I have been unsuccessful. In the very short time which has been available, and because of the totality of the ways in which the rules are constructed at present, it has not proved possible to devise any changes.
My noble friend's amendment would have had the effect of locking the Scottish commission into what one might describe as "a circular loop" between Rules 4 and 5, from which there would have been no exit. My noble friend's amended Rule 4 would have told the boundary commission to look at Rule 5, and Rule 5 already tells the boundary commission to look at Rule 4. So, the rules would, in fact, chase each other's tails.
We considered various alternatives but they all generated some equally undesirable consequences. In reaching that decision, I have also borne in mind the remarks which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about whether the views of the political parties would be taken into consideration. Before embarking on any change to the rules which govern the boundary commissions' work, it is obviously important that there should be an opportunity for consultation with the political parties and that an amendment to the rules should not appear to have been done unilaterally—and then in your Lordships' House.
The appropriate time for making changes to the rules will be after this round of reviews has been completed. It is our intention that, at that time, we will consider most carefully the rules and their interaction with each other. I am sorry not to be able to meet my noble friend's wishes, but perhaps I may seek to reassure him. The rules already offer discretion to the Scottish boundary commission concerning the weight which it can attach to the relative importance of equal electorates and to local authority boundaries. It is possible that my noble friend will have no quarrel with the way in which the commission—this time —in fact exercises its discretion. In any event, I have no doubt that my noble friend's concern, which was endorsed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, will have been noted by the boundary commission and that those concerned will not be oblivious to it.
It is in everyone's interests that the intervals between the boundary commission's reviews should be shorter and more appropriate than they are at present.

1549
That is the purpose of the Bill. I was grateful to your Lordships and for your Lordships' support for that general principle. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as I said on Second Reading, we on these Benches are entirely in agreement with the general principles of the Bill. At that time, and subsequently, I was concerned with the provisions regarding Wales. I have in mind the interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as to whether or not there was any precedent for the provision in the Bill regarding Wales. I believe that the noble Earl said that he has no knowledge of any precedent. I hope that that will be kept in mind and that this will not be a precedent for any future action of the kind.
In addition, we shall await and consider very carefully the provisions of the local government boundary commission Bill, whenever it arrives, to see what may happen. We must ensure that there is still an opportunity, if the other place and your Lordships so decide, to amend the Bill. I made that point during Second Reading and in Committee on our own Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said about reviewing the rules governing all the commissions' work. I think that that was a most wise decision. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for being kind enough to let me know in advance this morning of his decision on the matter. It is important that there should be a general consensus on the rules. I am pleased to note that the position of the political party is recognised, that there must be full consultation, and that the Government will have full consultation with the political parties on any adjustment of the rules.
I understand from a reply given in the other place that the Home Office has appointed five working parties. One is to consider the question of electoral registration. I hope that that will be considered in relation to what the noble Earl said on the issue of revision of the rules governing the work of the electoral commissions. As I mentioned on Second Reading, Members of Parliament in the other place have been very worried about the poor figures as regards electoral registration. The noble Earl confirmed that the Government thought that 95 per cent. registration was reasonably successful.
In some 11 boroughs in London the electoral registration is under 90 per cent. of the population entitled to be registered. Of those 11, no fewer than nine are under 85 per cent. That is a serious position. I hope that when the rules are studied care will be taken to consider not just the electoral quota but the relationship of the electoral quota in any constituency to the eligible population in that constituency. That is equally as important as the disparity between electors of different constituencies. Having made those remarks, we accept the general principle of the Bill and support its Third Reading.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his courtesy in copying to me his letter to
1550
the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, explaining his reasoning with regard to the change of the rules that we discussed last week. There is clearly anxiety about them. I take the point made in earlier debates that as well as the difficulty of keeping out of the circular situation there is the problem of changing the rules midway through the review. It may sometimes be easier to find excuses for not doing something than it is to find reasons for doing something.
Although we on these Benches do not agree with the thrust of the amendment, we take the point that there is anxiety and dissatisfaction, and that there is plenty of room for a review of the rules.
The Bill is of limited scope. We support it. We acknowledge that there may be a moving target when trying to achieve what might be regarded as perfect when considering constituency boundaries. Circumstances change. We are about to embark upon a review of local government. That in itself may have an impact on parliamentary constituency boundaries.
There are a number of other issues that many of your Lordships and people outside the House wish to see reconsidered, but they are not within the scope of the Bill. One of those matters might be to ensure that once the review is complete it is implemented and not left on the shelf. I hope that that is something which, in the spirit of the Bill, will be taken on board. We support the Bill, and we wish it to have a Third Reading.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is no exaggeration to say that the essential purpose of the Bill is to strengthen democracy by ensuring voting fairness in general elections in so far as is reasonably practicable, something which every noble Lord, irrespective of party affiliation, and every honourable Member in another place, will endorse fully. By "fairness" I mean trying to ensure that the vote cast by every elector is of equal value, irrespective of the constituency in which he or she happens to live.
Let us contrast that with the situation that prevails in elections to the European Parliament, where the votes cast by Irish electors are worth three times as much, and the votes cast by Luxembourgeois electors are worth 11 times as much, as the votes cast by English or French electors. I am aware that that point is not strictly relevant to the Bill; nonetheless it is something which is worth pondering seriously when we think about fairness.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the detailed reply he gave at the Dispatch Box to the points I raised on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. He has been patient with me as I have ploughed through the same field. I am at least certain that by the end of my endeavours all Members of your Lordships' House who took part in the debate were well aware of, and agreed with, the need for flexibility with regard to local authority boundaries.
I fully appreciate what my noble friend said about putting the boundary commission into a loop between Rules 4 and 5. Those of your Lordships who know a little about computers will know that getting a computer to go into a loop is about the most serious

1551
thing one can do with it. There may be a temptation to find it amusing that we may have put the boundary commission into an endless loop. We want the boundary commission to report because, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it is vital for the health of our first-past-the-post system that we have constituencies as nearly equal as is possible. I am satisfied that with the words of my noble friend ringing in the boundary commission's ears, it will be much more flexible this time than it was last time. I am grateful to him and to other noble Lords who appreciated the argument that I was making for their support and help in that regard.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I too fully support the purposes of the Bill, as I made clear on Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has today repeated that one of the chief aims of the Bill is to even out, so far as is practicable, the numbers of electors in constituencies. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and I raised in Committee and on Report the extraordinary and huge disparities that have occurred in certain cases, arising merely because emphasis has been placed upon the criterion of local government boundaries, neglecting some of the other criteria we thought of importance.
I accept what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said today. I am grateful to him also for his letter which was sent urgently to me today explaining his position. I realised that the last amendment that my noble friend Lord Mackay tabled would produce difficulties if it were assimilated into the Bill today, but I hope that the point will be fully taken into account because the huge disparities to which we drew attention seem unnecessary. The point having been made, I hope that it will be incorporated in legislation in due course when the time is right.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the approval that you have given to the Bill. I am especially grateful to my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Campbell of Croy for the understanding way in which they have accepted that we found it difficult to incorporate their requirements into the Bill as it is. I have no doubt that the Scottish boundary commission will be fully seized of their views and will take them into account when it does its work.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was worried about Wales and precedent. I can assure him that no final recommendation will be made with regard to local authority boundaries which have not already received the approval of Parliament. The Bill, small though it is, will be of great assistance. I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was on this occasion also able to support the Bill in full measure. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time and passed.

North-East Driftnet Fishing
3.58 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the phasing-out of the north-east driftnet fishing for salmon and sea trout to be completed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to those of your Lordships who have agreed to take part in this debate. The future of the north-east driftnet salmon and sea trout fishery came up during consideration by the House of the Salmon Bill at the beginning of 1986, now nearly seven years ago. The Government at that time wished to do nothing, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, saying on their behalf on 7th November 1985, after an earlier review:
"We have concluded that there is no case for terminating the fishery".—[Official Report, 7/11/85; col. 130.]
But a number of us argued on Second Reading and at subsequent stages that the fishery should be phased out. I said on 14th January 1986:
"Our position, as I see it, is hopelessly compromised so long as we allow drift netting off north-east England to continue …If our voice is to carry weight internationally, we have to put our own house in order. It seems to me essential therefore that the north-east England driftnet fishery should be phased out and the relatively small number of fishermen there compensated by the Government".—[Official Report, 14/1/86; col. 1025.]
That is as valid today as it was then.
Those of us who are in touch with salmon conservationists overseas and attend international conferences on salmon, as I did in New Brunswick in June, know how difficult it is to explain overseas this country's continued failure to bring to an end drift netting for salmon and sea trout.
I moved an amendment at the Committee stage of the Salmon Bill on 30th January 1986 proposing a five-year phase-out and, with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, another at Report stage on 13th February 1986, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Home, and a number of others. The noble Lord, Lord Home, is sadly not well enough to take part in this afternoon's debate. However, he has asked me to say that he adheres to the view he expressed during consideration of the Salmon Bill in 1986 that this fishery should be phased out and he would like to see it done within five years. I think all of us would wish to send the noble Lord our good wishes.
In response to my amendment, the Government agreed to put their review on the face of the Salmon Bill. This they did in Section 39 and a year ago they produced their report, Salmon Net Fisheries, a comprehensive and detailed document containing a great deal of valuable information.
At the same time, Ministers announced that although the review had,
"not produced evidence of an immediate threat to stock and thus any justification for depriving existing licensees of their licences at a stroke",
nevertheless they proposed in order to,
"aid and improve the management of individual east coast salmon and sea trout stocks"
to phase out the driftnet fishery,
"but gradually, so as not to cause unnecessary hardship".

1553
Many of us welcomed this decision by Mr. Gummer and Mr. Lang, as did salmon conservation organisations on both sides of the Atlantic.
Given Ministers' conclusions that there was no immediate threat to stocks, it suggested—by implication if not explicitly—that the Government accepted the view widely held by nearly all fisheries scientists ever since the Hunter Report of 1965 that interceptory fishing of mixed stocks is bad management practice. The Ministers' announcement contained a curious sentence on this:
"Rod fisheries generally catch fish from single stocks, while net fisheries, to a varying extent, take fish from more than one stock. This is not necessarily a problem if one can quantify and manage the level of exploitation of each individual stock".
That may be so, but of course in the north-east driftnet fishery one simply cannot,
"quantify and manage the level of …each individual stock".
So there is indeed a problem. In six years the Government had moved from an assertion that there was no case for terminating the fishery to a decision to phase it out. This was progress. But then came complications. I had hoped that the Government would themselves act to phase out the fishery. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, told this House on 13th February 1986 that,
"the Government would have power to ban driftnets, using powers in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967".
But, instead, they put the matter to the National Rivers Authority, inviting it to consider how the regulation of the net fisheries could be changed with a view to, among other things,
"reducing the numbers of offshore driftnet licences as those currently holding such licences leave the fishery [and] making available increased opportunities for inshore fishing by T or J nets giving priority to those surrendering their driftnet licences".
At that stage, I had expected that the Government would give your Lordships an opportunity to debate the report and their new line on the fishery, but I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on 25th November that they had no plans to arrange a debate. I found that surprising, but concluded that if we were to discuss it, as I was sure we must, we would have to organise a debate ourselves. It seemed to me that the best time to do so would be after the NRA had responded to the Government's invitation. Hence my Unstarred Question this afternoon.
I personally regret that the Government elected to leave it to the NRA to plan the implementation of the specific decisions they had made. I have the highest regard for the NRA and am chairman of the Fisheries Advisory Committee of its Welsh region, which, being on the other side of the country, is not involved in this question.
However, the NRA has limited powers and acts under severe constraints. One of these is that under a net limitation order, if some netsmen do not renew their licences, the NRA has no choice but to issue new licences up to the level set by the NLO if there are enough applicants who meet the criteria. So it happened that soon after the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, told the House on 26th November 1991 (col. 1275) that:
1554
"it is our firm intention that the salmon driftnet fishery should come to an end as those currently holding such licences leave the fishery",
the NRA issued 14 new licences to fishermen who did not currently hold them and who will be able to renew them year after year, for the rest of their lives. I had earlier inquired about this worrying possibility at Question Time on 26th November 1991 and was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that:
"It is for the National Rivers Authority to make its own plans".
But what was done was flatly contrary to Ministers' professed intentions. Far from beginning the phase-out of the fishery, new fishermen joined it. No wonder that no publicity was given to this action which was not generally known for some time. The Government must have known that the NRA would have been compelled to do this, so I think it would have been much better if they themselves had acted to control the fishery.
The NRA's position is set out in its published response to the Government's report together with the chairman's accompanying letter to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The response said that there,
"would appear to be no legal constraint upon the NRA in phasing out the driftnet fishery".
The NRA itself reviewed the future management of the fishery and in this, unlike the Government, it sensibly included the sea trout fishery off the East Anglia coast where 60 driftnets and 50 fixed nets are operated under licence. I welcome the NRA's proposal now to introduce for the first time net limitation orders for the Anglian region as recommended by its Anglian Region Fisheries Advisory Committee.
The response sets out the NRA's own general proposals. There are some questionable features in these: a proposal that licences can be transferred to some partners, which would, of course, prolong the life of the fishery; and the absence of any prescribed retiring age for netsmen. But I am glad that in its response the NRA reacted with some evident scepticism to the Ministers' proposal to increase the number of coastal T and J nets in parallel with the gradual reduction of driftnets. The NRA is clearly concerned about the impact of this on local fish stocks.
My own concern, expressed to Mr. Gummer a year ago, is about sea trout. Paragraph 7.5.7 on page 80 of the Government's report says that in the Northumbrian northern area, T nets take 6.1 to 16.8 times as many sea trout as do the driftnets, while in Yorkshire beach nets take up to three times as many sea trout as the driftnets. Sea trout stocks generally are giving serious cause for concern, and in response to this the NRA has published four substantial papers on sea trout and is initiating a sea trout research programme. Against this background it would, it seems to me, be perverse to authorise more T and J nets which catch such a large number of sea trout.
However, the point in the NRA's proposals that has attracted most attention is its careful estimate that a phase-out as current netsmen leave the fishery, although it might halve the number of driftnets in 10 years,

1555
"would not lead to a complete phase-out of the driftnet fishery for 30 years".
It is this estimate—meaning that the driftnet fishery will continue in being for another generation, to a time when most of us will be in our graves—that has caused such dismay not only among salmon conservation and angling bodies in this country but among salmon conservationists in other parts of the world, a number of whom have written to Mr. Gummer to express their consternation.
Few of us had argued for an immediate closure of the fishery. My own proposal has all along been for a five-year phase-out. The case for this is clear. The Atlantic salmon is under serious threat. Salmon catches have declined drastically over the past 20 years. The world catch in home waters went down from 10,439 metric tons in 1967 to 3,491 metric tons in 1991.
Salmon farming, as Mr. Gummer was one of the first to point out, provides all the fish we need for the market. Interceptory fishing for mixed stocks is wrong. This incidentally applies as much to T and J nets as to driftnets. Every salmon-producing country except Greenland —a special case where a buy-out is being negotiated—the Republic of Ireland and ourselves, Canada, the United States, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, France and Spain, has banned drift netting for salmon. In Scotland it was banned without compensation 30 years ago and Ministers have just reviewed that ban and made it permanent. The United States at NASCO this year called for the ending within the next few years of all ocean commercial interceptory fisheries for wild Atlantic salmon, which is reasonable given the decline in numbers and the availability of farmed fish for the market.
Preliminary smolt tagging results suggest that the legal and illegal drift netting by the Irish is doing serious damage to the runs of salmon to many of our rivers. That matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, at Question Time on 26th November last year. We cannot bring pressure to bear on the Irish to stop this until we ourselves put our house in order. Against that background it is surely unacceptable that we should allow drift netting for salmon to go on beyond the lifetime of most of us. I think we must call on the Government to use their own powers to terminate all drift netting for salmon in five years.
The Independent on 4th September carried a letter from the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations which argued that the Government's review,
"provided no evidence that this traditional small-scale fishing offered any kind of a threat to salmon stocks".
The letter asserted that,
"the Minister's decision to seek to phase out the drift net fishery lies entirely with the influence of the angling lobby in the higher reaches of society".
This, it said,
"is not a conservation issue. It is about increasing the rentals of the salmon fisheries on the Scottish estates, at the expense of the livelihood of commercial fishermen".
But this is no longer a traditional fishery, as it used to be, with hemp nets taking some 2,000 salmon a year and doing no one any harm. It was the introduction of monofilament nets in the 1960s which increased the catches by 20 times and more which created the
1556
problem. Nor can this fishing fairly be described as small scale. It now takes half of all the salmon and one-third of all the sea trout caught in the whole of England and Wales.
As regards the Scottish aspect, those of your Lordships from north of the Border can talk with more authority than I. I have myself no interest in any Scottish river. My own concern is for the conservation of wild salmon. I want my grandchildren to be able to see salmon running up our rivers as they have done for millions of years. But we should certainly consider the effect in Scotland and one of my original amendments contained a clause asking the Minister to take steps to ensure that the reduction in the number of salmon caught off north-east England did not result in a corresponding increase in those caught by coastal, estuarial and river nets in Scotland and England. In fact there has been a substantial reduction in netting on the eastern side of Scotland from some 150,000 fish in the 1960s to 30,000 in 1991. That is due to a combination of the growth of salmon farming which has reduced the price of salmon in the marketplace and the efforts of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust (Scotland) and others in a private buy-out costing some £5 million.
In at least one major salmon river in eastern Scotland an average total annual catch of 25,000 by all methods in the 1960s has reduced to 4,500 today. It must be borne in mind that for reasonable recreational angling many more fish are needed in a river than the few needed to spawn and secure the survival of the species.
The economic arguments are all one way. Against the interests of a limited number of mostly part-time salmon netsmen in the north-east there are thousands of jobs among gillies, in hotels, tackle shops and elsewhere in Scotland that are dependent upon a recreational fishery that is now giving cause for serious concern. Recent studies show that 90 per cent. of the economic value of wild Atlantic salmon in the United Kingdom—some £325 million—is due to recreational fishing while commercial net fishing produces less than 10 per cent. The Community's Commissioner for fisheries, Senor Marin, has acknowledged to the European Parliament that, in his words,
"Sport fishing can, if appropriately managed within an integrated approach, become an important source of socio-economic prosperity".
It is not I think true that all fishing or even most fishing in Scottish rivers is carried out by rich proprietors and their tenants. There are a good number of angling associations and many people without much money love to fish, as anyone can see for themselves by looking at those fishing the Tay at Perth. Nevertheless, I personally believe that it would be wise for those managing major rivers in Eastern Scotland to introduce restrictions on the take of salmon—there are some already but more are needed —as we now propose to introduce on the Wye. After all, in Canada anglers have accepted draconian restrictions for seven years past in the interests of restoring the runs of salmon.
I recognise the difficult problems Ministers face and I believe they are doing their best to find a solution. But the decline in runs of both salmon and sea trout

1557
is too great to allow us to dither and procrastinate. What we have to do seems to me obvious enough. The Canadian Minister of fisheries and oceans, Mr. John Crosbie, showed the way in March when he announced a voluntary Government buy-out of commercial salmon fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador with a five-year moratorium on commercial salmon fishing in Newfoundland. I greatly hope that Mr. Gummer, who has taken such a firm and commendable line on whaling, will now act decisively on the no less threatened Atlantic salmon and phase out the north-east fishery within the next five years.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has done the House a great service by tabling this Question at this time. It is both timely and urgent that we should take some action in this area. I agree with the noble Lord that when drift netting was banned in Scotland in 1962 there was a hemp driftnet fishery off the Northumberland coast which took an acceptable cull of the fish going round our coast. However, as the noble Lord said, 181 licences for drift netting are now issued by the Northumberland River Authority and the Yorkshire River Authority. As far as one can ascertain in the year 1990—the last year for which returns are available—those licensed drift netters caught over 48,000 salmon and sea trout in that area. We all have some doubt about the accuracy of those returns.
What is perfectly true is that a substantial catch in the drift nets coupled with a major decline in salmon stocks give cause for great concern throughout this House and throughout the country. The position is hard to substantiate from sheer observation or by correct scientific observation but what is perfectly clear now is that the number of fish reproducing themselves on the reds throughout Scotland is at a seriously low level. I am the chairman of a river board and on that river a spawning survey is carried out. There are certain well-known reds in which the fish congregate during the first fortnight in November. Of course, the number of fish varies according to the amount of water in the rivers, the temperature and the weather. But year after year at that time one can visit those places and see the fish. At one time there used to be 30 fish waiting off the reds to spawn but today one is lucky to find nine or 10 fish. We are looking at a 60 per cent. reduction in the number of fish reproducing themselves in our rivers. That is a serious state of affairs. Add to that the decline in the food supply for those fish when they have spawned and the young have hatched out—there is a decline in the food supply because of the amount of forestry throughout the watershed—and a decline in the survival rate because of increased predation by mergansers, goosanders and cormorants and it is clear that we are facing a serious situation.
In addition there is still a major problem of illegal drift netting. I have some experience of this because I send a sea patrol out into the Pentland Firth to monitor the problem. Every season we pick up quite long lengths of illegal nets. What worries me arising
1558
from my experience of dealing with illegal drift netting is how inefficient and dangerous a method of fishing legal drift netting is. There is no difference between legal and illegal drift netting. It is all carried out in the same way. The drift nets catch the fish because when the fish put their heads through the nets they are caught by the gills. A large number of fish that are not retrieved from the nets drown and fall to the bottom of the sea. Drift netting is a lethal form of fishing which gives a bad return. It is quite unacceptable to continue to allow drift netting in any form whatever as a method of fishing, whether it be by a pulley system from the shore or by anchoring to every lobster pot marker round the coast. It has proved to be a very wasteful and murderous way of catching a limited number of fish which are returning to our coasts.
As your Lordships know, the line of the run of returning salmon around the coasts of Great Britain was clearly identified in the Ministry of Agriculture's fishery report of 1937. That showed clearly the main runs of salmon returning to this country. The salmon come in to the North West and round Orkney. They swim round the coast in concentric circles. Every river is not hospitable. If there is a long drought such as the one we suffered this summer the fish cannot run the river of their first choice. In the first instance they return to the river of their birth. However, if, when they reach the estuary, there is not sufficient fresh water coming down the river to tempt them to go up to reproduce, they go on round the coast. We know from returns of tagged fish that they go right round the coast from the North of Scotland. They may find that the Dee, the Tay or another river is equally inhospitable. They reach the coast of Northumberland and then turn round and come all the way back again. The Northumberland driftnet fishery is catching the fish which have come from the North of Scotland. That is the damage it is causing. It is an indiscriminate interceptory fishery which is quite unacceptable today.
Last year we tagged and put back in the river over 450 salmon caught in our net fishery on the River Naver on the north coast. It was interesting that tags were sent back to us from all round the coast. Tags were returned from every river where there were fishermen or a netting station. We received them from the Tweed. We did not receive a single tag from Northumberland. The fishermen may argue that the Naver fish did not go as far as Northumberland, but I believe that that reflects the unscrupulous attitude of those predatory fishermen, who will not even bother to return tags because that would show the damage they are doing.
It is no good trying to hide behind the argument that this is a matter for the National Rivers Authority. Parliament has to say categorically that drift netting was banned in Scotland by amending the 1975 Act and unless the National Rivers Authority is prepared to take positive action within the life cycle of a salmon, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said—which means within five years—then Parliament will pass the necessary Bill to phase out the fishery. Unless something is done, a serious and desperate situation will be made worse.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, this issue—the need to ban driftnet fishing off the North-East coast of England—is one that I have raised many times, both in another place and in your Lordships' House. I cannot understand why the Government do not recognise that that indiscriminate, interceptory driftnet fishing is bad management practice and should he deplored by the National Rivers Authority, and that strong advice should be issued to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food severely to cut back the licences and phase out the fishery as fast as possible.
Those long nylon monofilament gill nets take the salmon in the North Sea as they are making their way to their home rivers. I emphasise that they take them quite indiscriminately. That means that south of the Yorkshire River Esk—our only salmon river—salmon are taken with the driftnetters having no knowledge of their destination. It is likely that a large percentage of the catch could have been heading for the Yorkshire Esk and that, as a consequence, the river is deprived of its homing, spawning fish quite indiscriminately and denuded annually of its stock. That is certainly bad management practice. The National Rivers Authority cannot carry out its statutory duty to "maintain, improve and develop" fisheries so long as that situation continues. It is incumbent upon the NRA to inform the Ministry that it is in breach of its statutory duties and responsibilities by allowing the Esk to be run down as a salmon fishery.
Because the netting is indiscriminate it could be depriving the River Esk of most of its spawning stock, thereby cutting back the stocks for propagation of the species and also limiting the stocks for sporting purposes. Bearing in mind that Scotland banned this form of netting in 1962 and that the nets have been banned throughout most of Northern Europe and the North Atlantic except Ireland, Greenland and England, why do we persist? Why do we allow it to carry on?
Is it not time that the Government seriously studied what I believe to be the unacceptable use of these nylon monofilament gill nets? The nets are invisible and quite deadly in their operation, trapping salmon by their gills. Because of the strength of the nets they take seals and porpoises. If a net breaks it hangs in the sea and becomes a ghost net, continuing to kill fish and diving birds for years thereafter, unlike the old hemp nets which gradually rot. I ask again, why are they not banned?
Why do we continue to be internationally embarrassed in the councils of NASCO—the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation—which in its drive to conserve salmon stocks is managing to persuade governments to cut back on salmon netting? As Michael Smith reported in the Salmon, Trout & Sea Trout magazine:
"Internationally. Britain is looked upon as a disgrace in its attitude to salmon conservation, and we are quite rightly impotent at NASCO meetings".
Even at home anger is rising at the Government's attitude on this question. The Salmon and Trout Association, the North Atlantic Salmon Trust and 15
1560
other organisations have petitioned against the practice, but so far to no avail. I refer once again to Michael Smith's article. Referring to the future of the River Tay he said:
"I would be happy for the Tay's future if it were not for the blight of the North East England driftnet fishery. The Dee, Don, the Esks, Tay, Forth and Tweed have spent millions of pounds on improvements and spent more than £1 million annually on managing their rivers. Surely the Minister can understand our dismay at the delay, the deceit and the incompetence displayed by his department over this driftnet issue".
So anger and frustration are building up.
The Government say that they have agreed to phase out the North-East drift netting under a new net limitation order. Briefly, that means that no new driftnet licences will be issued, but it allows existing netters to carry on for their lifetime. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, that could take up to 30 years. It is ludicrous. It is predicted that the number of nets will be reduced by half in 10 years. Will not the remaining nets catch more per net? It will provide a more lucrative business per person and therefore netters will be more determined to carry on and hang on to their licences.
We are talking about 181 part-time fishermen. They only fish when the salmon are running. It is not a major job issue. What is the comparison of costs and the jobs involved in terms of nets versus rods? In 1990 salmon caught by nets off Yorkshire and Northumberland totalled 51,000; salmon caught by rod totalled 1,500. The income from the net licences was £97,000, but from rod licences it was £110,000. Licensed rod fisheries and rivers, particularly in Scotland, generate hundreds of jobs, often in areas where alternative work is hard to come by, including river maintenance workers, ghillies, bailiffs, proprietors, rural businesses—especially those with a tourist base—hotels and their staff, fishing tackle shops and trade. It is the rod fisheries which generate the jobs and the income of the local communities and finance the maintenance and development of the fisheries. Every drift net cast in the North Sea jeopardises jobs and threatens the conservation of salmon and proper management of the salmon rivers.
It is estimated that each net-caught fish is worth about £20 to the netter, but each salmon caught on a salmon river generates hundreds of jobs and hundreds of pounds within each of the salmon rivers' local communities. That imbalance is obvious to the Government, yet they take no action. Why cannot this drift netting cease within five years, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on the basis of phasing out by buying out? These are part-time netsmen. This method has been employed in many other industries.
Let the National Rivers Authority and the Ministry employ their minds on this task. The result would be to rid ourselves of the hated gill nets and to have better conservation of the salmon and protection of seals, porpoises and diving birds in the North Sea. It would remove the hindrance to the spawning salmon, the salmon rivers would be better stocked and the international embarrassment removed in future NASCO meetings.

