Sitting of 26 November 1992

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF BRISTOL (PORTISHEAD DOCKS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
  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)
  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 3 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Tourism
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to encourage co-operation on tourism with the Republic of Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): There is close co-operation between the Northern Ireland tourist board and its counterpart in the Republic in areas of mutual benefit to tourism on the island of Ireland. Recent initiatives include a joint travel desk at the British travel centre in London, a reservation system for hotels throughout the island of Ireland, accessible worldwide, and joint marketing in North America and Europe. I am keen to see this co-operation grow.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that co-operation with the Republic on a range of matters, including tourism, makes sense politically and economically, and should be welcomed by all communities?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an extremely important point: if we can co-operate in this area we can do so in many other areas, with the consequent good effects that it might have. I can do no better than draw the House's attention to an example of co-operation in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was involved yesterday, when he launched the north-west passage tourism route. As a north-west Member, I am conscious of the importance to Northern Ireland of the north-west. Such co-operation will prove useful in years to come.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware, however, that the prospects for increasing tourism between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland will be greatly damaged if the rampaging Home Secretary has his way at a meeting of immigration Ministers on Monday, because tourists will have to carry passports, and citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark will be regarded as aliens when they travel to other member states of the European Community?
    Mr. Atkins: No more alien than a Member of Parliament from Yorkshire is in Lancashire. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Sir James Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that the Republic's tourist office in New York deters—or at least seeks to deter—Americans from extending their visit in the Republic into Northern Ireland, and will he make strong representations to ensure that this practice is brought to an end?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Mallon: Far from the Republic of Ireland office deterring tourists from moving on to the north of Ireland, surely one of the strongest deterrents to tourists from the Republic visiting the north is the type of security

    971
    installations that can be seen at almost every point along the border. Does the Minister accept that those who operate in border areas, especially in Newry and South Armagh, face an uphill fight because of these military installations, not least the latest one at Cloughoge, which is a blight on the community and the entire environment?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should address his point to those who cause trouble—terrorists and others involved in paramilitary activity, who make such installations necessary. My task as Minister with responsibilities for tourism is to ensure that we attract as many tourists as possible, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. They have made great efforts to ensure that the installation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is sited most carefully; unfortunately, it is necessary because we have terrorists and we must stop them.

    Energy Policy
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on energy policy in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: Northern Ireland's strategic energy objectives are energy efficiency and the clean production and use of energy, lower costs and the protection of consumer interests, diversification of supply and security of supply.
    Mr. Bruce: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what plans he has to privatise electricity in Northern Ireland, and whether he believes that privatisation will bring down the price of electricity both for individual consumers and for industry?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will know, four power stations completed the first phase of privatisation earlier this year. I had the opportunity to visit one of them and I was most impressed with the achievements of the consortium involved. Clearly, privatisation will produce more competition and improve energy efficiency, and I am sure that the continued plans to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity will be successful. I hope that shares will be made available to a wide range of the public, which will allow them to participate properly in the ownership of Northern Ireland Electricity, as opposed to its being a state-run body.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that in the past electricity subsidies to industry were part of our incentive packages? Does he share, or recognise, the concern of high energy using industries in Northern Ireland that the foreseeable increases in their electricity costs may put them out of business, and put out of a job all the people whom they employ? Will the hon. Gentleman go further than he has done to date to protect industry in Northern Ireland from unreasonably high future electricity costs?
    Mr. Atkins: With his experience, the hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone that the position in Northern Ireland is unusual, in that we do not have competition from gas—although we have hopes of that in the not-too-distant future—and, as we are a peripheral part of the United Kingdom, there are some troubles involved in the provision of energy. I am aware of the problems
    972
    experienced by some large users, although, as the hon. Gentleman will also be aware, I have managed to obtain a two-year deferral of the implementation of those costs and have invited the companies concerned—incidentally, some of those companies will benefit, although I know that others will not—to take the matter up with the regulator in due course.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that for privatisation to work properly there must be competition? What plans has he for restoring the electricity interconnector with the Republic and establishing the interconnector with Scotland?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will know that the interconnector with the Republic has suffered from terrorist activity and has not been operational for some time. Plans are afoot to deal with the problem by way of alternative connections across the border with the south in other parts of the Province.
    With regard to the interconnector with Scotland, we await further confirmation from Commissioner Millian, who came to see us in Northern Ireland not long ago, when we discussed the necessity of a grant. We hope that we shall receive information about that in due course, when we shall be able to implement the physical and energy aspects of that most important connection with the mainland.
    Mr. Stott: As I understand it, the interconnector is due to be completed and in place by 1996. According to the Action Group on Northern Ireland Electricity Prices, that interconnector will be used only by Scottish Power and Northern Ireland Electricity for 10 or 15 years, so companies that use 1 MW or more will not have the opportunity to make individual contracts with any other Great Britain supplier. If that is true, how can the Minister claim that the Scottish interconnector will in any way increase competition with Northern Ireland Electricity?
    Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are two interconnectors. There is the gas interconnector, which will provide competition. Clearly, the operation of the electricity interconnector is a matter for Northern Ireland Electricity, in co-ordination with Scottish Power. If the hon. Gentleman has particular points to make, such as the one that he has enunciated today, I should like to know more about them, because that is certainly not my understanding at present.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the latest available figures for (a) registered vacancies and (b) unemployment in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: I apologise, Madam Speaker, for being the dominating force at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
    At 2 October 1992, there were 5,374 unfilled vacancies registered at local offices of the Training and Employment Agency. The number of unemployed in Northern Ireland on 8 October was 106,436, a fall of almost 4,000 over the previous month.
    Mr. Barnes: I hope that the answer does not show complacency and that there will be some dominating action in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland, despite the latest figures, is still the highest of any region in the United Kingdom. Unemployment helps to breed resentment and discrimination in Northern Ireland, and it leads to paramilitary activity. Tackling unemployment is probably the highest priority. Will the Government or the Northern Ireland Office be in touch with the newly elected Irish Government, who are expected to take office very soon, to try to work out an economic package for the island of Ireland which will start to tackle unemployment in the area?
    Is not it a pity that Ulster Unionist Members do not understand that the Northern Irish people, including the Protestants, express considerable interest in ensuring that the coal industry in this country is not closed down? They therefore resent the vote here the other night.
    Mr. Skinner: The question has got the lot in.
    Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) got the lot in. I cannot answer all the points without delaying the House unduly. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a continuing interest in these matters, so I will address the point about the importance of cross-border trade, which is part and parcel of trying to develop companies, to expand companies and to create new jobs for those who need them. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that Northern Ireland suffers from the worst unemployment of any region, although the slight fall in the past two months is a good sign and should be welcomed. My task and that of my ministerial colleagues is to ensure that we attract companies, that we expand existing companies, that we create new jobs and that, above all, we encourage extra trade between the north and the south.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the Irish Government. I have had conversations with my erstwhile counterpart, Mrs.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] I have forgotten her name. She may change her job as a result of the election, but I shall continue to have contacts with her successor, whoever he or she may be.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the complacency of the Minister's reply reflected in the elections in Ireland where the people are voting heavily for a Labour Government of some sort who will revive the Irish economy? Is not the position north of the border the same? People are looking for a Government who will revive manufacturing industry and who will not build an economy on the fragile basis of extended credit. We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who cannot keep his own financial house in order, although he is supposed to keep the finances of the nation in order. Is not he a reflection of the Government's total failure to provide jobs in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: That sounds like another typical Yorkshire rant. We already have a great deal of co-operation with the south. Mrs. O'Rourke, the lady whose name temporarily escaped me, and her successor, whoever she or he may be, will continue to devote a lot of time to developing cross-border trade and to ensuring that questions such as the hon. Gentleman's do not have any foundation in fact.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I turn my hon. Friend back to the question of unemployment? It is a serious issue and not a matter for laughter among Labour Members sitting below the Gangway. The last time that unemployment in Northern Ireland was at the level of unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom was in 1968.
    One of the best things to do in building a new consensus on getting more jobs into Northern Ireland is to work not only with the south, as suggested by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but with the new President of the United States so that the United Stales realises that the way in which to help Northern Ireland is to visit it and to buy goods from it and to understand that violence harms employment.
    Mr. Atkins: I entirely agree. That is why, like many hon. Members, and like the people of Northern Ireland, I am delighted to welcome visits such as that made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and his colleague from Belfast, who recently went to the United States with a view to developing trade and finding new jobs for Northern Ireland. It is part of the Government's task to do as much as we can to encourage that process—not just in the United States and the south of Ireland but, with the completion of the single market at the beginning of next year, in parts of Europe. We need to attract companies and make them realise that Northern Ireland is a prime place in which to invest, to develop and to create jobs for people, from whatever part of Ireland, who want them.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: What consideration has the Minister given to creating more employment by providing more finance for roads, in keeping with the policy in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Atkins: Every Ulster Unionist Member—or his council—has spoken to me about the need for more roads. I have considerable sympathy on this matter. The announcement of the public expenditure allocation for the block is not yet ready, but I know that roads are a subject which is dear to many people's hearts and I shall do what I can to alleviate their concern.
    Mr. Barry Field: Given my hon. Friend's concern about unemployment and his answer to the question about peripherality in Northern Ireland, will the Northern Ireland Office be making representations to the Foreign Office on Monday—along with the Isle of Wight, Shetland and Orkney and the Western Isles—asking it to put on the agenda for the Edinburgh summit the agenda of the peripheral maritime regions conference for areas of the EC that are disadvantaged by their dislocation from a mainland country?
    Mr. Atkins: As always, my hon. Friend speaks glowingly for his constituency, the Isle of Wight. I did not have it in mind to address that point to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but if my hon. Friend thinks that the Isle of Wight and other parts of the United Kingdom should be included, perhaps that ought to be considered.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Would the Minister care to visit Harland and Wolff with a view to examining employment prospects in its ship repairing section?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman extends an invitation which I should be more than happy to accept—again, as I

    975
    have already paid a couple of visits to Harland and Wolff and recently attended the launch of the Knockadoon, which will be most important to Harland and Wolff's future. The hon. Gentleman has a particular concern and interest, and I should be happy to go with him, at a mutually convenient time, to visit the section of Harland and Wolff about which he feels so strongly.

    Intergovernmental Talks
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the talks with Northern Ireland political parties and the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the future of Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I am glad to be able to provide a little competition for my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    I have nothing at this stage to add to the substantial statement that I made to the House on 11 November. I remain encouraged that the parties that participated in the talks agree with the two Governments that further dialogue is necessary and desirable and have committed themselves to engage in informal consultations about the way ahead.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be a general welcome for his assurance that, whatever the result of the Irish general election, he will do everything possible to ensure that dialogue between the British and Irish Governments—and also, it is to be hoped, between elected representatives representing various views on both sides of the border—will be resumed? Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that such talks would be more meaningful if it were made clear at the outset that the ultimate aim is to negotiate democratically new constitutional arrangements embracing the whole of Ireland, and that such negotiations should continue even if certain politicians decide not to participate?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the desirability of talks taking place after the election is over. In general, that opinion is shared throughout Northern Ireland—and, I am sure, in the Republic. We should continue with the task of trying to establish a new beginning for the totality of relationships within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the south and between the two islands. That is what we are about. It is bound to take time, but, as long as people are talking, there is value in it, and I believe that we have made valuable progress.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: When the complexion of the new Government in the Irish Republic is known, will the Secretary of State determine whether they are prepared to work towards the withdrawal of their territorial claim to Northern Ireland? If he feels that the Irish Government are prepared to work in that direction, will he assure them that the Unionist community in Northern Ireland would be delighted to see a Government in the Irish Republic who want to take the first and basic step towards a friendly relationship with Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I realise the significance of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to many people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I think that
    976
    I must leave it—and I can do so with some confidence —to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland to make its views on this matter clear to the incoming Government.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Secretary of State agree that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland is and can be a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and the House only? Does he agree that any questions about the future institutions of government in or affecting Northern Ireland should, similarly, be a matter solely for the people of Northern Ireland and the House? Does he appreciate that our anxiety to remedy the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland with regard to those institutions should be addressed by him and the Government as soon as possible?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The House knows about what has come to be called the constitutional guarantee, and I need not recite it. The guarantee relates to the opinion of the greater number of people living in Northern Ireland and their wish to remain part of the United Kingdom.
    Questions of democratic status which relate to political structures within Northern Ireland are part of what we have been addressing in the past six or seven months. They are an important part. Of course, any changes that may be necessary are a matter for the House. It is also necessary to examine the question of north-south relationships as well as internal relationships to see whether we can reach an accommodation of all the legitimate interests in the affairs of Northern Ireland. That is what we have been trying to do for the past six or seven months. That is what the people of the Province have told me that they wish to see continue. It will take some time.
    Dr. Hendron: I know that the Secretary of State is aware that the talks are very much to do with peace and the historic conflict between the two communities. Above all, the talks are to do with the preservation of human life and law and order on our streets.
    The Secretary of State is aware that yesterday afternoon a young man named Pearse Jordan was shot dead on the Falls road in the heart of my constituency in circumstances which are causing great concern to my constituents. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to set up an independent inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the death of Pearse Jordan, bearing in mind—
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman would hold his fire for a while he would see that we have security questions later on the Order Paper. At present his question is not appropriate to question 4 with which we are now dealing. If the hon. Gentleman will relate his question to question 4, of course I shall hear him. However, if he looks at the Order Paper, he will see that it contains specific questions about security.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern. If we do not reach the security questions, I undertake to see him and deal fully with the question that he has asked.
    I slightly take issue with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning—that the talks are about peace. The talks are not essentially about peace; they relate to the resolution of an ancient quarrel that has taken place over many centuries and which is still unresolved. We need a

    977
    resolution of the conflicts between competing interests in Northern Ireland. I shall come to the important point that the hon. Gentleman raised if I can.
    Lady Olga Maitland: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to reassure President-elect Clinton, following his remarks during the election campaign that he proposed to send a peace envoy to Northern Ireland? Will he inform President-elect Clinton that serious discussions are going on between all political parties and that they will continue to do so?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I know that President-elect Clinton has been made well aware of the matter by our ambassador in the United States and by other means. It is important to make a distinction between what may be said in the heat of the contest of a presidential election and what may become the steady policy of the incoming Administration. I share my hon. Friend's concern. We had better wait and see how things develop.
    Mr. McNamara: It might be a good idea if people read the letter that was sent. There was no mention of a peace envoy as such. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he welcomes any constructive help, aid, assistance and investment from the United States—such as the investment that has gone to Derry from Boston? I come back to the talks and the opportunities that they will provide for the new Government of the Republic in the new year. The Secretary of State has said that the talks are informal, bilateral discussions. At what time and at what point will the Secretary of State think it possible to have more structured discussions within the context of seeking that solution?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We must wait to see how things develop. I know that the parties want to talk to each other bilaterally and that the Governments want to do so. I hope that we shall do so before Christmas. We shall have to see how we get on. Procedures, structures and the rest of it are the servants of the participants. We do not want to hold to one format or another, simply for the sake of it. The main thing is to get down to the business and keep talking business until we reach an agreement.
    Mr. Hume: Given that 42 million people in the United States declared that they were Irish in the last census, and that those 42 million have roots in Ireland both north and south, does the Secretary of State agree that a powerful relationship can be cultivated on behalf of the people of Ireland, north and south? In particular, we could develop an economic relationship with a view to marketing the products of our small and medium-sized enterprises and securing inward investment. Does he agree that an envoy appointed for that purpose would be a positive appointment?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: An envoy appointed for that purpose would certainly be helpful. However, I pay tribute to the American ambassador here, who takes a great deal of trouble over Northern Ireland. He comes frequently and knows a great deal about it. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Yesterday I visited the Ulster American Folk museum near Omagh. Last year 130,000 people visited the museum. A great majority were from the United States. I am glad to see that that tourist interest is beginning to be matched by commercial interest. There are
    978
    hopeful signs of continuing American investment in Northern Ireland, which is an extremely good place for anyone to invest.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to promote inward investment in Northern Ireland following the report from the Northern Ireland Economic Council on job creation; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Industrial Development Board's inward investment activity is reviewed regularly. I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Member that action has already been taken to address a number of the recommendations contained in the economic council's report and that the others are being carefully considered.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Secretary of State agree that the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council is depressing reading for the people of Northern Ireland? It shows that the number of firms inwardly investing was reduced by 41 per cent. between 1973 and 1990, with a consequent loss of employment in those sectors of 52 per cent. We can no longer hide behind the question of a terrorist image because, at the same time, the Republic of Ireland increased its inward investment by 27 per cent. Does the Secretary of State agree that the change in policy by the IDB some two years ago, to concentrate on product design and marketing rather than targeting the creation of jobs, needs to be examined by the Department? Will he give an undertaking to insist that the IDB honours its commitment to spread visits to Northern Ireland to South Down? Only 4 per cent. of visits in the past four years were to my constituency.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers speaks for itself. It acknowledges the difficulty of attracting internationally mobile investment to Northern Ireland at a time when competition for investment is increasing. Nevertheless, the report makes specific recommendations. It calls for a more focused approach. Accordingly, the IDB is concentrating increasingly on the industrial sectors and sub-sectors which hold the greatest potential for Northern Ireland.
    Of course, that report has been taken closely on board and the hon. Gentleman will see some changes in consequence. He mentioned South Down and I pay tribute to Down/Chicago Link Ltd, which has established structures in Down and Chicago, thanks to several visits by and the unstinted efforts of the hon. Gentleman.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the spate of violence in Northern Ireland is spiralling—the heart of Coleraine has been bombed and the heart of Belfast has almost been bombed again? Will he take it from me that the best thing that he could do would be to get on top of that violence and deal with it? Then people would have the confidence to invest in Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I agree that the security situation in Northern Ireland is very disadvantageous to investment. I hear a great many commentators referring to the need to get on top of the IRA, implying that more should be done that is not being done by the security

    979
    forces, but I find them exceedingly short when it comes to giving particulars of what should be done that is different in character, quality or scale from what is being done.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: While there is criticism within the business community about the performance of the IDB, does the Secretary of State agree that several negative factors are working against it, such as the IRA terrorist campaign and the worldwide recession? In view of factors of that nature, would it not be better advised to concentrate on giving greater assistance to Ulster business men and industrialists who are creating jobs in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is a question of balance. I agree that one does not want a single-minded concentration on the attraction of inward investment. I am glad that the IDB has about 460 companies on its books and that it looks for ways to help established companies, which I agree is just as important.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that occasionally the people of Northern Ireland do not seem to appreciate the enormous effort and vast resources which have gone into improving the infrastructure there? If the menace of terrorism were lifted there is no reason why it should not be as prosperous, and have as low a level of unemployment, as any part of the United Kingdom.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend had a distinguished career as a Minister in Northern Ireland and knows a great deal about that sort of thing. An enormous amount of work has been done. Coming as I do from the underprivileged south-east of England, I envy the people of Northern Ireland for many of their roads, although I realise that much more needs to be done. All people who speak about terrorism should remember that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland suffer from the crimes committed by the terrorists, who will not succeed and have no prospect of achieving the political aim of the IRA or of any other terrorist organisation. One and all, they take it out on the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State will recall that the Northern Ireland Economic Council recommended that an extensive and independent review be undertaken to evaluate the overall impact of inward investment. He has said that he has taken on board some of the points made by the council. Can he say whether he will have such an independent review?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Several months ago my hon. Friend who has responsibility for the economy instituted a review by the IDB's chairman and the permanent secretary of the Department of Economic Development on IDB's promotion activity. The review has been completed and the recommended changes are being discussed. We want to get on and we do not want too many reviews. We want to consider the changes recommended and see what we can do to get on with it.

    Tourism
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to promote tourism in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to promote tourism in Londonderry.
    Mr. Atkins: Following a review of tourism in 1989 and the introduction of new tourism legislation in April this year, the Northern Ireland tourist board has been reorganised and resourced to take forward the promotion, marketing and development of tourism throughout Northern Ireland. In addition, district councils are being encouraged to develop tourist amenities in their areas. My overall aim is to maximise the contribution that tourism makes to the Northern Ireland economy and this, of course, includes Londonderry.
    Mr. Evans: I welcome my hon. Friend's response to that question about tourism and to earlier questions on the subject asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Does the Minister agree that if we are to encourage more tourists to the Province, we must give high-quality training to personnel concerned with tourism?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right, because unless good-quality service is given to those who come to Northern Ireland, they will not come again. The crucial factor is that those who come to the Pronvince and see its beauties, however they perceive them, know that they must come again. The quality of service provided by properly trained staff at all levels is fundamental.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to people from all the communities in Londonderry for their hard work in regenerating the centre of that city and making it a tourist attraction? Will he also join me in paying tribute to the people of Helen's Bay, Portrush, Newcastle and all parts of Northern Ireland, and all the beautiful places that I know exist there, because I have visited them and hope to visit them again?
    Mr. Atkins: I can say without equivocation that if my hon. Friend returns again with as many friends as he cares to bring, he will be extremely welcome. A special plaudit is due to the citizens of Derry for all that they have achieved in recent months and years in providing a tourism attraction. I think particularly of the Tower museum and the craft village that has been created, largely as a result of the work done by the council, by Paddy Doherty of the inner city trust and, above all, by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who has done an enormous amount to help in that respect.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that good communications, particularly air travel, are essential? Will he ensure that airport facilities in the north-west are brought up to the standard that we in that area want, so helping tourism to increase?
    Mr. Atkins: I am tempted to say watch this air space. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that if we are to improve the standards of hotel and catering establishments, we should make available to the catering college at Portrush the maximum support it requires to produce the proper quality of staff? Does he further agree that among the glories of tourism in Northern Ireland are the wonderful beaches along the north coast? Will he

    981
    ensure that the raw sewage that is at present pouring across some of them is properly dealt with before it goes into the sea?
    Mr. Atkins: I recently visited the catering college in Portrush and was impressed with the quality of meal that I was given and the work that I saw being done. The attractions of Portrush, Portstewart and other places, not least the golf course and Bushmill's distillery, are all contributory factors to the attractions offered to tourists by that part of Northern Ireland. I shall do all I can to help in that respect. I shall investigate the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about sewage.