Yugoslav Visas
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement on Yugoslav visas which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a Statement about government policy towards nationals of the former Yugoslavia arriving in the United Kingdom.
"The United Kingdom and its European partners have consistently held the view that the objectives of international aid to the former Yugoslavia should be to provide the means and create the confidence for as many people as possible to stay as close to their homes as possible, so that their eventual return remains a clear prospect. Without this, a fair and lasting solution to the political problems will be made very much more difficult.
"But the United Kingdom and its partners have also recognised that for some people this policy will be neither practical nor humane. That is true, for example, of people who have been deeply traumatised by their experience, including men released from detention camps, many of whom have lost contact with their families; people who have been wounded; children who have lost their parents; or families who have lost their fathers.
"It is the view of the Government that we should continue to help these most vulnerable groups of people. I believe that the British people wish to make their humanitarian contribution to ease the sufferings of the innocent victims of the civil war. But at present we are receiving in this country an increasing number of self-selected people from former Yugoslavia, including arrivals from safer parts of the country well away from the war zone. For example, in an analysis of a large sample of those from the former Yugoslavia who have applied for asylum, one third were found to have come from Serbia, where many of them are seeking to escape the effects of economic sanctions.
"Since the beginning of this year the number of former Yugoslav citizens who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom has increased month by month. Some 2,000 applied in October alone. Over 4,000 former Yugoslav citizens have continued to arrive each month as visitors. Some of these have subsequently made clear their intention to stay on a more permanent basis by applying for local authority housing. In addition, some 15,000 people from other parts of the world have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the year.
"It is extremely important that the humanitarian efforts which this country wants to make are targeted effectively on those innocent victims of the war who are suffering most. We will only achieve
1562
this if we exercise more control and, therefore, organise specific arrangements for the reception of those we most want to help.
"At the moment there is a danger of our receiving uncontrolled numbers of citizens of former Yugoslavia who are able to afford the air fare and random groups organised by well-meaning organisations.
"The United Kingdom is one of the few countries in Europe which has no visa requirement for any of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia. In recent weeks several countries (for example, Germany, Sweden and Denmark) have announced the imposition of visa regimes on parts of the former Yugoslavia. It is now necessary for the United Kingdom to do likewise so that we can control the process of admission and concentrate our efforts on the needy.
"From midnight tomorrow, therefore, with the exception of those holding passports issued by the Governments of Croatia and Slovenia, all nationals of the former Yugoslavia will need to obtain visas before travelling to the United Kingdom for whatever purpose.
"But at the same time the Government will make clear to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross its readiness to receive from Bosnia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia people with special humanitarian needs whom the international organisations judge should be evacuated, including those released from detention camps.
"Numbers and timing will be discussed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the first instance we will be informing the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that from the coming week end we are ready to receive 150 former detainees and, in due course, any dependants they may have, probably making about 600 in all. The Government will be making suitable arrangements for their reception and initial accommodation and are urgently considering how best they can be looked after in the medium term.
"It is the wish of all European governments and many refugees themselves that those who have fled from the former Yugoslavia should eventually be able to return to their homes in safety. We do not intend, therefore, that those whom we bring to the United Kingdom should make their permanent homes here. But while they are with us we would want to make them as welcome and as comfortable as possible. In the longer term we shall continue to monitor the political situation, with the international agencies, and when the time comes we will be ready to assist the international organisations with the practicalities of returns."
My Lords, that concludes the text of my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am shocked and disappointed that the Government have seen fit at such a time, when the former Yugoslavia is still torn

1563
by war, to introduce such a restrictive measure. It flies against the spirit of the Geneva Convention on refugees even if technically it does not go against the letter of that convention. There are insufficient exemptions in this measure to protect the rights of those who are fleeing from persecution. I am sure the House will agree that no refugee should have to flee from persecution to face potential prosecution when he or she arrives in this country. That response to the plight of those seeking safety is, frankly, mean spirited, ungenerous and unworthy of a British Government.
Rather than placing further obstacles in the path of those who have escaped from the former Yugoslavia, the Government should be taking every step available to ensure that those fleeing the war should be treated with humanity, that same humanity that the British public has expressed toward those refugees. I am aware that the Government have accepted 5,500 refugees from Yugoslavia. We applaud that compliance with the Geneva Convention. However, when Germany has taken in 220,000, Sweden 67,455 and even over-crowded Austria has taken 57,000, we are bound in honour to feel that they are doing better than we are.
The noble Earl said that certain other countries have introduced such restrictions. That is perfectly true. The House should be aware that Norway, Sweden and Denmark have issued visa restrictions recently. But they are only for Serbia and Montenegro and not for Bosnia. I understand that there is no suggestion from those Scandinavian governments that this restrictive requirement should be imposed upon those fleeing from the war zone in Bosnia itself.
I ask why Croatia and Slovenia are exempt if the objective is to produce some kind of channel down which potential or actual refugees should have to go. There is no logic in saying that we shall treat Yugoslavia in this way if one proceeds to exempt Croatia and Slovenia from the restrictions but impose them on the very part of Yugoslavia which at the moment is in the worst possible state; namely, Bosnia itself.
I am also concerned about the practicalities of this step. What is a Bosnian Moslem fleeing from the war in his country supposed to do to obtain a visa? Is there a British Consulate operating in Sarajevo? I am not aware of it. What do they do? Do they send a letter to Belgrade in the hope that the British Consulate in Belgrade will receive it, look at the application, say, "Yes, you can have your visa" and then post it back to a town which is under continuous shelling by the Serbian Government themselves? When all that has happened will that individual then be entitled to leave Bosnia and try to come to the United Kingdom? It is frankly farcical.
I also ask this question of the Government. If they impose this visa requirement on people fleeing from Bosnia, what effect will that have upon the carriers if those people turn up at Heathrow or any other airport without a visa? At present the carriers are liable to a fine of £2,000 per person if someone arrives without a visa when a visa is a requirement. It is another method of restriction. If a Bosnian refugee who has managed
1564
to obtain the air fare seeks to buy a ticket to Great Britain from a British Airways ticket office, once the visa requirement has been imposed in this country the airline will not take him. We have had this argument on other occasions in relation to other parts of the world. However, yet again the Government are using airlines as the first line of immigration restriction and control. It is wrong in principle, but in relation to Bosnia it is frankly appalling.
I am also worried about what happens to children from the former Yugoslavia, many of whom are orphans who have been rescued by mercy missions and so on. What are we to do if those children arrive without visas? Do we send them back or fine the airline? This House is being asked to accept an impossible situation. What special provisions will be made for those children? Many of them did not lose their parents from any carelessness on their part but through detention and torture. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not turn away children who arrive in this country from Bosnia without visas, and that they will be housed in a secure environment? We desperately need a statement of intent as regards refugees' housing and other rights which makes clear that their human needs will be met. That is particularly important for children.
Mr. Clarke said in the Second Reading of the asylum Bill on Monday this week that he had every intention of upholding,
"a long and honourable tradition in the United Kingdom of offering political asylum to those who flee to this country". [Official Report, Commons, 2/11/92; col. 21.]
The Statement that we have heard this afternoon hardly accords with those noble words.
With regard to Bosnia, we have a restrictive measure wrapped up in a miasma of verbal compassion, which is unworthy of the Government. The Government should think again about the effect of the proposal in particular with regard to Bosnia.
I read the Statement with great interest. What is a self-selected person? The Statement says:
"in this country an increasing number of self-selected people from former Yugoslavia, including arrivals from safer parts of the country well away from the war zone".
Of course everyone is self-selecting. By our very nature someone fleeing from a war tends to say to himself, "I am selecting myself as a person whom I believe should be away from this war zone and this danger". What is this extraordinary concept of self-selection? Will the Government select by the imposition of the visa requirement?
I ask three questions. First, why impose this requirement on Bosnia? There may be an argument for saying that it could be imposed on Serbia and Montenegro, as the Scandinavian countries have accepted. Why impose the requirement on Bosnia, a part of the former Yugoslavia most directly affected by the effects of the war? Secondly, what arrangements will be made for Bosnian refugees to obtain the visas? There is no point in having a visa requirement unless one can make the practicalities of obtaining a visa sensible and obvious. Thirdly, how on earth do we square this requirement with the proud words and expressions of principle that we occasionally hear from the Government?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I shall not repeat them more than I believe is unavoidable.
The Statement made by the noble Earl is mean-spirited and an inadequate response to a human challenge to which we should respond with generosity and imagination. So far, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, others have done more than we have. It is high time that we did more on behalf of these helpless people who are fleeing from a conflict which we have been singularly ineffective in controlling or stopping. Above all, we should have responded more positively to the appeal of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who pointed out the obvious: that this is a European problem and that it must be shared on a European basis. What steps are the Government taking to act in response to that appeal?
It is not a problem which can be dealt with country by country according to their immediate proximity to the conflict. If we try to do it in that way, it will be a beggar-my-neighbour process in which the victims will be the refugees. It is important that we have an answer to that question.
The imposition of visas is an embargo. The Statement announces that visas have to be acquired as from midnight tomorrow night. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked, who will supply the visas? Who knows where the visas are to be acquired? What is the charge for the visas? How many visas are available? What administrative arrangements have been made?
I wish to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said about children. Those of us who remember the asylum measure at the end of last summer and who have looked at the present Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will see that the arrangements for children in both those measures are totally inadequate. So far as I can see, in this Statement there is absolutely no reference to children whereas we know that very large numbers of children are travelling or escaping from Bosnia alone and without any adult protection.
The questions which have been put to the Minister deserve an answer. The Statement that he made is deeply disappointing. I hope that the Government will think again and act in a more generous and humane spirit.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that both the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Bonham-Carter, have found the Statement unwelcome and consider that we are being mean. It was even suggested that we were not keeping up with our international obligations. There is no question of that. If one has any form of immigration control without a visa, the United Kingdom immigration officer must decide whether or not a person who appears is entitled to stay. He will have to apprise himself of certain questions. He will have to satisfy himself that a person
1566
seeking entry qualifies for admission under the immigration rules. He will have to satisfy himself, for example, that as a visitor that person can support and accommodate himself without public funds, and that he will be able to return home.
By instituting a visa regime, those criteria will not be applied in this country but in the country of departure. A person will know that he is able to come without finding that he is unacceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that such a requirement is being mean and not in accord with our obligations. That is not so. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated that we intend to uphold the international obligations. That is perfectly true. A refugee is a person who is persecuted for religious or political reasons. Escaping from a war zone—unpleasant though that is—is not a matter for asylum. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, makes a face of disagreement and anxiety but that is a fact. One talks about international obligations. Where people seek asylum one has to be satisfied that they will be persecuted for religious or political reasons.
In the past people have arrived from areas in Yugoslavia which are not near the war zone. The noble Lord criticised the word "self-selected". Those people who have been able to obtain and pay for an air fare have arrived and stated that they would like to stay here because they find it more agreeable than the area from which they come. But one cannot operate an immigration policy—and there has to be one—on that basis. Therefore, we believe that if we operate a visa regime, those who obtain a visa will know that they can come here and will therefore not be put in a position in which they arrive here and then are not accepted.
The noble Lord asked also whether the barriers against asylum seekers contravene the 1951 convention. Under the convention there is no obligation to facilitate the arrival of asylum seekers. It is unrealistic to expect the United Kingdom to accept an open-ended commitment to admit all asylum seekers who choose to come here. There are places where the visa regime operates and various controls are available. However, at present there are difficulties in what used to be Yugoslavia. There are bases where people can obtain the visas. However, the majority of people who come to this country must first go to another country before they can get a flight to come here. If that is so, then the visas can be obtained from a British Consul in the country from which they must board the aeroplane to come here in the first place.
I understand from my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that we have three posts in the former Yugoslavia: Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubliana. Those posts are operating under extremely difficult conditions. Belgrade has only a small visa issuing facility and others are mini-missions; for example, Her Majesty's Ambassador and a personal assistant. In Ljubliana the post operates from an hotel. Because of staff and accommodation constraints, Belgrade must limit the types of visa applications which it can accept; for example, medical and compassionate cases, holders of official Yugoslav and Bosnian passports, spouses and those relatives of third country nationals.

1567
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, keeps making interjections from a sedentary position. I am merely telling him what the system is and I am also trying to tell your Lordships that those who come here must go to another country before they do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned children. Children require a visa in the same way as anyone else. If they are brought here without a visa, the carrier is liable for the charge. Obviously we shall consider carefully applications from anywhere with regard to children, and we shall not return them to the war zone. A visa for a child costs only £10.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred also to Scandinavians who do not have a visa for Bosnia. The reason for that is because the asylum seekers come from Kosovo and not from Bosnia. All other European states cover Bosnia.
Perhaps I may make one point crystal clear. Everyone is horrified at what has happened in Yugoslavia and the tragedy which is occurring there. It is right that the United Kingdom should help but it is not possible to have an open-ended policy which allows everyone to enter the country. The figures show that in January, 115 people came here from Yugoslavia seeking asylum; in February, the figure was 115; and in March the figure increased to 1,707 plus 530 dependants. Those are all asylum seekers; but not all will be deserving of asylum. We want to help those who have been ravaged by the war. We can do that in conjunction with UNHCR and the International Red Cross. Those organisations are on the spot and know who are the people most deserving of help. We have said to those people that we shall help them and we shall play our part.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he will clarify one matter. The Government are imposing a visa requirement on the people from the former Yugoslavia who now wish to come to the UK. However, do I understand him correctly to say that there are insufficient posts in Yugoslavia which are capable of issuing those visas? If anybody wishes to come here from Bosnia, they must first reach a country which is not the United Kingdom, go to the British Embassy in whichever country they happen to be in and then obtain the visa in the third country before they come to the United Kingdom. Is that really government policy?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I said that there are various places in former Yugoslavia which operate a visa service, although that is being done in a limited way because of the situation there. Anyone who obtains a visa from one of those posts must go to another country for a flight to come here. Therefore, if there is difficulty in obtaining a visa in former Yugoslavia, the majority of people can go to another country, where they must go in any event for their flight, and can obtain a visa in that country.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us appreciate that the Government have no option but to introduce a
1568
measure of this kind in order to deal with the extremely difficult situation caused by the outrageous behaviour of so many people in Yugoslavia?
Is he aware that the number of those wishing to come here includes many people who are not in any sense refugees and includes many people—and this applies also to people from other countries—who wish to come to this country because the standard of living here is high and because our social services will look after them so well? Therefore, if the Government are to play their part in dealing with genuine people escaping from violence and conditions of war, some provision of this kind—and a visa provision seems to be the most sensible—requires to be instituted.
Is my noble friend aware that the experience of many of us who know anything about aviation is that no unofficial person can fly direct from Yugoslavia to this country? People originating in Yugoslavia who come here have had to go to another country between here and there. Therefore, they are able to book a flight and, if necessary, obtain a visa in that other country. Is my noble friend aware that it seems to some of us that the Government's proposals fit in extremely sensibly with that state of affairs?
Is he aware also that the Government have a duty to prevent this country being swamped by an onrush of so-called refugees, given that we have our own considerable problems with regard to congestion. unemployment and housing shortages?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making those points. He is entirely right. Nobody likes to have to take fairly harsh measures but the fact is that many of the people who come here, as my noble friend quite rightly pointed out, are not asylum seekers. They may come here seeking asylum, but very often they do not qualify as refugees. They come here, and having been here for a while they then apply to a local authority for accommodation and help. They then apply for asylum, having already been here for some time.
When there are increases such as we have seen, it is clear that there must be some kind of control because any government in any country must have some control over those who go there. Otherwise, the country concerned simply cannot absorb the numbers of people arriving there. If a person has to suffer an inconvenience—and a terrible inconvenience—in their own country, that does not necessarily mean that he should be able to say, "Well, I think I shall go to that country because it suits my fancy".
The whole purpose of the international convention is that asylum should be given to those people who can genuinely show that they will suffer from political or religious persecution. It is not without significance that all other European countries but four have found it necessary to take out regimes against the former Yugoslavia, and all European Community countries previously had visa regimes against Bosnia. We have to do this, not because we do not care or are not concerned about the ravages in the former Yugoslavia, but simply because the position of asylum must be correctly administered. We are helping those who suffer the terrible disasters in Bosnia through the help that we are prepared to give in concert with the

1569
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who knows about the problems and who knows the most deserving people there on the spot.
Lord Monson: My Lords—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Earl said about the flow of what one might call economic refugees who desire to live in a better society. It is true that that is a problem. The problem that we are discussing is how to identify the genuine refugees. It appears to me from my experience in preparing a report on this subject that the Government have not done anything positive to identify those people suffering persecution, certainly religious persecution in the case of Bosnia. I should like to know whether the noble Earl's department has increased the number of people and whether the consulates have set up a special unit in order to identify on the spot those people who are certainly refugees and for whom there is an enormous amount of sympathy in this country. Certainly, the visa recommendations may help in the case of economic refugees, but we in this country want to see the positive and I do not see anything in the Statement which indicates that that positive action has been taken.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, clearly my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is monitoring the position as regards our posts in Yugoslavia, but, under the 1951 United Nations convention, a person cannot be a refugee while he is still in his country of origin. That means that, if a national of the former Yugoslavia fears persecution and the United Kingdom is the most appropriate country of refuge, it is open to him to apply at a British post in the region. We shall certainly consider the issue of a visa in those circumstances outside the immigration rules.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Cross-Benchers.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may put some points to my noble friend as I have relatives on both sides of the conflict in Yugoslavia. First, one accepts that there is a great problem about immigration from Eastern Europe and Africa, and one appreciates the general context of the Government's anxiety in this matter. My noble friend referred to the "inconvenience"—what a word to use —that those people suffer as they try to get away. He said that there are various places where visas may be obtained. I shall ask him further about that, but that is a rather deprecatory way of referring to the matter. These people travel by all kinds of means, such as hitch-hiking. They are not by a long shot people who can afford air flights. People arrive here who have hitch-hiked the whole way.
Taking those points into consideration, perhaps I may ask my noble friend this question: where in Yugoslavia are those facilities for visas available? Will we open an office at Split? Will we open an office in Sarajevo? Have we got one available in Trieste? Is there one in Tiranë? Are these sources of visas
1570
available and within easy reach of Bosnia? When I say "easy", I mean relatively easy for those who have walked three or four days and nights with no food and inadequate clothing. Will my noble friend look into the question of providing visa facilities within reach of the area of difficulty? Will he also bear in mind—I do not want to be unpleasant—the fact that, the day after a vote regarding our position at the heart of Europe, this is not very creditable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept that my choice of the word "inconvenience" may not have been very fortunate. I did not use that word in any sense against those who genuinely seek asylum or those who have been scarred by war; but there are those who live away from the war zone, who do not like the conditions and who would prefer to live somewhere else. That was why I meant that those people might find it more convenient to live in this country than they would in their own.
My noble friend asked what is available from the point of view of posts that issue visas. I explained in a previous answer that there are three posts—at Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana—and that they were experiencing difficult conditions in which to operate.
My noble friend's final remark was unfortunate. We have tried to help those people who are at the worst part of the troubles—those who are in detention camps and those who have suffered from the traumas of war. We are not stopping anyone applying to be an asylum-seeker, but we are making the regime slightly easier to operate by allowing not so many people to come to this country as asylum seekers rather than allowing them to come and then finding that they are really coming for other reasons.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend look into the possibility of establishing a visa facility in Split and Sarajevo, whatever else is done?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly see that that point is considered.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there is nothing that the Bosnian Serbs, and now it seems, unhappily, the Bosnian Croats, would like better than for as many Bosnian Moslem refugees as possible to be given asylum in the West? The Serbs and Croats calculate that, once the Bosnian Moslems are settled in the West, they will lose all desire ever to return to their homeland. In that way the ghastly policy of ethnic cleansing will turn out to be a complete success.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has a real point. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others, including ourselves, have said that those people should get out of the disaster area, but remain as close to it as possible so that they can eventually return there. That country is going through the most appalling upheavals, creating the most terrible disasters and tragedies for people, but one hopes that that will eventually come to an end and it will be right for those

1571
people to settle back into Yugoslavia rather than have found a place away from there from which they will not be able to return to Yugoslavia.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that one of the main criteria for refugee status is the fear of persecution? Is it not rather unfortunate that we should wait until we see the scars of torture and persecution on people's faces and bodies before we accept them as refugees? Further, are the Government aware—in this Chamber we have a right to raise the historical perspective—of the tremendous benefits that have accrued to this country over the centuries of taking refugees from Europe and beyond as a result of the conflicts that beset them in their native lands?
Perhaps I may allude to a few such cases. First, there are the Dutch refugees who pumped out the Fens. Secondly, there are the Huguenot refugees who provided the basis of the silk industry in this country. Thirdly, coming closer to home and closer in time, there are the Jewish refugees from Central Europe in the 1930s. Finally, closer still in time, there are the Asian refugees from Uganda. All those people have created tremendous, long-term, economic benefits for this country. Are not the Government taking rather too short-term a view in simply considering the immediate social security costs of the influx of refugees from Yugoslavia rather than taking into account the humanitarian need and the long-term benefits that will accrue to the United Kingdom from accepting refugees from Yugoslavia?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asks why we must wait to see the scars of torture on people's faces. They are tragic events and those people have suffered immensely from the ravages of war. But that does not necessarily make them refugees within the terms of the United Nations convention. For a person to apply to become a refugee he must have a well-founded fear of persecution for religious or political reasons. Tragic and awful though the scenes are that we have seen, those who have suffered do not automatically fall in the asylum category.
We have tried to make the asylum system work properly in this country and at the same time help those who have suffered the ravages which your Lordships find so horrifying. We are doing that by deliberately taking those whom the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees considers to be the most important and most deserving.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, does my noble friend on the Front Bench realise that many of us know and appreciate that Her Majesty's Government are trying to do their best in a terrible situation? My noble friend mentioned the important word "absorption". However much we wish to allow anyone to enter, every country has an absorption limit. Possibly the problem arose when early on European countries did not give a strong enough indication that not only do we disapprove, but that we thoroughly disapprove of what is happening. Therefore the people perpetrating the acts thought "Oh good. We can carry on".
1572
We must try much harder to make the people in what was Yugoslavia realise that one day they will have to allow these men and women, these boys and girls, to return, whether they be Croats, Moslems or other ethnic groups. We must give hope to the Moslems and others that one day they will be able to return. The only way for that to happen is for certain people in Belgrade and their cohorts in Bosnia to realise that we mean more than strong words. I believe that that is the best hope we can give to the many people who are suffering.
As far as possible let us bring in and absorb as many as we can. Each country in Europe and throughout the world is able to absorb different numbers. We cannot all do the same. I appreciate that it is hard for Her Majesty's Government, but we must do what we can. I believe that we are trying to be fair and right and I therefore support the Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Milverton is correct and endorses the point of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter; that is, that any country must be able to absorb those that it takes in. There is no virtue in taking people in if they cannot then be dealt with properly and the host community cannot absorb them. That is why we need an immigration policy.
I can only repeat that we have done a great deal both for immigration as a whole and for asylum seekers. We will continue to help asylum seekers and those people who are worst affected in Bosnia.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, neither my noble friend nor other noble Lords mentioned the state of Macedonia. Can my noble friend say what is happening to the subjects of what was formerly the Yugoslav state of Macedonia?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is part of the former Yugoslavia which has not given much trouble, as yet, from the United Kingdom point of view. However, there are difficulties with Greece.