    Community Care
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated amount of money allocated for the introduction of the community care programme in April 1993 in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced on 19 November 1992 that the funds to be transferred from social security to the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland to support the changes in the community care arrangements from April 1993 will amount to £24·63 million in 1993–94, rising to £65·28 million in 1994–95 and to £100·33 million in 1995–96. Any additional funds secured in the public expenditure round will be announced at the conclusion of the survey.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister know that there are about 201,000 disabled people in Northern Ireland and that that represents a prevalence rate of 174 per thousand, which is a higher average than any other region in Britain and 22 per cent. worse than the British average? In allocating funds for the community care programme, will he therefore take account of the high prevalence of disabilities in Northern Ireland and allocate the full amount necessary?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's statistics. She is right to say that we have many problems in Northern Ireland, a great number of which are caused by the health, deprivation and problems that exist in that area. The amounts of money that have been allocated take that into account and a higher proportion is given per person for those purposes than in Great Britain. I am grateful for the hon. Lady's interest.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the care that has been given towards community provision in Northern Ireland and the sums that are being and have been allocated. However, is the Minister satisfied that, in the allocation of those funds, independent homes such as Lakeside, in my constituency, and others will not be jeopardised because of the possible failure to have full accommodation to give them the opportunity to provide a high standard of service?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the home that he mentions gives great service to the community. In Northern Ireland, the care of each individual will be very carefully assessed, and the outcome
    982
    of the individual assessments will dictate the nature, level and locality of the services to be provided. The private sector will be essential in helping to provide those services.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 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 later today.
    Mr. Hendry: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in yesterday's Financial Times on Derbyshire, which highlights the growth of jobs, prosperity and confidence in that county and beyond as a direct result of Toyota's decision to manufacture cars in this country? Is that not the clearest possible evidence of the success of the Government's strategy to make Britain the best place for international companies to invest? Is not that in the sharpest possible contrast to the position across the channel, where yesterday's vote on GATT shows that the French claim to be good European citizens is a total sham?
    The Prime Minister: I greatly welcome the large investment by Toyota in Burnaston, together with that by other Japanese car manufacturers in recent years. Over that period their total planned investment in the United Kingdom is now nearly £2 billion and will create something in excess of 10,000 jobs. Clearly, that is extremely welcome news for this country. We are a very attractive area for foreign investment and I intend to keep it that way with low inflation, low taxation and no social charter.
    Mr. John Smith: In view of the evident public concern, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has had discussions with Her Majesty the Queen about the issues of taxation and the civil list payments?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say first to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I believe that affection and respect for the monarchy are very wide and very deep across all sections of the nation. On the particular point that he raises, the sovereign is not liable in law to pay tax on her personal income and does not at present do so. But Her Majesty, some months ago—before the summer recess —indicated to me that she wished consideration to be given to changing that arrangement. She asked me then to consider the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax and further suggested that she might take responsibility for certain payments under the current civil list arrangements. The House will be keen to know that the Prince of Wales has made a similar request in regard to the Duchy of Cornwall. Discussions are continuing between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the royal household. When they are completed I shall make a full statement to the House.
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that consideration of those questions has

    983
    been initiated. When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to make that full statement to the House, and what has the Queen suggested by way of changes in the civil list?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot be precise about when I can make a statement, but I would expect to be able to make one early in the new year. I also expect that the new arrangements will be able to come into effect for the next tax year. On the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question about the civil list, the Queen has asked me to consider arrangements under which she would reimburse the Consolidated Fund for the cost of annuities paid to all members of the royal family, except the Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh.
    Mr. Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's encouraging news about American economic growth? Does he further agree that any consequent growth in world trade would be good for British trade, and that British industry is now well placed, with low inflation and low interest rates, to take advantage of world economic growth?
    The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is clearly good news to see that the American economy begins to grow again. That will be good news, not just for the United States, but for the rest of the world trading community. It means that British companies and British business have a great opportunity. We have low inflation, the lowest interest rates in the European Community, an extremely competitive exchange rate and a single market of 340 million people on our doorstep. Now that the prospect of a world trade war has been averted, the circumstances are coming together that provide better opportunities for British business than we have known for some time.
    Mr. Ashdown: What words has the Prime Minister to say to his fellow citizens of all political colours who, this afternoon, will discover that their councils are to sack teachers, close schools, shut down social services and still levy a council tax that is higher by far than anything that his Ministers promised during the last election?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should wait for the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in a few moments' time. The right hon. Gentleman's allegations have a familiar ring. We seem to have heard them from him and his colleagues year after year, yet they have never yet become fact.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for all European nations to support with one voice the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Does he further agree that if any one European nation were to jeopardise the implementation of that agreement, it would go against the interests not only of Britain and its European partners, but of international trade generally?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with my hon. Friend on that. The agreement between the Community and the United States is a good one for the entire Community and the entire world trading community. It would, of course, be desirable for all member states to agree as speedily as possible. I know that there are difficulties in France, but I am sure that when France has examined every aspect of the deal, which has not yet been concluded and has to be concluded in Geneva, it, too, will realise that liberalisation
    984
    of trade, services and manufactures is a very valuable prize for the French economy, as well as for the economies of every other industrial nation in the world.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: How can the Prime Minister justify a system whereby unelected and unaccountable card-carrying Conservatives are appointed to run Wales by quango? Does not that drive a stake through the heart of the democratic process? When will such political nepotism stop?
    The Prime Minister: The heart of the political process of Wales is here in the House of Commons, with the answerability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that both the question by the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend's answer will be welcomed by people across the country and across the political spectrum? Would it be possible to suggest that senior members of the Privy Council should try to keep in contact with each other so that the country can respond to a lead from the royal household and from the leaders of the political parties?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House a few moments ago, I hope that we shall be able to conclude the arrangements before too long, and I hope then to be able to respond to the House. I think that the announcement that I have made today and the fuller announcement that I shall be able to make, I hope, early in the new year will be widely welcomed, both in the House and beyond it.
    Mr. Sheldon: While I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister, will he now consider the setting up of a Select Committee on the civil list, as was done in 1972? It is about time, after 20 years, that we considered these matters dispassionately and carefully and came to a sensible conclusion.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed that view, but I see no need for such a special Select Committee. The House approved the present civil list arrangements in 1990 to run for 10 years. The additional reimbursements which Her Majesty has asked me to consider will reduce the net cost to the Exchequer. I made the point that the arrangements run for a full 10 years. The actual increase is, of course, 6 per cent. because of assumed savings of 1·5 per cent. If there is a surplus at the end of the period, it will, of course, be taken into account in setting future civil list payments.
    Mr. Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, following the autumn statement, the best way to give a boost to British industry is to start a programme of removing regulation from business? Does he further agree that business currently faces a triple assault from the town hall, Whitehall and Brussels?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The autumn statement has set out the right framework for growth and we need to be sure that that

    985
    growth is not shackled by red tape, whether it comes from Whitehall, county hall, town hall or the European Community. I announced some time ago that I had asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to lead a new blitz on the regulatory sausage machine from wherever those regulations may come. We intend to cut all unnecessary rules and requirements that dull enterprise and innovation. I hope that before too long British business men will be able to warm their hands at a new bonfire of controls.
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Darling: How can the Prime Minister justify a situation in which nurses and teachers will this year get no wage increase and possibly lose their jobs, when, at the same time, the chairmen of the privatised water industries are digging their faces into the public trough yet again and are asking, and will get, increases of between 30 and 50 per cent? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: Against the advice of the Government yesterday—if I may borrow the hon. Gentleman's phrase—around 90 Labour Members dug their noses in the trough.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Prime Minister —[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Prime Minister recite for the House the moral, political and legal principles that distinguish the two cases of informers, the case of Brian Nelson and that of the informer known as "Michael", who featured in a BBC television programme? Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why one of the two is at present serving a 10-year sentence and the other has left the country with his pockets stuffed with tens of thousands of pounds, with a new life made for him in some other area of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is investigating the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers and that a report will be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The principle of employing participating informants to assist the police in the prevention of crime is well established in this country and in other democratic societies. As I believe the hon. Gentleman well understands, lives would be lost in Northern Ireland if the security forces were unable to receive information from informants. On his other point, there is no immunity from prosecution for informants who commit crime and the security forces are at all times subject to the rule of law.
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Hoey: The Prime Minister will know that nearly a quarter of a million people have signed a petition demanding that St. Thomas's hospital should stay open on its present site. I have taken the liberty of putting in his name, because it is his local hospital. I wonder whether he will sign it and ensure that his local hospital, a hospital crucial to central London, is kept open.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, it is widely accepted that substantial changes in London will be necessary to provide the right health care in future. However, there will be very full consultation before any decisions are taken on the Tomlinson report. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has already visited St. Thomas's to listen to views on the proposals. We shall consider them, examine the report and announce our conclusions in the new year.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that £.1·5 billion-worth of Whitehall in-house functions will be market tested? Does he agree that the civil service must subject itself to the same disciplines of efficiency and value for money as the private sector?
    The Prime Minister: The initiative on market testing announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday is a giant step forward in bringing new thinking and new skills to the service of the public, and in getting work done that needs to be done better and with better value for money than ever before. I believe that we can be proud of the work done by many millions of public servants. That does not mean that it cannot be done better. That is what market testing is about, and it is why we support it and why the Opposition, who so often put the convenience of trade unions before that of the public, oppose it and will no doubt continue to oppose it.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time's up. We now come to business questions—
    Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well enough that I take points of order at the end of all the statements. I regret that he will have to wait.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House tell us 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 30 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
TUESDAY I DECEMBER and WEDNESDAY 2 DECEMBER —Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill
THURSDAY 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [Lords]
FRIDAY 4 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions
MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 2 December at 10.30 am to consider European Community document No. 4204/89, relating to VAT: special arrangements for second-hand goods, works of art, antiques and collectors' items.
I come now to the bit that everyone has been waiting for. The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday 17 December until Monday 11 January.
It may also be of assistance to the House to know that, even more subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment on Friday 2 April until Wednesday 14 April.

[Wednesday 2 December

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document

4204/89 Value Added Tax

Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-viii (1992–93)]

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement—especially for having responded to the concern expressed on both sides of the House and for having given us early notice of the dates for the Easter recess. I know that all hon. Members will appreciate that help with their planning. That is the good news.
There is, however, considerable resentment in the House at the scheduling of the statement this afternoon on the revenue support grant, after a statement on Sunday trading for which some other time could surely have been found. Hon. Members on both sides are anxious to question the Secretary of State for the Environment on issues of local taxation, about which there is anxiety. I hope that satisfactory arrangements have been made for our Scottish and Welsh colleagues to pursue issues of local taxation pertaining to Scotland and Wales.
I press the Leader of the House to find time for a debate in Government time on the consequences of privatisation, before any further such moves. Does he recognise that strong concerns about the consequences of electricity privatisation for British Coal are exacerbating fears for the future of that industry? Recent reports from the bidders
988
that double fares or the closure of 5 per cent. of the routes on Network SouthEast might follow privatisation are also giving great cause for anxiety, and they highlight the need for a full debate on the consequences of past privatisation well before we embark on further such risky moves.
Having sought a debate in Government time, I also ask the Leader of the House for an assurance that there will be a further Opposition day in the near future.
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for her generous remarks about the recess dates. I should have made it clear that, because Easter is rather late next year, the Easter Adjournment is largely before rather than after Easter, as has happened on previous occasions.
I note what the hon. Lady says about the revenue support grant statement and the other statement which are to be made shortly. The Sunday trading statement was originally to have been made on Monday, but it was thought that that might be inconvenient to some Opposition Members as it was also their Supply day. However, we felt it right to make the statement this week.
There will not be oral statements by the Secretary of State for Scotland or for Wales today, but the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making an oral statement next week and the Secretary of State for Wales will be making one towards the middle of next month.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the House?
Mr. Newton: Yes, oral statements—by which I mean statements from where I am standing now, when the hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to look the Minister straight in the eye and ask direct questions.
Those statements will not be precisely in every detail parallel with the one today because the various parts of the United Kingdom operate slightly differently, but there will be oral statements on local government finance in Scotland and Wales within the next couple of weeks or so.
I cannot promise a debate specifically on privatisation between now and Christmas, but the hon. Lady will be aware that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has undertaken to have debates on coal, to mention one of the matters to which the hon. Lady referred, in the light of his White Paper in the new year. The hon. Lady will well know also that we expect to bring the rail privatisation Bill before the House in due course, which will give opportunities on that as well.
I note the hon. Lady's request about Opposition time. I am obviously anxious to be helpful, but I cannot at this moment make a commitment for one between now and Christmas.
Mr. Barry Porter: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have noted during Northern Ireland questions that we never reached question 11 on security. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) tried to raise the matter in a way in which I would not have done and was told that the appropriate question would be reached in due course, but it never was.
Bearing in mind the number of murders that are taking place in Northern Ireland, may we have a debate in the House before Christmas to discuss, in particular, the disgraceful and appalling article published in The Guardian last Mondy which purported to portray the IRA as respectable soldiers who are jolly sorry that they kill people and who are kind to their children, and that sort of

989
thing? Such a debate would be much more important than one on the privatisation of the railways and should be given greater priority.
Mr. Newton: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland touched on that point at one stage during Northern Ireland questions, but I note my hon. Friend's request, which was an ingenious effort during business questions to make a point intended for Irish questions.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I remind the Leader of the House of his responsibility to allow the Scottish Grand Committee up to six matter days in the course of any one year. The right hon. Gentleman may know that there has been an effective Scottish Trades Union Council lobby of the House on constitutional and job issues which are of the first significance north of the border. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time to allocate one day next week, he will do so before Christmas.
May we have an early debate on the common fisheries policy regime which will apply to the inshore fleet in 1993?
Mr. Newton: As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I will of course consider his suggestion. As to his second, I indicated in one or two answers to previous business questions that I hope to provide time for a fisheries debate between now and Christmas.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May the House debate job creation, and discuss an interesting new wheeze discovered by friends of the Leader of the Opposition, who apparently create jobs for their friends in Monklands by giving them coloured forms? Is that what Labour means by their new agenda? It sounds suspiciously like the old one to me.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's remarks, but that is more a question for the Leader of the Opposition than for me—and I believe that the whole House would be interested to hear the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Insofar as there is increasing contravention of broadcasting directives prohibiting the availability of the air waves to those espousing the causes of terrorist organisations, will it be possible to find time to allow the Secretary of State for National Heritage to come to the House to tell us how those directives can be made more effective, both in letter and in law?
Yesterday, a Sinn Fein councillor who did not see a shooting incident was able to appear on television and spew out his vicious and malicious propaganda to the disadvantage of our hard-pressed security services. Will the Leader of the House try to find time in the very near future to allow the Secretary of State to explain how that can be put right?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is due to answer questions within the span of the business statement that I just made—that is, on Monday 7 December. In any case, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: So that the House can discuss GATT, the Balkans, and all the
990
other matters that will preoccupy the Edinburgh summit, can a debate on foreign affairs be placed on the agenda of the House before the Christmas recess?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a general debate on foreign affairs in quite that form, but I make the point —as I did to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—that my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are due to answer questions next week, so there should be an opportunity to raise the question of GATT. In view of my hon. Friend's well-known interest in such matters, I draw his attention to the opportunities that will arise perhaps on the Consolidated Fund and certainly on the debate on the Christmas Adjournment motion.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House about the condition of the 10 pits marked for closure? When the President last spoke to the House on that subject, he gave an assurance that the fabric of those pits—the faces and roadways-—would be kept viable so that the pits could be reopened, if that were the will of the House. All the evidence of weekly inspections is that those faces a re coverging and deteriorating fast.
Unless the President makes a statement and requires British Coal to inform him on a weekly basis about what is happening to those faces, people will not know. Several of my hon. Friends and I have been seeking a meeting with the President of the Board of Trade and are aghast that he has so far refused personally to meet us. That shows an unusual and, I believe, unprecedented lack of courtesy by a Minister in relation to such a pressing issue.
Mr. Newton: As I mentioned in response to a previous question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will answer questions in the House next Wednesday. Meanwhile, I fall back on the formula of undertaking to convey to my right hon. Friend the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sure that the House is grateful to know the dates of the Easter as well as the Christmas recess, but I hope that that does not ominously mean that the Bill to ratify the Maastricht treaty will drag on that long in Committee on the Floor of the House. I have no wish to stifle debate, but in view of the will of the House on Second Reading, with a one-page Bill of only three to four clauses, surely even the Chair will have to rule out of order most of the amendments tabled so far. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Bill will be expedited so that ours will not be the last country to ratify the treaty?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend's interest in such matters is, to say the least, well known. Let me give him two assurances. First, my announcement of the Easter recess dates was prompted by nothing more than my desire to please the House, in my familiar fashion; it did not constitute a comment on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Secondly, the Government's position on that Bill remains the same: it is an important measure, and the House must be given proper time to discuss it.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Does the Lord President share my grief and anger about the rape of a 17-year-old

991
girl in Hillingdon by a man who, it was claimed in court, was moved to commit that heinous crime by the pornographic telephone service? Is it not about time that the Lord President and his right hon. Friends took account of the seriousness of the situation? I have been trying to do something about it for seven years. How much longer must we wait, and how many more youngsters must be terrorised in the same way because an Act of Parliament has allowed British Telecom to run such lines?
I cannot understand how Conservative Members can pray before each sitting of the House knowing that an Act that they passed in 1984 has resulted in so much agony and trouble for ordinary people. When will we be able to debate the matter, and when will the law be changed?
Mr. Newton: It is to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he has taken an interest in such matters for a long time. No one would wish to express anything other than grave concern about the case that he has described. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is made aware of what he has said, and it is possible that he will be able to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend at National Heritage questions in 10 days' time.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend will recall that, on 19 October, the Foreign Office wrote to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee confirming that a document in straightforward English explaining the Government's interpretation of the Maastricht Bill would be made available to the House. According to the Foreign Office, the document would be made available at the earliest possible opportunity, but certainly before the recommencement of debate on the Bill. That can now be done only today or on Monday. If the Foreign Office pledge is not honoured, will my right hon. Friend make a business statement on Monday, postponing the Bill's Committee stage until we have seen the document?
Mr. Newton: I shall not give my hon. Friend the immediate undertaking that he seeks. I shall, however, give him an immediate undertaking to look into the point that he has raised as soon as business questions are over.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I revert to the distressing and deeply worrying position of the fishing industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not only to confer with the relevant Ministers in both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office about the possibility of a debate before Christmas, but to write to interested Members on the subject?
Last week, during a sitting of Standing Committee A, it was clearly intimated that no such debate would take place before Christmas. In the light of the failure of the fisheries Minister to report back to the House following Monday's meeting in Brussels, will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made next week? Hundreds of our constituents now face not only a bleak December, but bankruptcy and a loss of livelihood.
Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Lady has said. As she will know, her hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—who evidently could not be present for business questions—has secured for next week
992
an Adjournment debate on the North sea haddock quota. Obviously, that will cover some of the issues raised by the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May we give three cheers for the fact that, after six months, the Maastricht Bill is at last going into Committee? As it will take many hours and many weeks, will my right hon. Friend consider telling us on which days it will be discussed so that hon. Members can make their plans? No doubt the information is already available to Ministers.
Will my right hon. Friend also take on board the point that was hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—that the Bill could be scuppered by points of order, if we are not careful? Those of us who want to support the Government and get the Bill through would like enough time for full discussion of all the issues, without any trouble.
Mr. Newton: I sense that the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks were directed elsewhere than at myself, because I am not seeking to cause, or acquiesce in, the sort of trouble that she seems to have in mind.
On my hon. Friend's first point, as I hope I have made clear in the few months that I have been doing this job, I am always anxious to give the House as much notice as I can of business or of recess dates, but I cannot promise to give in advance all the dates that my hon. Friend would like.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Did the Lord President hear on the radio this morning that the Government are about to abolish the independent living allowance, which has brought a better quality of life to many severely disabled people in recent years? Will he find out why the House has not been told, and what is likely to replace the fund? May we have a statement next week so that hon. Members may be aware of what is happening?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the time. This is a matter in which I am interested, and he will find that a question was answered earlier this week setting out the Government's plans, on which, as is well known, we have been working for some time, for a successor body to the independent living fund. The Government intend to legislate in the present Session to provide for the successor body.
Mr. Roger Knapman: The House will welcome the return of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to the Floor of the House—none more so, I suspect, than Madam Speaker. What will be the position if the exchange rate mechanism falls apart? Will we continue with amendments relating to the mechanism?
Mr. Newton: The question whether amendments are proceeded with will depend, first, on the selection of the Chairman of Ways and Means—that is not a matter for me—and the wishes of hon. Members who have tabled them. On the underlying issue, it seems that what has happened with the exchange rate mechanism has very much confirmed almost everything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been saying for a long time.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I demand that the Leader of the House arranges for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on this letter sent direct to my constituents, usurping my democratic role as an elected Member by asking my