North-East Driftnet Fishing
5.15 p.m.
Debate resumed
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I join with my noble friend Lord Kimball and the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for initiating the debate this evening.
It brings shame on our country, on our Government, that in 1992, 30 years after drift netting in its present lethal form commenced and despite unanimous agreement of salmon-producing nations that this indiscriminate and extremely damaging form of exploitation should be abolished, it still continues in the coastal waters of England and Wales. We vigorously condemn drift netting elsewhere, yet we practise it at home.
How can we justify a fishery—the north-east net fishery —which takes upwards of 100,000 salmon and sea trout annually, from a world catch that has plummeted by 60 per cent. in the past 20 years; a catch

1573
that has seen an even more alarming 80 per cent. decline in the premier Scottish fishery over the same period?
Such activity stands commonsense management on its head. It is a disgrace that drift netting continues. It must stop—not at some tentative distant future date, but right now.
So who is responsible for the welfare of the salmon. Which government department? It may come as a surprise to some that it is not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food my right honourable friend John Gummer, nor indeed his fisheries Minister, my noble friend Lord Howe, who is with us this evening. Nor does primary responsibility lie with their department. No; despite the eloquence of the Minister and the active public involvement of his department in the north-east nets issue, responsibility lies elsewhere. It is the National Rivers Authority and its chairman, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who bear primary responsibility.
What baffles many of us is the role which the NRA has played, and continues to play, in relation to the north-east (England) salmon fishery issue.
What is even more baffling is that, although I realise that my noble friend Lord Howe is answering for Her Majesty's Government, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Minister for the Environment, is not in the hot seat. The NRA comes under the umbrella of the Department of the Environment. Is it possible that we have uncovered the fundamental and critical weakness of the NRA? Heralded as the Government's crusading agency committed to winning the wars for conservation and the environment, how, one might ask, can it do battle when it has not even junior ministerial status in the Cabinet? Worse still, how is the NRA's credibility and influence to be enhanced when it is seen that where representation is forthcoming, it is from a Ministry (MAFF) which does not even bear formal responsibility for these functions and indeed, when it comes to matters of conservation and the environment, hardly enjoys a favourable reputation?
The NRA, it should perhaps be remembered, is an agency operating under the umbrella of the Department of the Environment. The NRA is responsible for environmental, conservation, recreation and leisure matters in relation to salmon and freshwater fisheries. MAFF, on the other hand, is concerned with food production. Yet somehow, in relation to this north-east issue, the NRA has emerged singing a duet with MAFF. The tune they are singing is a food-producing tune. Why is that? How has it happened? Is my noble friend Lord Crickhowell responsible? Are we to believe that it is the decision of my noble friend's boss, the Environment Secretary, my right honourable friend Michael Howard?
Is it coincidence that the former MAFF inspector of salmon fisheries, Dr. Kevin O'Grady, is now the NRA's and, if current rumours are to be believed, soon to become ex-, chief recreation, environment and fisheries officer? Is it simply for convenience that the NRA enlists the wholesale participation of the MAFF
1574
scientific establishment in carrying out vital assessments in relation to this north-east, and other, salmon issues—assessments tailored to criteria and terms of reference which MAFF itself has produced? Are we really to believe that this close association with MAFF is due mainly to the advocacy of the unceremoniously sacked former NRA chief executive, the widely respected environmentalist and one-time executive secretary of the Natural Environmental Research Council, Dr. John Bowman?
Certainly, NRA scientists have the facts at their fingertips. The Salmonid and Freshwater Fisheries Statistics for England and Wales 1990, published earlier this year, confirm massively what has been demonstrated time and again from investigations, inquiries and reports on the English and Welsh salmon net fisheries over the past 30 years; that is. that these fisheries should be eliminated. They take up to 99 per cent. of the catch in some regions. Illegal fishing is rife, and effective control of legal fishing effort in most areas is virtually non-existent. All this is to provide a seasonal income supplement which is negligible or nil for net licensees, most of whom are not even professional fishermen but part-time hobbyists. This surely is a sad perversion of the original intent of what are, in effect, antiquated century-old laws kitted out in 1975 dress.
The late Lord Bledisloe, in the historic and revelatory Report of the Committee on Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries 1963 which bears his name, showed that the English and Welsh salmon net fisheries made no economic or conservation sense 29 years ago. Those conclusions were endorsed 11 years later by the 1974 report Taking Stock published by the NRA's predecessor, the Water Authorities Association, and by the Welsh Water Authority Report on the Status of Welsh Salmon and Sea Trout Fisheries 1985 to name but two well-known subsequent official studies.
Why, then, does not the NRA, which now has the responsibility for ensuring the maintenance and improvement of the salmon fishery, take the obvious legislative initiatives required? To remove the nets requires but a stoke or two of the legislative pen. Repeal of Section 26, concerning net limitation orders, of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 is the key. To ensure they stay removed requires only a one-line provision banning the taking of migratory fish, salmon or sea trout, by any defined netting instrument. And should it be thought necessary to pay compensation, the provisions of Schedule 3, Part I(4) of the 1975 Act, can show the way.
As for the MAFF recommendations which emerged from the 1991 report of the North-East (Nets) Review, these, very simply, should be rejected. The same applies to the North-East (Yorkshire and Northumbria) Net Limitation Order currently proposed.
If an interim measure is needed to allow more time for thought and consultations with netsmen and other concerned interested parties, the Secretary of State for the Environment, or appropriate Minister, could institute an order declaring a one-year suspension of the north-east salmon net fishery, the order to be

1575
facilitated by provisions of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. I refer to Hansard of 13th February, 1986, col. 385. A one-year ban could be ordered by the Minister on the grounds of an urgent need to assess conservation, management, protection and enforcement provisions, as these relate to the north-east salmon net fishery, and their conformity with parallel policies and the practices in the salmon fisheries of fellow NASCO nations, the assessment to be guided by and undertaken in terms of the publicly agreed commitment of the United Kingdom Government and fellow NASCO countries to the principle that,
"the wild salmon resource should be treated not as a food resource, but as a leisure resource".
That is a quote taken from my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer at page 71 of Biarritz Breakthrough: Trout & Salmon of December 1986.
It is the NRA, not MAFF, which now rules the Welsh and the English, which includes the North East, salmon fisheries. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell, whether he likes it or not, is the boss, not Mr. Gummer. It is my noble friend's duty to require those steps to be taken which will assist in halting the current alarming decline in the salmon resource and to ensure that it is managed and conserved on the basis of low-level exploitation in line with the need to provide maximum conservation and community benefits.
The catch figures in the Report of the Review of North-East Salmon Net Fisheries 1992 make clear not only the unacceptable level of interceptory catches which are around 100,000 salmon and sea trout netted annually while rods take about 4,000, but the enormous conservation, leisure and recreation potential which would be realised if these fish were allowed to enter their home rivers. A recent survey, "Salmon and Sea-Trout Angling and the North-East (England) Tourism Economy: Revenue Input and Employment Support", shows that on the basis of the North East England nets being removed, each rod-caught fish can bring up to £2,900 in community benefit. By comparison net-caught salmon and sea trout were selling in Newcastle this August at wholesale prices of £1.45 and 75p per pound, respectively.
The survey further shows that immediate removal of the north-east nets would within 10 years lead to a minimum rod-catch of 21,000 from North East English rivers. This in turn would serve to generate revenue input of between £60.9 million and £102.9 million, and employment support for up to 16,100 real jobs; part-time, seasonal and full-time. The north-east net fishery is said currently to support the equivalent of only 44 full-time jobs.
The commercial netting of wild salmon is an antiquated, wasteful and immensely damaging method of exploiting a sharply declining natural resource of high economic and community value. And nowhere is the threat posed by intensive domestic netting more apparent than in the coastal waters of Yorkshire and Northumbria. Indeed, the 1989
1576
Yorkshire regional net catch of 22,740 sea-trout (rods took 97) was the second highest overall total and per-licence catch (379.1) on record.
It is shameful and embarrassing that our fellow salmon-producing nations are witness to our blatant hypocrisy. It would be tragic if our failure to do what we demand of others should bring the collapse of NASCO which is now a real threat and with it the terminal descent of magnificent Salmo salar to little more than a museum curiosity. The recommendations of the North-East Netting Review and the currently proposed North-East Net limitation order will only take us further backwards. We must move forward.
Nor can we expect support from my right honourable friend Mr. Gummer and his department. Their remit is food production, antiquated though this provision is when applied to wild salmon. They will continue to argue that everything is all right; that conservation, not management, is the determining consideration; and that there is nothing to prove conclusively that conservation, defined in terms of spawning stocks, is inadequate, right up to the point of total failure of the commercial fishery. Then, of course, any action will be too late. That has been the tragic scenario in nearly all the once-prolific European fisheries from which the salmon has now disappeared or retains but a token presence.
Conservation and management of a leisure resource recreation are the job of the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right honourable friend Michael Howard; and also of the new Secretary of State for National Heritage and fun, my right honourable friend Peter Brooke. But most of all they are the responsibility of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Briefly and simply, we must eliminate the high-exploitation, low economic (community) return activity of north-east net fishing and strengthen the low-exploitation, high economic (community) return activity of rod fishing. And the sooner the better.
If I may be forgiven for saying so, now is the time for my noble friend Lord Crickhowell to come out from behind the skirts of MAFF and the ministerial presence of my noble friend the Minister, Lord Howe. He has the powers; he is the boss on salmon matters. It is time for him to take action. The simple blueprint is set out above. If he does not act, he will know that, with MAFF's record of over 30 years of stalling and evasion, nobody else will.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell, as any who encountered him in his earlier incarnation as Secretary of State for Wales will know, is a person of great energy and diligence. He has fought many battles, often at heavy odds, and won. I am certain that when he does recognise the urgent need to take up cudgels on these vital matters, we can have every confidence that he, common sense, but, most of all, the salmon, will triumph.
5.29 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, perhaps I should first declare a very minor interest in that I have a stake in two small beats on that great river, the Tay. Secondly, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and, indeed, to others in the House for the fact that I was

1577
late. It was not entirely my own fault because there was what is known as a "major traffic incident" around Whitehall and I could not get in. However, here I am.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, what I remember so well is the great work that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has done on this matter. I only say to him that if he does not get satisfaction, "keep it up". We shall all be behind him because what is at stake is the well-being or the future of the salmon and sea trout.
I recall seeing a delegation from the north-east salmon netters seven years ago with the noble Lord —and very impressive people they were. They brought a lawyer with them who pleaded their cause very ably, but beyond that I do not think that one was too greatly impressed because there are two facts which we must remember. One is the very important fact that such fishing is not the sole way of life for those 300 or 400 fishermen. We are risking the future of the salmon for those 300 or 400 part-time fishermen. Indeed, they are part-time fishermen who have had the most incredible bonanza during the past 20 years. Once the monofilament net was allowed, their catch went up 50 times. Is it really right that that should be perpetuated throughout their lives? I feel that something is wrong here.
The second fact that I should like to stress, which has been stressed by other noble Lords, is that we are talking about those fishermen getting, say, £20 for a fish which they catch whereas if it is the salmon of a riparian owner, the sum is about £2,000. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said that the figure was £2,900 in the north-east. That clearly shows the immense difference in employment that the one gives to the other. Is it really right that we should have £20 employment versus £2,900?
We should remember that riparian owners are doing their best to increase the number of salmon in their rivers. What are they doing? They are buying nets either in the estuary or elsewhere and, perhaps even more importantly, they have instituted large hatcheries—and to what end? So that the north-east nets should benefit—because that is what it amounts to. There could come a time when the riparian owners in some places will throw in their hats. I gather that this year some northern rivers have done quite well in Scotland but, equally, others have done badly, and that is particularly true for the sea trout. The nets do not discriminate. They are disastrous for some, but reasonable for others, but that is not the way in which one should worry about salmon stocks.
So what is to be done? What do the Government or, should I say, the National Rivers Authority, propose? They propose a net limitation order, but what does that achieve? It achieves an end in say 30 years or, at best, that there will be perhaps half that number in 10 years. But what guarantee is there that at the end of that 10 years—or during that 10 years and afterwards—the other nets will not catch very many more for the very reason that one half has gone? The whole thing is ill thought out.
1578
The Government may say, "What do you propose?". I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggested that netting should stop at the end of five years and that there should be no more licences after five years. That seems to me to be generous. It is certainly very reasonable. Let us remember that although we are talking about part-time fishermen, we are talking about part-time fishermen who are catching around 50,000 to 100,000 fish, despite the requests of the rest of the world's salmon countries.
However, there is an alternative. I do not stress this too far, but I have heard it suggested that we should have "carcass tagging". Many of your Lordships will know what that means. One needs to find out how many fish each of the existing licensees has caught in the past five years. One should then issue one-fifth of that number of tags. When a salmon is caught, a tag must be used immediately on the fish. That ensures some form of control. I know that people will say, "Well, it isn't very efficient", or, "It is administratively difficult and anyhow it isn't watertight". I accept all that, but what are we worrying about? We are trying to save the salmon. If the five-year period is not acceptable, let us try carcass tagging for a short period and, at the end of that, if it does not work and if people get around it, at least we know where we are and can take the final step, which is to do what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggested and abolish that licensing provision at the end of five years.
I have already said—I should like to say again—that the present proposal is wholly unsatisfactory. We are risking the future of the salmon for the sake of 300 or 400 part-time fishermen. What sort of an argument have we got when, facing all the other countries which worry about their salmon, such as Norway, Iceland and the east coast of America where the same Atlantic salmon are to be found, we say, "Oh no, we are not going to do anything about this. Just leave us alone with these people who are endangering the whole future of the salmon". It is not good enough.
5.37 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for introducing this debate. The noble Lord has a reputation for introducing debates at timely moments, and this is certainly one of them. What has been interesting about the debate so far is that a unanimous view has been expressed. I do not think that I would be wrong in pre-empting the three noble Lords who will speak after me when I say that I suspect that they will probably share the same view as that which has been expressed so far by your Lordships.
There is no question that, as all noble Lords who have spoken so far have said, we are facing a serious situation over our salmon stocks. But the Government are constantly —and rightly—making the sustainability of natural resources a key part of environmental policy. I know how very strongly my right honourable friend the Minister feels about this point. Indeed, environmental assessments have now crept into virtually every piece of legislation and into almost every departmental brief that one encounters. It seems quite wrong, therefore, that that keenness towards

1579
sustainability should not be employed so far as the wild salmon is concerned. It is a prime example, surely, of a species that deserves that degree of attention.
Various figures have been quoted by noble Lords as to the benefits of salmon caught on rod as opposed to salmon caught in the net. Those figures appear to vary by 300 or 400 per cent. But one thing is quite certain: the benefits that accrue from rod fishing to the riparian owners and therefore to the local employment of people in remote rural areas are fundamental. I believe I am right in saying that many of these figures were compiled by Portsmouth Polytechnic. It was responsible for many of the figures quoted by noble Lords this evening. The polytechnic maintains that 90 per cent. of the £340 million is generated by recreational fishing as opposed to only 10 per cent. from the nets, even though the nets account for between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the total wild salmon catch. Those figures speak for themselves.
A further and vital component of the figures is that this revenue is being starved from those who own and manage the rivers. If the salmon continue to decline, the income necessary for the maintenance, protection and management of these stocks, which can only effectively be carried out, as has always been the case, by the riparian owners, will decline also. I accept the important role played by the NRA in the whole river system of England and Wales, but at the end of the day it is those who look after the rivers who must be relied on to conserve and look after our salmon stocks.
There are many fair and reasonable methods open to the Government as to how best they can wind down the drift netting operations. I am sure that my noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe will illustrate some of those points in his speech. I know that points have been raised by the Action Group Against Interceptor Netting for Salmon and Sea Trout. But it seems to me that the Government must move away from the figure of 30 years—the time limit put on the winding down of these nets. Certain noble Lords who know far more about the subject than I do have mentioned five years as being an absolute minimum. There can be no doubt that action must be taken and taken quickly.
If the system of not reissuing licences to net is to be continued, will it be associated with some form of quota system? When the netters have the ability, through modern equipment, to extend their range and extend the amount of fish that they can catch, even with a diminishing number of people exercising the netting rights they can still continue to catch as many fish as they were before these licences were being restricted. I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer that specific point.
However, the key question as I see it was put by my noble friend Lord Kimberley. Is the commercial exploitation of the wild salmon as a food resource any longer appropriate or acceptable? The answer must surely be no, due to the development of the fish farms whose annual production far exceeds the global catch of wild salmon. The difficulty is that, historically, the legislation relating to the exploitation of migratory fish revolves around salmon as a food resource. It must surely now be regarded as a natural resource.
1580
I should like to quote from one John Castle, who is a dentist from the north west of Lancashire and a man deeply committed to the salmon and its future. He wrote me a letter the other day, an extract from which illustrates the point I am trying to make. He wrote:
"If one reads the old annual reports of the various Boards of Conservators it is very apparent that the Conservators felt that their primary responsibility, once it was felt that the stocks were secure, was to ensure the viability of their commercial net fisheries. The legislation which made provision for this policy to be carried out is still very much in place today and MAFF who has overall control of fisheries still act in relation to salmon fisheries adhering to this legislation and still with the attitude that wild salmon are a food resource to be harvested. If this one fact can be grasped, it becomes more easy to understand the reasons why the Ministry quite naturally view the considerations and arguments of the commercial salmon fishermen with greater importance and favour than those of the rod fisheries which the legislation views as incidental beneficiaries. Nevertheless very slowly changes in attitudes are beginning to occur".
I hope that changes in attitudes really are occurring.
I finish by asking my noble friend to explain to what extent he is constrained on this matter by legislation. If he is, do the Government propose to make changes? But if he is not, can he assure the House that attitudes of change within his Ministry will accelerate sufficiently to ensure the safeguard of this highly important resource by phasing out the netting and that it will cease to regard the rod fisheries—this is an important point—as incidental beneficiaries but rather as the true conservators of the wild salmon and a major job resource in rural areas?
5.47 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for giving us the chance to debate this subject, although I am sad that we have to talk about it yet again. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken today, I have almost lost count of the number of times I have had something to say on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, started the history back in 1964 when the Labour Government—and in particular the Secretary of State for Scotland, Willie Ross—moved with commendable speed against the new-fangled drift nets that were threatening salmon stocks off the coast of Scotland. I have always maintained—I think I have said it here before—that a statue to Willie Ross ought to be erected at the mouth of every major salmon river in Scotland. Without that action I doubt whether there would be many salmon left in Scotland.
Why did we allow them to go on in England? We have heard from other noble Lords that they were not a great threat in those days. The English may have been slower to move. Perhaps fewer salmon were congregating off the Northumberland coast. At any rate at that time they were tending to fish using old-fashioned methods. No one did anything about it. It did not matter as the numbers were very small. However, since then we have done nothing but argue about this matter.
The sad thing is that this problem goes back almost to the beginning of time. I am told, although I have not read it myself because it is in Norman French, that even the authors of Magna Carta saw fit to put in a clause or a sentence about the interception of

1581
migratory fish by other people. It was no doubt even more blatant in those days because people were blocking off whole rivers. The problem has been around for a very long time and we have all been pitifully slow at solving it.
In fact, the proverbial man from Mars would be amazed if he were here tonight, and had been watching for some time, to see that, "here we go again" on the matter. Luckily, my long list of arguments for phasing out this fishery as soon as possible has considerably shrunk; that is, if I am to avoid repeating too many of the previous arguments that have been made by other noble Lords in a series of extremely well-informed speeches. The subject has been covered so far as concerns the operation of the north-east nets, to the extent that many of my foxes have already been shot—or, perhaps more appropriately many of my fish have already been intercepted.
However, there are a few points that I should like to emphasise that have not yet been mentioned. I have great respect for the north-east fishermen. The arguments about salmon fishing have for many years been dogged by a sort of "them and us" attitude between the rod fishermen and the netsmen. I have never shared that view. I have respect for the hard and no doubt sometimes hazardous way of life in which they engage in order to catch their fish. But 182 net licences translate, I am told, into 42 man years. That is the employment of 42 people. In any other context, that would be a minute firm and not something that your Lordships' House would normally be discussing for very long. The figure is based on the number of days that they normally fish, multiplied by the number of people involved in the fishery and divided by the normal working year of a modest 250 days. I do not think that those figures have been given previously.
It is hard to obtain the figures as regards the profits of that fishery. However, a figure was produced locally in Northumberland in 1988. The total profit for the whole fishery was £324,624. That is so exact that it is hard to believe. But, using that figure, it translates into £1,800 per licence or £8,000 per man year. That is really not a great amount of money by the standards of the other side of the equation. We have had all sorts of figures from noble Lords tonight as regards the other side of the equation. It is extremely hard to reach the answer. However, various studies have produced all kinds of figures, varying from anything from an extra thousand to several thousand more people being employed in the glens of Scotland if there were more fish in the rivers for recreational angling.
There is no questioning the fact that the number of overseas tourists visiting Scotland to fish for salmon has been declining. More seriously, many English fishermen who used to go there regularly on an annual basis, spending a great deal of money in the local economy in the process, are beginning to stop doing so. 1 do not like to quote personal examples, but this year is the first year that I have not rented a beat in Scotland with friends. I went to Russia instead. I must say that I caught more fish in one week in Russia than I have in the past 10 years when renting a beat at a
1582
very similar cost in Scotland. I would much rather go to Inverness or Aberdeen and be at home in the Highlands of Scotland than go to Murmansk. It is a most difficult journey and a somewhat uncomfortable place in which to stay. There may be more to fishing than catching fish; but catching no fish is not good enough.
More and more people will go abroad unless the standard of fishing in Scotland improves. In my lifetime it was wonderful but it has steadily declined. Whatever the government scientists have said to the Ministry of Agriculture, or whatever ministry may be looking after the matter, there is absolutely no question about what I have said. The figures produced by the Scottish statistical bulletin in July this year are frankly terrifying. However, as they have already been mentioned by other speakers, I shall not repeat them.
Much has been made of the value of rod-caught fish. We have heard figures from several noble Lords regarding anything between a £500 and a £2,800 contribution to the local economy. I have no idea what the answer is. However, it is so far in excess of a dead fish on the slab and caught by the net that there can be no comparison. The latter cannot be worth more than about £20.
I should just like to mention a point that has already been raised but one which has not been dealt with in great detail. I refer to the international perspective of the problem which has gone beyond the rather parochial one of north-east drift nets. I have been involved for a year or two now with an organisation called the North Atlantic Salmon Fund. It is based in Iceland and has been involved in negotiating the buy-out of the deep-sea salmon fishery off the Faroe islands. It is currently involved in the same process in Greenland. I heard only yesterday that very good progress is being made. It is a private initiative funded by fishermen, and indeed governments, to some extent. It has government support from every North-Atlantic salmon-producing country, but sadly there has not been much help so far from the UK. However, that is another problem beyond that about which we are talking tonight.
During my work with that organisation I have met representatives of all the other salmon-producing countries in the North Atlantic. Frankly, they are horrified by the UK situation and what is happening here. If that fund is successful in phasing-out the Greenland drift-netting fishery—I should point out that the fisheries in Greenland and in the Faroes are much bigger than the north-east drift-net fishery about which we are talking tonight that will leave only us and Ireland. By "us" I mean England and not Scotland because, as we know, they have, very sensibly, banned it. It is not a tolerable situation. The Irish are under diplomatic pressure to phase-out their drift-net fisheries which are even larger than the north-east ones. But while we continue to drift net for salmon, there is very little hope of putting pressure on them. However, once they are the last ones, and they are catching several thousands of tonnes of salmon a year, then greater pressure can be put upon them. We can then return to the situation that has been recommended ever since the Hunter Report of 1965,