993
constituents to contact him if they have problems of a national or local nature. Surely that is a breach of may repesentation and role in the house.
Mr. Newton: I have not had the advantage of seeing the missive to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as soon as I can.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have a day's debate on general education matters, not least the publication of league tables showing school results? My right hon. Friend will know that that is important to me and my constituents. A debate would give us a chance to welcome the change in Labour policy, because the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has now said that the Labour party would publish league tables.
Mr. Newton: As I think I said last week, I am increasingly tempted to find time for a debate to allow the Opposition to explain why they opposed the policy for so long, even if there has now been a welcome shift of view. It is not the first time, of course, that there has been a welcome shift by Labour Members to policies that we espouse but which they initially opposed. Despite that temptation, I cannot undertake to provide time for a further debate on education in the immediate future.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Will the Minister reconsider his decision about the Easter recess? Is he aware that, despite what the Jopling report said, he has fixed dates when children will be at school but the House will be on holiday? The week after, children will be on holiday and we shall be back here. In the interests of family unity, will he reconsider the dates to ensure that they coincide with school holidays?
Mr. Newton: If ever there was an example of how difficult it is to please all the people all the time, even though I have announced a recess date so far in advance, that must be it. I cannot give quite the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I shall certainly consider what he has said.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend find time soon for a debate on a business issue which has become serious—the insurance of premises on the mainland of the United Kingdom in the wake of IRA bombings? Is he aware that the withdrawal of reinsurance arrangements means that businesses may remain uncovered in the United Kingdom, which not only poses a threat to the insurance industry—in which I declare an interest, through my membership of Lloyd's—but is a serious problem when we try to attract business to the United Kingdom? I yield to no one in my understanding of the publicity angle, but, as the Financial Times has said, what I suggest does not represent acquiescence to terrorism; it is simply carrying on the fight against terrorism by different means.
Mr. Newton: If I understand my hon. Friend's question aright, this seems to be a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, who will be here next week to answer questions. I shall bring it to his attention.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House review his answer to a question about a debate on coal privatisation, in view of the odd set of circumstances now prevailing? British Coal wants a small industry
994
because British Coal is part and parcel of a takeover bid. It wants a nice little captive rigged market, with only 30 million tonnes worth of coal contracts at the power stations. It is important that we should have a debate before the White Paper is published so that we can expose the murky deal going on with Mr. Neil Clarke and his gang. They are obviously intent on shaping the market to suit themselves rather than the miners. That is why we should have a debate before Christmas.
Mr. Newton: I do not believe that I referred to a debate specifically on coal rivatisation—certainly I did not intend to. I was referring to the whole range of issues that will arise from the review by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the White Paper which he has promised. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is making a point which I suspect he may seek to develop at that time. I cannot promise him a debate in the near future.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: May I remind my right hon. Friend that an amendment has been tabled to early-day motion 908?
[That this House welcomes the resumption on 28th October in New York of direct negotiations between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus, with a view to searching for a lasting and mutually acceptable solution to the Cyprus question; is heartened by the recent references in this House by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to the constructive aproaches of the two leaders taking part in the negotiations; notes the United Nations Security Council Resolution which envisages a freely negotiated and mutually acceptable settlement to the Cyprus question; and welcomes the statement from another Minister of State that the Greek Cypriots must agree to genuine power sharing that accepts Turkish Cypriots as a politically equal community.]
The amendment expresses the regret of the House at the breakdown of the talks on the reunification of Cyprus in New York a few weeks ago. In a report this week the Secretary-General of the United Nations attributes that breakdown to the intransigence and lack of political will of the Turkish Cypriot community.
Will the Government make a statement telling us what they, as President of the Community, can do to bring about a resumption of the talks? Will they also tell us what Suleyman Demirel, the Turkish Prime Minister, said on the subject when he visited London recently?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole will continue to give every support to the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to resolve the Cyprus dispute.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Members' interests.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know, and I hope that he will be pleased, that the usual channels finally managed to appoint the Select Committee last Friday. That paves the way to the publication of the new register. which I hope will take place at an early stage—although that is a matter for the Committee. It also enables me to consider some of the other issues in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend is to be sincerely congratulated on his decision to

995
announce the Easter recess—for the sake not only of Members but of their families. He will be aware that this decision relates to an important part of the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), which calls for reform of the hours of the House. Can my right hon. Friend make further progress on the reforms proposed in the Jopling report? Is he aware that, of the almost 1,000 motions on the Order Paper, early-day motion 9, which calls for those reforms, bears the second highest number of Members' signatures?
[That this House welcomes the Report of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House, HC20, Session 1991–92, which considered 'whether the public and private business of the House might be conducted more effectively by making changes to the order and timing of business, the hours of sitting and the arrangement of the parliamentary year'; notes the recommendations of the report and the debate on 2nd March 1992; and urges the Government to provide time to discuss further and consider substantive motions and vote on the recommendations of the report at the earliest opportunity.]
Two hundred and fifteen Members have signed that motion, which represents one third of the Members of the House of Commons.
Mr. Newton: I am very much aware of the interest shown in these matters by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). As I said, I hope that we shall be able to make further progress before too long following discussion through the usual channels. Apart from the relatively early announcement of recess dates today, the pattern of business in the House on Thursdays over the past few weeks and the hours at which the House has risen show that quite a lot of progress has been made even within the existing rules.
Mr. Barry Jones: Is it possible to have a full day's debate on Britain's growing housing crisis? There is evidence in the surgeries of hon. Members of all parties of great distress in housing. Does the Leader of the House know that on Tuesday the Churches National Housing Coalition hopes to lobby the House? It has an all-party approach and aims to emphasise the seriousness of the housing crisis. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to meet the Archbishop of Wales, for example, on Tuesday?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I can undertake to meet the Archbishop of Wales about housing matters on Tuesday, much as I would, in some respects, wish to be able to do so. Nor can I promise the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks. In the past couple of weeks, notably in the autumn statement, the Government have announced a number of measures that will have an important and advantageous effect on certain housing problems.
Mr. John Butcher: May we have a debate on today's welcome statement that Treasury economic forecasting is to be contracted out? Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that in a league table of forcasters' effectiveness, the Treasury came 19th, whereas the Liverpool Six had four of its members in the top eight?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder)indicated dissent.
Mr. Butcher: Could we not give the whole shebang to the Liverpool Six? We might then be able to steer the ship of state with all the hard data required to make appropriate decisions.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip claims that those are not accurate figures. Whether they are right or wrong, I cannot promise a debate. Indeed, I should be rash to do so until we see how the new arrangements perform.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week on the difficulties being experienced in France and on the potential breakdown of the GATT talks? May we examine the possibility of an interim ban on the export of live animals for slaughter during this period? Many people would like the ban to be permanent in view of the variable standards of transport of live animals in other EC countries. In view of the potential dangers for animals, should not the Government consider the possibility of at least a temporary ban until the difficulties are removed?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have a long time vigorously sought to improve the welfare of animals including those being transported abroad. I will ensure that my right hon Friend the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food is a aware of the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce the paving coal and rail Bill in another place next week? Is the Bill to be split or do the Government intend to push ahead regardless of the timetable for the introduction of the White Paper on the future of the coal industry?
Will my right hon. Friend ponder the stark difference between the Green Paper issued by the Secretary of State for National Heritage on the future of the BBC, under which there is to be a six-month debate on the role, objectives, organisation and funding of that great organisation, and the way in which we are steaming ahead, if I may use that phrase, with the railway privatisation proposals without any serious debate on the possibilities and without alternative methods being considered?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the progress of Bills in another place is a matter for another place. I understand that it has been said there that the expectation is that progress will be made on the paving Bill in Committee next week. Knowing my hon. Friend's interest in these matters, I am sure that he is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said in a slightly different other place—on the "Today" programme—that he expected to introduce the railway privatisation Bill early next year.
Dr. Tony Wright: Now that we have cleared up the question of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, will the Leader of the House tell the House when he thinks the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will be established? Given the statement on the citizens charter yesterday, and given the Government's interest in issues of complaint and redress in public services, is it not rather

997
strange that, seven months into a new Parliament, the instrument that the House has to exercise scrutiny in precisely that matter has still not been established?
Mr. Newton: I, too, would like that Select Committee to be established. No doubt the usual channels—whose representatives on both sides of the House are present—will make every effort to do their stuff, if I may use the vernacular, as they have done recently in respect of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman's point of order may well be a point of frustration, but in any case I am afraid that he will have to wait until the end of the statements.

Sunday Trading
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Sunday trading in England and Wales. My original intention was to come to the House once the judgment from the European Court was available but I now understand that, because of circumstances that have recently arisen at the Court, that is unlikely to be before January. I have therefore decided to let the House know how we propose to proceed.
The Government are determined to give Parliament the opportunity to settle the vexed question of the reform of the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales.
No body of opinion finds the existing law wholly satisfactory. Everyone—from sabbatarians to deregulators—is critical of some aspects of the Shops Act 1950. But there is a very wide spread of opinion about how it ought to be reformed. The House will wish to know how we intend eventually to ask Parliament to resolve the issue.
The question now is not whether there should be reforrn but what that reform should be. This is a matter upon which every Member of Parliament is likely to have his or her own views. Views cut across our usual party lines. It is the opinion of Parliament as a whole that must determine the issue. The Government would expect to give their supporters a free vote on the key issue of whether restrictions should apply to trading on Sunday and, if so, what they should be.
The Government will in due course invite Parliament to decide between the three main options: total deregulation; proposals put forward by the Shopping Hours Reform Council; and proposals put forward by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign.
Total deregulation would place the law in England and Wales on the same basis as the present law in Scotland. That gives complete freedom of choice and allows opening to be determined by commercial judgments of the wishes of the shopping public. To my constituents, I make no secret of the fact that that is my preferred option.
The Shopping Hours Reform Council proposes a quite different model, under which any small shop would be able to open at any time on a Sunday to sell anything that it chose to sell. Larger shops would be able to open only for a limited period of six hours. The council proposes a local authority registration scheme under which shops would inform the local authority of their intention to open on a Sunday.
The Keep Sunday Special Campaign put forward proposals that would in general prohibit trading on Sunday but exempt certain classes of shop—shops catering for recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel. Whether such a shop could open on a Sunday would be determined by what it sold. Whether some types of shops could open would depend on their annual turnover in a list of permitted goods. There would be a maximum floor size for some types of shop. Some shops wishing to open on a Sunday would have to register with their local authority, which would have the discretion to decide whether any shop should be permitted to open.
The Government have concluded that Parliament should fully debate all three options to see precisely what

999
each implies for shops, what they can sell, and what their customers can buy. The House should then decide which option is to be preferred.
We have already begun to work on a Bill that will provide a mechanism for Parliament to make that choice. I have today written to the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council inviting them to work with the Government in formulating their proposals for a Bill. The Bill presented to the House will contain all three models as alternatives. One will be chosen by the House and that model will then go through the normal refinement process in Committee and on Report. The result at the end of the debates in both Houses will be the preferred legislative solution.
We shall publish before Second Reading an explanation of the practical effect of each set of proposals. We will aim to draft each model, in collaboration with the groups that I have named, with great care to make it easy to implement, readily enforceable, and as free from anomaly as possible.
The Bill will contain Government clauses to provide protection for existing shop workers from being compelled to work on a Sunday if they do not wish to do so. However, we must remember that a great many people would positively welcome the opportunity to work on a Sunday, and their freedom must be protected, too.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not in this House. Six weeks, holiday have been announced for this place.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As far as I am aware, his offer to work on a Sunday does not feature in the Jopling report. We have important legislation in this Session which may alter the position. There are precedents, but that is where we are at present.
I cannot yet say when the House will be given the opportunity to settle the law on Sunday trading. Our proposals will need to await a judgment of the European Court of Justice. That court is considering several cases referred to it by some English courts, including the House of Lords, to establish whether our Sunday trading laws are compatible with the free trade articles of the treaty of Rome. The court will deliver its judgment soon.
It would be wrong to enact or seek to enact fresh legislation while we await that judgment. To do so would risk a new law, falling foul of Community law and therefore having to be replaced. But there is no need to delay the preparation of a Bill. I will be pressing ahead with that, seeking and expecting the co-operation of the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council so that, once we have the ECJ's judgment, we are well placed to take advantage of the earliest opportunity that can be found for legislation.
I have described a process which will enable Parliament to settle the issue on Sunday trading reform. I hope that we will be able to bring forward the legislative proposals without undue delay. I invite the House to endorse my proposals so that we can proceed, with the co-operation and assistance of the various interested parties, to draft the necessary Bill. I believe that that method of proceeding offers the welcome prospect of a conclusion to the uncertainty and anomalies of the present legal situation on the subject.
Mr. Tony Blair: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is introducing legislation on this issue and that there will be a free vote on it. Will he give an undertaking that the vote will be genuinely free and that the payroll vote will not be mobilised in favour of any one option or, indeed, any one issue within an option?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the challenge is to produce a lasting reform that ends both the present deregulation through anarchy and the anomalies of the existing law, which is clear and practical and commands public support, yet properly protects the rights of those who will have to work on a Sunday if others are to shop on a Sunday? Does he agree that that matter will be especially important since, once we have legislated, the legislation will need to be enforced? There will be a strong duty on the House to ensure that the proposals produced are capable of being enforced which the present legislation is not.
I suspect that we are about to be subjected to intense lobbying from groups of all persuasions. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the information and studies available to the Government are shared with Members of Parliament? Will he ensure that the information includes assessments of the impact on the local environment and quality of life of those who live close to the shops which will open on a Sunday? Will it also include an analysis of the current practice in Scotland, where Sunday trading is permitted, although in practice is somewhat circumscribed?
I come to the nub of the issue, certainly for the Opposition. The Secretary of State said that the legislation will contain the three main options canvassed publicly. At least two of the campaigners, the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council, are heavily backed by employers. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the legislation contains specific provisions to protect existing employees who do not want to work on Sundays? All employees, both present and future, should be subject to the voluntary principle and entitled under law, or by agreement with employers, to the premium payments for such working to which many are now entitled.
Many hon. Members and many others outside the House believe that people should have greater freedom to shop on a Sunday provided that open on a Sunday for us does not mean exploited on a Sunday for those who work in the shops that serve us. Therefore, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that all the options on employment protection will be in his Bill? Does he understand that it is hardly surprising that the Opposition are wary of the Government's promises on employment protection when they are abolishing that protection under the wages councils legislation for shopworkers and other groups?
If the Government are sensible in handling this issue, there will be a chance of achieving the necessary reform of Sunday trading in a way that is sensitive to those who are genuinely and rightly concerned to keep Sunday's special nature and allows the public greater choice to shop under the law, if they want to do so. Does the Home Secretary agree that sensible reform is surely long overdue?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his final words and for some of his other comments. I assure him that there will be a genuine free vote among Conservative Members. There may be some surprising

1001
unanimity but I should be surprised if all hon. Members who usually form what is called the Government's payroll vote voted for the same option. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that his party will permit a similar free vote. I trust that other Opposition parties will do the same.
I accept that enforcement of the legislation is extremely important. I hope that no one will vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which offers genuine choice. There is no clear scope for enforcing the Shops Act 1950, which has no friends left in the House or outside. The reason for asking outside groups to be involved at this stage in drafting the legislation is so that the skills of the parliamentary draftsmen can be brought to bear to ensure that what is drafted is in order and we do not become bogged down in technicalities. They will also ensure that the legislation is enforceable to the best of expert judgment.
We shall certainly place before the House all the research that we commission. However, I find that research does not make many people change their mind on any aspect of this problem. I shall seek to find an analysis of the position in Scotland—although I do not undertake to commission it—where there is regulation of hairdressers and barbers but not of any other trades. The position in Scotland has not led to widespread opening of all shops but to a settled situation which reflects the demands and wishes of people in each locality.
I said in my statement that the Government would produce clauses on employee protection and particularly on protection for existing shopworkers who took on their work on the basis that they would not work on Sundays and who need protection against being required to work on Sundays in future. We are not inviting outside bodies to help draft wide options on employee protection, because they are concerned solely with shopworkers.
There is nothing unique to shopworkers about working on Sundays. Many other employers and employees have to work or choose to work on Sundays. But that matter, as well as every aspect of the legislation, will be subject to amendment in the usual way. Undoubtedly people will propose amendments on that subject.
The abolition of the wages councils has not the slightest relevance to Sunday trading. They do not exist to regulate working on Sundays.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary consider that spreading six days trading over seven days is unlikely to be profitable unless traders either cut wages or increase prices? Does he agree that there is therefore a risk that Sunday trading will lead to Sunday slaving? Does he accept that it is a mark of a civilised society that it can find for every member of that society one day of rest in the week?
Mr. Clarke: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis that there is a set amount of shopping, so that, if shops open for seven days rather than six, the same amount of trade will be spread over more time. The proportion of their income which people spend in retail outlets depends on the attractiveness and availability of those outlets. I believe that the effect of relaxation in the law will stimulate more retail activity and more employment.
I note the hon. Gentleman's views. They are the first of many that we shall hear on the overall impact of Sunday trading legislation. The hon. Gentleman represents a
1002
Scottish seat and I well remember that, when the Government last tried to sort out anomalies on the subject, the Second Reading was defeated by large numbers of Scottish Labour Members, who voted against it. This Bill will not apply to Scotland. Scottish law remains totally deregulated and I do not think that l have ever heard a Scottish Member propose to change the law in Scotland, but this is the United Kingdom Parliament and the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views and to his vote on the measure.
Dame Angela Rumbold: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the extraordinarily sensible way in which he has brought the proposal for the determination of this difficult problem to the House? I am glad to note that both Opposition and Conservative Members will be offered the opportunity of a free vote, which is important. Since the matter will not be brought before the House for resolution for some time, what advice can my right hon. and learned Friend offer to retailers who are opening on Sunday, especially in the run-up to Christmas, and to many people in work and in retailing in these difficult times, who would like retailers to be able to open on Sundays?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend conducted a wide-ranging consultation on the subject. She sought to achieve a consensus between the most interested parties on how it might be resolved. No one could have made more effort than she did, but it was impossible to produce any agreement. I am glad of her welcome for the way in which we have tried to resolve the matter by a free vote in the House.
The Shops Act 1950 remains in abeyance, because no one knows what the law is until the European Court judgment. We wait to find out whether that will make it clear how the Act might be enforced. Given that my latest information is that the court is not likely to give its judgment before January, it will be left entirely to those responsible for each retail outlet to decide what to do in the run-up to Christmas.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend warmly for what he is seeking to do. Will he reflect on what he said a few moments ago? Many people think that the law is not in abeyance. The law of the land is clear and certain and people are choosing deliberately to flout and confound it. When he presents the Bill, will he not seek unduly to advocate his preferred solution? Does he agree that, if subsidiarity means anything, it should allow a country to determine its Sunday trading laws?
Mr. Clarke: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's last question. I hope that that is the outcome of the European Court judgment, which depends on the effect of previous treaties and legislation in the House. When the legislation passes through the House, in so far as I take part alongside my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I have no doubt that I shall from time to time advocate my opinions and preferred solutions. I shall endeavour to distinguish clearly between speaking on behalf of the Government and speaking in my capacity as the Member for Rushcliffe, as I have when I have found myself in situations of this kind

1003
before. I merely speak as one who has one vote among 650, when I express my opinion or choose between the various options. I shall try to stick to that.
I have described what I think has been the position under the Shops Act 1950 for some time but I should make it clear that, as my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General explained in answer to a question in the House,
"local authorities can still issue summonses"—[Official Report, 11 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 368.]
In a written answer he said:
"The decision of the House of Lords"
in the Kirklees case
"means that local authorities can apply for interim injuctions against retailers in order to enforce the law without giving cross-undertakings in damages."—[Official Report, 15 July 1992; Vol. 211, c.707.]
That is strictly the position. I regard it as unsatisfactory, and I hope that we shall soon enable Parliament to make it clearer.
Mr. Ray Powell: The Home Secretary made a complex statement. I cannot recall in the years that I have been in this place a Minister offering the House three options relating to one Bill. I welcome hon. Members being afforded those options, because some of us have been waiting with bated breath since 1986 for the Government to introduce a measure on Sunday trading. The Government could have taken the opportunity at any time since that date to introduce legislation to resolve the problem of the Shops Act 1950.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the possibility of research changing people's minds. Having had six years in which to research the whole issue, it is clear that his mind has not been changed. I remind him that the House decided in 1986 by a majority of 14 to throw out the total deregulation proposed by the then Government, who had a majority of over 100 in the House. A whipped vote took place on that occasion, rather than the free vote that the Home Secretary has been kind enough to offer today.
It is clear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that the vote will not be all that free. I should like a free vote when we debate my Shops (Amendment) Bill on 22 January. I would be happy to give a copy of that measure, which has been examined by legal experts, to the Home Secretary so that he may read it and do further research tonight. The Keep Sunday Special Campaign—[Interruption.] This is a complicated issue—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but he may have noticed that I was getting rather anxious. I remind him that questions must relate to the Secretary of State's statement. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is so immersed in the whole issue that he is anxious to get his points across. I urge him to complete his questioning quickly—we are all anxious to know what he wants to ask—so that I may call other hon. Members.
Mr. Powell: I appreciate what you say, Madam Speaker, and I was coming to my final question. During his busy day yesterday, the Home Secretary may not have noticed the press launch of a campaign about employment
1004
protection. That involved a Cambridge university research document by two professors who had looked into the effects of Sunday trading on employment protection.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman obtains a copy of that document to make sure that the proposals for total deregulation that he, in his capacity as Home Secretary, is prepared to support, contain provisions relating to employment protection that I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House want included in any legislation. Provisions giving such protection should apply to all of the three options that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is offering.
Mr. Clarke: My track record on this subject is rather blemished, because, in 1986. I replied to the Second Reading debate of the then Shops Bill and tried to persuade the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and others that if they gave a Second Reading to that measure, the whole issue could be resolved then, if necessary by it being amended in Committee to produce a solution that the House preferred. In my opinion, the previous Parliament ducked its responsibility to change, with the result that we have had six more years of the Shops Act becoming ever more complicated.
We are now proposing the options as I describe them. We shall involve the Keep Sunday Special Campaign in the drafting. I appreciate that those involved with that movement have helped the hon. Member for Ogmore to draft his Bill. I hope that they will now discuss the matter with parliamentary counsel so that there may be no disagreement between parliamentary counsel and their draftsmen about the technicalities of the measure. We may by that means ensure that the measure is in the best possible shape, thereby avoiding the need for drafting amendments later. It may be complicated, because other amendments will no doubt be tabled to each of the options.
A precedent was the embryology Bill, which was a way of resolving a more difficult issue. It was exceedingly complicated and I hope that this matter will be slightly more straightforward. Whatever individual Members may have thought about the outcome, the House agreed at the time that the parliamentary proceedings on the embryology Bill were a model of how to proceed on these difficult social subjects.
I am aware of Cambridge university's research, which is based on a grand survey of 35 retail outlets. However, I shall study it with care and compare it with all the other research that will flow in upon us in the next few months. We all know the high level of interest in the subject.
The private Members' Bill is a matter not for me but for the House on the day when the hon. Gentleman presents it.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his proposal is a novel but distinctly odd way of legislating? Will he resist the temptation to refuse to answer a hypothetical question and tell us what would happen if the House decided that it preferred his first option with 40 per cent. of the vote, with 30 per cent. going to each of the other two alternatives? If the majority of 60 per cent. then decided to vote down the first option, which he said he preferred, what on earth would we do?
Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend is extremely experienced in procedural matters and has asked a shrewd