1583
and which has been commonsense to anyone who knows anything about salmon since time immemorial, of salmon being harvested either by nets or rods in the rivers in which they belong.
I have seldom heard a more unanimous cross-party and no-party view on any subject. We have yet to hear an official Opposition view, although we heard a very good speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, who is very experienced on such matters. Frankly, the case is overwhelming. I hope that the Minister will not try to defend the indefensible. But, if he does, so be it; it will he interesting to hear what he has to say. Like the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I agree that we arc too late to ban this fishery immediately as was done in Scotland. If we were to put a time limit of five years on the phasing out, we could work towards a fair ending of the fishing within five years and give some hope of a greater return of salmon to Scotland, with a properly regulated harvesting of them in the future.
6 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is about the future of migratory salmon which are so valuable as a prize for sportsmen, and one of the most beautiful components of our natural environment. He has done a magnificent job on the international front to prevent the decline of salmon stocks, hut the initiative that he has taken in those matters is being seriously undermined by our slowness to ban drift netting. England and Wales are dragging their feet in the wake of virtually all North Atlantic countries. In so doing, we are helping to maintain a form of netting which is contrary to good management practice.
Good management lies at the heart of conservation. River managers should he given every encouragement. I, like other noble Lords, must declare an interest as a riparian owner on the Tweed, as a Tweed commissioner and as a beneficiary from past generations. Thanks to continuing management over the years, the River Tweed has been gradually improved for fishing. Not only have the salmon been able to thrive, but the river banks have been strengthened and croys have been built to improve river flows.
People come from all over the world to fish. I have visitors this autumn from South Africa, Germany and Japan. The shoals of fish, as they appear off our coast after their long migration, are not welcomed home with encouragement to spawn and multiply. Instead, they have to face a new and lethal form of netting near their home base—near where they were born under the protection of river management. If we were beekeepers, we should feel equally aggrieved if our neighbours started capturing our bees on the way back to the hive. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, about the history of the problem. The trouble arose in the early 1960s with the introduction of the nylon net. There is no historical justification for the driftnet industry.
Particular damage is being done to spring and summer runs returning to east coast rivers. Damage is being done to the tourist industry, hotels and shops
1584
due to the scarcity of salmon in the rivers in spring and summer. Our tourist economy would have a greater income if visitors came for the spring fishing as they do for the autumn. Damage is being done to the local economy, where some 500 jobs are dependent upon the existence of salmon in the river; £5 million annually is injected into our economy.
According to an independent survey, the national figure is at least 10 times that number. The Tweed Commission's funds are also at risk. They are funds which are needed to protect the fish from poaching, to pay for improvements to spawning areas and for the cost of research into salmon and brown trout.
During the debates on the Salmon Bill in 1986, a number of your Lordships were ready to propose the banning of the north-east fisheries in the Bill. However, on the assurance of my noble friend Lord Belstead that those fisheries would be monitored carefully over five years and that an opportunity would be offered to reconsider banning if catch figures proved to be significant, we agreed not to press the matter. The ground for delay was the high employment in the north-east at that time. Without being unmindful of the unemployment in the north-east, it is fair to say that few driftnetsmen can be said to be mainly dependent upon drift netting for employment, whereas up river there are many full-time jobs upon which families depend.
Since those matters were debated. the number of salmon entering the river in the spring and summer has been on the decline. That is in the context of a situation where our own river nets have had to be reduced greatly.
It is a depressing experience to live by a fine river, where in years past the streams and pools were heavily populated with leaping salmon, now to have those pools empty and deserted. That desertion cannot be attributed solely to the interceptory nets, but the driftnet fishery contributes significantly to it. It is believed to intercept 100,000 salmon each year, 80 per cent. of which are returning to Scotland. That number is the equivalent of over 60 per cent. of catches by all methods in England and Wales. As several noble Lords have said, the fish are caught by 180 nets, some of them half a mile long, operating along a short length of coast.
In accordance with government undertakings given at the time of the Salmon Bill, the position of the north-east fisheries was reviewed at the end of five years. As the catch figures were found to be significant, it was decided to phase out the driftnets. My noble friend Lady Trumpington said in the House a year ago that the Government,
"have asked the National Rivers Authority to come forward with proposals to achieve this as soon as possible".—[0fficial Report, 26/11/91; col. 1275.]
However, the introduction of the 1992 net limitation order by the N RA came as a great shock to the Tweed commissioners who realised that the pace of the phase-out operation was much too slow. Despite various deputations to the Minister, it appears that the Government are unwilling to speed up matters. At present, the Government's reluctance to grasp the nettle is evident. Some urgent action is needed.

1585
As one of those who took part in the Committee stage of the Salmon Bill and was involved with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne designed to ban drift netting, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will now consider the incorporation of that amendment into the Act. My noble friend's amendment provided:
"In Section 1(1) (a) add the sub-paragraph '(vi) a drift net'."
and,
"In Section 1(3) insert at the end 'drift-net' means any length of net allowed to float or drift being either attached or released from a fishing boat and not being a length of net attached or held on the shore'."
I ask my noble friend to consider that request. I hope that it will help speed things up.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, as he mentioned me perhaps I may say that I do not believe that I said anything with which he would disagree. There was a moment when I was trying to guess why nothing had been done about the north-east at the same time as something was done about the Scottish nets. I was in no way complaining or saying that that was right. I was merely saying that they were probably old-fashioned and no problem then.
6.9 p.m.
The Duke of Roxburghe: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the serious problem of the north-east driftnet fisheries. As the ninth speaker, I apologise if I repeat any points that have already been made. I must first declare an interest in that my family and I own two beats on the River Tweed, the river which is most seriously affected by the north-east fisheries. I am a Tweed commissioner and a member of its management committee. I shall therefore endeavour to restrict my comments to the effects of the driftnet fishery on the Tweed and other east coast Scottish rivers.
As many other noble Lords have said, interceptory fishing for salmon and sea trout, especially when carried out with monofilament drift nets, is universally agreed to be an unsound and bad management practice.
The new net limitation order, with the proposal to phase out fishery over a 30-year period, is paying mere lip service to this principle and it totally fails to address the problem. The NRA predicts that the number of nets will halve in 10 years, but there is no certainty as to this. As other noble Lords have said, there is no guarantee that the catch will reduce. The remaining netsmen, if they have any sense or any commercial and economic acumen, will simply carry on fishing and catch more salmon. Surely this cannot be the Government's intention.
The implications for the Tweed and other Scottish rivers are considerable. In 1992, the Tweed commissioners were forced to reduce the levy on their commercial nets by 77 per cent., thanks to the extremely poor catches made by those nets in previous years. The resulting loss of income to the commissioners was £35,000, out of a budget of £300,000. That severely restricted the commissioners'
1586
ability to carry out good river management and to support the many new initiatives planned, including the vitally important habitat improvement plan.
Much has been made of the importance of jobs in the north-east fishery—not least this evening. But serious thought should be given to the effect of the damage that the fishery does to the economies of the Borders and Scotland as a whole. The Tweed still has plenty of fish in its late autumn run, but as the noble Earl, Lord Haig, mentioned, the spring and summer runs are very poor, decreasing to the point where beats are not let at any price, with the resultant loss of business in the local economy. Hotel beds are not filled, shops lose turnover and there is a consequent loss of employment throughout the region. It would appear that the north-east jobs are sacrosanct, but the Borders and Scottish jobs are not.
Furthermore, it might interest your Lordships to know the full effect of the north-east fishery on the Tweed's commercial nets. The north-east driftnet fishery season finishes on 31st August each year and the Tweed nets go on until 14th September. The Tweed nets see an immediate improvement in their catches in the first two weeks of September. The netsmen state that their profitability for the season depends entirely on their success or failure in those two weeks.
In the past five years to 1992, the increase in catches for the two main netting stations on the Tweed during the first two weeks in September compared with the last two weeks of August each year has been: 50 per cent., 42 per cent., 125 per cent., 109 per cent. and 55 per cent. That is an average increase over five years of 66 per cent. which surely gives a clear indication of the extremely damaging effect that the north-east fishery has on the commercial nets on the Tweed.
If further proof is needed, in the past three years the catch in the last two weeks of August for the same netting stations has declined by 54 per cent. It is a recognised management practice that migratory fish should be harvested at the source from which they originate. This is not being allowed to happen on the Tweed.
There is another point which I feel has not been adequately considered about the north-east fishery. If it continues in any form in the future, it will allow illegal drift netting to take place. The policing of those illegal nets is almost impossible with the legal nets in place. There are many illegal nets floating in the sea which no one claims, and I am sure that the NRA would bear this out. It is only when the season finishes that the practice of illegal drift netting within the Northumberland area can be stopped.
I believe that the Government have based their decision up to now on the north-east driftnet fishery on an erroneous premise—namely, the threat to fish stocks. It is an unsound management policy to say that a practice will not be curtailed until there is positive evidence that stocks are being damaged. It is equivalent to saying that we will not protect a species until there is evidence of its extinction. Further, with the amount of evidence emerging through genetic testing about the complexity of the salmon's genetic make-up, which in many areas now suggests specific

1587
sub-races of salmon, it is surely complacent and arrogant to believe that an efficient driftnet fishery of this magnitude is not damaging component parts of the salmon stocks.
What then can he done'? My noble friend Lord Kimberley spoke illuminatingly about the NRA, MAFF and the DoE. If the NRA cannot bring about the changes which are necessary, then surely the Government could bring in the necessary legislation, as my noble friend Lord Haig suggested. Alternatively, or linked with this, the phasing out of the north-east driftnet fishery can be speeded up by including certain specific conditions in the proposed net limitation order.
I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's response to these suggestions: first, that in 1993 a licence be issued only to those people who have held a licence during the preceding two years. Thus, the 14 new holders of licences issued in 1992, against the spirit of the Government's intention, would not qualify. Secondly, that suitable provisions be put into the net limitation order to specify a retirement age. Sixty would appear sensible. Thirdly, as a number of noble Lords said, a large number of netsmen fish only on a few occasions each year. It is therefore difficult for them to claim that the fishery provides a significant proportion of their income. It should, therefore, be a condition of the renewal or transfer of a licence that applicants should have fished on an average of 30 days in each year during the previous five years. Fourthly, as suggested in the Section 39 report, the opening date of the season should be postponed to 1st May to reduce the exploitation of the spring salmon.
Finally, in relation to the Tweed, it has been proposed that 25 T and J licences should be issued in District 1 immediately adjacent to the Tweed, particularly in view of the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the number of sea trout caught in the T and J nets. These nets would still exploit predominantly those salmon and sea trout stocks returning to Scottish rivers, especially the Tweed. Will the Minister accept that these nets should be reduced to 10 and that the same provisions for phasing out should apply as apply to those proposed for driftnets?
None of these proposals is unreasonable. They are suggested so that the phasing out of the north-east driftnet fishery can be carried out within a more realistic timeframe. That would show that the Government are fully committed to the principle of allowing migratory fish to return to their sources of origin, without heavy exploitation through drift netting, rather than the Government's present position of publicly adopting one policy and then condoning a practice which is diametrically different.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Moran, not merely on raising this Question but on the complete and comprehensive manner in which he did so. It made my task correspondingly easier and, I hope,
1588
similarly assisted the Minister in clarifying the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and other speakers in the debate this evening.
My starting point is the session at Question Time in your Lordships' House on 26th November 1991, a year ago, at col. 1275 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, asked the Minister whether, as a result of the north-east salmon netting review, Her Majesty's Government could indicate a timescale for phasing out the use of driftnets. The Minister of State at MAFF—the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, at that time—said that the north-east coast salmon driftnet fishing should end as soon as those holding licences left the fishery. She said the National Rivers Authority had been asked to come forward with proposals to achieve that aim. When pressed about that reply she agreed that the National Rivers Authority had at that time no option but to advertise a temporary extension of existing net limitation orders in the Northumbrian region to ensure that the fishery remained tightly regulated.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, took part in that Question Time. He welcomed the phasing out of driftnet licences. He said that step had already been advocated by noble Lords five years previously when debating the Salmon Bill of 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned the effect of driftnet fishing on Scottish rivers. The Minister of State replied that in 1990–91 the net loss to Scottish fisheries was calculated at 6 per cent. That seems rather low in the light of what has been said in the course of our discussion this evening.
At that Question Time I asked the Minister of State about illegal fishing off the Irish coast. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was kind enough to refer to that matter today when he introduced his Question. I received no reply to my question at the time and to this day I do not know whether illegal fishing takes place off the Irish coast. If that is happening it must be aggravating the situation and it must be compounding the problem of driftnet fishing off the north-east coast. We have been mainly concerned with driftnet fishing off that latter coast this evening.
In his admirable speech today the noble Lord, Lord Moran, advocated a five year phase-out period with compensation for fishermen. He referred to the limited powers that the National Rivers Authority has in this matter, particularly as regards its obligation to issue new licences in certain circumstances. He welcomes, as I do, the National Rivers Authority's decision to limit licences in the Anglian region. He said specifically that sea trout stocks were a cause for concern as the dreaded T and J nets were used to fish those stocks. The National Rivers Authority estimates that it will take 30 years to phase out driftnet fishing. That is, I believe, a source of great concern to us all, as is the use of monofilament nets. The noble Lord referred to the example the Canadian Government had set in this matter when they agreed to a voluntary buy-out of certain fisheries.
Other speakers have made various points and I shall deal with some of them in the hope that it will assist the Minister in his reply. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, opposed any form of drift netting, as did

1589
most speakers. He referred to it as wasteful and murderous. The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, said the National Rivers Authority cannot carry out its statutory duties with regard to the River Esk in Yorkshire. He compared the economics of rod fisheries with those of driftnet fisheries in terms of licence income. The Rod fishermen pay far more for their licences than do the driftnet fishermen. The noble Lord gave details of the quantities of fish taken by rod fishermen and by driftnet fishermen to illustrate the size of the problem. He said that the driftnet fishermen took huge quantities of fish as compared with the relatively modest quantities taken by those who use rod and line.
The noble Earl. Lord Kimberley, said that the Department of the Environment had primary responsibility for the National Rivers Authority. I had the impression that, along with other speakers, the noble Earl was questioning the seriousness with which the Ministry of Agriculture approached this problem in England and Wales. The noble Earl perhaps wished that the National Rivers Authority was responsible for this matter to the Department of the Environment, where its main responsibility under statute lies. The noble Earl gave us concise details of the legal steps which can he taken to ban driftnet fishing.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that driftnet fishing was not the sole livelihood of the driftnet fishermen. He claimed they only fished on a part-time basis. He discussed in some detail the effect of driftnet fishing on riparian owners. That point was taken up by many other speakers in the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, discussed variations in the numbers of fish caught. He said the important issue was that riparian owners generated employment through offering conventional fishing by rod and line. In his opinion, that kind of fishing made a significant contribution to the economics of rural life.
The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, paid tribute to my late colleague Lord Ross of Marnock. My late colleague was the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1962 when driftnet fishing was banned there. The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, expressed the hope that England would follow that example. Those who knew Lord Ross of Marnock knew he favoured prompt action. He had considerable powers as Secretary of State for Scotland. The late Lord's personality and his powers enabled him to take action quickly. That was the hallmark of his distinguished career. The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, also mentioned rod fishing opportunities abroad despite the geographical problems of reaching such far away places as Murmansk.
The noble Earl, Lord Haig, mentioned the River Tweed, as did the noble Duke, the Duke of Roxburghe. The noble Earl, Lord Haig, spoke of assurances that had been given about the ending of north-east drift netting during the passage of the 1986 Act. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, giving those assurances. The noble Duke spoke not only of the River Tweed but also of the problems created on other east coast rivers in Scotland. He said that a 30 year phase-out period was merely case of paying lip
1590
service to the problem as significant damage had already been done to the River Tweed and in other areas.
I hope the Minister will answer the following questions this evening. When does Her Majesty's Government expect the phasing-out of drift netting to be completed? Are they prepared to expedite that process by compensating existing driftnet fishermen for giving up their licences? Can the National Rivers Authority achieve reductions if in certain circumstances it is currently obliged to license new entrants? Is the National Rivers Authority adequately funded to carry out that job satisfactorily? Will Her Majesty's Government ban nylon filament gill nets? Does the Ministry of Agriculture intend to tackle this problem seriously?
6.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, like other noble Lords I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for giving us the opportunity to debate this difficult and important issue. I welcome the chance to respond to the concerns of noble Lords and to explain as fully as I possibly can the Government's view.
I should like to begin, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, did, by reminding your Lordships that during the passage of the Salmon Bill in 1986 the Government undertook to carry out a review of the salmon net fisheries off the North-East of England and eastern Scotland. The terms of the review are set out in Section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986. This required Ministers to prepare a report in the context of the need to ensure that sufficient salmon return to spawn in the rivers of the review area and that fishing for salmon by nets is properly managed. This mandate was approved by both Houses.
The report of the review was presented to Parliament in October of last year by my right honourable friends the Minister responsible for agriculture, fisheries and food and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I remind my noble friend Lord Kimberley that they have responsibility for fisheries. The review, which was appended to the report, describes in great detail the management of the fisheries in the review area, the changes in catches by each method since 1952 and the effect of the various net fisheries on other fisheries and on spawning stocks. Much of the information in it concerns the salmon driftnet fisheries which operate off the Northumbrian and Yorkshire coasts.
Your Lordships may also recall that the review did not produce any evidence that these driftnet fisheries posed an immediate threat to salmon stocks, or for that reason any justification for depriving existing netsmen of their licences at a stroke. It did, however, note that the fisheries are interceptory, exploiting several salmon and sea trout stocks. It also recognised that a substantial proportion of the fish caught are heading for Scottish rivers. The dependence of the fisheries on that multiplicity of stocks from widely dispersed river systems makes the task of conservation and management more difficult.

1591
It followed, therefore, that it would aid and improve the management of individual east coast salmon and sea trout stocks if these driftnet fisheries were to come to an end. It is for that reason that Ministers decided that it would be desirable to phase them out. However, they took the view that, in order to avoid unnecessary hardship, this should be done gradually. Their report included a formula for achieving that objective. It was that the number of licences be reduced as those holding them left the fisheries.
The report also proposed a number of other changes to the management and regulation of the net fisheries. These included a review of licence duties, the harmonisation of regulations in Yorkshire and Northumbria, the postponement of the opening date of the drift net fisheries and the making available of increased opportunities for T and J netting.
Ministers have discretionary powers under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 to regulate sea fisheries, including fishing for salmon and migratory trout. It would be possible to use those heavy handed powers to license and, subsequently, to phase out the driftnet fishery. However, there would be certain difficulties in that approach. More importantly, there is no need to go down that route. The National Rivers Authority, which was created after the Salmon Act 1986 came into force, has a clear statutory duty to manage salmon fisheries. It also has the statutory powers necessary to implement all the measures proposed by Ministers in their report.
I should make one point. There is no question of the Ministry sheltering behind the NRA. If either Ministers or the NRA receive a body of evidence and consider that action needs to be taken in furtherance of the NRA's responsibilities neither party is likely to stand in the way of the other without very good reason. The authority will act in concert with Ministers, and vice versa.
As I said, the NRA has the necessary powers, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there would he little point in creating an authority and giving it specific duties, responsibilities and powers if they are not made use of. That is why Ministers asked the NRA to consider how their proposals could be put into effect.
On the central question of the phase-out the NRA responded by proposing the introduction of a new net limitation order under which the re-allocation of surrendered licences would be prohibited. That approach was wholly consistent with the mechanism set out by Ministers in their report. The NRA also made a strong case—which Ministers accepted—for the authority to be given limited discretion to allow the transfer of licences to long-standing bona fide partners of licence holders in certain exceptional—and I stress the word "exceptional"—circumstances.
The NRA was asked to prepare and, subsequently, to publish an order which would implement its proposals. That has been done. As some noble Lords will know, my right honourable friend the Minister has received a number of objections to the new order. Some of the points made in those objections have been
1592
mentioned here today. My right honourable friend will be considering these carefully before taking a final decision on whether to confirm the order.
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked when the Government expect the phase-out to be completed. We have not fixed a precise date for this and, in the light of the report's findings, we see no case for doing so. The NRA has estimated that a phase-out on the basis proposed would take 30 years to complete, with the number of licences falling by half in 10 years. Given the formula established by Ministers in the report, that should have come as no surprise.
The NRA's estimate is based on historic rates of departure of licence holders from the fisheries. I would emphasise, especially to my noble friend Lord Peel, however, that it is only an estimate. Factors such as the recent fall in drift net catches, and the fall in the value of wild salmon as a result of the increased availability of the farmed variety, could lead to a faster rate of decline.
I recognise that all noble Lords participating in the debate have said that these fisheries should be brought to an end much more quickly. I fully recognise the strength of feeling expressed this afternoon. It has been suggested that a quicker phase-out could be achieved without hardship if the netsmen were to be paid compensation. However, in the absence of any evidence that the driftnet fisheries pose a threat to stocks—and in the legal context that is the key point —there can be no justification for the Government taking action beyond that which has already been proposed.
That does not, however, prevent others taking action if they see a benefit from a faster phase-out. The possibility of a private buy-out scheme has been mentioned. Were the new net limitation order to be confirmed it would be feasible to introduce such a scheme. There would, for instance, be nothing to stop a driftnetsman from accepting payment in return for not renewing his licence. But those are matters for private agreement and private capital. There can be no question of government involvement in such arrangements, or of taxpayers' money being used to fund them.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and other noble Lords drew attention to the fact that licences were issued to 14 new driftnetsmen in 1992. In that context I should emphasise that the total number of driftnet licences issued in 1992 was the same as in 1991: there was no increase. The timing of the presentation of the review after the Summer Recess, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Moran, recognised, meant that the NRA had no option but to promote a temporary, one-year net limitation order for Northumbria before the review appeared. Had it not done so the fishery would have been unregulated for the 1992 season and the authority would have been obliged to issue licences to any applicant, without any limit on numbers. To have introduced an order which prevented new applicants from being issued with unallocated licences would certainly have generated a public inquiry, which would have put at risk measures for controlling the