1005
Chief Whip's question. First, I must satisfy the House authorities that that form of Bill is in order. Obviously, it will be drafted with that in mind. Secondly, we must make sure that the issues are presented to the House so that they can be voted on in good order and in sequence. My right hon. Friend the present Chief Whip and I will be happy to consult my right hon. Friend on how best to sort the matter out.
The alternative is to do what we did in the embryology Bill—put down one preferred option, and then have amendments and vote in sequence. However, I expect that however we proceed it will give rise to some controversy and I hope that we shall have much discussion in the House about a satisfactory method so that we agree an acceptable way to proceed by the time we debate the Bill.
Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Home Secretary give us a little more information about employee protection? His qualifications following his initial statement about employee protection will fill many people with anxiety. We need an assurance that employee protection will be absolutely guaranteed. Furthermore, what is the Home Secretary's view on the position of local authorities like Stoke-on-Trent, which have sought to implement the law as it stands? It has cost local authorities a lot of money to do so. Because the Government have ignored the law, will he consider recompense for those local authorities that have simply tried to enforce the law?
Mr. Clarke: The views on what type of shop should open and what they should sell seem to cut across party lines. Although opinions vary, there is obviously a more philosophical division between the two parties about the extent to which the law should provide, in great detail for employee protection. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) even suggested that we should stipulate rates of pay for particular workers on particular days. The Government will produce proposals on employment protection and hon. Members will have to debate them when they see them. I invite the House to consider employee protection in the context not just of shops but of all the arrangements that have long prevailed for public transport workers, doctors, nurses, the police and others. The Government's instinct is not to go in for tightly regulated employment provisions for the category of people working in shops on Sundays.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: On subsidiarity and whether this nation state should be able to decide whether it wants to trade on Sundays, is my right hon. and learned Friend saying that, if the European Court decides against us on the existing legislation, we shall nevertheless be tied in future legislation to the European Community's wishes? Will he assure us that, if the European Court decides in our favour on the existing legislation, it will not be able to tie us on future legislation which the House decides it wants to introduce?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. and learned Friend seems to agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). When local authorities start litigation of any sort, they take the usual risk and must assess their prospects of success and the likelihood of having to hear the cost. There is no provision for the Government to step in to compensate local authorities for that cost.
As for the European Court, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been arguing strongly on
1006
behalf of the British Government that the Shops Act 1950 is perfectly compatible with European law, and the matter should be returned to the British courts. I hope that that is the outcome. The judge advocate's opinion has, so far, broadly supported the proposition—that the court should not be bound by that. When we receive the judgment from the European Court we shall have to see whether it imposes inhibitions on us, so that when we draft future legislation we can ensure that we are not taken back to the European Court.
I do not think that any hon. Member wants the matter to depend on European judgments. It is, self-evidently, a matter that touches on the social mores of England and Wales, and should be determined by this Parliament.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: In the 118 years that I have been in the House I have hardly ever before heard a statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman with which I almost wholly agree. He has introduced sensible procedural arrangements, and I am confident that it will be possible for the House to make a decision on a choice of the three options that will not necessarily lead to the barmy position of all options being excluded.
I have changed my mind over the past year, and the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council are now my preferred option, although they were not a year ago. A central plank of the reform council's procedures is that there should be some flexibility in the contract of employment arrangements for new employees. If the House were legislating to set up transport on a seven-day basis when previously there had been no public transport on that basis or to open hospitals on a seven-day basis when they had never been opened on that basis before, we would build in contractual arrangements for the employees in those industries. It is right to consider doing that as it is a central plank of the arrangements.
We are legislating for a key sector of social and cultural activity in this country which is virtually unique. That is why we have been unable to find a policy to succeed the 1950 legislation. Therefore, in the circumstances, a case can be made for special arrangments. If the Shopping Hours Reform Council has that policy as its central plank and it is to form one of the options, it would be ludicrous to exclude consideration of it from the arrangements. I ask the Home Secretary, not necessarily to totally reverse his procedure, but to have an open mind on the issue.
Finally, I urge the Home Secretary not to make the same mistake as the then Home Secretary did in 1986 when, on Second Reading, he said from the Dispatch Box that there would be no guillotine on the Bill. That promise lost the Bill its Second Reading vote; the vote had nothing to do with the Bill's content.
Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and it can agree so much on the means of proceeding. I am sure that he and I agree that, unless the House can find a way of resolving such issues, it never gets round to considering the subject at all. Important social issues are put off because nobody can devise a method of handling such topics that completely cut across traditional party divisions.
I do not agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the position with respect to employment protection. We shall reflect on what he and others have

1007
said while we are drafting the Bill. We are proposing arrangements that will be addressed once the Bill is before the House and its provisions are being discussed.
As for guillotining, it is too early to start talking about timetabling a Bill of this sort. When I was winding up the debate on the last occasion we discussed the subject, I well remember spending most of my time trying to explain that I was sure that my right hon. Friend had not said, in such terms, that there would be no guillotine. In my experience, if one promises no guillotine on a Bill, its progress through the House never ends at all.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I join in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on presenting a statesmanlike solution to the problem of how the House should handle such a difficult issue. In order that we can have as well-informed and comprehensive a debate as possible—fully worthy of the procedure that my right hon. and learned Friend has just outlined—will the Government prepare in advance some facts and figures on the additional cost to public funds that will ensue if we decide on total deregulation? I have in mind the cost, for example, of parking enforcement, extra policing, refuse collection, and so on. Those may be subsidiary issues but they are important issues none the less, of which the House will wish to take account when the debate comes.
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate my hon. Friend's welcome for this method of proceeding. My initial reaction to the specific points that he has raised is that retailers, for example, pay for the cost of taking away their own refuse and other things. I will certainly undertake to put before the House the results of such research as the Government commissions. I do not intend to commission enormous amounts of such research, because it is my experience that nobody comes up with agreed and objective factual data that in the end have much conclusive effect on individual Members' opinions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on now to the second statement. We shall be returning to this subject before too long.

Revenue Support Grant (England)
4.41 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority finance settlement for England for 1993–94.
Next year is the first year of the council tax. As hon. Members will know, the tax will reflect both the value of the property and the number of people who live in it. The lowest value properties are in band A, the highest in band H. The occupants of a band H property will pay no more than three times as much in local tax as the occupants of a band A property in the same area, thus preventing a return to the excessive variations in household bills which occurred under the rates. All 6 million single adult households will receive a 25 per cent. discount. Almost all full-time students will be exempt. Three million households on income support will pay nothing. There will be transitional protection for those households facing higher bills. The new tax will be cheaper and easier to collect than the community charge, because there will be only one bill per household and no need to keep a register.
The council tax will place local government on a strong financial footing. I believe that it has considerable support, not only among members of the public but among local authorities. They have worked hard with us to ensure a smooth and successful introduction of the new tax. I am grateful to them and to the local authority associations for the constructive role that they have played.
In considering the details of the settlement I have taken into account the representations made to me by local authorities and their associations, the responsibilities which local authorities face and the scope for further improvements in value for money. I have had in mind our intention that public sector pay settlements should fall within the range 0 to 1·5 per cent.
I have also considered very carefully what the country as a whole can afford. Local government expenditure accounts for 26 per cent. of general Government expenditure. It has increased by 3·6 per cent. a year in real terms over the past two years. In present economic circumstances it is unreasonable to expect such growth to continue. The Government must keep a tight grip on public spending, and within the total we must give as much priority as we can to capital spending. Local government must play its part, too.
Authorities will be able to spend considerably more on capital projects next year, since they will have full use of nearly all the capital receipts they receive from 13 November to the end of December 1993. I expect this change to make an extra £1·75 billion available to local authorities for capital expenditure. As an additional incentive, I have already announced a range of capital partnership programmes, which offer authorities extra support from my Department to make these receipts go even further and to encourage projects of lasting benefit to local communities and industries.
It was against this background that, on 12 November, I announced the aggregate figures for the local government settlement for the coming year. Those figures have now been increased by £26 million, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health today in the light of changes to the independent living fund. Taking account of that additional sum, the Government's view is

1009
that the appropriate level of spending for local authorities in England in 1993–94 will be £41·168 billion. Central Government funding in support of that expenditure will be £33·545 billion.
Those figures reflect a number of changes in local authorities' functions next year. They include £565 million which we intend to set aside as a special grant to help authorities as they take on their important new responsibilities for community care. On the other hand, they make no provision for functions, principally further education, for which local authorities will no longer be responsible next year and for which about £2·5 billion was provided in the current year.
Making full allowance for these changes, the year-on-year increases underlying my proposals are 3·1 per cent., which is about £1·2 billion, in the appropriate level of spending and 3·7 per cent., which is also about £1·2 billion, in Government funding. Those increases should enable local authorities to maintain service provision. Overall, local authorities should need to raise no more next year through the council tax than they have budgeted to raise this year from the community charge.
I am today issuing a consultation paper setting out how we propose to distribute that funding. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library and are being sent to every local authority.
In the statement I made on 12 November, I proposed that the non-domestic rate poundage for 1993–94 should increase by 3·5 per cent. to 41·6p, in line with the rate of inflation. That will ensure that businesses continue to benefit from the Government's success in reducing inflation. In addition, under the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget statement earlier this year, business ratepayers who stood to benefit from the introduction of the unified business rate or from the 1990 revaluation will receive the whole of their benefit next year. Transitional protection will continue to be available for those who stood to lose, and the shortfall will be made good by the Exchequer.
I now propose to set the distributable amount of non-domestic rates at £11·559 billion. This represents a reduction of £747 million from 1992–93, largely as a result of repayments following appeals. I am today publishing details of the full calculation. All receipts from non-domestic rates continue to be distributed in full to local authorities.
I propose that the total of revenue support grant for 1993–94 will be £17·052 billion. In addition, some £4 billion of specific grants will be available. My detailed proposals for the way in which standard spending assessments will be calculated for 1993–94 are set out in the consultation paper. I have also provided the provisional figure for each authority's standard spending assessment. I am proposing some modifications to the way in which SSAs are calculated.
The main changes are inevitable, as they result either from changes in local authorities' responsibilities or from the new basis of local taxation. The main change of functions is in relation to further education, which will become the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council from April 1993. This means that a simple comparison of proposed SSAs for 1993–94 with those for 1992–93 will, for all education authorities, show a decrease.
1010
Expenditure on authorities' new community care responsibilities will be funded by the special transitional grant, so there is no allowance for this expenditure in the SSA element for personal social services.
Other changes to the calculation of SSAs result from the use of more up-to-date information. In particular, we now have estimates of resident population for mid-1991 based on the 1991 census. I propose to include these in SSAs for 1993–94 as they clearly represent a better basis than the previous figures based on the 1981 census. I realise, however, that for some authorities there will be changes, either up or down, between these better estimates, only very recently available, and those previously used. I therefore propose to pay a special grant to those authorities whose SSA in 1993–94 will be reduced by 5 per cent. or more as a direct result of incorporating the population estimates based on 1991 census results rather than those based on 1981 census results.
Council taxes will be set locally by individual councils. They will depend on how much councils decide to spend and on how much they provide for non-collection, community charge arrears and successful appeals. There are 366 billing authorities and eight separate valuation bands; so tax levels will inevitably vary widely.
At the level of the individual household, the variation in bills will be even wider, because of single person discounts, income support exemption, council tax benefits, and transitional relief. Against that background, any figure for average taxes needs to be treated with great caution. What matters is the individual tax bill for the individual taxpayer.
In order to distribute grant fairly to each council, we have to allow for different levels of taxable resources in each authority. That means that, for each of the eight valuation bands, we have identified a notional council tax for standard spending which can be derived from the figures. For instance, for band C—two thirds of all properties fall in bands A to C—the council tax for standard spending is £439. I emphasise that those figures are part of the grant calculation. They are not predictions or averages.
Many households, particularly those living in properties in the lower bands, will gain from the council tax. On the other hand, those living in properties in the higher bands should expect to make a relatively larger contribution to the cost of local services. But I am determined that any year-on-year increases in bills between the community charge and the council tax should be held down to affordable levels.
I am therefore proposing a scheme of transitional relief which will ensure that no household faces an excessive increase in liability next year as a result of the introduction of the council tax. Relief will be provided against increases above a specified amount, which will be different for each of the eight valuation bands. For properties in band A, relief will be provided against increases above £1·75 a week. For each higher band, the starting-point for relief will rise by an additional 25p; so for properties in band B it will be £2 a week and for properties in band H it will be £3·50 a week.
I expect that in most cases the calculation of relief under this scheme will be based on authorities' actual budgets and not assumed budgets. The scheme will last for at least two years, and we shall review the arrangements for later years in the light of experience of the operation of the

1011
scheme in 1993–94. I shall set aside resources from the total of Government support to meet the cost of the scheme, which I expect to be about £340 million in the first year.
My Department has written to local authorities today with details of the scheme. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
I have consistently made it clear to the House that I am determined to protect local taxpayers from unreasonable demands by their local authority. I have no doubt that most authorities will wish to play their part in setting reasonable budgets and reasonable levels of council tax, but where councils propose excessive budgets or excessive increases in budgets, I shall not hesitate to use my powers to protect council tax payers from the consequences and to ensure that local government spending does not rise above affordable levels.
I am today announcing my provisional capping criteria which authorities will need to take into account when they set their budgets over the next few months. I am also issuing my proposals for exercising my statutory powers to specify for each authority a base position—known as a notional amount—by reference to which I intend to measure budget increases for the purposes of applying capping criteria. I have placed papers in the Library and Vote Office setting out in detail my provisional criteria and my proposals for notional amounts. Copies have been sent to local authorities.
No authority that sets a budget at or below its SSA can or will be capped. Only those that budget above their SSA are potentially liable to capping. I intend to allow larger increases for authorities with budgets close to their SSAs than for those whose budgets are higher. Where budgets are very substantially above SSA, I intend to seek budget reductions, but in all cases I intend the reductions to be manageable.
I am proposing that each authority's notional amount is to be its 1992–93 budget adjusted to reflect changes in boundaries and functions and that under the new council tax system interest on collection fund cash flow will for the first time fall within the authority's budget.
My intended criteria are therefore as follows. Any increase of more than 2·5 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over the authority's SSA. Any increase of more than 1·75 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over I per cent. above the authority's SSA. Any increase of more than 1 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA. Any increase of more than 0·5 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
In addition, I intend that any budget requirement more than 12·5 per cent. above the SSA will be considered excessive, save that an authority will not be designated if it fulfuls certain conditions equivalent to the conditions which I applied this year.
This year, I adopted a de minimis proviso allowing authorities budgeting by no more than £1·50 per adult above the criteria for excessiveness not to be designated. I
1012
told the House at that time that it should not be assumed that in any future year we would judge such a de minimis provision to be appropriate. Local authorities should not assume that there will be any such proviso or principle for 1993–94.
My proposals allow for the particular circumstances of the inner London boroughs which still bear the cost of overspending inherited from the Inner London education authority and of the City of London.
Those criteria are necessarily provisional. When I come to make my decisions on capping, I shall, of course, take into account all appropriate considerations.
My proposals for local authority spending and for external support are realistic and manageable in the current economic circumstances and, in particular, in the light of the Government's policy on public sector pay. We expect pay settlements for local government employees within a range of 0 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. over the coming year. Given my proposed increases of 3·1 per cent. in total spending and 3·7 per cent. in external support, provided that local authorities manage their resources efficiently, they should be able to maintain the full range of services they provide.
This settlement also means that authorities will not need overall to raise from their taxpayers next year any more than they did under the community charge this year. For individual taxpayers, my proposals will provide additional protection in two ways: through capping, which will restrain unreasonable levels of spending, and through the transitional relief scheme.
I am confident that this settlement will provide local authorities with the resources that they need to deliver the wide range of local services of the quality which people expect and deserve and at a level of tax which they can afford.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is it not true that the Secretary of State's statement will mean cuts in vital public services throughout the country, with nursery classes closed, library provision ended in many areas and higher charges for meals on wheels and home helps—all because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been ready to sacrifice the needs of children, the elderly, the sick and families to sweeten the pill for the rich of the introduction of the council tax?
Is the Secretary of State not aware that, having failed the nation once by forcing through the poll tax against overwhelming hostility, he is now failing the nation a second time? Will he confirm that the announced 3·1 per cent. increase in so-called total standard spending is a bogus figure; that councils will be short of £200 million in cash, comparing this year's budgets with next year's settlement; and that this can only mean job losses, even with a total pay freeze? Was not that the implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's weasel words, when he said in his statement that these increases "should" enable local authorities to maintain service provision? Is he saying that these levels of settlement will enable authorities to maintain service provision? Will he guarantee that there will be no service cuts and no job losses? Has he made any calculations about the statement's effects on jobs and services? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman proud, or sorry, that his policies have already led to the loss of 6,700 teaching posts in the past year?
On council tax, will the Secretary of State confirm that his announced band C of £439 is £57, or 15 per cent., above

1013
the level promised by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), even allowing for inflation since he claimed those figures? The right hon. Member for Henley claimed that band C would he £356. Allowing for inflation since then, that would be £382, not £439.
Given that, will the Secretary of State now apologise for the way in which the right hon. Member for Henley misled the House and the country in the run-up to the election, and will he apologise for the fact that only two weeks ago he sought to mislead the House by pretending that no such predictions had ever been made?
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend did not say "deliberately".
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to deal with the matter. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) knows that we do not use such terminology.
Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State apologise for the way in which he sought to confuse the House and to dissemble over the fact that he knew very well that the right hon. Member for Henley had made predictions about the level of the council tax before the eletion, well knowing that the Government would never implement such levels after the election?
Why has the Secretary of State pretended in public that the council tax will be fair, when in private, in a letter to Conservative Back Benchers, he has trumpeted its unfairness? Why has the Secretary of State rigged the system, to quote his words, so that someone in a £350,000 house will pay only three times the council tax of someone in a £35,000 flat, not 10 times the tax?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the single person's discount will mean that a single company director earning £100,000 a year and living in a £350,000 house will pay no more council tax than a pensioner couple living in a £120,000 house with below-average income?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the majority of people who will gain from transitional relief are those who also gained from the poll tax? Is it correct that in Wandsworth the maximum council tax can only be £3·50 a week, given the operation of the transitional relief scheme?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £1·75 billion that he is claiming that local authorities can raise is based on wholly tendentious assumptions that the authorities will be able to sell that number of assets and that, what is more, he has not mentioned that £330 million of that amount, even if it is raised, is to be clawed back by reductions in central Government's credit approvals on top of which the Government have cancelled the urban programme?
Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State's capping regime has been specifically designed to force through cuts in services and jobs? Does he not understand that his threat to cap every authority is contrary to the view of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley? Writing in The Times two years ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that councils should be
"free to set and account for their own budgets".
Not only is it contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's view; it is contrary to the Secretary of State's own view, expressed to Parliament, that charge-capping powers
1014
should be used only "rarely", where a council acts "irrationally" and "contrary to all reason", and contrary to his words to the House:
"The people of an area certainly will be able to vote for a relatively high-spending authority if they so choose."—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
Since many Conservative as well as Labour authorities are now spending at the cap, is the Secretary of State claiming that those authorities have been acting irrationally in seeking to protect services in their areas? What does the Secretary of State have to say to Conservative councillors in, say, Harrow, who are now having to consider £13 million of cuts and hundreds of job losses to keep within the cap?
Is the Secretary of State not aware that the standard spending assessments can only be a rough and ready system for the distribution of grant? Is it not an affront to good government and to democracy for such complex algebraic formulae to be used by him to ride roughshod over the judgment of 24,000 democratically elected councillors of all parties and their voters on what should be the appropriate level of services in their areas?
Where is the reason in an SSA system that provides £200 more for each pupil in Berkshire than in Wigan? Where is the justice in a system which gives Gloucestershire £7·5 million for nursery education when it has no nursery schools, while punishing North Tyneside for providing a nursery place for almost every child?
Is not the Secretary of State's SSA system, the base for this central control, nothing more than a grotesque farce, given that it has taken Ministers three years to end the lunatic regulation that assumed that Brent had more snow than Cumbria, and Camden more snow than Lancashire? It has taken the Secretary of State three years to end what was blatantly obvious to everyone else.
When will the Secretary of State understand that while across Europe, east and west, other countries have been moving to devolve power to local communities and their councils, the Conservative Government in Britain today now have such tight central control of local authorities that it is unparallelled in the industrialised world outside the former Soviet Union? If subsidiarity is to mean anything, is it not time that it began to mean something at home?
Is this not a bad statement about a poor system from an utterly incompetent and uncaring Secretary of State?
Mr. Howard: The lament of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is the latest in a long line that we have heard from Labour spokesmen after revenue support grant statements. Year after year we are told by the Labour party that increases in Government support will lead to slashing cuts in services and job losses. If the Opposition's predictions had been correct, we would not have any more teachers, policemen or home helps employed by local government.
Nowhere in the hon. Gentleman's remarks was there any sense that local councils might run their services more efficiently, that there is a need to protect capital investment or to keep firm control of current spending. Nowhere was there any recognition of the interests of the taxpayer; rather, there was one giant hole in the hon. Gentleman's remarks: how much extra does he think should be provided to local authorities next year? Has he cleared any figure that he might have in mind with the hon. Member

1015
for Peckham (Ms. Harman)? How would he raise that extra money—through income tax or through higher borrowing?
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the figures that I gave of a 3·7 per cent. increase in funding and a 3·1 per cent. increase in spending were bogus.[Interruption.] He says that now. But it was not a bogus figure. The bogus figure was the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. He was not comparing like with like, and I was. That is why my figure was accurate and his figure was nonsense.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the figure for the CTSS. He compared it with what he said was a figure promised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but he knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend never promised any level of council tax at all, that he never made any predictions about council tax and that the figures that were published by my right hon. Friend were in response to the Opposition's demand that the Government should provide figures on the same assumptions that the Opposition have made—unrealistic assumptions. The figures were published not as promises or predictions, but in response to demands made by the Opposition.
We have heard some interesting points from the hon. Gentleman. We have heard that he is against the single person discount of 25 per cent. He is against a discount that will benefit 6 million people next year, and they will remember that Labour was against providing them with that help. The hon. Gentleman is against transitional relief —and the 3·75 million people who will benefit from it also will remember that Labour was against providing them with any help next year.
The hon. Gentleman is against capping because he does not recognise that it is essential to restrain central or local government expenditure. He clings to the same absurd approach that Labour took at the last general election, when it wanted to cap the assembly that it proposed for Scotland but not cap any local authority in England, Scotland or Wales.
The hon. Gentleman had a clear test to face today. Labour local authority leaders want a successful introduction to the council tax and in September told the Leader of the Opposition to soft-pedal his opposition. Local councils do not want the upheaval that would be caused by the need to introduce yet another form of local taxation and neither does anyone else—except members of the Opposition Front Bench. Far from co-operating responsibly as their local authority leaders would wish, they are determined to do all that they can to undermine the new tax.
The partisan claptrap that we heard from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon shows how dismally Labour is failing the test of opposition—and far more so that of government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I make the point that the exchanges between the two Front-Bench speakers lasted half an hour. I am looking not for comments or statements but for brief questions to the Secretary of State. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member will be equally brief and helpful in his answers.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the brief mention by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of Wandsworth failed to acknowledge that the opportunities for adjacent authorities that have similar standard spending assessments, but are Labour and Liberal-controlled, would be exactly the same if they were efficient and provided decent, value-for-money, quality services?
Mr. Howard: I agree, and I have every confidence that Wandsworth's future performance will continue to provide a benchmark against which people can judge the performance of responsible Conservative local government against that of irresponsible local authorities controlled by Labour or the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Nigel Jones: Can the Secretary of State estimate the number of job losses that will result from his statement, and the average council tax in the various bands that he announced? What does he have to say to the Association of District Councils, which yesterday passed a motion condemning capping because it takes away the ability of local councillors to undertake the programme on which they were elected and denies the people the high-quality, properly managed services for which they voted?
Mr. Howard: I would say to the association exactly what I said to the hon. Member for Blackburn a few moments ago—and in deference to your remarks, Madam Speaker, I shall not repeat my observations. We will not forecast the average council tax because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, council tax will be fixed by local authorities next year and I am not in a position to say the precise level at which they will each fix it. If local authorities manage their resources sensibly and adhere to the public sector pay policy guidelines of between 0 per cent. and 1·5 per cent., there will be no need for job losses.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the two volumes of closely reasoned argument presented by Warwickshire county council to his Department and the numerous representations made by Members of Parliament representing Warwickshire constituencies, detailing the deficiencies and anomalies of the county's standard spending assessment. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what action he has taken in this settlement to remedy the injustices suffered by my county and my constituents?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has fought hard for the interests of Warwickshire and has drawn its grievances to my attention on more than one occasion. I considered his material very carefully and, although we have not been able to make extensive changes to SSAs this year, I shall keep that matter under close review.
Mr. Clive Betts: Is not the Secretary of State really concerned about the relatively affluent people living in larger houses who would have to pay more council tax? Given his failure to secure £2 billion of transitional relief, is he not seeking to protect the wealthy from any increase by imposing a draconian capping regime that will cause thousands of redundancies and destroy basic services in authorities such as my own, in Sheffield, and those in authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country? Will not the

1017
constituents of Conservative Members as well as those of my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise the severity of the cuts imposed by the Secretary of State's package when they see housing, education and social services in their areas undermined and destroyed?
Mr. Howard: I doubt whether any right hon. or hon. Member can speak with greater authority about irresponsible local authority overspending than the hon. Gentleman, so I do not propose to take any lectures from him. There was never any question of £2 billion of transitional relief—I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman plucked that figure. I have just announced the details of our effective system of transitional relief. We also have a capping system that will ensure that local government plays its full part in restraining general Government expenditure, which is essential for this country's economic performance.
Mr. David Sumberg: My right hon. and learned Friend will know from my meetings with members of his Department of the widespread concern and anger in Bury that the council is proposing to close nursery classes, reception classes and a whole raft of local services. Will he acknowledge the great demand in the community that I represent for a reappraisal of the grant mechanism? There is a belief in Bury that, being a small borough, it is not treated fairly.
Mr. Howard: I know the lengths to which my hon. Friend goes in making sure that Bury's case is powerfully made, and I have no doubt that he will continue to miss no opportunity to ensure that that continues. We think that Bury is fairly treated under the proposals that I announced today, but that is, of course, a consultation exercise and we are open to any further points that Bury wishes to make.
Dr. Roger Berry: Will the Secretary of State contrast the Government's immediate decision to provide £50 million to repair Windsor castle with the effect of his statement, which will be to impose £50 million of cuts on Avon county council services? Does he acknowledge that the use this year of funds and balances to protect services had the full support of Avon's Conservative councillors? Will he extend his concern for one family living in Windsor to the thousands of families in my constituency of Kingswood and throughout Avon, so that their children's education will not be further damaged and that care for the elderly and disabled will not be further disrupted?
Mr. Howard: That is a thoroughly unworthy intervention, of which the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed. I am confident that it will evoke no greater sympathy in Avon than it has in all sensible parts of the House.
Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that transitional relief will be based not on a notional figure but on the actual level of the local tax?
Mr. Howard: I can confirm that. Subject to few conditions, that will be the case—it represents a great advance on previous years, when transitional relief was based on notional budgets. We intend as far as possible to base relief on the actual budgets fixed by local authorities, and we expect to be able to do so in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Mr. David Clelland: How can the Secretary of State justify the cuts in jobs and essential services that his announcement implies for places such as the city of Newcastle and the metropolitan borough of Gateshead, when his own Government recognise that they are in need of special help? What implications does the statement have for crime levels in Northumbria, and what suggestions does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have, given the imminent ending of the urban crime fund? Will not the Secretary of State go down in history as the Marsham street strangler—slowly choking the life out of democratic local government?
Mr. Howard: I have no need to justify the job losses alleged by the hon. Gentleman, because there is no need for them to occur. If local authorities manage their resources sensibly and adhere to the public sector pay policy guidelines, they will have the resources that the hon. Gentleman's own authority needs to provide the services that he identified. I have held discussions with his neighbour about the ways in which the initiative that led to the urban crime fund can be continued.
Mr. James Paice: I very much welcome the use of more up-to-date figures, which must benefit growing counties such as Cambridgeshire. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the apparent concern expressed about job losses would be much more valid if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others had set an example last night in regard to pay restraint, instead of copping out of a difficult decision?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. Not for the first time, he has identified an example of the yawning gap between the words that we hear from the Opposition and the actions that they perform.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State appeared to acknowledge the defects that have featured in previous years' standard spending grants and to recognise the difficulties inherent in using the 1981 census. Does he accept, however, that a quick glance at the figures suggests that unemployment and economic deprivation have not figured adequately in the determination of grant? Ai a result, areas suffering from those conditions will find it extremely difficult to maintain services, however prudent their spending may have been. Such areas will experience an increase in public squalor and a marked reduction in their authorities' capacity to meet serious need.
Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. Although the standard spending assessment makes no specific allowance for the factors that he mentioned, allowance is made for many other factors that lead to similar consequences. The hon. Gentleman said that he had had a quick look at the assessment; if he reads the report in detail, he will find that the way in which other factors are taken into account goes a long way towards dealing with the problem that he has identified.
Mr. Eric Pickles: My right hon. and learned Friend's announcement about transitional relief has gone some way towards relieving my constituents' anxieties, but does he recognise that the tightness of the settlement will cause some local authorities difficulties? I refer to authorities which do not collect the community charge, rates or rents, which leave properties

1019
empty and which will kick and scream to get any services out of competitive tendering. If any jobs are to be lost, they will be lost in Labour and Liberal authorities that simply do not get their act together.
Mr. Howard: For the benefit of local government, my hon. Friend has helpfully identified a checklist of policies that they should put into effect if they are to ensure that they can respond to this settlement constructively, without any of the dire consequences of doom and gloom that have been predicted by Labour.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State accept that he sets the revenue support grant and the business rate and that, because of his stringent capping powers, he effectively sets the level of council tax throughout the country and throughout Nottinghamshire? His talk of law and order services has a hollow ring, given that the Nottinghamshire chief constable wants 60 extra police officers, the county council could fund 20 and the Government will provide none.
Mr. Howard: No; I do not accept for a moment that it is the Government who set the council tax for authorities in Nottinghamshire or elsewhere. We set the limits—the constraints—which are necessary, for reasons that I advanced earlier, but local authorities are allowed a good deal of discretion within which to set the council tax. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will exert on his local authority whatever influence he may possess and will encourage it to behave in the way suggested a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles).
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a large majority of the houses in my constituency are in the lower council tax bands and that they suffered cruelly under the community charge? They will definitely benefit from the new arrangements. Moreover, many of my constituents are single householders who suffered under the rating system: they, too, will benefit. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, our bete noire is the extravagant spending of Lancashire county council. I am delighted that he is to cap the council firmly and make it behave for once.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall have to wait and see what budget Lancashire county council sets for next year before deciding whether to cap it; I hope that it, in common with other local authorities, will note the capping criteria that I have set and will set its budget within those criteria. In that event, I shall not need to impose a cap. I am sure that my hon. Friend will lose no opportunity of drawing to the council's attention the significance of the criteria that I announced.
Mr. Harry Barnes: One massive evil of the poll tax that still remains is the methodology by which the standard spending assessments, and therefore the grants, are determined. The only alterations of which we have heard are those introduced by further education and community care legislation and by the carrying out of a census. In other respects, the same methodology is used—a methodology that has placed North East Derbyshire district council, for instance, in
1020
365th position among 366 authorities in England and Wales, while some other authorities receive two or three times as much per resident.
The formulae should be changed and the allocation should be redistributed. Will the Secretary of State publish the figures, placing the amounts in order, to show each district and each county area the amount that they receive? The Government are supposed to believe in league tables; let us have some league tables now so that we can see what is going on.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman visits the Vote Office, he will find that all the information he needs is there in voluminous quantities. We consult local authority associations scrupulously on the way in which we assess the amount of grant that each authority should receive. As even the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection, it is not possible to arrive at a system that pleases everyone. I accept that our system does not altogether please the hon. Gentleman, but it is a fair system, which is the result of extensive consultation.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that local taxpayers in areas with responsible councils, such as Wiltshire, will do better than those who are governed by irresponsible, high-spending Labour or Liberal Democrat councils? Will he also confirm that the cost of electing irresponsible councils will still be borne largely by those who elect them, rather than by the taxpayer in general? In the light of that, once the council tax has settled down, would my right hon. and learned Friend be prepared to re-examine the unified business rate to see whether it too can be made to work more fairly?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. On average, each Labour councillor costs £238,137 more, and each Liberal Democrat councillor £107,423 more, than each Conservative councillor. That bears out in some detail, and with some force, what my hon. Friend said.
I fear that I cannot hold out any hope of further action on the business rate. As my hon. Friend will know, the fact that the rate now increases by no more than inflation is a great safeguard for business, after years in which profligate Labour authorities used to heap huge increases on business, year after year. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in this year's Budget, which afforded substantial relief to business rate payers.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when the Government began to alter local government finance, they made two claims: that the new arrangement would be simpler and easier to understand and that it would be fairer? Does he really think that the system described in his statement is simpler and easier to understand? Does he really think that it is fairer for my constituents in Tameside still to have to pay substantially more next year than people in, for instance, Wandsworth? Should not the Secretary of State have apologised to the House for the mess that the Government have made of the system and, in particular, for all the money that was wasted in the introduction of the poll tax?
Mr. Howard: I very much doubt that it is given to man to find a system of financing local government that would

1021
please the hon. Gentleman. I think that the system that we have put in place, which will take effect from 1 April next year, is sensible and will attract support from those who want to put arguments about the method of local government finance behind them once and for all.
Sir Dudley Smith: Am I right in believing that, overall, the majority of householders will pay less under this fairer system, and has my right hon. and learned Friend any facts and figures that are comparable with the old rating system?
Mr. Howard: It will crucially depend on the level of council tax that local authorities fix next year, but I expect that more people will benefit from the introduction of the council tax than will lose.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: But does not the Secretary of State realise that we can all agree on at least one of his sentences—that sufficient resources should be made available to councils to provide proper services? Is he aware that the available money for the London borough of Newham is £10 million less than the total SSA estimated by the Government as necessary expenditure on services? That is equivalent to the difference between the amount that the council must pay in capital repayments and interest and the amount of the relevant SSA. However, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, writing to me last year, said that the capital borrowed by councils was not under the control of the Government. Does the Secretary of State agree, therefore, that the Government should fix the SSA pro rata to the amount for which they give permission and that, unless they do so, they can be accused of financial fraud?
Mr. Howard: I do not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's point. It is for local authorities to decide how much they wish to spend on capital projects. They make their capital spending decisions, and those charges have financial consequences. I am sure that the London borough of Newham was aware of those consequences when it took the decisions to which I referred. The documents that I have placed in the Vote Office are part of a consultation exercise and I shall listen to any points that the hon. Gentleman or his local authority wish to make in the course of that exercise.
Mr. James Hill: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend about the democratic right of local authorities to fix their own budgets, but the mistake that was made with the community charge was that those budgets were not monitored close enough, were not capped early enough and, like my authority, were allowed to spend many millions of pounds on wasteful schemes. Auditors are taking Southampton city council to court for wasteful and illegal expenditure of well over £1 million. Such action shows that my right hon. and learned Friend must act quickly to cap wasteful authorities.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to such important matters. I shall not hesitate to use the capping powers which I have announced where councils spend excessively and breach the criteria.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been following a script from "Dad's Army"? Has he not displayed all the ruthless centralising ambition of a Napoleon with the bumbling incompetence of a Captain Mainwaring? In so
1022
far as his figures add up, do they not do so solely on the basis of a pay increase of 0 to 1·5 per cent. for some of the lowest paid workers—dinner ladies, home helps and others —and is it not scandalous of the Government to demand that of them?
Mr. Howard: I defer to the hon. Gentleman on "Dad's Army"; but the Government have said that people in public sector work should be prepared to make a sacrifice to increase the prospects of jobs for those who are out of work. I should have thought that that message might just command the support of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. If it does not yet do so, I ask them to reflect and reconsider, because it has widespread support among the people of this country.
Mr. Douglas French: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in calculating the SSA for the city of Gloucester, he has taken fully into account the population changes resulting from the boundary changes —which, he will acknowledge, were not taken fully into account last year?
Mr. Howard: Without going into what was or was not fully taken into account last year, for next year I can answer my hon. Friend's question in the affirmative.
Mr. George Stevenson: The Secretary of State claims that the council tax is fair. Is he aware that its relief provisions for disabled people are grossly unfair, because someone in the top band can claim relief for disablement, taking him down to the next lowest band, but there is no band into which someone who is in the bottom band can fall? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals and the council tax discriminate unfairly against disabled people in the lower band of the council tax. What does he intend to do about that discrimination?
Mr. Howard: The purpose of the relief to which the hon. Gentleman refers is to ensure that disabled people are not penalised unfairly because a house has an extra room or extra facilities for them. For that reason, we say that such a property should be deemed to be in a band lower than it would otherwise be. If a property is already in the bottom band, it cannot, by definition, be put into a lower band. I should have thought that that would be apparent even to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to reconsider the way in which SSAs are calculated for coastal resorts such as Eastbourne, particularly tourism statistics, ward-weighted density arid coastal protection?
Mr. Howard: I very much understand the concerns to which my hon. Friend referred. Tourism statistics are now taken into account in the calculation of the standard spending assessment, as my hon. Friend will see when he examines the documents in the Vote Office. As I have said, this is a consultation document, and I shall listen carefully to representations from my hon. Friend or his local authority.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the Secretary of State be honest with the House arid acknowledge that, in attempting to appease the rich in the leafy suburbs, his statement will lead to a severe cut in essential public services in many parts of the country? Will

1023
he acknowledge that, at a time when almost 3 million people are out of work, his statement will lead to the loss of many jobs of those employed directly in the public sector and those in the private sector who are dependent on public sector purchases of goods and services?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further acknowledge that the reduction in the real level of local authority resources will turn the screw on the recession and further weaken our economy? Given the consultations that he will have with the many authorities such as Harrow that will inevitably troop into his office to make representations, will he give a commitment now to modify spending limits and capping procedures and allow authorities of different persuasions to provide the essential services that their communities demand?
Mr. Howard: I do not accept any of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, for the reasons that I gave when answering other Labour Members' points. I understood that the Labour party intended to start singing a new tune, but we have heard this evening the same old discordant tune and the same old failed message—spend more, tax more, waste more. That is the message that the Labour party still gives to the people of this country, and that is why it will continue to be rejected by them.

Points of Order
5.38 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consider the rather silly games that are played by Government business managers, who insist on placing important documents such as this in the Vote Office, to be collected by Members only when Ministers take their seats? Today, as the Minister sat down, there must have been 40 or 50 Members scrambling outside the Vote Office like children—I was one of them—to get copies of papers to bring into the Chamber for our hon. Friends. This place is reduced to a farce when we operate on that basis, and I ask you to consider whether the rules could be changed.
It was only when I looked at the document that I was able to establish the fact that a millionaire house owner in Mayfair would be paying less council tax—
Madam Speaker: Order. A point of order to me is one thing, and the hon. Gentleman raised a reasonable point; however, he must not use that as a platform for continuing the exchanges. Of course, it has always been the practice that documents should be made available in the Vote Office—[Interruption.] Order. Allow me to finish speaking. It has always been the practice for documents to be made available when the Minister concerned has finished speaking. I quite understand how difficult it is for hon. Members when there are a great many documents to be read immediately so that questions may be put. I have been a Back Bencher myself. Perhaps I shall examine the matter further.
Mr. Tony Blair: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful if you would assist us. You will have heard the Home Secretary make a statement to the House earlier today, on Sunday trading, in which he said that the Government would allow Conservative Members a free vote on the provisions of the Sunday trading legislation. Indeed, he emphasised that point several times and sought an assurance from me that there would be a free vote on the Opposition side. I gave that assurance, but subsequently—probably because of an error—notes for the Home Secretary to use in answering supplementary questions have been circulating among the press.
Those notes include an answer to the theoretical question:
"Will the Government whip through their employee protection provisions?"
Those provisions will be an important part of the legislation on Sunday trading. The answer provided for the Home Secretary to use was:
"It is too early to say."
In other words, the basis on which the statement was given to the House, and on which we questioned the Home Secretary—that there would be a free vote—has now been thrown into doubt by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's notes on answers to supplementary questions. I should be grateful if you, would tell us how we can ensure that the Home Secretary makes an accurate statement to the House, so that we may question him on it. The matters concerned will be at the very heart of the legislation.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I can concern myself only with questions and answers

1025
across the Floor of the House, not with what happens outside the Chamber. Of course, it is for Members themselves to pursue with Ministers the way in which the House will finally divide on particular legislation. The way in which individual Members or parties vote in the House is certainly not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There is another way of dealing with the matter. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) makes such comments, what he says will finish up in Hansard tomorrow, and the Home Secretary can read it. Even better, it has occasionally been known for Ministers to be brought hack to the Dispatch Box to correct what they have said. Before today is out, the Home Secretary should be brought here and challenged by Opposition Members. We shall still be here tonight, and we shall demand a proper statement, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misled the House into believing that the Tories will have a free vote from the very beginning of Second Reading right through to the end. It is pretty obvious that that will not be the case.
Madam Speaker: The points of order raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are often of great interest to the House. One reason why we shall have an
Official Report tomorrow—indeed, one reason why we record all our proceedings—is so that we can all see what has been said the day before, and perhaps make some corrections if that proves necessary.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With regard to your assertion of your intention to consider further the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I understand that the release of any papers relating to a ministerial statement is in the hands of the Minister concerned, who may, if he wishes, instruct the Deliverer of the Vote to make such statements available before the Minister rises to speak, when he rises, or later. I beg you, Madam Speaker, to check on that matter, and to bear it in mind when considering any action which you may wish to take.
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly bear that matter in mind.

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

Statutory Instruments, &c.