1593
fishery in 1992. However, the number of netsmen involved is small, and their ages are such that their entry into the fishery should not prolong its existence.
The point has been made by many noble Lords that the revenue generated by recreational salmon and sea trout fisheries far exceeds that generated by the drift nets, and that a greater number of people depend upon it for their livelihoods. I would not dispute that for one moment, but it is the marginal change and not the total revenue which is important. Our scientists estimated on the basis of detailed studies that even if all forms of salmon netting off the North East of England—fixed nets inshore and drift nets—were to come to an end, the average increase in rod catches in Scottish east coast rivers would be less than 7 per cent. It is hard to see that that would result in any significant increase in the number of anglers fishing those rivers, or in their expenditure.
Many believe that the revenue considerations should have been taken into account in the review. But I once again remind your Lordships that the review was carried out under the terms laid down in the Salmon Act 1986. That required Ministers to review salmon net fishing under two terms of reference: the need to ensure that sufficient salmon returned to spawn; and that fishery for salmon is properly managed.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, expressed a particular interest in sea trout and the dangers of over-exploitation by inshore fixed nets as off-shore netting declines. I should like to assure him that we and the NRA agree that that will need great care. We do not think it unreasonable, as we proposed last year, to offer opportunities to former driftnetsmen to operate an inshore net. However, the numbers of those nets must continue to be tightly regulated, and a proper balance established between all forms of exploitation of sea trout stocks, including, of course, the local rivers of Northumbria and Yorkshire. The same goes for salmon too, and I hope that noble Lords will accept how seriously we take these matters.
Much has been made of the fact that interceptory netting has been prohibited in many North Atlantic countries. It has been suggested that the Government's failure to take similar action in relation to the north-east coast driftnet fishery is hampering efforts to bring salmon drift netting fishing to an end elsewhere.
I should like to emphasise—I think that it should be emphasised in international forums—that those fisheries are tightly regulated by the NRA. The nets must he attended at all times; they can only be used during certain hours, on certain days and at certain times of the year; and they are subject to strict regulations on size and design. I also reiterate that the review found no evidence that they posed an immediate threat to salmon stocks. In the absence of such evidence, there is no legal justification for bringing them to an early end. However, we accept that the interceptory nature of the fisheries makes the task of managing individual stocks more difficult. That is why, as I said, we have taken the view that they should be phased out.
1594
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned carcass tagging and my noble friend Lord Peel referred to quotas, which in a way are associated ideas. Proposals have been put forward to my right honourable friend the Minister very recently along these lines, following his meeting with salmon angling interests. There are considerable difficulties with the idea of a quota, enforcement being one, and discarding, the encouragement to trans-ship salmon and, not least, how to establish an entitlement to quota in the first place. Nonetheless, we are looking at those suggestions. We have considered quotas in the past. They have not been used in many decades of inshore conservation and management of salmon. In their place we have chosen restrictions on effort, time, area, place, net types, net lengths and so on.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. Can my noble friend give us some assurance, bearing in mind that he has just said that these nets are highly regulated by the NRA, that if it is proven that the overall net catches do not decline despite the reduction in the number of licences given, the Government will continue to search out ways and means of finding out how many fish are being caught and will look at the whole idea of quotas? Without them, I cannot see how there will be any real reduction in the overall number of salmon that will be caught.
Earl Howe: I was coming to that very point and will be glad to answer my noble friend in a moment.
The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, that many of the drift netsmen are part-timers. From the netsmen working T-nets, J-nets and drift nets in Northumbria and Yorkshire, there is a range of part-time and full-time effort. The salmon and sea trout netting season is relatively short and there are strict controls on effort, times, area, and so on. It is important to grasp that during the season, for full-timers and part-timers, the catch is an important component of the mixed fisheries throughout the year. Thus, salmon fishing adds to their overall viability. We plan to phase out the fishery, but I repeat that we must avoid unnecessary hardship.
My noble friend the Duke of Roxburghe suggested some conditions which might be applied to the 1993 net limitation order: for example, restricting the season, the possibility of disenfranchising the 14 new netsmen, a compulsory retirement age and so on. We should be very happy to consider those points. There are letters currently before my right honourable friend the Minister making much the same points. My right honourable friend will review those submissions before deciding whether to confirm or amend the order.
Perhaps the House will forgive me if I finish by going into a little more detail about the widespread decline in salmon catches and the "crisis" which faces the Scottish angling economy. It is an issue which has been raised by noble Lords this evening. There are still some who would like to claim that drift netting off the north-east coast of England is responsible for all these ills. However, my noble friend Lord Kimball admits

1595
that the causal chain is hard to substantiate. I suggest that we ought to keep the picture in proper perspective.
Very recently there have been disappointing levels of catch in commercial and rod fisheries throughout the North Atlantic from Russia to Maine. Our research and that of others into the causes continues. But the evidence so far indicates that much of the reduction of catches in salmon by all methods in 1990 reflected the poor survival at sea of the 1989 year class of smolts coming from a wide range of North Atlantic home rivers. Catch data for 1991 were also below average, again as a consequence of low overall returns from the 1989 smolt year class. All have been affected by this problem.
There has been anxiety about Scottish rod catches in the rivers of the east and north-east coasts of Scotland and the impact of English drift netting upon them. In fact, as the review shows, those rod catches have been remarkably stable since 1952—the period of our review. That coincided with the introduction of monofilament netting in the drift net fishery. Looking at Scottish commercial catches—fixed nets and net and coble fisheries—it is quite true that there has been a sharp fall in catches, again as our review shows. But we need to look at changes in netting effort as well. The review shows that effort in the fixed net fisheries and net and coble fisheries of the Scottish estuaries and rivers has fallen very sharply indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has already mentioned the substantial buying-out of netting stations by the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust in more recent years. I ask how that squares with the seemingly clear-cut arguments put forward by noble Lords this afternoon.
In responding to your Lordships' worries, I hope I have succeeded in at least one thing; namely, to show that the Government's approach to this issue is not a negative or unsympathetic one. Ministers have made it clear that they remain committed to the strict regulation of the salmon driftnet fisheries while they continue. We shall continue to monitor the state of stocks and the level of catches. In doing so, we shall take account of the decline in licence numbers. If it becomes clear that further action is required in order to conserve stocks, we shall not hesitate to take it and we shall authorise the NRA to exercise their powers to the extent necessary. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend. Let there be no doubt about that.
My right honourable friend Mr. Gummer must now decide whether to confirm the NRA's new north-east coast net limitation order. In doing so he will take account of the representations and formal objections that he has received. He will also take account of all the points made here this afternoon.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he can help us on one point. He said that scientists estimate that if all the nets were removed from the north-east coast, the result for Scotland would be a 7 per cent. increase in catches. Is that estimate available and how is it reached? If it is or if it is not, can it be made available by being placed in the Library?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not see any difficulty about making those conclusions available to the noble Earl. I shall certainly see what can be done.

GATT
6.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the position in the GATT Uruguay Round of trade negotiations.
"The House will recall that the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations—the eighth GATT round -was launched in 1986. Its coverage was ambitious —15 different areas and 108 parties—making it the biggest trade negotiation in history. As well as traditional GATT areas such as tariff and non-tariff barriers, it covered the new areas of services, intellectual property and investment, and the development of new GATT rules for agricultural and textiles trade. It also aimed to improve the rules and functioning of the GATT generally.
"These aims were ambitious, but they have now been very largely achieved. The draft text produced by Mr. Dunkel, the GATT director general, at the end of last year proposed a basis for agreement on all these issues. Over 80 per cent. of the proposals were agreed by all the parties. However, there remained a number of unresolved problems, principally over agriculture, which led the European Community to say that the text was not acceptable as it stood. Negotiations also still have to be completed on the commitments by individual parties to cut tariffs and barriers to trade in services.
"I must make clear to the House that the European Commission is responsible for negotiating in the GATT on behalf of the European Community. It negotiates under authority from the Council of Ministers, who will have to approve any final agreement. For their part the Government have consistently supported a Uruguay Round agreement. That has been particularly true during our presidency when we have made concerted efforts to help achieve a satisfactory conclusion.
"Since the Dunkel text appeared, efforts have concentrated on bilateral negotiations between the European Commission and the United States. These were aimed at resolving their remaining bilateral differences, mainly on agriculture, and so open the way to the completion of a full multilateral agreement in Geneva.
"The latest round of these talks took place earlier this week in Chicago between the European Community's Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, and the United States Agriculture Secretary, Mr. Madigan. As well as continuing attempts to settle the remaining difficulties over the

1597
GATT agriculture agreement, they were also trying to resolve a separate but related trade dispute over the Community's support regime for oilseeds. The Community and the US have been negotiating changes to this regime following the findings of the GATT panel that it breached the EC's GATT obligations.
"Some progress was made on both issues, but final agreement had not been reached before the talks were suspended on Tuesday evening. The gap between the two sides has nevertheless been narrowed substantially and the remaining differences are very small indeed. The Government are working to bring both sides back to the negotiating table as soon as possible.
"The United States has just announced retaliatory action in the oilseeds dispute against 300 million dollars of Community exports. I understand that that covers various types of wine, rapeseed oil and wheat gluten. This is a highly regrettable development and the Community will need to consider its response very carefully. But I would stress that the list of affected products will only come into effect after 30 days. The question of EC counter-retaliation, which some in the Commission have mentioned, will only arise if there is no settlement in the meantime and would in any case be subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers. It is in the interests of both sides to avoid starting a spiral of retaliation which can only harm exporters and damage the prospects for GATT agreement.
"Little time remains if we are to meet the end-year target set for conclusion of the GATT round by the G7 Summit and the Birmingham European Council. This is also important if the US Administration is to take advantage of their arrangements for so-called "fast track" approval under which any agreement must be notified to Congress by March. We may never have a better chance to conclude such a wide-ranging agreement. If this chance is missed, the prospects for the negotiations and for the world trading system are serious, and those most directly concerned will carry a heavy responsibility.
"While the remaining issues are difficult, the two sides have also never been closer together. A settlement both of the GATT issues and the oilseeds dispute is achievable. The benefits of agreement would be substantial. Apart from the extra 200 billion dollars annual world output which, on an OECD estimate, would result from the round, there is the immediate boost to business confidence which agreement would give. We can and must grasp this prize."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is sad and disturbing that we always
1598
seem to be discussing hiccups in the GATT round when all sides of your Lordships' House and all communities believe that it should go ahead.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a number of questions. First, is it the case, as I have heard recently, that Commissioner MacSharry has now resigned on the ground that interference from the President of the Commission did not enable him to do the deal that he thought would be acceptable to the United States? Secondly, are the French agricultural subsidies the major problem? If so, what can the United Kingdom, in its presidency of the Community, do about that?
Thirdly, will the noble Baroness give us her views on what the remainder of the world thinks about this curious dispute between two major trading blocs? So far as I understand, the rest of the world is impatient that an agreement which would benefit the third world in particular—I refer to over 100 countries—is held up by a curious dispute over what I believe is 1 million tonnes of oilseed. Is that not a rather odd circumstance? Should we not seek to persuade the Community to break through it?
Fourthly, is the noble Baroness aware that on 30th June the Prime Minister assured another place that he was looking for a successful outcome to the GATT negotiations during his presidency? Can we have an assurance from the Government that if that was what the Prime Minister said on 30th June, that is what the Prime Minister is saying today?
It is a sad and sorry tale. It is extraordinary that a major stimulus to world trade, which we all support at a time of world recession, should be put at risk by a difference in the negotiating position with regard to one million tonnes of oil seed production. If the Uruguay Round can be completed, the gains to industry and commerce will be immense. The Government and the House must not permit that success to be lost in a dispute over soya bean.
Finally, I echo what the noble Baroness said in the Statement which she repeated. If that chance is missed, the prospects for the negotiations as regards the world trade system are serious and those most directly concerned will carry a heavy responsibility.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say yet again how much importance we attach, as I believe is the case on all sides of the House, to the success of the Uruguay Round and how disastrous it would be if failure occurred at this late stage. It reads as an unbelievable story that because of oil seed—there always seems to be a great deal too much of that in France—the wholly desirable consequences of a settlement of the Uruguay Round are being held up.
As was said in the Statement, a boost would be given to confidence in world trade which is long overdue. It is estimated that a successful completion would increase output by 200 billion dollars per year. The loss of such wealth creation which that implies, in a world in which there is so much poverty, should not be allowed to happen. Above all else, it would make such a tremendous difference to the people in developing countries whose wellbeing and future prospects are of enormous importance. This is

1599
probably the single most important issue before parliaments in all countries today and a successful conclusion dwarfs in importance so many of the other matters which have been discussed in your Lordships' House and in another place this week.
Particularly lamentable is the apparent attempt by the United States to use retaliatory tariffs to try to achieve a result. Of course, in some sense that may be only a negotiating attitude in the hope that it will lead the European Commission to come to its senses. However, if this is the beginning of retaliatory tariff wars, with protection mounting in all countries, then the future for trade for us and for other countries is gloomy indeed, and the consequences are most serious.
For the EC to retaliate would be to compound the error still further. Retaliation cannot take place unless the Council of Ministers agrees. The determination to achieve a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round must to some extent at least be influenced by the attitude taken by the governments of member states. We demand from the Government that they throw their whole weight behind achieving a satisfactory conclusion to the round. Their strength in the European Commission is surely somewhat enhanced by the events of yesterday. They must throw their weight behind achieving a successful conclusion of the round. They must also oppose retaliatory tariffs: it would be the last straw if the European Community embarked upon them. If we go down that road, the results will he disastrous.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for joining with me in expressing enormous anxiety as to the unacceptable prospect that the talks may not be resolved. It is something which we cannot contemplate. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, not only as head of the UK Government but also as President of the Council, will continue to reinforce the extremely strong views which he has expressed already about working towards a settlement of this problem.
As has been rightly said, nothing could happen to support the world economy as effectively as a successful conclusion to these talks. Again, as has rightly been said, the contribution that that would make to the health and welfare of the third world outclasses any other means by which we could offer aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the position of Commissioner MacSharry. It is reported that he resigned a few moments ago, apparently because of disagreements with Delors over the GATT agricultural negotiations. That is a development which we can only regret.
The negative attitude of some member states is indeed to be regretted wholeheartedly. I stress that all member states signed the commitment to aim for agreement by the end of the year at the Birmingham Council meeting. Therefore, it is difficult to see why we are not moving forward.
The noble Baroness drew attention to the danger of retaliatory action; we are well aware of that. We are
1600
convinced that that will bring no answer to the problem. It may perhaps be helpful to your Lordships if I quote US trade representative Carla Hills in issuing the barriers. She said:
"We are open to further negotiation in the 30 days before the duties become effective … This action will not affect our determined effort to reach a Uruguay Round agreement".
We must hope that that will give us a window of opportunity.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend answer the question put to her by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as to whether or not the main factor in the failure to reach agreement has been the attitude of the French to agricultural production? If that is right—and I want to hear her confirmation of that—is it really a fact that the French are capable of holding up this agreement which, as I understand it, is desired by all the other members of the Community?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, indeed, the strength of the agricultural lobby in France appears to be a major contributory factor to the problems which we now face. We should search as hard as we possibly can for solutions. France joined with the other members of the European Council in saying that it would work towards agreement. We must regret that this difficulty has now arisen.
Lord Jay: My Lords, now that this country is at the heart of Europe, can the Minister explain why the British Government have failed to induce the French Government to desist from obstructing the negotiations for the narrowest of protectionist reasons, thereby obstructing the whole future of world trade? Is it true that M. Delors intervened to prevent agreement being reached this week?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will understand, the negotiations involving the Community were bilateral. I cannot comment on the absolutely confidential details of those discussions. If we could understand why we cannot persuade the French to agree, we should then be able to solve the problem.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the French are not the only people who pursue a subsidised agricultural policy and that American agriculture is heavily subsidised too? That should not be forgotten. Perhaps I may also suggest to the noble Baroness that these negotiations are conducted by the Commission, but that the Council of Ministers is ultimately in the driving seat. It is no good simply blaming the Commission. However, if you believe that the whole problem is France, the way in which you can deal with that is by having qualified majority voting. That is not something that would appeal to some people elsewhere, but that is the fact of the matter.
The second fact of the matter if you want to deal with the French position is that you have to mobilise the Germans, who have much more influence with France than we do, to persuade the French to change their attitude because it is Germany rather than we

1601
who are in a position to exercise real leverage. That emphasises how extremely foolish we were after the abandonment of the ERM to get involved in a ludicrous slanging match with Germany which is after all so important in these matters.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of issues. I agree that there are points of prejudice on both sides of the bilaterals that have taken place. There are points of self-interest which countries have been considering. I should like to think that the whole of the Community—the Council of Ministers has the end responsibility; I was not trying to lay that at the door of the Commission—is working together. With our partners in the Council we are certainly doing that. I would not, as perhaps the noble Lord did, underestimate the strength and value of the part played by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps explain to Commissioner Andriessen and some other commissioners the old adage that two wrongs do not make a right? Earlier today I saw suggestions that the Commission would propose retaliation against the United States. The United States already feels wronged by the Community's attitude to oilseed rape. Just to compound it, retaliating against its proposed retaliation would in my view take us into a spiral of protection which would he extremely dangerous to the world economy, the Community economy and our own economy. Will my noble friend give an undertaking to your Lordships' House that, if this matter comes to the Council of Ministers, the Government will resist any proposals from the Commission to retaliate against the United States?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we see this as the most unwise path that we could possibly travel.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told the House that, in the Government's opinion, France is the principal member government of the European Community to be holding out against settlement with the United States. Will she tell the House which other Community governments are inclined to tough it out and which are on our side and inclined to settle quickly?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give details. The comment on the French Government and the agricultural position must be drawn from the remarks of Commissioner MacSharry who was involved in the negotiations. I reiterate that every member of the Community agreed to work towards agreement by the end of the year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the Statement the noble Baroness said that British goods would not be involved at present. However, if there is retaliation, would not British goods, including Scotch whisky, electrical goods, furniture and computers, become very much involved? Does not this illustrate the futility of centralism and the absurdity of allowing
1602
our trade relationships, even with our greatest and most long-standing partner—America—to be negotiated by a group of other countries with interests diverse from, and often diametrically opposed, to our own? Finally, is it not quite unthinkable that we should allow this country's trade to be governed by the necessity of the French to prevent a riot among their farmers?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we are part of a global market. It is important that we are part of negotiations which can bring into this market-place an uplift of 200 billion dollars. However, I agree with the noble Lord that, were this agreement not to be signed and were we to end up—this is not the Government's aim—in a retaliatory situation, it is not just the list of goods that he mentioned that would suffer. It would be disastrous for our economy.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite the reaction of both parties to the situation, a dumping action could be taken as a way of removing the issue from the debate and isolating it as a matter of local concern?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we would be delighted if the issues could be split, but we are convinced that there are both political and practical problems that do not make that a feasible solution.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, given that the Commission negotiates for the European Community on the instructions of the Council of Ministers and that the chair of the Council of Ministers for this six-month period is Great Britain, it seems to me that there is a direct responsibility upon us. Is the failure of the negotiations, and Commissioner MacSharry's subsequent resignation, the fault of the Council of Ministers or is it the result of some fault in the Commission itself? If it is the fault of the Council of Ministers, what action are the Government taking to deal with that? If it is the fault of the Commission, will the Government make representations to the European Parliament, which, I believe, is the only authority that can effectively sack the commissioners, to do that job?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me for specifics on the detail of negotiations to which we were not a direct party. One indication of the seriousness and commitment of the UK Government to the successful conclusion of the negotiations was the fact that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture was prepared to be available for the support of the commissioner in his role as President of the Agricultural Council. As various noble Lords said, it is a matter for the Council of Ministers. There will be discussions as regards the next move. Until the beginning of this week we had reason to believe that progress was being made. Progress has now halted, although we hope only temporarily. We must aim to ensure that those negotiations restart and continue.

Monuments and Listed Buildings
7.20 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What protection they will give to monuments and listed buildings in the light of the recent policy announcement by English Heritage.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as can be seen from the Question, I am concerned with the new strategy recently announced by English Heritage. It is perhaps worthwhile my briefly indicating the main functions which English Heritage has to perform.
Under the National Heritage Act 1983, English Heritage has the following duties:

"(a) to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England,

(b) to promote the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas situated in England."

As I understand it, in those matters the Secretary of State has the power to overrule the Commission in the performance of its duties.
On 26th October English Heritage launched its new strategy for the future. In the words of its glossy document—which looked like a company floating itself on the market—it said that, "powerful plans" setting forth priorities for English Heritage in the 90s were to be announced. Those powerful plans involved, first, reducing the staff at headquarters by 100 before 31st March; losing 80 of the 380 skilled repair and maintenance workers before 31st March, and what they call "privatising"—a new euphemism for sacking —the rest over the next three years.
Secondly, it announced the breaking up of the integrated service inherited from the GLC in 1986. Your Lordships will remember that the GLC's Historic Buildings Division, which had a high reputation, was transferred to English Heritage. Under the new strategy English Heritage will cease to deal with Grade II buildings in London and its responsibilities will be transferred to the London boroughs. It is not clear to me, and I hope that it will he explained to us by the Minister, what will happen to the London Advisory Committee which advised on building consents, conservation area consents and planning applications affecting listed buildings. It had important and significant advisory powers.
Outside London English Heritage will concentrate its resources on Grades I and II buildings, where possible passing the rest—which it calls "Grade C" buildings, which amount to between one-third and one-half of the 400 buildings for which it has responsibility—to local management. In relation to conservation area grants, which are a matter of high importance, English Heritage will follow its strategy of "stepping back", restricting its aid to areas with "continuing severe problems" and leaving the rest to local authorities.
That is the position in which we find ourselves today. I would point out that those measures, which can only be called draconian and which are described by English Heritage as its "new strategy" and which must be seen as a cost-cutting exercise, were devised
1604
and promulgated with the minimum, if any, consultation either within or outside English Heritage. They radically alter the relationship of English Heritage with the London boroughs. The London boroughs were not consulted. They affect ancient monuments, but the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee was not consulted, nor was the Historic Buildings and Areas Advisory Committee.
One wonders what is the point of engaging the attention, the attendance and the loyalty of distinguished people to give advice on matters of importance when one simply does not bother to discuss one's plans with them or take their advice. That is what I believe is known as a "macho" way to proceed; it is a way to proceed which excites publicity. But one asks whether or not it is a sensible way to proceed and still more, whether it is a sign of good manners or good management.
It is also based on a series of fundamental misconceptions in regard to the role and function of English Heritage. It is obvious that English Heritage was created to preserve buildings rather than to dispose of them; that is its function. It was financed by the Government because the preservation of old, distinguished buildings, buildings which are a part of our heritage, is an expensive matter. It is a function for which neither private individuals nor local authorities possessed the necessary finance or expertise to carry out, and that is why English Heritage was created.
English Heritage now proposes to try to hand back to local authorities its responsibility for, in London, the capital of this country, all Grade 11 buildings—the less glamorous buildings—and outside London all Grade C buildings and many of the conservation areas, to which I shall return. That is a paradoxical thing to do. The body was created because local authorities either were unwilling or unable to undertake those responsibilities. It is even more paradoxical to do it at this moment. Local authorities are faced with a "triple whammy"—imminent reorganisation, the council tax and in general being strapped for money. Over the past 20 years one could scarcely have chosen a less suitable moment to propose to local authorities that they undertake these highly specialised and extremely expensive functions. Some have no conservation staff and others have insufficient.
Let me read what some of the boroughs have said. Greenwich council is quoted as saying,
"We have not been informed about what the new responsibilities will he".
Of course it has not. Under its new dispensation English Heritage never informs people until something has already been decided. The extract continues,
"However, if newspaper reports are correct then questions do have to be asked whether councils have the resources and expertise to deal properly with some planning applications. Councils do not, for example, employ architectural historians. We would be concerned about the borough's heritage".
Camden, which, after Westminster, has the highest number of Grade II buildings, does not employ a conservation office and relies on English Heritage. Recently the council was forced to disband its civic design team. Said one official at Camden,
"We've never even had a conservation policy".