  TRANSPORT AND WORKS
  That the draft Transport and Works (Descriptions of Works Interfering with Navigation) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  ROAD TRAFFIC
  That the draft Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  ESTATE AGENTS
  That the Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2833) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  That the Child Resistant Packaging and Tactile Danger Warnings (Safety) (Revocation) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2620) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2595) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Income Support (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2804) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  That the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) (No. 4) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2751) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the National Health Service (District Health Authorities) (No. 4) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2752) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  COUNTY COURTS
  That the County Court (Amendment No. 2) Rules 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1965) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Public Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That his House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]
5.45 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): On Second Reading of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill earlier this month, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked for a wider debate on the management of the public service, and I was happy to respond to that idea. I promised to consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on whether we could have an early debate, and I am glad to say that we have managed to find the time for it.
I am especially pleased that we are having this debate so quickly after the publication yesterday of the White Paper, "The Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992". This is a good moment for considering the Government's wider policies on privatisation, market testing and other issues related to the management of public services.
It is true to say that fundamental change for the better has been under way in the management of the public service ever since 1979. It is worth recalling that on the day on which this process of change began—4 May 1979—the last of the debris, both literal and figurative, had only just been cleared away after the previous winter's near-anarchy, the bulk of it in the public sector. The inflationary consequences of the pay settlements with which the outgoing Labour Government attempted to buy off that chaos damaged the economy for years.
It was a squalid and disappointing, although in retrospect perhaps inevitable, end to what now appears an ill-controlled expansion of many public services without sufficient attention being paid to the forms in which they were to be managed. As Mr. Anthony Crosland had said not long before, the party was indeed over.
There had been much idealism in the early days, but the results, in practice, were all too often empire building, limited concern for efficiency, and above all excessive domination by the providers of services rather than by the interests of the users. The customers and consumers of the services were not seen, as they should have been, as the be-all and end-all of the whole operation. Complaints were always used as proof of the need for extra resources rather than as a spur to efficiency, flexibility and new ideas. The electorate was presented with a false choice—between higher taxes or poorer services. They emphatically rejected that choice in 1979, in 1983, in 1987 and in 1992. It is a lesson that, once learned, shows little sign of ever being forgotten.
The reality is that on the one hand the potential costs of the public service rise inexorably in the face of scientific and technical progress and rising expectation. On the other hand, taxpayers here and elsewhere around the world are no longer prepared to hand over 25 per cent. let alone 40 per cent., 50 per cent. or more of their income without clear evidence that the Government will make every effort to ensure that that money is spent efficiently, and to the greatest benefit of the user of the services that Governments provide.
Public services in this country are now in the process of changing fundamentally to meet that reality, and they will continue to do so. The change does not lie in the basic nature of those in the public services. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government recognise the obvious need
1028
for good public services on a continuing basis, and recognise the quality of this country's many excellent public servants. But we cannot expect a public service to work efficiently, however competent and industrious those in it, if it labours under local management which has been made powerless and unimaginative by distant and centralised control; and which lives within a structure which ignores the whole worldwide revolution in ideas about management based on putting the customer's needs first.
Ever since 1979, the Government have sought to free up the latent ability and commitment in our public services through improvements in the way in which they are managed. Initially this was done on what was essentially a pragmatic individual basis, as each one—the civil service, local government, the nationalised industries and the NHS —seemed to require. A great deal was achieved. Government withdrew altogether from many areas—especially the nationalised industries—which could demonstrably be better run by the private sector. As far as the rest of the public service was concerned, efficiency measures resulted in enormous savings—for instance, over £2 billion from the result of the efficiency scrutiny programme alone. The delegation or scrapping of unnecessary budgetary controls gave local managers the powers they needed to run their operations more effectively; and the incentive was provided to set and meet challenging targets in a wide range of areas.
The changes were essentially about getting modern management into public sector organisations. They now provide the means by which we can deliver the Prime Minister's citizens charter programme—the most far-reaching programme ever designed for driving up quality in public services. As I made clear yesterday when talking about the White Paper, for the first time since present-day concepts of public service began to emerge in the early decades of this century, we now have, through the charter, a commitment to improve and to maintain on a systematic and comprehensive basis standards of service and efficiency throughout the public sector, linked to mechanisms that can deliver them. I was grateful for the basic commitment of the hon. Member for Redcar to the programme and to the policy, although she has criticisms of the detail.
Mr. Michael Bates: Would my right hon. Friend care to compare the constructive and helpful remarks made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlem) in Committee yesterday when she welcomed the citizens charter, with those of the Leader of the Opposition who, when the charter was introduced, described it as banal and damaging?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Redcar, perhaps persuaded by my hon. Friend's eloquent argument and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, may have come to understand the programme better than her leader did. I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit in which she approaches the matter.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) cannot decide whether he was in the House or in Committee yesterday? We did not discuss the citizens charter in Committee yesterday. In the House yesterday —either the Minister or the hon. Member for Langbaurgh

1029
may like to check the record—I said that the citizens charter was a good idea in principle. I said that we invented the idea and that many Labour local authorities introduced such charters before the Minister even thought of the idea. I also said that it was the way in which the Government had introduced the charter that made it a sham.
Mr. Waldegrave: I would not expect the hon. Lady to argue that my party could carry out principles better than her party. There would be little point in her being here if she did not believe that she could do a better job of it. I welcome in the spirit in which it was offered the commitment that we share the principle of wanting to improve public service. The hon. Lady says, as is her right, that she would carry out the charter provisions better. The citizens charter contains sensible commitments and I welcome the hon. Lady's reaffirmation of that point.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster go one stage further in the bipartisan spirit displayed in the Chamber this afternoon? Will he pay tribute to the first public authority in Britain to introduce a citizens charter? York city council has now operated its charter for five years. Each year, it has done what the right hon. Gentleman did yesterday—produce an annual report on the progress of the charter. Will the right hon. Gentleman pay tribute to that Labour authority, which was the first to introduce a citizens charter?
Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly agree that what has been done in York is interesting. We would argue that the York charter should contain more measurable performance indicators. I make no apology. I warn the Labour party that, if it produces good ideas, we shall pinch them. There is nothing wrong with that. I shall give arguments later to show that some Labour party supporters and centre-left opinion—I shall not offend centre-left Labour Members who sit below the Gangway, as they have temporarily left the Chamber—share our approach to these matters, and I welcome that.
We saw one significant result of this radical programme of reform only last week—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Where's the beef?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman had a large amount of beef last week when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education published for the first time full tables of examination results as the parents charter had promised would be done. The Labour party's reaction to that example of openness earned it some noteworthy press coverage. The Sunday Times concluded:
"Labour is a lost cause on education."
That is hardly surprising. As more than 50 per cent. of Labour Members are sponsored by trade unions, the Labour party is pretty much a lost cause in any area in which a consumer voice is struggling to be heard. Among others, The Guardian concluded:
"the information will allow parents to make a more informed choice. No democrat should regard this as a reverse."
On this occasion, I wholeheartedly agree with The Guardian.
The White Paper is a substantial milestone in demonstrating how we are moving towards public services with high-quality outputs and with service to the citizen as an overriding concern. However, as the White Paper
1030
states, better-quality services do not happen by accident. They are being brought about by a series of policies each of which is designed to serve a key objective in improving public service management.
First, we must ensure that those working in the public services are not employed at taxpayers' expense on activities that, viewed realistically, do not need to exist at all. It is the most difficult thing in the world to abolish a function once a bureaucracy has made it its own, but it should be done sometimes.
Secondly, we believe that public services should be engaged only in activities that really need to be in the public sector. That requires regular programmes of review to discover whether all activities need to remain in the public sector. Many do not.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the Minister explain how I should respond to a group of people whom I have just met in the Central Lobby? They tell me that they work for the Inland Revenue and that they deal with the most private aspects of people's tax affairs. They told me that their work as typists is to be put out to a private company. The most intimate details of people's tax affairs will be dealt with by people who work for a private company in he north of England.
I heard that some Inland Revenue officers are so worried about that prospect—there has been a pilot project somewhere—that tax inspectors are now sending hand-written letters to ensure that correspondence is not typed by private firms. Is not that an absolute disgrace? Are not the Government abdicating their responsibilities by handing over that important work to private contractors whom the public will not trust on matters of privacy?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong at two levels. First, at the lesser, but none the less powerful, level, the criminal law covers confidentiality in these matters. Secondly, the contractual arrangements that would be made in such a case would have to cover the question of confidentiality.
More broadly, the hon. Gentleman is falling into the mirror image of the mistake that some on the right have made in the past. It is just as foolish a mistake that way round. The hon. Gentleman says, "Private sector bad, cannot be trusted", just as some Conservatives used to say that nothing in the public sector was good. Both attitudes are wrong and the hon. Gentleman is out of date in his attitude.
On reflection, Opposition Members who are sponsored by trade unions that have a mostly private sector membership will not agree with the hon. Gentleman that people in the private sector cannot be trusted with confidential matters. That is an unusually foolish argument from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is real concern, as I am sure the Minister accepts, about confidentiality and the Inland Revenue. It is commonly accepted that, if something is not broken, it should be mended. In this case, I am not aware of any problem about confidentiality. However, as revealed on the front pages of The Sun and the Evening Standard today, there are problems of confidentiality in the private sector with Access. I am sure that Access does all that it can to maintain confidentiality.

1031
I think it is disgraceful that information has come out. The Inland Revenue has kept confidentiality. If it is not broken, why mend it?
Mr. Waldegrave: I share the hon. Gentleman's sense of disgust about the leak from Access. It is not wholly unknown for the public sector more broadly—I am not talking about the Inland Revenue—occasionally to leak things. Nobody is criticising the standard of confidentiality in the Inland Revenue. None the less, it is right to look at public services and to see whether the same quality can be achieved at better value for money for the taxpayer. That is the right thing to do in that area as in others—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington, who continues to mutter from a sedentary position, knows a little about the nuclear industry. He knows perfectly well that, over the years, many highly confidential matters in that industry, as in the public sector, have been handled by private sector companies.
I repeat that we believe that public services should be engaged only in activities that should really be in the public sector. So far, 46 major activities and many smaller ones have been privatised; they range from huge industries such as steel and telecommunications, to the National Freight Corporation—at the time of its privatisation a declining business, now an internationally quoted company—and from the 17 electricity companies in Great Britain to the British Technology Group.
As a result, 920,000 jobs have passed from the public to the private sector. Even leaving aside all the benefits to the taxpayer of more efficient services, the annual charge that nationalised industries' financing makes on the Exchequer was £3·5 billion per annum less in 1991–92 than in 1979. That achievement has already largely ended the historically short and aberrant detour into nationalisation, which helped discredit the state by casting it in the role of the incompetent owner and manager of huge, inefficient and often out-of-date industries, and as the protector of powerful producer interests rather than the champion of the individual citizen.
I quote from the excellent speech on Monday to the Centre for Policy Studies by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom we welcome to our proceedings:
"in 1979 Government was an oil producer, a car maker and a steel maker".
We are not any more, and we were not very good at it when we were. It seems a long time ago.
Novertheless, we have not yet finished. The White Paper lists 11 further substantial potential candidates for privatisation, ranging from British Rail to Companies House, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has recently opened discussions with colleagues to identify the scope for further developing the successful privatisation programme of the past decade, as he said earlier this week in the speech from which I have just quoted.
Thirdly, we believe in encouraging a productive partnership wherever possible—
Mr. David Trimble: The right hon. Gentleman refers to activities that it was appropriate to move out of the state sector. I am sure that he will agree that there are some activities for which privatisation is quite inappropriate and which should not be moved out of the public sector. When the present Secretary of State for
1032
Northern Ireland was the Attorney-General, he said that among the things that should not be moved out of core governmental work was work relating to national security or with other specially sensitive implications.
In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the recent decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to approve market testing of security work carried out for members of the public in Northern Ireland who are regarded as being under a particular terrorist threat? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as appropriate that that activity, which is especially sensitive and which relates to national security, should now be moved out of the core of Government?
Mr. Waldegrave: Doubtless my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will observe closely the conditions that the hon. Gentleman has quoted back at him. It is impossible for me to assess a particular case, but such considerations must certainly be high on the list that it would be proper for the Secretary of State to have before him when considering contracting any such activities out. It must be right to emphasise that.
Mr. Ian Davidson: The Minister said that he wanted to clarify the activities that needed to be undertaken in the public sector and the activities that could be moved to the private sector: some activities could be moved while others could not. Does he agree that he is assuming that things should automatically go out to the private sector unless they have to be kept in the public sector? He is not saying, "Let us consider whether activities can better be undertaken in the public or the private sector." He is starting from the assumption that it is better for them to be out of the public sector. That does not give those providing services in the public sector a fair chance of competing. The right hon. Gentleman is weighing the balance ideologically.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He has not quite understood my position, and it is helpful that he has given me an opportunity to clarify it. Where a policy decision is taken that the state is involved in an activity in which it need not be involved, that is a proper activity for privatisation, but where the policy decision is that responsibility should remain with the state and accountability should remain with Ministers, it is right to market-test, but there must be, and must be seen to be, a level playing field between in-house potential bidders and any out-of-house contractors. I shall come to some assurances on that in a moment.
There are matters in which public and private sectors can co-operate. Obvious potential candidates are transport and construction, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement measures to stimulate such partnerships.
At the same time, there are other opportunities for a constructive and efficient partnership. Some activities may still clearly need to be the ultimate responsibility of the public sector, as I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), but can be contracted out none the less. The process of deciding whether contracting out will he the most efficient way of carrying out a function is called market testing. It works by putting the function in question out to competitive tender, with internal and external bids assessed against the same criteria. That is another key approach in our reforms of public service management. In some respects, local government is ahead

1033
of central Government in applying it; yet, like privatisation, it has relevance to a wide range of Government activities.
Results so far are encouraging, as the benefits of the process are twofold: first, it is axiomatic that where an activity is market-tested and an external bid succeeds, it will be because we can get the quality of service we need at better value for money than under the current method of provision; secondly, where an in-house bid succeeds, the process of opening up that public sector activity to competition in itself often creates opportunities for greater effectiveness. Consequently, in central Government, savings arising from market testing, at any rate in its initial stages, have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost even where the activity has remained in-house.
Elsewhere in the public service, much has been going on; in the NHS, market testing has been mandatory in some support areas since 1983. In 1990–91, that produced savings of over £120 million, as well as other benefits through improved management and service standards.
In the services provided by local government, compulsory competitive tendering to stimulate greater efficiency and to secure better value through competition between in-house organisations and private contractors has been going on for many years, and, as studies by the Audit Commission and INLOGOV have shown, has produced savings of, for instance, up to 15 per cent. in building cleaning and 10 per cent. in refuse collection, with improvements in the clarity and objectiveness of contract standards.
That is a valuable start, but, as I said, market testing, particularly in central Government, is still at an early stage. The White Paper makes it clear that the targets agreed for market testing for central Government activities in the period until September 1993 are enormously more ambitious than anything undertaken so far. Targets have been set for more than 20 Government Departments covering activities valued at about £1·5 billion—a more than fiftyfold increase over last year's targets.
Those activities, which the White Paper lists, range from building and estate management to internal audit, from typing services and pensions administration to information technology and training. The list clearly shows that the scope for contracting out has moved beyond the longer-established examples of support services such as catering and cleaning to activities that have traditionally been somewhat more protected from comparison with the outside world.
Mr. Trimble: The Minister is talking about contracting out—or the possibility of contracting out—to the private sector a whole range of activities in addition to those that he mentioned earlier. Has he considered the implications of bids coming from the private sector outside the United Kingdom? With the single market and modern communications, and given that back office work can be located some distance away, a significant amount of that work—particularly that of a more general clerical nature —could be contracted out to people outside the United Kingdom. Are the Government aware of the problem, and are they likely to introduce safeguards to protect against it?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that I am right in saying that we would breach European Community single market rules if we did not advertise such contracts in the European Community journal. There is nothing new about that. When I first arrived in the Environment Department as a junior Minister, all the rate support grant work of the sort that the House debated after the Secretary of State's statement earlier this afternoon was done on American computers and bounced back over the Atlantic off satellites, because there were no computers in Britain which were big enough to handle it, which seems rather extraordinary. So there is nothing new about this.
The possibility raised by the hon. Member for Govan is conceivably real, although I doubt that it will be real in terms of the sort of work that he has specified. It is more likely that foreign-owned companies might win part of the work, but I do not think that there is any objection to that.
Mr. Davidson rose—
Mr. Trimble rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: I must get on. Perhaps the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) wants to intervene once more.
Mr. Trimble: The Minister says that he does not think the problem will he serious. I assure him that it may be a serious problem for Northern Ireland, which has the only land frontier in the United Kingdom. I do not think that he should discount the extent of the problem in the south of England. The continent is not that far away.
Mr. Waldegrave: The benefit of the single market is that we are part of the continent, according to my political perception. The single market works both ways. It is possible for private sector companies to get work from other countries. I have no doubt that some of them get work from the United Kingdom or from other Governments in Europe.
Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister agree that there is a genuine danger that data processing work could end up going to other parts of the world? Is he aware that a company in the Philippines has bid for data processing work for the Metropolitan police? As I understand it, the company meets all the criteria. That puts a different slant on the Government's dispersal policy. The Government have a view on dispersing civil service and Government work from the south-east of England. I am in favour of that because I should like to see work dispersed to areas such as mine, not to areas such as the Philippines. Does the Minister agree that there is a genuine danger under his policy that work will go to all the airts and pairts, not to areas to which the Government would want it to go?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is scaring himself unnecessarily. I believe that he is a sensible man. He, like hon. Members on this side, has argued passionately for the ratification of a GATT agreement to free international trade. One of the results of freeing international trade is that such trade takes place, and that must be welcomed. It is unlikely that there would be international trade in software, because the British software industry is extremely strong. However, if we have international trade in software, we must judge the benefit of such trade to the consumer and to citizens against other considerations.

1035
We should not frighten ourselves too much. After all, local government, which has undertaken competitive tendering for years, has not yet managed to transfer all its work to the Philippines, as far as I know.
I know that public service employees, the unions, Opposition Members and, indeed, those on the left in politics often express opposition to market testing. The view is not unanimous. Among those who have paid tribute to the opportunities and results of market testing are contributors to the Institute for Public Policy Research/Trades Union Congress publication "Meeting Needs in the 1990s" who acknowledge:
"There have been gains from Government legislation…the councillors had organised services but they had never specified what those services had to achieve. Now they have had to make the governmental decision—they have had to choose what standards of service they want".
Two years later we find the general secretary of the Federated Union of Managerial and Professional Officers in local government writing in The Times:
"there is no doubt that it"
compulsory competitive tendering—
"sharpens up the way that we manage services".
Nevertheless, people continue to be concerned. Some of that concern comes from defence of the existing status quo and an unwillingness to see whether services can be better provided—indeed, from traditional producer vested interests. I cannot deal with that concern, but some concern comes from misunderstanding and can be addressed.
Ms. Mowlam: It would be helpful if the Minister did not continue to quote selectively from documents. The conference of the IPPR/TUC to which he referred acknowledged that there were some pluses for examining efficiency through market testing. However, it did not follow the Minister's logic on the concept of contracting out as one option and privatisation as another. Equally, many local authorities, including Mr. Jeremy Beecham from Newcastle—whom the Minister seems to quote all the time—voluntarily acknowledged the value of competitive tendering before the Government put the other C in front to make it compulsory.
Mr. Waldegrave: That is no more or less than what I was saying. I was not claiming support for privatisation; I had departed from that part of my speech. I was claiming support for the process of competitive tendering, which, as the hon. Lady confirmed, is widespread among some local authorities—although, I must say, not all.
Let me deal with some of the concerns which I may be able to put to rest. Although the White Paper sets clear targets for the amount of Government activity which is to be contracted out, it would be meaningless to set such targets because we have no preconceived view of whether any particular function can be more cost-effectively provided in-house or on a contracted-out basis. The result in each case will depend on the outcome of the competitive tendering process. So there is no hidden agenda. The House well knows that, when we believe it is right to privatise, we do so. We have no need for hidden agendas. Market testing is first and foremost a management reform within the continuing public sector.
Let there be no doubt that what we are talking about here is the explanation of functions to see whether they can be carried out more cost-effectively in partnership with the
1036
private sector. Those functions are, by implication, activities which are considered to be essential. They will still be carried out—and carried out better than before this exercise. The work and the jobs needed to do it will continue to exist. Even when the market testing of an activity results in a contract being placed with the private sector, Government employees may be redeployed or taken on by the new contractor. That has happened in the vast majority of cases over the last four years.
In addition, let me make it clear that Departments which achieve savings through market testing and contracting out will be able to apply those savings for the benefit of their programmes. This policy was set out in the "Competing for Quality" White Paper which launched market testing in the civil service last year. It has not changed.
There will, of course, still be very substantial areas of activity which, after review, it is agreed should be left in the public sector and still be carried out by the public sector. We aim to improve management standards by looking for other ways of exerting an equivalent discipline to that of competition. Indeed, it is essential that we do so, since, when there is no choice, the supplier has a greater, not a lesser, responsibility to the customer.
Much is being done to promote better management in these areas. We are getting decent financial management systems in public services. We have now established in most public services proper purchaser/provider relationships as the basis for their operations. We have freed managers to use their delegated budgetary powers to buy services wherever they can find the best deal for their customers.
The creation of executive agencies has had a dramatic effect on Civil Service management. The agencies are run by chief executives who are usually appointed by open competition, ensuring we have the best person for the job from inside or outside the civil service. All agencies have published framework documents setting out key objectives, responsibilities and targets, set annually by Ministers and monitored by them. They have published annual reports and accounts and, in many cases, corporate and business plans. About half of all civil servants now work in executive operations run on those lines. By 1995, that number could he as high as three quarters. That means that, within a few years, the civil service is likely to consist of a relatively small policy-making core, and a series of devolved delivery organisations. Some of them will, by themselves, be as large as or larger than the core and will be expected to focus increasingly on their customers.
The citizens charter White Paper shows that agencies are indeed delivering a better service to their customers. Services are now being delivered quicker: for example, the Driving Standards Agency has reduced waiting times for a driving test to just over five weeks as against 13 weeks in 1988, and the average time for issue of a passport by the United Kingdom Passport Agency has come down from 3·5 weeks in 1988 to seven days. Agencies are carrying out research to find out what their customers want and agencies like Companies House and the Public Record Office have introduced longer opening hours in response to public demand. All agencies now publish full information on their activities and the way that taxpayers' money is being used in their annual reports and accounts.
Next week I shall be publishing the third annual review of the next steps programme, which will give detailed information on all the agencies set up so far and other