1605
Tower Hamlets is not one of the most affluent of London boroughs but it possesses 2,000 listed buildings. It is quoted as saying,
"We do have 21 historic buildings staff but it is unlikely that they will be able to take on all the extra workload. We have 2,000 listed properties, and now is not the time for any local authority to be seen to expand the service it provides".
That is a fair sample of the situation in which the new strategy places the people who are crucial to it. Without the co-operation and consent of local authorities, and without their ability to perform the function, the new strategy falls to the ground. Moreover, there is another misconception regarding the responsibilities of English Heritage. Of course it must focus on Grade I and Grade II buildings; that is part of its statutory duty, but not at the expense of Grade C buildings. It is argued by Mr. Gavin Stamp for one, and by others in his field that Grade I buildings are not the problem. Salisbury Cathedral and Blenheim Palace will not fall down due to neglect. It is the Grade II and Grade C buildings which are more liable to be neglected because they are less glamorous and cannot attract huge public attention. But they are an essential and crucial part of the fabric of our heritage. It is a great mistake to think that by concentrating on the great monuments, the glamorous buildings, English Heritage is preserving our heritage. As Mr. Stamp says,
"English Heritage is the only body that can prevent our land being ruined by crass new shopping centres and UPVC replacement windows. Yet it is from this area that Mr. Stevens proposes to withdraw".
English Heritage has also a very distinguished record in the sphere of conservation of the rather less glamorous areas. I remind noble Lords of some of its achievements. I refer to Bristol, Stamford and less famous places such as Whitehaven and Cockermouth (with which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, will be familiar) and Berwick-upon-Tweed. They are places where conservation areas have been created by the initiative and with the assistance of English Heritage. That is very important. I also remind noble Lords that the conservation of our cities, as opposed to buildings, cathedrals and structures of that kind, is not something for which this country is famous. If one compares our achievement in this area with that of, say, France, Northern Italy—and such places as Urbino, Padua, Mantua—Holland or Spain, and such places as Salamanca or Santiago de Compostela, from which I have luckily just returned, the standard of urban conservation, taking it as a whole as opposed to particular buildings, is much higher than in this country. Therefore, the role in conservation areas of English Heritage is crucial. It is one of the roles from which it wants to withdraw.
It seems to me that the new strategy looks like a return to an old heresy which concentrated on individual buildings and neglected the importance of the architectural context in which those buildings found themselves.
There are one or two small but important points I wish to make. It was said by the chairman of the Victorian Society that the new strategy document was more like an auditor's report. He said:
1606
"The tone throughout Managing England's Heritage is that of the auditor, not of the guardian of architecture or craftsmanship or art".
That may be so; nonetheless, I do not follow the auditor's financial calculation. As far as I can understand, it is meant to be some kind of cost-cutting exercise. But let us suppose that the proposals which he makes are in fact carried out. Let us suppose that the poor boroughs of London, and the local authorities outside, relieve English Heritage of the responsibilities which it had inherited and which it now wants to dispense. Presumably, those local authorities will have to defray similar, or quite possibly greater costs, because they will have to employ their own staff to do so. They may have the advantage of a more centralised or regional staff.
In that case the total national expenditure on conservation will he no less. There will be no saving particularly if the saving to English Heritage itself is concentrated on Grade I and Grade II buildings. To my simple mind, the new strategy does not create any saving nationally. It may indeed prove rather more expensive than it is already. The only circumstances in which a saving would be created would he if the local authorities did not expend the money that was necessary on the buildings which they had taken over from English Heritage. In that case it would mean that the new strategy would lead to the neglect of English Heritage. That is what many people fear the result will be.
What of English Heritage's membership? There are more than 300,000 members. The pamphlet says:
"Join us today. Free entry to over 350 monuments".
Will there be 350 monuments when this plan has gone through? The answer is that there will not. Will there be free entry? We do not know. All we know is that the Royal Parks and Palaces Agency which took over Hampton Court and the Tower of London is ending free access to English Heritage members. So there is quite a possibility that English Heritage members who had been promised free entry to these monuments will find that that access is divided by half.
The new strategy is a disturbing document. The number of noble Lords attending this debate and wishing to take part in it at this hour of the night indicates that others find it disturbing. It is disturbing for the reasons that I have tried to set forth and no doubt for others which noble Lords will express. In addition, there is one which we must not forget. The expertise that English Heritage has gathered in its advisory committee, its staff and skilled workforce has been accumulated over a long period of time. If it is dispersed it will be very difficult to put it together again. The work of many years and many dedicated men and women will be lost to the nation.
I have some sympathy for the new Minister of National Heritage who, presumably, was greeted almost on his entry to his new office with this document. I can only think he was like a man who inherited a beautiful china shop and when he went to inspect it found that it was manned by a bull.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for raising this timely Question tonight following the English Heritage press conference last week which was designed to launch a strategy for the future and to set the priorities for the 1990s. Justified or not, the reports and impressions of that press conference caused considerable concern and furore among those concerned with the built heritage. That is a concern which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has outlined tonight. I believe that he is suffering from quite a great deal of misapprehension as to what the document really means.
That wide concern is well illustrated by the number of noble Lords who will speak tonight from their long experience in heritage matters. That includes the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the chairman of the National Trust and my old commissioner colleague, my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing from one of English Heritage's newest commissioners, my noble friend Lord Cavendish, whom I am sure will inform your Lordships of the latest thinking of English Heritage.
However, it is with considerable diffidence that I intervene in this Unstarred Question tonight. I have always believed that ex-chairmen and recently retired Ministers should not harass or embarrass their successors. Indeed, on giving up my chairmanship of English Heritage I gave assurances to my successor that that would be so. Perhaps the only circumstance when it would be justified is when there is a change of policy so radical that it was in the past chairman's view so damaging that he would be right to warn against it lest all his previous efforts were undone.
That, I hasten to add, is not the case this evening. Indeed, I feel compelled to speak from the opposite point of view. For the truth is that almost everything outlined in the 20 policy objectives was already established, formulated or at least discussed during my term of office. It was most unfortunate, therefore, that the leaks to the press caused massive misunderstanding of some of the key proposals. We heard so much talk about disposals. The question of devolving the day-to-day management of some of the lesser properties to local authorities or charitable trusts is not new. There is nothing new here. This is a broad policy which had been established and put into operation years ago. It can be seen working very successfully at Conisbrough Castle near Doncaster and at other sites.
Before I left office I was in discussion with the Hampshire County Council about Calshot Castle and Fort Cumberland. Several private owners whose families had handed their historic sites over through guardianship arrangements, were in discussion with English Heritage about taking back day-to-day control. What is so wrong about that? As English Heritage will remain the ultimate custodian, be responsible for the fabric and lay down the opening policy, what is all the fuss about? After all, local authorities are already responsible for nearly 500 historic buildings and sites and most are very well run, often receiving grants from English Heritage.
1608
Inevitably, with some 350 properties to look after, some English Heritage sites do get somewhat neglected due to their geographical position or lack of public appeal. Over the years, the portfolio has grown up in a very haphazard way, and there is no doubt in my mind that some sites would be better presented and cherished if the local communities had an interest in their management.
The fact is that no one is being forced to take on any site. Knowing from bitter experience how long it takes to conclude any agreements with local authorities or local government, and hearing in mind the economic situation and the pressure on local government funds, I can hardly see a rush of applicants. Indeed, I would he surprised if more than 10 agreements a year could he worked out. That would mean that it would take about 25 years before all the proposed properties would be transferred.
This leads me to a gentle criticism of my former commission colleagues. I consider that it was a mistake to have made any list of properties at all, let alone identifying them in strict categories. I suspect that the list was intended for internal consumption only, but unfortunately was leaked. Such judgments about the quality of buildings are subjective. Tastes change, and what is considered very important today is not tomorrow, and vice versa. This lesson was learnt the hard way, resulting from the listing of buildings in the 1950s when many fine Victorian buildings were ignored—such was the taste in those days. This led to the need for a massive re-listing survey, in which English Heritage has been involved during the past decade.
I submit that all English Heritage sites are of equal historic importance, whether they are historic houses or archaeological remains. But I admit that in the public mind some sites are considered more equal than others. I trust that the Commissioners will now carefully reconsider the need for putting sites in different categories (except for internal administrative purposes), and that each site will continue to be treated as a special case. There is no site so unimportant as not to benefit from English Heritage supervision, and there is no site too important not to benefit from some local involvement.
Arrangements have already been made to involve the National Trust in the plans for Stonehenge. I should like to think that, in view of the many sites (nearly 20, I think) in which the National Trust and English Heritage are jointly involved, it would be rewarding for the two bodies to have discussions on how their arrangements can be rationalised. Certainly, the idea of partnership between English Heritage and responsible organisations or the community must be one to be encouraged, and if resources are saved to be spent on other sites, so much the better.
However, there is no doubt that this was the right time for English Heritage to give thought to the future. Most of the ideas in the report are to he welcomed: for instance, the devolution to London local authorities of planning powers in respect of Grade II listed buildings only brings London into line with the rest of the country. Indeed, it works extremely well. I do not think there is any question of the

1609
London division or the London advisory committee being closed down. We welcome more money for churches; archaeological surveys of our major cities; and the new idea of a conservation fund for emergency use.
Times are hard, and many constructive and far-reaching plans to improve English Heritage's sites and operations which were contained in previous planning documents over the years will, I fear, now have to be postponed. Therefore, it is only prudent to seek economies so that scarce resources are focused where the need is greatest. After all, if a ruined castle on a desolate moor has been happily existing for years, reconsolidation can easily be delayed for a few years unless the fabric is in immediate danger. In my opinion, the list which gives priority to sites according to their need for repair, which was initiated during my time at English Heritage, is the only list that is needed.
I end by making an appeal. English Heritage is still young and is still growing up. Since 1984 it has established itself as a sound and responsible body with many dedicated and expert people working for it. It will not always be all things perfect to all men. It will have friends and successes, and it will make mistakes and find enemies like any other organisation. What it needs now following the recent turmoil, which may have been slightly self-inflicted, is time to consider the criticisms that have been raised in and out of Parliament, and to consult widely with expert bodies, and especially with its advisory committees where so much expertise resides.
It must be stressed that ultimately it is the Commission, not the advisory committees, which makes decisions and which must take responsibility for them. Over the next year or so, let English Heritage be judged by its actions, and not be swayed by misinformed knee-jerk reactions. I have every confidence that the Commissioners and English Heritage staff will prove that most of the policy objectives that they have announced are the right ones, and that they will be administered with fairness and with as little disruption as possible, using as efficiently as possible the limited resources available.
Finally, during the formative years of English Heritage I frequently preached the fact that historic sites in this country belong to everyone regardless of race and creed. I always did my best to prevent any heritage issues becoming party political. I hope that the debate tonight will be conducted accordingly.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing this Unstarred Question. My only disquiet is that it is such a pity that we are having the debate so late on a Thursday night when we could have had a much fuller House if it had been held earlier in the week and at a time more convenient to all of us who wish to speak.
Although I shall not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I agree with him that some aspects of English Heritage's strategy are to be welcomed. The promise to encourage and assist local authorities in their conservation work is good. The
1610
targeting of education and publication is excellent. Education is a vital part of English Heritage's work, and one in which it has distinguished itself; and there are other sensible ideas.
I venture to suggest that part of the furore to which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, referred was probably due to the character of the new chairman and to the way in which he goes about things, which is entirely different from the way in which the noble Lord approached matters. I know that Jocelyn Stevens feels that it is perhaps better to blast the eardrums instead of having a quiet reassuring whisper in the ear. That has helped to hype everything up and has disturbed many people, especially those who are currently employed by English Heritage and who are now seriously worried about what the future holds for them.
However, we now have a chance to look into the policy in greater depth than was the case when the Statement was originally made—either last week or the week before. Incidentally, it was a rather short and sparse Statement, but I do not blame the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for that. As far as I blame anybody, I blame the Secretary of State who did not explain the policy at any length. However, as he was new and was landed with this I should add that I express my sympathy to him as well. When one looks more deeply into the strategy—and we have now had an opportunity to see the comments of many of the experts who really know what they are talking about and who are engaged in one aspect or another of this field—one sees that the strategy is characterised more by narrowness than by breadth of vision. It does not, or cannot, indicate how the aims are to be achieved, except as generalised promises.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, resources are to be focused on Grade I and Grade II starred buildings and on a minority of guardianship monuments and urban archaeological strategies. The emphasis is on what is exceptional and outstanding—the bigger money earners—rather than on what is general and characteristic. Yet we must remember the importance of what is general and characteristic—Grade II buildings; not just a few special archaeological sites but also archaeological landscapes; not just 30 historic towns but also the other 751 historic towns in England which have not been earmarked for an archaeological strategy. All these are at risk and are not mentioned; or if they are, it is done in a whisper.
Mr. Stevens, the new chairman, said:
"We are raising our standards not dropping them".
How will raising standards be assisted by losing 80 craftsmen from the directly employed labour force, many of whom are highly skilled, by March 1993; or privatising the remainder within three years? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that "privatising" is a provocative word. We do not know what it means. How will standards be raised by the loss of headquarters staff before 31st March 1993? What expertise will be lost? In saying that I am sure they are not all administrative staff or pen pushers, I

1611
mean no offence to people in those categories, but the experts I have in mind are essential to the maintenance of our heritage.
The most publicised proposal concerns the future of monuments in guardianship. English Heritage is surely wrong to seek to fragment a national collection of monuments, and wrong too to suggest that many of them are of only regional importance. They are of national importance as otherwise they would not be part of English Heritage. That was the view of successive Secretaries of State who accepted them. What is at stake here is the concept of a group of sites and monuments which represent different aspects of England's history.
From 1974 to 1979 I was the Minister in the Department of the Environment with responsibility for this area. At that time English Heritage seemed to have a great deal going for it. Now I am beginning to wonder whether it might not have been safer and better if the monuments had been left under the care of the Department of the Environment. Of course, there would have been disadvantages but I feel that they would have been in safer, if perhaps slower, hands.
English Heritage seems confused by the role allotted to it by Parliament. There are suggestions that its list of monuments is ill-assorted. That misses the point. Monuments in guardianship were not selected like animals for Noah's Ark. They came for different reasons at different times. Let us by all means review our collecting policy. There is nothing wrong with having a look at things rather than leaving them as they are. Meanwhile, what all these monuments have in common is that they have been deemed to be of national significance. To divide them up is to misapprehend English Heritage's proper role. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, set out the duties laid on English Heritage right at the beginning. I shall not weary the House by repeating them.
The situation is all the more alarming when it emerges that English Heritage has embarked upon this strategy without consulting its own statutory advisory committee on ancient monuments. The chairman of English Heritage did not consult that committee before announcing his strategy. When the Statement on English Heritage was given in this House on 26th October I asked the Minister about this. He replied:
"The chairman of English Heritage announced today that consultations will now begin".—[Official Report, 26/10/92; col. 932.]
What kind of consultation is that when decisions re made first and consultation comes afterwards? That cannot be right. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, who is a member of that committee, will be able to shed some light on the matter.
The transfer of management responsibilities for monuments will not save money. It simply means transferring expenditure from English Heritage to others. Among the others are local authorities. I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said on that point. The selective transfer of some monuments to local authorities or the National
1612
Trust is of course acceptable; but it has to be highly selective. The English Heritage proposal has all the sensitive selectivity of a sawn-off shot-gun.
If monuments will remain under English Heritage's supervision, then where is the saving? Where will the staff come from if most of them have been shed? Does it not mean duplication of expertise if the bodies taking over responsibility for care do the same job as English Heritage? Local authority priorities of today may not be the same as those of tomorrow. In place of unified management we shall have dispersed management. Above all, few local authorities have conservation staff or a conservation officer.
When I was a Minister all those years ago I tried to encourage local authorities to build up their conservation staff and certainly to have a conservation officer. I managed to set up some conservation advisory committees. However, it was very difficult because there were always other priorities for the funds available to local authorities. Today the position is much worse. They are all capped. The council tax will have to be collected. The whole thing promises to be a fund-restricted bureaucratic nightmare. Unless English Heritage obtains a great deal more funding it will have great difficulty in funding the strategy it wishes to implement.
A Department of National Heritage which focuses almost entirely on England was arguably a tactless invention. Now we have the risk of English Heritage unilaterally redefining the concept of guardianship, moving out of step with Cadw in Wales and Historic Scotland, creating possible future dissensions.
After the abolition of the GLC there was a proposal to devolve the functions of the London division of English Heritage to the boroughs. However, it was kept as a London division at the time and it had the support of all political parties. It is now proposed to devolve its functions to the boroughs but again there is no guarantee that the expertise will survive. The strategic London-wide view will be lost and boroughs vary in their resources.
English Heritage should be a central source of expertise, inspiration and advice on the care of what is typical as well as what is outstanding. It should be a reinforcement and a spur to local authorities. By its emphasis on generalities on the one hand, and a small number of prestige sites and buildings on the other, much of this strategy is aiming elsewhere. The Government must ensure that both English Heritage and local authorities are properly resourced for their conservation work. We cannot put our faith in lotteries. Even if we have a national lottery the calls on it will be enormous. I have a feeling that what we are discussing will come at the bottom of the list.
Some parts of our heritage can continue if, for a time, funds are not put into them or they are just left or not utilised; for example, the arts, the performing arts, pictures, and so on. But archaeological landscapes and historic buildings are irreplaceable. Historic conservation cannot be intermittent. It must be constant and continuous. I hope that the new chairman and the commissioners will look again at the matter very carefully to ensure that what they are doing is really in the interests of their charges—that is

1613
those for which they are responsible—and not just a matter of sharpening things up, developing money earners and devolving properties.
8 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, all of us who are involved in the heritage world must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for enabling us to discuss the recent policy document of English Heritage. The document has certainly created something of a stir. That is hardly surprising. It came to all of us out of the blue and was couched in rather telegraphic language, full of, "We will do this" and "We will do that." There was little argument and it was very short on explaining English Heritage's problems. It might have been better to have explained matters and to have said, "These are our problems"; "This is what we think we need to do about them"; and "This is the direction we would like to go in the years ahead."
Coming out of the blue, I suggest that the document was too prescriptive. What was needed was a Green Paper. But if we can distance ourselves from the language used and the rather terse style, it is surely, for example, not unreasonable—at least, prima facie —to recognise that some of the properties of English Heritage are much more important than others and that when money is short it may be better to concentrate on them. But, as I said, that needs argument and analysis. If there had been argument and analysis, it might have dealt with the point made by Lord Bonham-Carter which I certainly take on board.
Nor is it unreasonable to say, subject to suitable safeguards, that some properties may be better looked after —for example, there may be a more caring attitude—by a local management. However, what seems to be singularly lacking throughout the document is any reference to the question of finance. Is it seeking to transfer the financial burden on to others? Is it empowered to give up its statutory responsibilities? Alternatively, is it saying that it thinks a local management can maintain these properties more effectively or, indeed, more efficiently than it can, but that it will make grants available to do that from the money that it saves? What about standards and their enforcement? In short, I suggest that the document raises more questions than it answers. Similarly, words like "disposal" and "sales" and other loose talk have not helped within the context of the debate.
As chairman of the National Trust, I obviously have a considerable interest in these matters. I should like to say right away that we enjoy a close and cordial working relationship with English Heritage. That is not to say that we do not have our differences. Of course we do. We work well together nevertheless. My predecessors the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and Dame Jennifer Jenkins, had, I think I can say, excellent relations with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. In the short time in which he and I overlapped, I like to think that we, too, had a good relationship. I have no doubt that we shall achieve a good relationship with its new chairman, Mr. Jocelyn
1614
Stevens. We meet regularly at all levels and we used the opportunity of a meeting yesterday evening, originally arranged to discuss an entirely different matter, to have a preliminary discussion on the proposals.
I should perhaps explain that the trust has some 18 properties where we are closely involved with English Heritage. I shall cite just four of the more important ones as an example. I put Stonehenge at the top of the list. After all, it is probably Europe's most important archaeological site. English Heritage is responsible for Stonehenge itself, but the National Trust owns the 1,500 surrounding acres, most of which, as we all know, is a World Heritage site. I believe that we all agree—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and I agree —that the car park and the visitor centre are a disgrace. They need to be removed and distanced from the circle and the A.344 needs to be closed and grassed over. If we are to achieve proper appreciation of' that site, it needs to be managed as an integrated whole on a partnership basis. We have been developing plans to do that over a number of' years.
Then there is Avebury. The trust now owns almost the whole of the Avebury heritage area but the circle itself is under the guardianship of English Heritage. We have been exploring this, too, for some time. For example, it seems to me that it probably makes more sense for us to look after Avebury as a whole as we own the freehold of almost the whole area. A similar sort of situation arises as Housesteads on the Roman Wall.
My fourth example is Fountains Abbey estate in Yorkshire, which is arguably England's second finest 18th century landscape park. I put Stowe first, as I am somewhat prejudiced, having attended school there. The ruins of the abbey right in the heart of the Fountains estate are also under the guardianship of English Heritage, but the rest of the estate belongs to the trust. Here again, it would seem sense to look at the management as a single whole and not as two separate pieces.
What we agreed with English Heritage last night is that we would discuss each of the sites in which we have a joint interest to determine whether they could be better managed to the benefit of both the site itself and the public (the nation) by transferring some or all of the management responsibility, subject in each case to the terms on which the sites are held. In the case of the trust that means subject to the inalienability restriction. We agreed that we would look at it. We aim to do that over the next 12 months. Neither side would want to make any changes without ensuring adequate provision —that will include finance—to maintain at least the present standard of care and presentation to the public.
I do not say that we will necessarily reach agreement on all those matters. I suspect that money may be a problem. But I do believe, particularly where there is an overlap of responsibilities—an overlap which can lead so easily to confused management to the detriment of the site—that it makes sense jointly to look for better solutions.
While I have been critical of' some of English Heritage's document, there is one policy objective,

1615
number 15, which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention and which I particularly welcome. It is the idea of setting up a fund to enable emergency action to be taken to save outstanding properties where other agencies are unable to intervene. I rather assume that that idea arises from the failure last August to save Pitchford Hall in Shropshire and, in particular, to save as an entity the house, the setting and its contents. One of the problems with Pitchford—many noble Lords will remember this and, in the trust's experience, it was not a unique case—has been the sheer lack of time in which to develop viable solutions. We so often need to buy time; we need a mechanism, so to speak, for a holding operation. So we readily welcome this initiative. I shall conclude my remarks on that positive note.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for bringing the matter to our attention this evening. It was my privilege to serve as one of the first commissioners of English Heritage from 1984 under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu with many of whose remarks this evening I wholeheartedly agree. Although I remain a member of its Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee and sat without interruption from 1974 on the Ancient Monuments Board which was its predecessor, I am speaking tonight in a personal capacity.
To my regret, I have to ask the question whether in recent weeks English Heritage has lost its way.
Since the Ancient Monuments Protection Act—its title is an appropriate one—there have been different
forms of protection in this country for our great historic sites and monuments. First, there is scheduling, by which sites are protected by law while remaining in the care of their owners. Listing is the equivalent for historic but generally habitable buildings. At present, there are some 13,500 scheduled sites in Britain, but it is estimated that 60,000 monuments are worthy of scheduling.
The monument protection programme started in 1989 under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Montagu, was supposed to be completed by the year 2000; but, as the National Audit Office report in July indicated, English Heritage no longer expects to be able to fulfil that target. I wonder whether when the Minister replies he will give us the new target date for the completion of that important work. Does he agree that there is considerable disappointment that the fulfilment of that admirable initiative has been delayed?
But the jewels in the crown of the nation's ancient heritage have for more than a century been the ancient sites and monuments —now about 350 in number—in the care of the Secretary of State, and since 1984 in the care of English Heritage. They are the guardianship sites. Some of those sites are small and rural, such as Wayland's Smithy or the West Kennet long barrow which, despite their modest appearance, are of the greatest interest, for they are among the oldest standing buildings in the world, and are older than the
1616
pyramids. Others are major and impressive prehistoric constructions like Avebury or some of the great Iron Age hill forts such as Stanwick. Then there are impressive Roman sites; for instance like Birdoswald near Hadrian's Wall; the great city at Silchester; or the Roman fort at Caister-by-Norwich. There are great medieval keeps like Castle Rising or Rochester Castle; famous secular buildings such as the Bradford-on-Avon tithe barn; some of the great churches of this country like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Thetford; and abbeys such as the Bury St. Edmunds Abbey. There are the more recent sites like Old Gorhambury; Martello towers like Dymchurch; forts, and so on.
Every site that I have mentioned in the past two or three minutes is recommended for disposal in the paper prepared by English Heritage for its commissioners whose proposals have been substantially published in the Guardian. I wrote to my noble friend Lord Astor to suggest that that important paper should be made available to your Lordships, but his department did not feel it appropriate on the reasonable grounds that the details in the lists are provisional rather than authoritative. I am glad to know that they are. However, it is not the details but the principle that I wish to question. Does it make sense to dispose of more than half the sites in the nation's guardianship? How does it come about that the new policy document Managing England's Heritage Setting our Priorities for the 1990s speaks of those sites as merely of regional rather than national importance—that is a point that was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—when even scheduled sites in this country, let alone guardianship sites, were certified by the former Ancient Monuments Board as being of national importance? Is my noble friend's department setting aside those earlier decisions of the Ancient Monuments Board and the predecessors of the Department of National Heritage? Who is to hold the ultimate responsibility for those sites, for their long-term safety? What if their new custodians go bankrupt? What if they are in the hands of local authorities and those local authorities on occasions fall short in their duties, or lack expertise?
There seems to be some confusion in the policy of English Heritage on this matter. The paper to which I referred speaks of "a programme of disposals", and contemplates legislation, which suggests that it is intended that the sites should leave guardianship. Legislation would indeed be necessary to facilitate the disposal process in some cases. It is not of course suggested that the sites be sold, but that they should be transferred to local authorities and other bodies. The new chairman of English Heritage, Mr. Stevens, stated in his letter to the Independent of 31st October:
"that there is no question … of English Heritage 'disposing' of our responsibilities towards the monuments in our care".
That is gratifying, but it does not tally with the more detailed, analytical paper to which I referred. In his Statement on 26th October in another place (repeated here by my noble friend) the Secretary of State spoke of partnership with local authorities. There perhaps lies a glimmer of hope.

1617
Certainly, different management strategies are appropriate, as my noble friend Lord Montagu said. Some sites have many visitors and are capable of legitimate commercial development. Others are small, rural, sometimes agreeably isolated, and need different treatment. But the nub of the problem is that English Heritage seems to have confused its perfectly proper concern for effective commercial management with its national duty of conservation. Here I quote, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, from the National Heritage Act 1983:
"to secure the preservation of ancient monuments as historic buildings situated in England".
I shall turn briefly to the financial aspects. It is probably the case that none of the 354 guardianship sites in the hands of English Heritage at the moment makes a clear cash profit. I have no doubt that with nearly all of them expenses substantially exceed ticket sales. I have no doubt that my noble friend will confirm that. Will he confirm, as the National Audit Office report states, that in the year it had under review there was a subsidy of approximately £22 million for those sites? Well, properly so!
It was always expected that guardianship sites would require a measure of expenditure. Some sites are of course expensive to run. It is ironic that it is the inexpensive ones which seem to be on the disposal list. I should like to ask my noble friend a question of which I have given him notice. What is the annual expenditure on that wonderful site Arbor Low? It is a small open field site. How much does the department spend annually on the White Horse at Uffington, another site listed for disposal? I imagine that it is well below the average of £60,000 a year. Will my noble friend confirm that Dover Castle, which is on the retention list, costs the Exchequer in the order of £500,000 a year? I imagine that Audley End House is comparably expensive.
It is ironic when we are analysing expenditure that English Heritage seeks to keep the expensive sites, although no doubt it wants to make some money out of them if it can, and to disembarrass itself of the sites which are inexpensive to maintain. If we are looking at the matter in purely commercial terms, I find the policy puzzling.
I believe that mature reflection will lead the commissioners to the view that they should retain all those sites within their formal guardianship—I think I sense that my noble friend Lord Montagu is not averse to such a view—so that the long-term responsibility remains theirs and the great expertise and knowledge of the staff of English Heritage may continue to guide any necessary conservation decisions. That would not militate against the development of partnership arrangements with local authorities which could manage those sites on a day-to-day basis: cut the grass, collect the entrance charges and promote them locally. But they must surely remain in guardianship so that they can be visited regularly by the inspectorate of English Heritage which can ensure that appropriate conservation standards are maintained.
1618
That may be what the Secretary of State had in mind. I believe that it is what the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee, which has a statutory duty to advise the commission, would have commented had it been consulted before the controversial press launch of the new policy.
As the former Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments wrote in the Guardian yesterday:
"The most significant result of this national policy was that the government's portfolio of historical sites was managed as a coherent whole and maintained to internationally recognised high standards aided by a dedicated, specialist direct-labour force. If English Heritage opts out, the Department of National Heritage should say how consistency and maintenance standards arc to be continued on the historic estate for which it is responsible".
I therefore ask my noble friend to comment on that issue of responsibility.
I ask the commission and the Secretary of State to think again over the ill-judged proposal to divide the national heritage of guardianship sites into three categories in terms of their alleged historical importance. No one who understands our heritage could regard sites like the Rollright Stones or Reculver Fort or Gisborough Priory as of merely regional importance. By all means let them be divided in terms of day-to-day management considerations. But let there be no more talk of disposals. Will my noble friend reassure us that the long-term conservation and indeed the conservation in perpetuity of the nation's historic heritage will come first? After that, there is scope for a whole range of management strategies, strategies of partnership with local authorities, in which the commission's rekindled entrepreneurial spirit may be most energetically deployed.
Finally, perhaps I may make reference to the difference of views—the press has called it a rift—within English Heritage. The Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee has been looking forward to meeting the new chairman of English Heritage who took up his position in April. At its last meeting on 28th October it requested an urgent meeting with commissioners to discuss its anxiety that the new policy appears to contradict the statutory duty of the commission. I ask my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to use their good offices to facilitate an early meeting between commissioners and the statutory advisory committee.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I was rather relieved to hear that the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Renfrew, whose concern and involvement in these matters is so much more recent and current than my own, share my alarm and anxiety about the developments notified to us in the English Heritage document and the press comment upon it.
I was sadly surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, say that he wondered what all the fuss was about. I am reminded of the Scotsman who said to the Lord that he "dinna ken". It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Beaulieu, is beginning to "ken the noo". Perhaps by the end of this debate he will wholly ken what the fuss is about.
I understand the feeling that may be shared by some people that a local government is an elected

1619
authority and it is the proper authority to exercise the powers we have in mind. After all, as early as 1643, Colonel Rainborough pointed out in Putney that,
"a man is not at all bound to a government he hath not had a voice to put himself under".
In other words, he was rather in favour of the elected authority exercising the power. That is understandable.
So why is not the wish of English Heritage to return to local government the powers thrust upon it as the result of the Government's crazy and ideologically motivated decision to abolish the Greater London Council all those years ago to be commended? Why is this not generally commended? The trouble is that there is no GLC to which to return the powers. These are powers which can be exercised properly only by a body which wants to exercise them, has the experience to do so and is large enough and wealthy enough to employ and house the fairly large number of expert staff without whom it will be working in the dark.
I was a member of the town planning committee of the late lamented London County Council, another victim of politically-motivated abolition. I recall the problems we faced, the painful decisions we sometimes had to take, balancing one need against another with inadequate resources to fulfil either of them and often in the face of public criticism which showed no understanding of the limitations and compulsions we worked under. Recalling all this, I do not wonder that English Heritage is anxious to rid itself of a vast number of such responsibilities.
However, the London boroughs are simply not capable of taking the job on. If that were a real possibility, the Government would have handed these powers over, together with the others with which they lumbered the boroughs when they took a decision which many supporters of the Government now know—and some knew even then—to he sadly mistaken. I refer again to the abolition of the GLC.
There are only, I think, two or three boroughs which could even seriously contemplate exercising statutory powers knowledgeably. Even they would soon realise that it is all kicks and no ha'pence. Besides, the need for skilled advice would soon bring about yet another of those joint responsibility committees to create a larger body which I think most people agree is necessary. These bodies are not joint and they have no responsibility, so they do not work. Not only that, there is a need for some consistency of policy throughout the capital city. That can be properly achieved only by the re-creation of the GLC or a similar body.
The notion of devolving responsibility for Grade II buildings—as some of them are—while retaining that for the major buildings and sites seems to me to be self-serving rather than in the public interest. For, as has already been pointed out, there is less difficulty with Grade I buildings. I do not say that they can look after themselves, but the problems are much less complex in relation to the Grade I buildings than many of the Grade II buildings. The latter cause the main headaches and are where the decision-making is difficult. In short, this is yet another fine mess the Government might easily get us into.
1620
The question is: are the Government going to fall for it? It is being presented to us as a fait accompli, but it does not have to he. The Government can override what English Heritage proposes and I sincerely hope that they will. When we once again have a democratically elected London government, English Heritage will be able to devolve the powers it rightly does not want to a body capable of exercising them in the interests of those of us who live in this neglected capital city, alone in the world in being ungoverned.
Meanwhile, the only body I can suggest to exercise the powers temporarily is a Committee of this House or of the Commons. I hope that no one will suggest the farcical City of London Corporation, which should have been abolished instead of the GLC.
English Heritage is right in saying that its role should, in respect of the responsibilities of government and local government, be like that of the Theatres Trust—advisory and consultative rather than decisive and executive.
However, there is no immediate possibility of the re-creation of the GLC. If none of the other suggestions I have made is adopted, then I think that English Heritage must be required to soldier on, perhaps under a less iconoclastic chairmanship, until such time as an elected governmental body is restored to us.
My noble friend Lady Birk has drawn attention particularly to the problems in London. She was right to do so. I have underlined what she has said. The London region of English Heritage is essentially a continuation of the GLC's historic buildings division. That is why English Heritage has statutory powers in London alone. The proposal to disperse responsibility among the London boroughs goes directly against the undertakings given that the London division, which has so much experience and has such a high reputation, would be kept intact. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that these proposals will be received by the Government with the scepticism they deserve and that it will be made clear to Mr. Stevens that to propose is not to dispose.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on this useful and important debate. I apologise in advance to the noble Lord and to the House if I have to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. The truth is that there is just no late train which will take me remotely near my small, crumbling, listed home.
As I understand it, the concern in your Lordships' minds this evening and the concern felt widely up and down the country since the publication of the strategy document centres upon two matters: first, the loss or erosion of a large quantity of highly qualified, probably unique staff, and, secondly, the disposal of quite a large number of the properties currently managed by English Heritage. As I understand it, those two matters must go hand in hand.
It has been pointed out by too many of your Lordships for me to repeat it this evening that the chances of local authorities or private individuals willingly and easily taking over many of these

1621
properties are small. I suspect that few of them, however historic and however beautiful, have serious commercial prospects which would attract an investor in the ordinary commercial sense. As we all know, local authorities find it difficult to make ends meet and they certainly find it difficult to put together something that they have not had in the past, a really expert conservation team.
I was much struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, whose chairmanship of English Heritage I have admired inordinately over the years. Tribute should be paid to the noble Lord for that chairmanship as he did a splendid job. With his usual sense of realism the noble Lord estimated that it might take anything up to 25 years before all the properties we are discussing find a new home. I take it that in the meantime they would not simply be allowed to rot away. I take it they must remain with English Heritage until some suitable arrangement is made. English Heritage has said at length that there is no question of anyone being forced to take anything over. I interpret that as meaning that until an acceptable negotiation has taken place with either a local authority or some private individual, the property in question will remain with English Heritage.
I wonder therefore whether there is not a danger that the disposal of staff that is foreseen may not be a little unwise in the sense that English Heritage may find itself with exactly or very nearly the list of properties it had for much longer than it wishes. English Heritage may suddenly find it does not have the staff to cope with the properties on that list. I hope therefore the two matters of properties and staff are linked together and are not simply a question of ideological principle.
The matter all comes down to money, as I realise. The only moment when my spirits rose during the rather gloomy prognostication for the future given by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was when the noble Lord did his sums and calculated that if enough sites were taken over by local authorities or by the private sector suddenly there would be an increase in expenditure nationally. He suggested that was hardly an exercise in cost cutting. My spirits rose at that point. I thought perhaps it was the intention to create an increase in national expenditure on our heritage. However, then realism dawned and I realised that was an unlikely scenario. At that point my spirits sank again.
There may of course be other sources of revenue in due course. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, believes I am incapable of addressing your Lordships without referring to the national lottery. After some reflection, I think he is right. However, I have no shame in doing so this evening because the lottery is mentioned in the strategy document. I hope it will start in 1995; but I suspect it will not develop properly until two or three years after that. Large sums should be available at that time. Our heritage is precisely one of the things on which those sums should be spent. Certainly the lottery promotion company of which I am co-chairman has always maintained that view. I maintain
1622
to this day that the arts, sport, the environment and our heritage are what a national lottery should support.
In that connection, I hope your Lordships will permit me to mention one small aside. We have been speaking so much this evening of buildings and of archaeological sites. I hope it will be remembered when the lottery funds are disposed of in that far off rosy future that I foresee, that our heritage is as much concerned with the landscape as it is with buildings. There are great tracts of this country covered with plantings, forests and the coastline which constitute as great a part of our heritage as any of the built environment. I was therefore extremely pleased to sec in English Heritage's document a plan for historic gardens. I have believed for a long time that the landscape and gardens should be regarded on the same footing as buildings.
In the last resort it is the matters of the staff and of the disposals that are at the heart of the controversy surrounding this new document. English Heritage hopes that all the expert staff will find employment. That is devoutly to be wished. However, I cannot think there will be many places where they can find employment. Unless local government is to re-equip itself as a conservation body, despite all our gloomy prognostications, it will not be able to offer much employment. Little work of this kind is available in the private sector. Responsible householders may be able to offer employment, but their stock is small in comparison with the nation's stock of monuments. I am concerned that English Heritage's desire to see the staff employed will not be realised.
As regards the disposals, English Heritage hopes that each site will be cared for and displayed as well if not better than is the case at present. That too is devoutly to be hoped for. However, I should be surprised if either of those wishes are fulfilled. If that occurred, I dare say many of the worries in your Lordships' minds would vanish forthwith. I gloomily predict that neither of those wishes will be fulfilled. I beg the Government to do their very best to ensure that I am wrong.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I too join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for the opportunity to debate this matter. In my capacity as chairman of the Georgian Group I attended the launch of the document entitled Managing England's Heritage. Apart from my noble friend Lord Astor, I believe I was the only person now present in the Chamber who attended the launch. Having attended that event, I can understand the reaction of the press and of conservationists. The problem was simply that many more questions were posed than were answered. That allowed people to reach a whole series of different conclusions about what might or might not happen. The fact that Managing England's Heritage is a discussion document rather than a final plan was for some reason not properly appreciated. That misconception caused widespread resentment and worry.
The week before the launch two weeks ago, the chairman and chief executive of English Heritage

1623
accepted an invitation to attend a meeting of the joint committee of the amenity societies, which includes representatives of the five statutory bodies. I have already mentioned the Georgian Group. The others are the Ancient Monuments Society, SPAB (the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings), the Victorian Society—which has been mentioned this evening —and the Council for British Archaeology. Those bodies were made a statutory part of the planning process about 20 years ago. The Georgian Group, for example, considers about 7,000 planning applications a year.
Our meeting with Mr. Stevens and Miss Page was very useful, interesting and lively, although clearly nothing was divulged at that stage about the new plans. One point which was stressed was the importance of English Heritage and the amenity societies working closely together for the general good of our heritage. I was most encouraged by the importance which Jocelyn Stevens placed on that aspect of our work. We have already discussed the possibility of further talks.
I turn now to the plans for the London region of English Heritage, which is important to all the amenity societies. As I understand it—and I hope that my noble friend will confirm this—the London division of English Heritage will continue, and the important power of direction over Grade I and Grade 11* buildings, and also over the Grade II buildings when a planning application entails partial or total demolition will continue.
That leaves the problem of the remaining Grade II buildings, a point which several noble Lords have raised. It is planned that those will be dealt with individually by the 32 London boroughs. The problem with that proposal is that the boroughs vary greatly in their ability to handle cases. In Westminster, for example, there is an excellent planning division but that is the exception rather than the rule. A number of the London boroughs do not even have a conservation officer.
Another problem which has not been mentioned is the prospect of the leasehold reform Act and the possible ever-widening ownership of property which it will create. I suspect that that will mean even more careful scrutiny of listed buildings in London than at present.
I hope that English Heritage will hold more discussions and think carefully about the position regarding its London region before taking any action. There is no question but that it is highly regarded, as it was in its earlier incarnation.
I turn now to the section of the proposals which the press describes as selling the family silver. That is an unfair assessment. However, I question how worth-while that exercise will be. I suspect that the number of authorities and charities taking advantage of the proposal will be very small. That is a point which has been made by other noble Lords. I wonder whether it will make very much financial difference to English Heritage. I see English Heritage and its portfolio of buildings rather as I see the Victoria and Albert Museum, the British Museum or the Tate Gallery—as a wonderful accumulation of buildings. Having said
1624
that, it is always possible for museums, or English Heritage, to consider a little weeding of the collection without hurting the overall collection.
If English Heritage follows the programme of disposals route, I hope in the form of management agreements—and I am sure that my noble friend will confirm that there is no question of sales being contemplated—it is essential that English Heritage should have a watching brief on the buildings and undertake inspections at least annually if not more frequently. I should be pleased to hear more from my noble friend on that subject this evening.
English Heritage is considering these options in order to make sure that each pound is spent as effectively as possible. I fervently hope that after all the options have been discussed in detail and decisions taken that the result will be that our unique heritage will be better cared for.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I, too, apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for having to leave before the end of this discussion, which was called at such short notice but for obvious reasons. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will not feel inhibited from answering any of my points by the fact that I am not present. I am sure that he will not be.
I am sorry about English Heritage. I always wished it well, but I often feared the worst. The document issued last week by its chairman is, in my experience, unique. Others may have seen one but I have not before seen a proposal from a statutory body to commence its own destruction, relinquishing control over what it was set up to protect, dismissing its skilled staff, and all without a breath of consultation. That ordinary adjunct of democracy was not for Mr. Stevens.
It is hard to believe that whoever appointed Mr. Stevens instructed him to conduct himself in that extraordinary way. Certainly nothing like that appeared in the Conservative manifesto or in any of the Government's many and often admirable environment statements. Noble Lords will no doubt have seen Private Eye's version of what happened. I hope that it is not true. I also hope and trust that the Arts Council, under the architecturally controversial Lord Palumbo, is not to have its role enlarged as a result of this row.
The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, to the Independent says it all. The two statutory committees within English Heritage itself were not consulted. We heard the noble Lord only a quarter of an hour ago appeal to the Secretary of State to obtain for him and his statutory committee an interview with their own employer. The whole wealth of archaeology and building history, the corresponding administrations and learned groups which are admirably well developed in this country were not consulted. I repeat that Mr. Stevens consulted nobody, not even his own staff below the very top level, and those I suspect he merely instructed. I must emphasise that I hope and believe that we are talking about a personal initiative of Mr. Stevens. He has produced no cost benefit

1625
analysis, and no evidence that it would cost the taxpayer less or be more efficient if the specialist workforce whose expertise has been built up for English Heritage's own statutory purposes were to be dismantled and "privatised".
Mr. Stevens has produced no cost benefit analysis and no evidence that dismantling the existing, very effective, system for London would cost less or be more efficient. We must remember that Grade II listed buildings are 92 per cent. of the listed buildings in London. As we all know too well—and my noble friend Lord Jenkins spoke eloquently on this subject—London is the only capital city of a democracy not to have democratic city-wide government. The party opposite abolished that because Mrs. Thatcher took exception to the policies of one elected leader. The abolition of an elected body by one party when it dislikes the policies adopted in that body by other parties who have won a majority in the polls is the beginning of dictatorship. Indeed, it has often been more than the beginning of dictatorship. But even a Prime Minister capable of abolishing the GLC was persuaded of the merits of preserving its historic buildings branch, which was rightly admired throughout the country and abroad. It went to English Heritage and it now falls to Mr. Stevens to seek to abolish it. He has produced no evidence and no cost benefit analysis to show that it would cost less, or be more efficient, to disperse to others the management of some of the monuments in English Heritage's care. Indeed, it is not clear whether that is what he proposes. In the main document, issued on 26th October, he says that his "main policy changes" are to,
"include dividing English Heritage's 400 properties into three categories of importance … [and passing] properties in the third category into local management".
But then, in a letter to the press five days later he stated that,
"there is no question whatsoever of English Heritage disposing of our responsibility towards the monuments in our care. This is not an option open to us".
But English Heritage's responsibility is one of care, not of ownership, and that is precisely what he proposes to dispose of.
What did he really want? Was he talking about wholly commercial management by the private sector, about wholly commercial management by English Heritage or about commercial management by joint private-public enterprise? This seems to be in someone's mind for Stonehenge. Was he talking about partly commercial and partly publicly funded management by English Heritage? Above all, what was to be the role of local government?
Are we talking now about monuments in guardianship which are privately owned or monuments vested in the Secretary of State? If the former, what is the opinion of the owners of the monuments, who remain unconsulted like everyone else? Moreover, the Secretary of State in his turn is simply the largest of the owners. What is his opinion? What is the interim opinion of Ministers? Will they give us one tonight?
1626
Such has been the storm of protest which has greeted these proposals that the Secretary of State no doubt will think very carefully before coming to Parliament to say what he thinks. No doubt he will be thinking above all about his duties to those who have placed their property under public protection in the past and those who may do so in the future. It is a fair guess that if these vague and crass proposals are put into effect, there will be no more in the future.
When I was the Minister concerned—a decade before my noble friend Lady Birk—the present responsibilities of English Heritage were borne directly by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We carried them out without turmoil and with ever decreasing loss of the built and archaeological heritage. When Michael Heseltine decided to hive off English Heritage from what had then become the Department of the Environment, he had his reasons: to ensure that the effective possession of vulnerable and ancient monuments and the protection of extremely vulnerable historic buildings, both of which are quite important elements of our national life and wealth, should remain in the public eye under constant parliamentary scrutiny, should be seen to be properly funded and properly protected from financial shenanigans internal to the department and the Treasury, and should benefit from a long-term specialist staff. But now his successor is challenged by an obscure bid to destroy that system in turn.
I end by quoting Sir Peter Middleton who, until last year, was Permanent Secretary at the Treasury and is now number 2 at Barclays Bank. Yesterday's press reported him thus:
"If you have a problem solve the problem. Don't change the organisation. If you do, you'll end up with two problems".
If Mr. Stevens' ideas were in any way put into effect, not only he but the Government themselves would have a lot of problems, which the Government at least could surely do without.
We can only assume that the Government are being urged to begin the dissolution of the system of state protection which has now lasted over 100 years. Thank God the voluntary system is still with us. In my opinion, the performance of the National Trust in recent years has been public spirited, energetic and constant.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the marked and increasing public awareness of all aspects of our national heritage together with the extensive media coverage which followed publication of the strategy document Managing England's Heritage make today's debate timely. I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for raising the issue in your Lordships' House this evening. Before saying anything further, I must formally declare an interest, although it has been informally declared on my behalf. I was appointed a commissioner of English Heritage with effect from 1st October this year, which hardly makes me a veteran of that institution. In any event, I speak tonight in a personal capacity. I have

1627
listened and I hope gained some understanding of the concerns of those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
The chairman of English Heritage has attracted a certain amount of what I might describe as personal criticism in the debate. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was referring to him as a bull but he has been described as iconoclastic. Mr. Stevens can well stand up for himself. I remind your Lordships of the enormous esteem that he earned for himself as rector of the Royal College. If he serves English Heritage as well as he served the Royal College, there will be small reason for complaint.
When I returned from abroad at the weekend I found an impressive bundle of press cuttings depicting English Heritage's new strategy document in many and varied guises. The content of some drew on the original document barely at all. In the time available to me this evening, I want to focus on just some of English Heritage's proposals by reference to the document rather than to the sometimes somewhat hysterical response it has evoked. I should like to tell the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Kennet, that the proposals were considered by the commissioners at the one and only meeting that I was able to attend.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me for a moment while I assure him that I did not say that they were not. I said that they were not considered by the advisory committees below the commission.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: There may be many interpretations of what "a breath" of consultation is. But certainly the commissioners in a strategy document which seemed to be central to the matter were consulted. That is the point I wished to make. English Heritage is currently responsible for over 350 properties ranging in size from field monuments in the countryside to 36-acre sites like that of Dover Castle or stretches of Hadrian's Wall. It is not, as has sometimes been suggested and as I saw in a letter to the press, a coherent portfolio. But it has been assembled over the years, responding to different policies, different priorities and sometimes almost by accident.
The nature of the properties varies widely, and size is by no means the main criterion of importance. By way of example, the cross in the middle of Geddington village in Northamptonshire is an Eleanor cross from the thirteenth century, which is acknowledged to be the best preserved mediaeval cross in the country. No one would deny its importance. On the other hand, the Butter cross at Dunster in Somerset is of comparable size and yet of essentially local interest. At the other end of the scale are Grade I listed buildings and monuments of the first importance, such as Audley End House and Carrisbroke Castle.
The English Heritage document proposes that its portfolio should be divided into three categories. In the first category would be buildings, monuments and sites which are of the highest quality whose presentation as well as conservation merit national management. In the second category would be
1628
buildings, monuments and sites which are nationally important to English Heritage's historic estate. In the third category would be buildings, monuments and sites of more regional importance, fully meriting continued protection but more suited to local management.
I should not like to be drawn into how those categories are precisely defined. It has not been decided. Nor will it be decided until more specialist opinion has been sought. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renfrew is reassured by that. I do not believe that he can sustain an objection to a list which has yet to go through the procedures of being advised upon. This I can say: in every case the first principle that will inform that decision will not be commercial but what is best for the monument.
English Heritage proposes that it should concentrate on the conservation and presentation of the properties in the first two categories—the highest quality and nationally important—and seek management agreements with regional or local bodies for the management of properties in the third category. That hardly seems to me a question of selling the heritage. Rather it is a proposal by English Heritage to proceed in a sensible and businesslike way and to make the best use of resources available.
Those of your Lordships who follow English Heritage affairs will understand when I say that the proposals amount to no more than a continuation of existing policies, as other noble Lords have said. Conisbrough Castle in South Yorkshire, Gainsborough Old Hall in Lincolnshire and Mortimer's Cross Watermill near Hereford are already the subject of successful local management agreements. The management of the Tribunal Building in Glastonbury has also been transferred to the local authority.
Properties will be transferred only when, first, the property is of essentially regional interest and its management does not warrant the full-time attention of a national body such as English Heritage; when, secondly, it would be more economical for an organisation or body with local staff to manage the day to day care of the monument; and when, thirdly, an organisation, conservation trust or other body is keen to assume the responsibility of management. English Heritage has said that the continued conservation of the property will be paramount in any new arrangements.
Aside from the steps which English Heritage will take to make absolutely sure that any monument passing out of its own management will be cared for by a sympathetic and, above all, competent manager, there are powerful additional safeguards. Any work on a scheduled monument (it is scheduled monuments to which we refer in the main) is subject to detailed statutory controls exercised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—and that upon the professional advice of English Heritage.
While the objective would be to look to the new managers to fund the day-to-day maintenance of the site, major repairs to the fabric would, if the usual