1037
organisations established on a next steps basis, together with information about future candidates and an overview of the effectiveness of the programme as a whole. This so-called next steps structure opens up the opportunity for delegation of managerial responsibility and accountability to a degree that had previously been impossible. The central Departments will be the more able to help agencies take advantage of this opportunity under the enabling provisions of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill which has just finished its Committee stage.
Of course, the operations of the delivery organisations —the executive agencies—may in time suggest further scope for change and improvement. I am concerned to establish an adequate balance between stability and the need to take advantage of further developments. Once an agency has been set up, the question whether privatisation has become a serious possibility should be considered during the review of the framework document—usually after three years of operation. If privatisation has become a serious possibility, it should be investigated fully. If agency status is confirmed once the review is completed, people will have reasonable security from further upheavals ahead of them.
Thus, we are setting in place throughout the public service a clear structure of management by service agreement, with Departments purchasing from private or public sector, the services that the public need against charter principles and charter targets. That that is the right way forward is again not just a view from the right. The former general secretary of the Fabian Society, who writes in the current edition of the Fabian Review argues:
"the model developed in the NHS reforms of splitting the function of purchasers from that of provider should be applied throughout the public services".
That is my objective too.
Finally, the citizens charter underpins and links all the different initiatives that I have described.
Mr. Frank Field: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says that he is reaching the end of his speech, and I must express some disappointment about one subject that he has missed. He began in good style, reminding us of the events of the winter of discontent. It is crucial for Opposition Members—as it is for Conservative Members—to say that such behaviour is totally unacceptable and that we have no intention of allowing such developments again. Without doing so, we stand little chance of success. The right hon. Gentleman also made much of the importance of the customer in services and that is right because it is proper in principle and because there are a lot of votes in it—we should not think that that means that it is a wrong principle.
During the past 14 years, the Government's attitude to people who work in the public sector has changed. Many such workers, including my constituents, feel that, rather than first-class, they have been made third or fourth-class citizens. The right hon. Gentleman is far too civilised to make statements similar to those that his colleagues have made about people who deliver services. Does he care to comment on how he values public sector workers, and on the fact that in any discussion of improvements in the delivery of services—which is crucial—a secondary but important matter is how we treat and pay our staff?
I listened to the Chancellor, but when he talked about improving services he never mentioned what he will do about some of the appallingly low wages in the public
1038
sector. As part of the process of more open government, will he tell us how many public sector workers still earn wages which qualify them for family credit?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the factual answer to his last question.
In the earlier part of my speech I paid tribute—perhaps too briefly—to workers in the public sector. It is difficult to do so without it sounding like a cliché, but my tribute was real and the hon. Gentleman's point is well taken. I tried to argue that case with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It is just as foolish to say that all private sector workers are bad as it is to say that all public sector workers are bad. If some Conservative Members hold the latter view, they are mistaken—just as the few Opposition Members who held the opposite view, and who persecuted the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in his constituency, are wrong.
The citizens charter programme gives the Conservative party and the Government the opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to the need for long-term public services. I was happy to join the hon. Member for Redcar to make that commitment yesterday, and to pay tribute to those who work in the service. I do not believe that that relieves us—the public sector—from the relentless pursuit of efficiency in the interests of the services that we provide. I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead would not think that it did. Therefore, I respond warmly to his invitation to pay tribute again to public sector workers. They are not third or fourth-class citizens, and they are both providers and consumers of the services that we are trying to improve.
The principles of the charter—standards, information and openness, choice and consultation, courtesy and helpfulness, redress for mistakes, and value for money—are especially important in those areas of Government which are not subject to ordinary competitive pressures. The more we devolve management responsibility, the more explicit we must make the public service principles and ethos that we want to run through all those devolved organisations.
Hon. Members will find, both in the first report on the charter, and in the many individual published charters, innumerable specific examples of how those principles are being implemented. The more we establish throughout the public service the new structure of management by clear service agreement—whether contract, framework agreement or internal service-level agreement—the more powerful the mechanism becomes for delivering those charter standards and ensuring better public service provision.
I hope that I have made clear to the House the nature and scale of the changes and improvements that the Government have, and are continuing to introduce in to the public service. I also hope that Opposition Members will be able to move beyond their sterile belief that, if only some huge but usually unspecified increase in resources could be made available and given to existing provider organisations, all would be well. Poor services do not come free or cheap either, as was discovered in the 1960s and 1970s. For any given level of resources, it is always possible to provide better services, which are more cost-effective and more responsive to the needs of the citizen and customer. It is the Government's constant and fundamental aim to ensure that that happens.
6.27 pm
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I welcome the debate. It would be churlish of me not to do so, since I asked for it and the Minister granted it so quickly. He would have been disingenuous if he had not known when he granted it that the Government were going to publish the citizens charter White Paper the day before, so it allows time for another four or six hours of debate on the matter in the House.
I am pleased that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster acknowledged his support for public sector workers. Charming though he may be at times, his colleagues are not charming to the public sector, which causes great concern to the many people who work in it. I am sad that he could not express such charitable views on local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said that he found the work that York he had been doing interesting. It would have done him no harm to say that York and many other local authorities did a good job on charters in response to quality services before he or the Prime Minister dreamed of nicking our idea. That would have been a positive step.
As the right hon. Gentleman keeps trying to cosy up in this debate and to say how often the two sides of the House agree, it would be useful to put on record briefly the aspects of public services management about which we agree, or do not agree. First, both sides agree about the need for quality public services. Another point we have in common is that the Opposition also believe that a citizens charter is one mechanism to improve the quality of public sector services—we wrote about the concept before the Conservatives had even thought about it, and many local authorities implemented it before then.
We differ drastically with the Government about the mechanisms by which quality services are achieved. We believe that they are best achieved at the local level, with local accountability and with people being held accountable for the services that are offered by the local authoritiy or other local body.
The Government take the opposite position. They believe that quality services are achieved—the Minister said it more clearly than I have ever heard it said—by direct privatisation, by market testing as a precursor to considering an outside bid. That involves contracting out of the national civil service or the next steps executive agencies. Although the latter are at present operating at arm's length, in terms of their framework document, they could be privatised in the future.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Is the hon. Lady saying that she is totally opposed to market testing now and for all time, even if it is shown that savings of perhaps 25 per cent. could be achieved by using market testing? Those savings could be re-employed to improve the quality of the services.
Ms. Mowlam: I have no objection to the use of indicators of a quantitative and qualitative nature to test the services of a Government Department or local authority.
Mr. Brandreth: Oh?
Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman expresses surprise. Local authorities have been doing that for ages. They may not have put the same label as the Government on the
1040
activity, but many efficient local authorities and other bodies have been doing it. So I agree with increased efficiency and the use of internal mechanisms to achieve it, and we can discuss many of them.
I disagree with the way in which the Government are hiding behind market testing and, instead of saying, "We are putting this out to competitive tender," are avoiding using that language. Had the Minister made the position clear and said that the Government were putting this or that out to competitive tender, large sections of the national civil service would have been aware of precisely what the Government were doing. People get a totally different view when the Minister says, "We shall do market tests and look at external contracts and so on," and dresses the whole thing up in language of that type.
Mr. Waldegrave: I said that market testing was the precursor, should outside bids be better, to contracting out. I am not sure that the hon. Lady answered my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). Is she in favour of market testing as a mechanism?
Ms. Mowlam: I have no difficulty in looking for quality and efficiency of service using quantitative and qualitative indicators. I am not satisfied when market testing is put in the context used by the right hon. Gentleman today, which is in preparation for competitive tendering—[Interruption] Does the right hon. Gentleman find my remarks confusing? What is his problem?
The right hon. Gentleman described the competitive tendering which the Government are intent on implementing as taking place on a level playing field, and I hoped from what he said that he intended to describe the nature of the playing field, but he did not do that. I shall show how the playing field is far from level, which causes much of the problem. The Minister puts on a facade of citizens charter quality services, but beneath that lies his desire for a very different national civil service.
The parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The hon. Lady is discussing an important and interesting point and I am unclear about precisely what she is saying about her attitude and that of the Opposition to market testing. She said that she was in favour of market testing, except in the context of competitive tendering. Is she aware that market testing and competitive tendering are absolutely integrally related? I hope that she will clarify the point. We shall make considerable progress if she does.
Ms. Mowlam: Let us stay with the point until it is resolved.
Mr. Frank Field: What is my hon. Friend against?
Ms. Mowlam: I shall tell my hon. Friend what I am against. We are against compulsory competitive tendering if it represents the privatisation of our national civil service. Once that has been privatised and there is trouble with contracts that have been put out to competitive tender, there will be nothing left of the civil service to which to complain. If those responsible make some of the mistakes that local authorities have made, where shall we go from there? There will not be a national civil service to deliver what the citizens have a right to demand.
It is important to appreciate precisely what I am saying, because many Opposition Members have experience of

1041
local government and know what delivering quality service is about. We believe in having the ability to measure efficient quality so that, for example, cost centres in local government can be compared. We can thereby reveal efficient ways to improve a service.
In that context, it is still a public service and it is accountable to the citizen. The service has not been contracted out or privatised, at which stage it is not accountable to anybody but is run by private companies which are driven by the profit motive and which believe in short-termism. Their activities are certainly not based on the long-term interests of the people.
Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that market testing is being used by the Government artificially to divide the various functions of Government—for example, by taking the clerical services out of a general activity and creating sub-units which are tendered in a disruptive manner and in such a way that the various sections are not able to come together to provide a unified whole and a better service? That is market testing designed to disrupt and destroy a service rather than enabling like with like to be compared on an external basis.
Ms. Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which helps to show why the national civil service and local authorities, as they have functioned in the past, are important.
Mr. Robert Jackson: It becomes clear that the hon. Lady is in favour of market testing on the basis that no contract is awarded to any outside bidder.
Ms. Mowlam: We have discussed matters of this type time and again. We want a national civil service that is part of the nation's heritage. We want it to be efficient and to deliver what the people need—[interruption] The Chancellor of the Duchy seems to find that amusing. What we are debating is crucial to the future of our nation. We must have a civil service that delivers to the people the quality services to which they are entitled.
We accept the need for increased efficiency. That involves having indicators and testing, nationally or decentralised, to achieve the delivery of quality services. But it is clear from the Minister's remarks that the Government do not believe in a national civil service. They want it divided up into next steps agencies, privatised or, in some limited cases, remaining with Government. That would give us a totally different animal from what we want for the future.
We accept that it may be necessary for a Department to contract out the odd service. I have explained that local authorities have been doing that for years. A small rural local authority will contract out, say, its legal system because it is more cost-effective. The Government have not given a democratic choice for people to achieve that type of accountability at the local level. Their plan is compulsory, even though the Minister talks about the way in which it would be a good idea to decentralise certain matters. He says that national Government should not dictate. What is compulsory competitive tendering?
It is not as though the right hon. Gentleman is allowing local authorities the right to decide what services to run and how to run them. Local authorities have elections to make them accountable. Instead of having the ability to
1042
choose, they are being told that compulsory competitive tendering must be the way forward. That is the degree of centralised control that the Minister is imposing on them.
I hope I have explained the view of the Opposition to the satisfaction of Conservative Members. There are certain crucial differences between the two sides of the House. We believe in local accountability, while Conservative Members do not. We believe in quality services and that they cannot be achieved simply by privatisation. I will give some examples to show why privatisation is not the answer.
As I listened to the Chancellor of the Duchy, I presumed that he had again been reading the book from which he often quotes, "Reinventing Government" by Gaebler and Osborne. The Library copy has gone missing, so it is difficult for me to check whether the structure of what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing is in conformity with that publication. If he has it, we would welcome its return to the Library.
My hon. Friends and I have a commitment to the public sector which the Government do not have. The right hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his remarks that he agreed that the public sector was important. If he believes in the future of the public sector, I should appreciate it if he and the Financial Secretary would distance themselves from the Treasury and say that they disagree with the Treasury document issued in 1991 called "Selling Services into Wider Markets". That document states:
"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 the private sector rather than the public sector…This presumption applies in particular where a public body would be competing with the private sector".
I presume that when the Minister says, as he did today and yesterday, that he wants to continue with the public sector, he disagrees with the Treasury.
Mr. Waldegrave: When the civil service trade unions used that quotation to make the same point, I wrote to the Financial Times—the hon. Lady may have seen my letter —making it clear that that guidance is about the completely different subject of trading. It is no secret that the Government and, I suspect, the modern Labour party are against state trading. If there is a trading activity, the presumption is that it should be in the private sector. If state organisations want to expand their trading, they cannot do it on the basis of their privileged access to public sector borrowing but should be privatised.
Ms. Mowlam: Then the Minister will distance himself from his statement to The Times conference in June, when he stated clearly that he believed that the private sector was superior to the public sector in delivering services. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He keeps saying that the public sector is far superior and that he wants to keep it, but when we get down to the detail of what the Government want, we find that they want to privatise the public sector.
As I have tried to explain to Ministers, the private sector model cannot be imported into the public sector because the private sector is driven primarily by profits and short termism. It is demand-led to satisfy the customer. In a demand-led system with limited resources—the public sector—one most decide between the allocation of resources, make political decisions and be

1043
held accountable. Local democracy and public sector services are important because it is crucial for the public sector to remain in control.
The Minister said that both sides of the House agree on the citizens charter, but the Labour party holds a different concept of the citizens charter. The Minister's view of the citizens charter is that individuals who pay council or poll tax receive services in return. That is a direct contract, just as in the private sector, between the individual and the local authority.
The difference is that the Labour party views the citizens charter more broadly, believing that citizens have rights and that they support services which they do not necessarily use. I have no children but I believe that local authorities should provide services for children. Similarly, I believe that community care, such as care for the elderly, should be provided by local authorities. That is not a direct contractual relationship between individual and provider, which is how the Government perceive the citizens charter. It is a fundamental difference in belief about the role of the individual in relation to the community.
For the Labour party, citizens' rights are not just about the consumer contracts which the Government are trying to provide but about access to information and choice, and equal treatment. We consider those matters to be crucial, which is why we find the Government's hypocrisy so bad when they try to deny access and information to the individual. It was made clear yesterday in the discussion on legal aid. How can the Government say that they are interested in increasing access and information to the individual when they are taking people out of legal aid and allowing only the very rich or very poor to have a chance to use the legal system? No wonder the public are cynical about the Government's belief in the citizens charter and individual rights. For us, accountability is crucial.
Towards the end of his speech, the Minister said how efficiently next step agencies had been performing. I have a couple of statistics that contradict that. The right hon. Gentleman said that the agencies had met their financial targets and some of their standards. The quality targets for 1991 show that only 37 of 53 quality targets, 20 of 28 financial targets, and 28 of 38 efficiency targets were achieved. The Central Office of Information, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Vehicle Certification, and Veterinary Medicine achieved not a single quality target.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the Minister said that pay in the next steps agencies remained comparable. Let us take, for example, the pay negotiations with Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The Treasury target of £4 million meant that the pay settlement for HMSO workers had to be delayed for four months because the agency could not meet the targets set by the Treasury and still pay the HMSO employees the amount that they had been promised. In the end, it was able to offer only 4·7 per cent., which was not the target set elsewhere.
The Minister's suggestion hat the next steps agencies are meeting those quality targets, that the service in the next steps agencies is up to scratch or that the workers are receiving a fair wage when they are taken out of the direct national civil service is belied by the facts.
1044
The subject of ministerial accountability for next steps agencies has been discussed in the House on numerous occasions. The thousands of letters that Opposition Members receive about disability living allowance problems are legendary. I received a wonderful letter dated 12 November about a constituent in South Bank in Cleveland. We wrote to ask for compensation or an apology from the DLA agency and, after months of delay, that benefit agency finished its letter by saying:
"Would you please convey to Mr. and Mrs.…my sincere apologies".
That is the degree of direct communication between the Department and individuals. If that is the quality service in next steps agencies which the Minister mentioned, the delays in which affect people surviving on minimal benefit under disability living, no wonder Opposition Members are cynical.
If the Minister is committed to quality public services, why cannot he understand—anybody in the private sector will tell him—that, when there is low staff morale and a constant air of uncertainty in an organisation—a sword of Damocles hanging over civil servants' heads day in and day out—we cannot achieve high quality services and encourage people to work efficiently. It undermines much of the good work that has been done in the civil service and civil servants' desire to improve the quality.
The Minister also discussed local authorities and, where contracting out had taken place, how the Audit Commission and the Institute of Local Government Studies had said that they had met their financial targets and therefore things were looking great. May I give some statistics which show that, although they may have met their financial targets, the quality of service that they offered was so poor that many of their contracts had to be cancelled and the service taken back in house.
For example, in the building cleaning section, 39 per cent. of contracts across local authorities are held by the private sector. There have been problems with more than a quarter of those contracts, leading to almost one in 10 of them being terminated. That compares with only 3·5 per cent. of the in-house contracts being terminated. In catering, the figures are similar, with 20 per cent. of contracts held by the private sector, a quarter of which have been terminated. Only 9 per cent. of contracts in the school meals service are held in the private sector, and there have been problems with almost half of that 9 per cent. Of the in-house contracts—the majority—only four were terminated. Some 28 per cent. of refuse collection contracts are held by the private sector, and there have been problems with 40 per cent. of them, compared with problems with only 12 per cent. of those awarded to in-house contractors.
With such a record, I do not know how the Minister can say that local authorities have delivered a quality service. Contracting out has produced not quality services but the exact opposite. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the Minister said that certain services would never be contracted out or privatised. He said that services relating to security could fall into that category.
Security in the Ministry of Defence has been privatised. It started as far back as 1980. By 1988, the MOD had issued 16 contracts to guard 44 sites. They included—as I am sure the hon. Member for Upper Bann will remember—the Royal Marine barracks at Deal, where Reliance Ltd. was responsible for security. The IRA bombing in 1989

1045
resulted in the deaths of 11 people. In the aftermath of that bombing, a House of Commons Select Committee report finally forced the Government to review the policy of privatising security. The Committee found that there was
"too high a turnover of staff",
and it identified low pay—to return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—as a particular problem contributing to the breach of security. That is an example of a sector that the Minister said might not be privatised but where contracting out has produced unsatisfactory security arrangements.
Elsewhere in central Government, security is still being contracted out, despite the repeated experience of security companies failing to vet employees properly. The West Midlands police found that 20 per cent. of Burns International's applicants had criminal records. If we continue to privatise and contract out services when there are difficulties of low pay and poor security—as shown by the examples that I have given—we shall clearly face problems in obtaining the sort of services to which we are entitled.
Another example that the Minister gave in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) was computerisation. The Minister gave cases involving the many contracts that go out to external companies because the in-house computers are not big enough to deal with the demand. Electronic Data Systems was given contracts to run two of the huge new social security computers in 1989, although it had previously been sacked from the English, Scottish and Northern Ireland national boards for training nurses. The English board director said that a five-year contract worth £250,000 was cancelled because
"we were unable to test the costings given to us by EDS and couldn't tell if we were getting value for money."
If we look in detail at each of the examples given to us by the Minister this afternoon—computerisation, security, local authorities—we see examples where contracting out has not delivered adequate services. One example not yet mentioned is that of Windsor castle. Let us consider the fire there. In preparation for the privatisation of the Property Services Agency, responsibility for fire protection of royal buildings was transferred to the royal household. Therefore, the fire at Windsor castle provides the prime example of where, if the property had remained in the public sector and the Property Services Agency, pre-privatisation, had been responsible, there might—it is difficult to prove—have been a different outcome.
The Government closed the Crown Suppliers, which was responsible for providing expert advise on fire protection—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury giggles, but the Government could not privatise that service as nobody wanted to purchase it, so they closed it. Therefore, the people responsible for providing expert advice on fire protection were not available. Given the record of those two organisations, I hope that the Government will reconsider their plans to privatise English Heritage, the only organisation left with the skill and ability to deal with the problems at Windsor castle.
The Minister mentioned confidentiality. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) spoke of the Inland Revenue, and the fear that the same confidentiality as applies in the civil service would not remain. The Minister did not mention that today. On
1046
previous occasions he has said that we are proud of the confidentiality and impartiality of the national civil service.
It would be useful if the Minister could explain the position were the Inland Revenue to be privatised. He mentioned criminal proceedings occurring "after the fact". What use is it to have confidential and price-sensitive information at the Inland Revenue if, when it is privatised, that information is then available for potential leaks to companies? In a takeover, that could make a crucial difference. It is no good stating that criminal proceedings would result, as that would be after the fact, and would be of no help to those involved in the takeover.
The secretarial and information technology services of the Inland Revenue are being put out to tender to private companies, which means that those companies will have access to the tax records of individuals and firms. A problem of confidentiality will obviously arise. Some high profile individuals and companies may have difficulty in keeping their records private.
It is interesting that Members' records are kept in a secure section—PD1—in Cardiff. It is unclear whether Members' tax returns will be privatised or put out to contract. If that section is excluded from privatisation, does it mean that the Government do not trust the private sector for Members' records but are happy to let private companies have access to everyone else's records? If Members' records are not excluded from privatisation, are Members aware that their tax and financial records are to be taken away from the civil service and placed in the hands of a private company?
Earlier today, the Minister said that he was disgusted that information on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's private finances had been leaked. I agree, but surely that provides a classic example of what can happen to confidentiality and impartiality when organisations are privatised. It is a living example on the front pages of most of today's newspapers, but it does not seem to cause concern to the Minister.
Mr. Alan Williams: That is the very point made by the unions at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The agency's computer contains the criminal and medical records of people with driving licenses, which could be handed over to a private contractor.
Ms. Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend as he has voiced our concern exactly. We are worried about the DVLA, which is why we have debated the issue a number of times in the House. We want to explain to Ministers that it is not simply a matter of privatisation, but involves obtaining quality service for individuals and our fears about the information that could come into the public domain as a result.
The Government are trying to skirt around another issue related to contracting out. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not mention it, but I am sure that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do so when he winds up the debate. I am speaking of the recent changes in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, forced on the Government by the European Court of Justice.
Ministers present and their colleagues on the Committee on the employment Bill are trying to brush aside the fact that their entire market testing programme