1629
criteria were met, be eligible for English Heritage grant, as indeed English Heritage helps many owners of important monuments now.
Attitudes have changed since the days when there was scant concern for the conservation of the past and there was a reason for a national organisation to seek to take the nation's heritage into guardianship. While there are still valid reasons for such a body, it has to be recognised that many more people than before are committed to, and able to participate in, the management of the heritage. Indeed, over the past 15 years, the competence of many local authorities has developed to a point where they are not only capable but eager to assume greater responsibility. I wonder whether that point has not been slightly underestimated by noble Lords. I believe that in part it explains the paradox to which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred.
Yet there seems to be an inexplicable hesitancy about encouraging this new enlightenment. In my view it would be both shortsighted and wrong to deny people the opportunity to participate in this great endeavour. That English Heritage must decide on priorities and make the best use of limited resources cannot be gainsaid. However, the dynamic behind the strategy is not purely commercial. Over the past eight years, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Montagu, English Heritage has demonstrated that it can effectively care for, conserve, manage and present the properties in its care. Hugely important conservation schemes have been completed and a raft of new exhibitions, explanatory graphics and publications have been produced of interest and education value to visitors. No fair minded person could accuse English Heritage of having turned our heritage into a theme park. One of the great tributes that should be paid to my noble friend Lord Montagu is that he transformed many lifeless and sterile properties into refuges of sheer delight without in any way damaging their intrinsic value.
As the new chairman, Jocelyn Stevens, has identified, more needs to be done. English Heritage does not have the money that it needs to continue its programme of conservation and presentation of the largest and most significant properties to a standard that it would wish. By making better use of resources, the new strategy will free up funds for the continuation of work at the most important properties and will bring in new partners who are ready and willing to play their part in managing the country's heritage.
These are emotive issues and capable of generating heated debate. I make no complaint about that: it is good. However, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that we are debating a strategy not a plan. It is not cast in stone. The list of properties for possible transfer is not finalised and there is by English Heritage's own admission a series of protracted negotiations to come. If responsible, willing and able local managers are not forthcoming, then let it be clear that English Heritage is committed to retaining direct management of the properties concerned.
1630
Perhaps we may judge English Heritage's proposals by the answers to three simple questions. First, does it continue the necessary protection of the nation's heritage? Secondly, does it make the best use of the public funds dedicated to the conservation and presentation of the heritage? Thirdly, does it guarantee the public a benefit from the expenditure of those funds? In my submission the answer to all those questions has to be yes.
My views are necessarily personal ones. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Astor whether my confidence in English Heritage's strategy finds echoes with the Government. I believe that the new strategy represents not just a way but perhaps the only way that we can travel to protect the glories of England for posterity.
9.8 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the owner of an ancient monument subject to a deed of guardianship with English Heritage. I should like to say immediately what splendid and skilled repair work the staff of English Heritage has done there over the past 20 years.
I understand why I have been placed towards the end of the list of speakers in today's Unstarred Question; that is, after all the expert speeches made by noble Lords hitherto. I should like to air a few worries of those who are not expert.
I understand the need to take account of the country's general economic situation but feel that the care of unique historic properties should not be subject to the short-term swings of the economy. They are too valuable as part of our heritage. English Heritage has done tremendous work under its last chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I ask whether it needs such a public shake-up now and I ask why a policy review and press release should be issued without naming names, except by leakage. Staff and concerned locals now need urgent reassurance because it is not clear what is envisaged or into what category certain properties will fall —hence the immediate anxiety and general uproar. An instant loss of confidence has arisen.
What does local management mean for the Grade III or Grade C category properties? People would like to know which local authorities have spare cash to take on that management. Will the original owners be expected to continue the old work? If so, will they have access to the expertise, skills and cash that was previously available?
Some of the lesser properties may be less valuable in touristic terms but they still deserve management and preservation. Therefore, there will be no cost saving to the country but rather a duplication of resources.
Were it to be the loss only of the jobs of the grass cutters and ticket collectors, one might identify a very small saving. However, alas!, it appears that all 380 skilled tradesmen are to be made redundant or are to be subject to privatisation. The skilled work of repair using old methods —for example, using the authentic mortars for pointing—does not lend itself to the profit-driven ethos of privatisation. Time and care are

1631
of the essence. Those old skills are valuable and I do not believe that it is too strong to say that it is vandalism to throw them away, as would undoubtedly happen under these proposals.
I hope that these plans are not the edge of a wedge where any remaining members of English Heritage will eventually have very few properties left to visit.
Finally, I turn to Stonehenge. I support strongly English Heritage's struggle to improve upon the shambles at that vital site. Indeed, it is a national disgrace and the failure of all parties to come to agreement is astounding. Not only should the present minor access road be completely closed and removed but the A.303, the other great intrusion, which is surely due for upgrading and dualling, should be rebuilt away over the incline to the south. The recycling of the reception area as planned would then be meaningful. I hope that proper weight will be given to those arguments at the forthcoming public inquiry. A halfway house is not acceptable to the many visitors which Stonehenge rightly attracts.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for initiating this valuable discussion. I am glad that we have had the benefit of the long experience and knowledge of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. That has helped to illuminate to some extent the thinking behind the strategy, as have the remarks of my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness.
I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, the body responsible for the curating of the national records of archaeological sites and historic buildings. The royal commission has a natural interest in the strategy announced by English Heritage. Our recently revised Royal Warrant requires the commission to record and describe; and our functions thus naturally complement, although they are quite distinct from, those of English Heritage, whose role is to manage. Therefore, we look forward to the consultation on the application of the strategy which has been promised.
One of our anxieties must naturally be as regards any repercussions from decisions taken which will affect records which may be dispersed in any disposal of guardianship sites. I feel sure that English Heritage would share our strong hope that there should be no inadvertent repetition of the unfortunate wholesale destruction of files relating to guardianship sites and scheduled monuments which took place in 1990. It would be particularly unfortunate if any local authority or other body accepting the responsibility for the management of guardianship sites were to prove unable, through lack of funds or expertise, to retain and curate the associated archives or records.
We are already in discussion with English Heritage over its proposed archaeological strategies and are advising on the creation of the necessary databases. Our interest in this stems from our lead role in the promotion of the local sites and monuments record as set out in Her Majesty's Government's White Paper, This Common Inheritance. The largest urban database
1632
is of course the Greater London Sites and Monuments Record and we secured agreement just this week to early discussions to clarify the intentions of English Heritage in this area.
Another aspect of the need for consultation over English Heritage's plans for the transfer of responsibilities to the London boroughs is its implications for our own statutory duty to record listed buildings subject to demolition or alteration. At the least these plans, if implemented, could result in a considerable increase in the workload of our own London threatened buildings section.
The royal commission looks forward to full consultation with English Heritage, and no doubt if necessary with the department, on areas of proper concern within English Heritage's new strategy. Individual royal commissioners, perhaps naturally, cannot but share, as I do, the general anxiety about the possible implications for the heritage of some of this strategy, so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, himself formerly a commissioner in both the royal commission and English Heritage, and by other speakers. I have every confidence that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, whose own known interest in heritage issues should prove a great asset, will hear our concern. Meanwhile, I look forward to my noble friend's reply.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, there are many occasions when one speaks in this House when one is keenly aware both of the privilege of doing so and of the responsibility of doing so. That cannot he more so than when one is discussing what perhaps may be described as the very soul of England. It is a great privilege also to follow so many eminent speakers, but they present a problem for someone such as me—an amateur in all this—in that so much has been said and said so much better than I could do.
I recently received some general information from English Heritage prior to this rumpus. I have to admit that I did not look at it very carefully until last night when I wondered whether there might be anything useful in it that applied to the problems. Two points struck me. It described proudly how, last July, new standards of service had been introduced in accordance with the principles of the Citizen's Charter. It said that leaflets are available which explain to members of the public what they are entitled to expect from English Heritage at properties in care, and from conservation teams.
In another paper, referring to the report of the National Audit Office, two particular comments are made. This is English Heritage's own summary:
"despite a special survey by English Heritage of buildings which are at risk, there is relatively little information on the current physical condition of listed properties generally".
The second point was that neither the Department of National Heritage nor English Heritage have enough information on the performance of local authorities in implementing heritage policy. It seemed to me that those two points were somewhat ironical and pointed out a lacuna in the sequence of events.

1633
I should like briefly to mention just two aspects —the relationship between English Heritage and local authorities, and the London situation. As other noble Lords have said, local authorities have not yet been consulted individually, although I believe that a letter has gone to chief executives, nor by the local authority associations. The preliminary comments that I received from two of the associations will not surprise your Lordships. The Association of County Councils said that it would have to rely on English Heritage for funding. The Association of District Councils said that there is no indication of the funding implications or whether local authorities can cope with the task.
For me this issue has something of a philosophical dilemma because I support local autonomy and democratic accountability. That might suggest that I would support local authorities having more control, both in the legal and practical sense, than they do now. However, the reality is that described by other noble Lords: the capping of revenue expenditure and constraints on capital expenditure. Local authorities rely on English Heritage and, as we have heard, some local authorities do not even have a conservation policy. I do not support that for an instant, but it is the fact.
I apologise to the Minister for not having given him notice of this point, but it did not occur to me as an issue until during the debate. In his reply perhaps he will deal with one matter raised in background paper 5 to the recent Statement. That is the paper dealing with conservation in London. It sets out the powers of English Heritage and goes on to say:
"With the agreement of Ministers, we propose to withdraw from what are essentially local authorities' responsibilities".
I had understood those powers to be statutory powers. Is it a matter simply for Ministers to vary those? I shall be glad of the Minister's comments.
In the debate we discussed the position in London and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, assured us that, as he sees the situation, the London region office will not he disbanded. It is clearly a source of considerable and scarce expertise which must not he dissipated or dispersed. It is clear that the London boroughs cannot replicate either the range or depth of knowledge and experience to be found in that office. As the proposals are presently drafted I cannot see how the London region office will be funded and, in particular, for whom it will work.
I cannot resist picking up comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, about our not being governed in London. As I see it, I am afraid that we are governed not by London's government but by central government.
My other dilemma is that we are not only talking of individual buildings but also about the conservation of the whole fabric of our built environment, and local authorities should he ideally placed to deal with that. I am sure that many local authorities would like to assume that responsibility and to have greater freedom than they now have. My own borough, Richmond upon Thames, has more than its share of history and more than its share of concerned residents. We know how wide-ranging the issues are. For
1634
instance, they include tourism. Heritage is a major attraction and a source of inward investment. If for no other than that crude reason the Government should be concerned about our discussion tonight.
Last week—was it only last week that we were discussing the pit closures, or was it the week before? —my noble friend Lady Seear gave what I thought was a crisp description of the ideal consultation: the sharing of a problem and the ownership of a decision that arises as a result of that consultation. She said that consultation must not simply be, "Here are our plans. Have you any comments?" Sadly, that seems to be the type of consultation that English Heritage has presented to the public.
Noble Lords said that the paper is not a plan but a discussion document. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said. There can be no surprise that the public expressed alarm and read it as a plan. English Heritage's press release begins,
"Powerful plans were unveiled today",
and the term "plan" is used throughout the press release except where there is a reference to the chairman's vision of the future. It tempts me to say that now we have seen something of the future it is clear that your Lordships' response is that we fear that it will not work.
I give one further small warning. An apparent system, an apparent safety net which does not work, is much worse than everyone knowing that there is no system in place.
9.23 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for giving us this opportunity to discuss last week's publication by English Heritage of its new strategy for the 1990s, Managing England's Heritage. Last week I repeated an Answer to a Private Notice Question. Tonight your Lordships have the opportunity to discuss the details of that strategy again.
It is clear from the nature of the noble Lord's original Question and from some other contributions to this evening's debate that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding in regard to the English Heritage proposals. Perhaps it is not too surprising in view of the speculation in the media about those proposals several days before they were even published and repetition of quite alarmist stories despite constant denials by English Heritage and the Government. That only served to convince the noble Lord that he needed to ask the Question of what protection will be given to monuments and listed buildings in the light of the English Heritage proposals.
The impression has been given in the press that ancient monuments are about to be abandoned and that our built heritage. is to be sacrificed. That is simply not true. Many of the detailed points raised this evening can be answered by my placing on record what English Heritage's strategy actually is and the process which needs to be gone through before the strategy becomes a practical reality.
The new chairman, Jocelyn Stevens, has looked carefully at what English Heritage does and has had discussions with his fellow commissioners and senior

1635
staff. His intention has been to set out his strategy which looks to the end of the decade. In announcing his proposals he has opened up to public debate both the new emphases which he and his fellow commissioners consider they should put on their responsibilities and the changes that they propose to enable others to carry forward some of the work English Heritage previously carried out.
There is no question about English Heritage not discharging its responsibilities. The new strategy is about discharging them more effectively and enabling others to play a greater part than perhaps they do at present. Grant-in-aid to English Heritage increased by 35 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1992. But there will never be enough taxpayers' money to do everything. So it is eminently sensible that English Heritage should propose 20 key policy objectives to get the best value for money from the resources at its disposal.
In order to make the heritage pound go further English Heritage proposes to focus its powers, skills and resources where the need is greatest and to step back from work which can be done by others at a more local level. It has undertaken to improve its efficiency, raise its standards and reinforce its commitment to excellence by streamlining its organisation, improving access to its historic properties and becoming more responsive to public needs.
The three proposals which have excited most attention have been those concerning properties in care, responsibility for listed buildings in London and the directly employed labour force. In proposing to divide its historic properties and sites into three categories of importance and to concentrate its resources in the first two categories, English Heritage has been met with the claim in many newspapers that 200 heritage properties are to be sold. Who has proposed to sell anything?
What has actually been proposed is that out of the 350 or so properties in English Heritage's care, a certain number will be categorised as of regional importance, fully meriting continued protection and perhaps more suited to local management. No final decisions have been made as to which or exactly how many sites will fall into that category. English Heritage's initial assessment is that 200 might be so categorised. But Mr. Jocelyn Stevens told last week's press conference that the final number might be 150 or 250. It will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has again made much of the fact that English Heritage's advisory committees were not consulted about the strategy. But advisory committees do not make strategy; that is the job of the English Heritage Commission on which sit the chairmen of the advisory committees. It has been made abundantly clear that before final decisions are taken on which, and how many, sites are suitable for local management, English Heritage will consult its own Ancient Monuments' Advisory Committee both on the general criteria and on a site-by-site basis.
It has also been made perfectly clear that no sites will just be abandoned. No local authority will be
1636
forced or perhaps coerced into taking over any particular properties. English Heritage has stated that its strategy proposals for the management agreements with local authorities or local charitable trusts offer the most likely and appropriate means of managing properties in the third category and that there may need to be lengthy negotiations and a continuing cost to English Heritage before complex existing guardian agreements can be sorted out. That must entail a case by case approach to the new strategy, not just a cut and dried list.
We must also bear in mind that even where local management arrangements are made, the properties will still be eligible for English Heritage grants. Many of the sites likely to be placed in this category have low maintenance costs and few are likely to he among the 120 or so properties for which English Heritage currently charges admission. Should any of these come into the third category, English Heritage has made it clear that its existing membership would continue to have free access.
On the three further points about the proposal: first, I believe that it is a positive strategy which can open up the possibility of better care for some local monuments. There is real scope for harnessing local pride and enthusiasm for conservation—for example, by enlisting the help of local archaeological trusts, perhaps working together with the local council. Monuments which inevitably come at the back of the queue in terms of English Heritage's national priorities stand to get better care and attention.
Secondly, while we all know that there are fewer constraints on local authority spending, it is just not true to say that there is no interest in taking over individual monuments. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu made that point last week and again tonight. Last week I mentioned Fort Cumberland in Hampshire where the country council is in discussions about terms. Since the announcement, English Heritage has already had inquiries from authorities such as Chester city council and South Hams district council which are interested in managing properties in their areas, and no doubt there will be more in the coming months. English Heritage is fully aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will need to approve the terms of these agreements. The department will need to be convinced that arrangements for continuing access, management and maintenance will be fully satisfactory.
Much has been made of the proposal by English Heritage to withdraw from listed building casework in London. I must stress that this is very much a matter for consultation with each borough. Some boroughs will find it easier to manage without English Heritage's help than others; and it will be essential to ensure that each authority is able to provide an adequate service before English Heritage disengages.
There is no question of immediate additional burdens on hard-pressed boroughs. There will be no changes before 1994–95 unless individual boroughs want it and there will be full transitional arrangements, to be agreed by negotiation. English Heritage will not be adding to the responsibilities of London

1637
boroughs, but merely withdrawing from areas where there is currently a large measure of duplication of effort.
The stories that, "This is the end of London's heritage as we know it", are sheer nonsense. English Heritage will still be closely involved in all Grade I and Grade II* building casework, in all cases involving the proposed demolition of Grade II buildings, and in strategic issues. The proposals, once negotiated with the boroughs, simply mean that English Heritage's level of involvement will be as great as in Bath, Chester, Oxford and all other historic cities and towns outside London. There is no proposal to alter or end the London Advisory Committee's work.
With regard to English Heritage's direct labour force, the commission has taken the view that it is out of balance in skills and in geographical location. The proposal is to rationalise the direct labour force and make it competitive, putting its relationship with managers of properties on a proper contractual basis. This approach has been widely successful in the local authority world and in central government, and it is almost an anomaly that English Heritage has not yet pursued this course.
Over the next three years, the direct labour force will be required to compete with the private sector for increasing percentages of the English Heritage work it does. It will have an opportunity to demonstrate its commercial effectiveness, and any approaches made to English Heritage regarding the transfer of its direct labour force, either in part or as a whole, will need to be considered. The approach may be made from within in the form of a management buy-out or from an external body.
Some 80 volunteers have been sought to take redundancy terms before the end of next March. I fully appreciate that this is a difficult decision, particularly in the current economic climate, but English Heritage has had to take a view about the right size of its direct labour force, both in terms of available work on its own properties and the critical mass necessary for it to compete. But skilled workers will not necessarily be lost to the conservation cause. It is simply that there is no compelling reason why they should have to he employed in the public, rather than the private, sector.
I shall turn to some of the specific points of detail raised in tonight's debate in a moment, but I wish to refer to some of the other proposals in English Heritage's strategy that have perhaps received less attention than those to which "selling our heritage" and "end of London's conservation" headlines have been so erroneously applied.
One such area is the proposal to focus resources on Grade I and II* buildings and to review the operation of conservation area grant schemes. Of course, the major part of English Heritage's grant resources already go to Grade I and II* buildings, whether secular or ecclesiastical, through its existing schemes. However, grants to buildings in conservation areas are not very well focused at the moment. Some £9.5 million per annum is spent in selected conservation areas, mainly on repair grants, and English Heritage
1638
intends to develop, in consultation with local authorities, clearer criteria for better allocation of resources. These will be based on the quality of the historic area concerned, its financial, material and social needs, and the willingness of the authority concerned to commit its own resources over a defined period of time. This will result in the curtailment of some long running schemes in areas where significant improvements have been achieved in partnership with the local authority, but it is important that English Heritage concentrates on areas of greatest need.
Some critics have even claimed that there will be no help for Grade II buildings outside conservation areas in future, but the plain fact is that under existing legislation English Heritage is not allowed to help Grade II buildings outside conservation areas. This is yet another instance of the strategy being cited as the vehicle for change when no such change is in fact proposed.
I welcome the support for the new strategy given by my noble friend Lord Montagu. As the first chairman of English Heritage, he was responsible for establishing the organisation as a major force in the conservation world. Under his chairmanship, membership and visitor numbers rose, and presentation of sites was greatly improved. I pay tribute to my noble friend's achievements in steering English Heritage through its first eight years.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to the announcement made jointly by English Heritage and the National Trust. We welcome that announcement. English Heritage and the National Trust have agreed to discuss each of the 17 sites in which both have an interest in order to determine whether any could be better managed to the benefit of both the site and the public by transferring some or all of the management responsibility to one or another body, as allowable under the terms in which they are held.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew asked various detailed questions about Dover Castle, the White Horse of Uffington, and other monuments. Matters relating to expenditure and income at individual monuments are essentially a matter for English Heritage management. My noble friend Lord Renfrew, as a member of the English Heritage Advisory Committee, is in a privileged position to discuss such matters. He will no doubt follow this up when he and other members of the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee attend a meeting with the commission on 18th November which has been arranged with Sir David Wilson, chairman of the committee.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew asked about completion of the schedule. As was made clear to the Public Accounts Committee in another place earlier this week. English Heritage now expects to complete about 80 per cent. of the original scheduling target for the monuments protection programme by the year 2003.
There has been delay caused partly by restrictions on resources and partly by the need to spend more time than English Heritage expected on the preparatory documentation. However, the rate of new schedulings is now expected to rise very swiftly over

1639
the next 10 years. Much of the preparatory work has now been done. I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Renfrew that the figure of £22 million is in the recent report of the National Audit Office on the net cost to English Heritage for caring for its properties during the year 1991–92.
I was asked this evening about guardianship. The legal position relating to the guardianship of ancient monuments is set out in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Section 14 of the Act makes provisions as to the termination of guardianship arrangements. The key points are that termination has to be by agreement with those immediately affected by the operation of the guardianship deed; and that before terminating a deed the Secretary of State must be satisfied that satisfactory arrangements have been made for ensuring the monument's preservation after termination of the guardianship; or, that it is no longer practicable to preserve the monument—but, of course, that is not the question here.
The agreement of the Secretary of State will be needed before guardianship agreements are altered or terminated. As full provision was made in the 1979 Act for variation or termination of guardianship agreements, the great majority of cases are not thought likely to give rise to any need for legislation. However, in some cases there may be a need for legislation to facilitate transfers into local ownership or management. Individual cases requiring legislation cannot yet be identified.
My noble friend Lord Crathorne and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the London boroughs and the London Regional Committee. The London region will continue, although it will be smaller. The power of direction cannot be removed without primary legislation. The change proposed by English Heritage is that it should no longer be notified about proposals to alter or extend Grade II listed buildings. In future, such matters will be decided by the boroughs. That is already the position throughout England; that is, outside London. English Heritage will continue to be closely involved, as I said before, with proposals for Grade I and Grade II* buildings —again, in exactly the same way that they are in the rest of the country.
The notification arrangements can be altered by direction under Section 15 of the 1990 Act made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who I see is no longer present in the Chamber, talked about the destruction of English Heritage, and so on. All I can say is that I do not think he could have read the strategy document because it is nothing to do with that. I very much hope that he will read the report of what has been said here this evening.
I turn now to my old and noble friend Lord Cavendish. In just a month, he has already grasped the important issues that English Heritage will face. I am sure that his expertise will be most welcome. We must congratulate him on winning an important garden
1640
award this summer. His explanation of some of the finer points of the strategy was, I am sure, very useful to all noble Lords present here this evening. My noble friend Lady Park, who is chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, raised a number of anxieties which will be discussed both with English Heritage and of course with the Department of National Heritage.
Such a body as English Heritage which receives £100 million of the taxpayers' money to carry out the duties placed upon it by Parliament needs to have clear policy objectives if it is to carry out those duties effectively and efficiently. I quote from the new strategy document:
"When there are so many calls upon the country's public and private purses, particularly in times of recession, we have chosen to reassess objectives and priorities and look at the part that our heritage plays in our daily lives".
The resources available to English Heritage are finite. There is no pot of gold into which one dips when an historic property needs repair or a site of great archaeological value is under threat. The money to preserve the built heritage comes from the taxpayer. English Heritage has to set its priorities within the broader public expenditure limits set by the Government.
I believe firmly that we should welcome the key objectives which English Heritage has set for itself for the rest of this century. It identifies areas where there is scope for drawing on new sources of private funding for the heritage, but it does not disguise the fact that substantial public funds will continue to be needed. English Heritage's corporate plan to be submitted for government approval next year will need to develop its new strategy into a costed, prioritised plan for the next five years, taking full account of the Government's funding decisions following next week's Autumn Statement.
English Heritage is under no illusions as to the difficulties of the immediate outlook for public spending programmes, but the financial constraints do not invalidate the strategy. They make it all the more important that English Heritage has a clear understanding of its role and a clear definition of its objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who I see is no longer in his place, as he said, could not talk about English Heritage without mentioning the lottery. I am sure that in the future proceeds from the lottery will go to our heritage. The new strategy should be welcomed warmly. I hope that with the reassurances I have given tonight your Lordships will now welcome the strategy.
The chairman of English Heritage and his fellow commissioners have taken an important step forward in the development of the conservation policy. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State looks forward to considering in due course the detailed results of the consultation which publication of the strategy has signalled.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  DISABLED PERSONS TRANSPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE: REPORT
  DISABLED PERSONS TRANSPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE: REPORT
  "GIVE-AS-YOU-EARN" DEDUCTIONS TO CHARITIES
  "GIVE-AS-YOU-EARN" DEDUCTIONS TO CHARITIES
  CURRENCY SPECULATION GAINS: TAX
  CURRENCY SPECULATION GAINS: TAX
  LEGAL AID REPORT
  LEGAL AID REPORT
  RESERVE FORCES: CALL-OUT
  RESERVE FORCES: CALL-OUT