1047
to date has sidestepped the acquired rights directive to rig the competition for contracts in favour of the private sector. The competition should be run on the basis of efficiency and best practice, but has been run on the basis of cuts in staff pay and conditions. That is why the Minister was being economical with the actualité when he said earlier that there would be a level playing field. When services have been contracted out, there has been a cut in staff pay and conditions. That is why the Government have avoided implementing the TUPE regulations. It is no good the Minister denying that.
The truth of my assertion is borne out by those people involved in contracting out who, when faced with the implementation of TUPE, have made the following comments. John Hall, the secretary of the Cleaning and Support Services Association, which represents contract cleaning companies, said of TUPE:
"This will make tendering totally unattractive. It is staggering news. It is probably the most serious challenge ever to our industry and we will fight it tooth and nail."
Mr. Hall, who is also chairman of the Confederation of British Industry competing for quality committee, added:
"If this clause goes on the statute book then there will be little point in our members getting involved in public sector tendering."
So it would be useful to find out about the situation with regard to TUPE. I can assure the Minister that a number of people will be taking it to the European Court if the Government try to wriggle out of it again.
On another point of clarification—my penultimate point, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am pleased that the Financial Secretary finds that good news. I hope that he listens with as much generosity and openness when other people's jobs are put on the line as a result of this Government's policies. Those people will join the unemployment queues, and he sits there completely satisfied with the kind of policies and unemployment that this Government have brought about. I find the arrogance of Ministers like him appalling.
Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you noticed that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been here throughout the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): As I have not been in the Chair for the whole of the debate, I cannot comment, but I understand that that is the case and I am sure that it has been recorded accordingly.
Ms. Mowlam: I readily acknowledge that the Financial Secretary has been here all the time. I did not deny that. I simply suggested that his attitude was arrogant when we were talking about people's jobs being under threat. That is a completely different point.
Will the Minister undertake this evening—the Minister skated over this point—to guarantee that there will always be an in-house bid for services to be contracted out? The "competing for quality" document failed to give this assurance and I believe that, in the interests of fair and open competition, the Minister ought to give it tonight. It was implied in Committee that, if there was an in-house bid, it would be accepted, and in order to be fair to employees in the civil service departments, if the Government goes ahead, there should be such an assurance.
1048
It would also be appreciated if some assurance could be given that, if certain Departments are contracted out, there will be regulations to ensure that commercial interests are not involved. For example, if the present status of the Office of Fair Trading changes and it goes to a private contractor, there should be an assurance that the private contractor who gets the job could not have an interest in the work of the Office of Fair Trading. Quite clearly, such regulations would need to be put in place.
We believe that the citizens charter is part of the Government's plans, along with market testing, for cutting costs and—this is a crucial point—transferring responsibility for sometimes poor quality public services to individual managers and workers, who cannot hope to influence change on the scale required. Quality services require guaranteed adequate resources and highly motivated and well trained staff. The Government claim that the charter upholds the principle of free choice; the only principle guiding the Government is that the private sector knows best. Where is the choice for an individual who cannot change the person who empties the dustbins or the person who deals with tax matters?
The Opposition believe in the future of the public sector and in the quality of public services. We believe that the way in which the Government have handled the citizens charter is a cynical facade to cover the sustained destruction of the public sector and the wholesale transfer of many of its assets and responsibilities away from the citizen to private sector. That is not for the benefit of the citizens of this country.
7.3 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: I am very pleased to take part in this important debate. In a sense, the two opening speeches have summed up the dilemma. In my view, the solution to many of these problems is for us somehow to achieve the kind of efficiency that one sees in the best private companies, without necessarily going through the process of privatising those parts of government that do not really lend themselves sensibly to privatisation.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the citizens charter and his excellent initiatives and on much of the privatisation that has taken place so far, but sometimes, sound government, both local and central, is better than new legislation in helping us to cope with many of our problems. It is the quality of leadership and management in the public service that is crucial. Before changing structures, whether of local government, the health service or education, we ought to examine carefully why existing structures are not working—structures which until now, perhaps, have worked well and stood the test of time. As I have already said, some services do not lend themselves readily to privatisation.
The key, surely, to all this is leadership and responsibility at every level of the public service, with the Government themselves displaying those qualities as well as holding firmly to account those charged with delivering services to the public. The way in which men and women carry out their duties may be influenced largely by the leadership they are given within the structure in which they work. Perhaps some of our existing structures are now unworkable and have come to the end of their useful lives,

1049
but perhaps not. Many of them have developed and have been tried and tested, and we should give careful thought to each before changing them.
I shall give a few examples of issues which are of concern to me. The water industry has been privatised. I do not say that that is a bad thing, because I appreciate the problems in raising capital to fund much of the work that is needed. However, I am greatly concerned that enforcement, where people were polluting our waterways, was not carried out as it should have been and, as a result, many of our rivers and streams are badly polluted. Why was there not that enforcement? Why, over all those years, did the people responsible for ensuring that industries did not tip their waste into our rivers allow those industries to carry on doing just that? The responsibility lies not only with the individual who is charged with visiting those companies but with his manager and, at the end of the day, the very senior individuals in the water authorities whose job it was to make sure that rivers were not polluted. Why was that allowed to go on? Why were those responsible not brought to task?
We are now in the business of reorganising the health service. We have done that before. We had districts, which have now gone, we now have our regions and our areas. I believe that the present reorganisation will be helpful, but I want to ask one or two questions about other aspects of the health service.
I well remember talking many years ago to a consultant in the health service. He shocked me by displaying total disregard for any responsibility in his hospital for efficiency or waste—waste which he knew was taking place on a daily basis to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds. He saw it as no part of his responsibility as a medical consultant to do anything about it.
I have been particularly keen over the years to have matrons brought back into our hospitals. I wonder why they ever went. Matrons were brilliant at their job. They knew how to deal with patients and relatives, consultants and surgeons. They also kept a good eye on the efficient running of their hospital and looked out for waste. Why did they go? Whose idea was it that they should go? To a great extent, the lack of that kind of efficiency has affected our view of our hospitals and resulted in the changes that we have been forced to make.
I served on the Committee that considered the role of the health ombudsman and I was amazed at the cases that were brought before us. Often, there had been a complete breakdown in communications between doctors and patients. There was also the jargon which was used. On one occasion, we were told that the default lay with the "line manager". I made the point to the witness whom we were interviewing that there might well be line managers at Ford of Dagenham but I saw no place for them in our hospitals. That impersonal way of discussing things relates very much to the way in which people deal with each other, the kind of leadership shown in hospitals and the way in which they were organised.
In education, standards have fallen greatly in recent years. During that time, what have our inspectors, who are charged with the task of keeping up standards in schools, been doing? What have local authorities being doing all that time? Have they been doing the job that they are paid to do? I suspect not. So, because the education system is not what we want it to be, this House decides—or rather the Government decide—that drastic measures are needed to restore standards. But if the people originally charged
1050
with the responsibility for keeping up standards had done their job, perhaps the subsequent changes would not have been necessary, and many children would have had a better education.
The relationship between central and local government is extremely complicated. In the old days, it was sensible and happy; central Government decided how much local government should spend and, by and large, local government was happy to accept that money and to spend it sensibly. There was a reasonable relationship between the House and local government. Then, a few years ago, Liverpool and the Greater London Council started to behave in what the Conservative party thought was an unreasonable way. We had to take steps to change the rules and the framework, because the people who had taken control of some authorities had to be restrained.
What have we achieved so far with these changes in local government? We changed from the rates to the community charge and then from the community charge to the council tax. We are already discussing another reorganisation of the structure of local government. The basic problem remains, however. It concerns the relationship between the House and local authorities: how we trust them, how they trust us and how we work together. Unless that relationship is healthy and happy and restored to a sensible basis, no amount of changes to structure or system will bring about the sort of relationship that we want.
How much is wrong with British Rail? Is the problem its structure, or its management? I use British Rail regularly, and I think that the management of the system is what is wrong, not the system itself. How many organisations or businesses of any other kind would think of changing the structure of their organisation before being sure that the fault did not lie with the management? Now we are looking into how to make British Rail more efficient; but I strongly believe that if we change the company's structure dramatically without first having ascertained that the present one will not work much better under a different managerial system, we will do the country a great disservice. I suggest that we go slowly in this direction.
Tonight, the privatisation of Whitehall has been mentioned. It may well be a good idea. I have always thought that we have one of the best civil services in the world—it is widely respected. Perhaps it is not the most efficient of organisations, but we cannot have everything. Perhaps it is a good idea to privatise Whitehall, but for heaven's sake let us look first at ways of making our civil service much more efficient in its present form before we reach too readily for the privatisation lever.
What is the role of the Minister in all this? What is the role of our Secretaries of State in running their Departments? They have a duty to look inwards at the Departments to find out whether they can improve their running. That is part of their responsibilities.
The Inland Revenue is a good example of a body that has to be handled extremely carefully because of the confidentiality of many of its activities. It is also a good example, therefore, of why we should first try to do everything possible to make it more efficient in its present form before trying to change it radically.
The Government, they say, want to reduce legislation. They are introducing 28 Bills in this Session of Parliament —a fair amount of legislation, resulting in a lot of disruption. If changes are to be made, there will obviously

1051
be disruption; but unless something really needs changing, an unwarranted amount of disruption may be entailed. Sometimes that disruption lasts so long that one wonders whether it has all been worth it.
Although it may sound as though I am criticising the public services, I am not. We should appreciate the job that public servants do. If they are well led and rewarded, their job can be rewarding for them and they can provide an excellent service for us all.
I am conscious that I have posed more questions than I have answered. I have already said that I think that the citizens charter is excellent in principle. I do not suggest for a moment that privatisation is wrong; it is usually right. Nor do I suggest that structures must never be changed, but I do say that before any structure is changed, its leadership and management should be examined so as to ensure that it is the structure, not the management, that is at fault. Sometimes a fresh appraisal, a new management and a new approach are needed within existing frameworks. The quality of service to the public is often more likely to be improved by sound, firm government every day than by a never-ending flood of legislation.
7.15 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is the second time in the opening months of this Parliament that I have dealt with what has been termed a flagship of Government policy. The previous occasion was the debate on the poll tax legislation; now we have the citizens charter. It may be instructive to examine the reactions to those two measures to get some idea of the reaction to the Government.
The previous Prime Minister, at the end of her time in power, had a peculiar knack of splitting her party and uniting the country against her; certainly, that is what the poll tax legislation did. This Prime Minister seems to have more of a knack of making everything grey, torpid and languid—at least until recent weeks.
In debating the flagship of the Prime Minister's Administration we have a virtually empty Chamber. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may have been hoping for some support from Back Benchers, but not many of them have shown up to offer it, and the one speech so far by a Conservative has shown at best half-hearted support. That is because the charter has been extraordinarily narrowly focused and unambitious.
The principles behind the Minister's version of the charter are, of course, shared by all in the House. He makes a great deal of welcoming support from both sides of the House, but that support is hardly surprising. Of course public services should be responsive to consumer preferences and should meet the public's need for high-quality services—no one can doubt statements put in those terms. The issues that need to be debated concern how such a charter should be shaped, how its provisions should be delivered and guaranteed and how much real change it should bring about. Unfortunately, Ministers seem content to ignore all alternative views on those matters.
The Conservative charter has been shaped too much by Ministers and by a Government who are unprepared to fund public services properly or to back the charter with full access to information. The Government's limited agenda was epitomised in the Minister's speech tonight.
1052
Contrary to the Government's view, most of the public take a more pragmatic view: they think that management can be improved, savings made and alternative avenues explored, but they also take the view that they need to know more than the Government allow them to know. They cannot trust Ministers to run every local service centrally. Above all, they take the view that many services will be improved only by greater investment in them. Why else did 78 per cent. of people polled during the general election campaign say that they were prepared to pay an extra penny in the pound on income tax to fund improvements in education?
In the House yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of the transformation of public services brought about by the citizens charter. In the past few days, I have had letters from constituents concerned about bed closures and the introduction of car park charges at my local trust hospital. I have heard from a friend stuck in the underground waiting without explanation while a tube simply did not move, and from others who daily have to stand on packed trains on their way to work.
A constituent, trying to collect his daughter from a railway station late at night, was unable to discover why the train was delayed. He telephoned Paddington but received no answer; he contacted the station but it was no longer staffed; and he telephoned the information bureau at Truro, but that was no longer staffed either. Eventually, his daughter arrived some two hours or more late.
I received a letter today from an elderly person who had received a warning of an overdue bill from what was formerly a public service, desperately upset by the tone of the letter. Many people have contacted me during recent weeks and months after experiencing problems with the disability living allowance unit and getting not so much as an answer to a telephone call or even a letter of explanation.
Those people will not recognise that there has been a transformation in public services; nor will the majority of people who regularly use public services, as opposed to Ministers who do not. The charter is weak on real commitment and vague about compensation schemes, because the funding is not there.
Having set the targets, what are the mechanisms for delivering them and making progress? When targets are not met, who will knock heads together or put in extra funding, and who will take decisions on what is needed? Where services prove that they cannot meet the standards set by the charter, will their funding be reconsidered? Shall we have a report in the Budget or autumn statement process telling us how the charter failures match up to the Government's investment proposals?
Some charter proposals are not funded at all—for example, the citizens charter set the response time for an ambulance to arrive at an emergency in rural areas at 19 minutes. In Cornwall, the health authority is dependent on the air ambulance even to come close to that target. Cornwall has many remote areas and, especially in the summer when the roads are choked with caravans, it would be ludicrous to expect land ambulances to reach people in 19 minutes. Everyone in the county knows that the air ambulance is vital, yet despite the fact that the Government say in the citizens charter that people can expect such a service, they will not fund it. It relies entirely on coffee mornings, fetes and other fund-raising events supported by the generosity of the people of Cornwall.

1053
It is hypocritical of the Government to claim credit for the citizens charter when it is the charitable donations of a low-wage area such as Cornwall that delivers their pledges, not Government investment in order to bring services up to scratch.
Another example of how the Government's supposed transformation of a public service, its management and the delivery of the service does not come up to scratch was the recent decision, approved by Offer, the Office of Electricity Regulation—the body which is supposed to protect the ordinary public—to increase electricity prices in the far south-west by 5 per cent. and to cut electricity prices for those nearer to power stations. Businesses therefore face a 10 per cent. price differential in areas where the costs of running those businesses are already higher than in most parts of the country.
Not only are people suffering from that increase, but when I raised the matter with a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, he was not even aware of it. When Conservative Members of Parliament from the south-west told the Prime Minister that their seats were at risk to the Liberal Democrats because of that decision, he did not know what was happening.
The transformation in public services is not an improvement. All that has changed is that things get worse and Ministers and Prime Ministers no longer know what is going on in the basic services on which people rely in their homes and businesses.
The basic elements of a good service may be obvious, but to what extent did Ministers consult to discover which aspects of services people felt were most in need of improvement? Too much of the early round of the citizens charter consisted of asking Ministers and civil servants what targets they should be setting, not asking the people on the receiving end what they needed, be they suffering from a disability, in education or the consumers of a service.
Have the Government insisted, Department by Department, on proper, early and responsive consultation with the users of public services in future before setting the charters and updating them? Too often Ministers have answered the questions themselves, guided by their own ideological assumptions about what people ought to want and ought to know, not what they want and what they want to know.
An example of that is the school league tables. Did Ministers ask parents' representatives what kind of information would be useful to them in choosing a school for their children? I do not mean at a meeting of the Conservative supper club or at a Conservative fete or raffle. Did they comprehensively and rigorously consult to discover what people wanted?
Parents point out that exam results are not the be-all and end-all. They are concerned about the atmosphere in a school, the quality of the facilities and class sizes. Above all, they recognise that the social background of pupils will have an impact on examination results, making comparisons of raw results difficult or even meaningless.
Information is a good thing, but it must be adequately provided in the form which people want and in which they can use it. The Audit Commission has shown that value-added league tables can work, but the Government have still made no pledge to publish such information in a form which will be readily usable. They tell us that parents will be able to obtain the information from the tables. The Government could not even get the data in the tables right,
1054
so how do they expect parents to extract that information'? The Government design systems too much to suit their own political priorities and not enough to suit those of the consumer.
That brings me to an essential point in the process. Ministers like to stress the importance of information, but they must be prepared to accept the pressing need for a freedom of information Act. Citizens are free only if they have rights of access to information at their determination, at their choice, not merely to information that Ministers choose to deliver to them.
As I said yesterday, in the documents that we now have, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is reported to have pressed his colleagues, Alan Clark and the noble Lord Trefgarne, to make available to the public information on the reinterpretation of the guidelines governing Iraqi arms sales, but that advice was not followed. The Minister lost his argument.
Now that he is in a stronger position, he should be pressing the Government for a freedom of information Act. Such legislation would have made it unnecessary for us to rely on him in his losing battle or on the chance decision of a judge in court to make the information available. Above all, individuals would have been able to rely on the legislation in order not to be sent to prison when not only were they not breaking the rules but they were being encouraged by Ministers to act as they did.
For a Government to hail the citizens charter as a flagship policy yet to refuse to give the public the basic entitlement to information that a freedom of information Act would provide, suggests once more that the citizens charter is shaped more by what Ministers decide that people should know, rather than what the public want and need to know.
The Government are repeatedly criticised for their changes to legal aid and for tackling the problem of lengthy cases and the costs to which they give rise not by reforming the system, to make it easier to obtain access to justice, but by cutting back finance to limit the numbers who can hope to have any chance of enjoying justice in the first place. The question is not whether a public or private service, or public individuals or private individuals, are involved. Everyone should be able to seek redress through the courts without being financially blocked. We hear no complaints about that from Ministers with responsibility for the citizens charter.
I do not deny the need for an efficient and value-for-money civil service; nor do I deny that there can be real value in market testing, but it must be used with discretion—on that, the Minister is woolly and unclear. Neither he nor anyone else has expressed concern about confidentiality within the Inland Revenue, yet everyone accepts its importance because there can scarcely be an area of government where confidence in the security of information can be more important to the ordinary person.
Only today, we saw how unreliable confidentiality can be in the public sector. I was appalled when I saw the front page of The Sun this morning, but not because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's actions. I overheard one hon. Member—his identity and party do not matter—say,"Mind you, it looks like his account is in pretty much the same state as mine." I suspect that is the general reaction—but most members of the public would not

1055
expect to see such details about themselves on the front page of The Sun and repeated on the front page of the Evening Standard tonight.
I do not suggest that any privatisation will necessarily undermine the charter's confidentiality clause, but confidentiality is crucial in the case of the Inland Revenue—and, as there is no problem with that Department, if it is not broken, why try to mend it?
There is a silly continuing debate about who first thought of the citizens charter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) published his book, "Citizen's Britain", and then Labour and the Government published their charters. They are merely different interpretations of party interests in serving the system better. My right hon. Friend's book came first, but we should not make anything of that.
Different views are expressed in the House about what should be done. The Government are market-orientated and tend to assume that if something is market-tested or privatised, it is likely to become better—unless someone can prove otherwise. Probably, the proof of that pudding will only be in the eating.
Members of Labour's Front Bench—perhaps because civil service trade unions are a little too influential—tend to protect the status quo and the public sector. Inevitably perhaps, my party tends to call for more root-and-branch reform of the way that our democracy works. It is not just a question of localising and decentralising, in which I support Ministers. It is a question of giving ordinary individuals real political control, of decentralising political control as well as management, in both central and local government, as Tower Hamlets has done with its neighbourhood councils; of giving the public more control—not of privatising services but of democratising them; and of not having schools opting out of local democracy but giving them even more of it and of maintaining local democratic control over those schools.
It is a question, too, of a far-reaching root-and-branch reform with a Bill of Rights, so that the public can have real access to justice and freedom of information. That is the kind of citizens charter that we need and the kind of citizen's Britain that we need—but it is the kind of agenda that the Government signally fail to address.
7.34 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) referred to the number of right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber, but omitted to touch on the quality. Were the Liberal Democrat Benches stuffed to overflowing, they would not present quite as much intellectual firepower as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Civil Service, seated alone on the Government Front Bench. Throw in the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), and add my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster and one is talking about a veritable All Souls on wheels.
I would not throw myself into that intellectual cocktail, but it is worth recording that the last occasion on which I spoke in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was a quarter of a century ago,
1056
when sitting at our feet admiring us was the President-elect of the United States. He went west, and it worked out slightly differently for him.
The civilised nature of this debate might suggest that there is no real division between the two sides of the House, but I suspect that there is—despite the courtesies that pass to and fro. Opposition Members give the impression that they are determined to see the worst in everything, whereas my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are determined to bring out the best, particularly in our public services.
Since the arrival of the citizens charter, Opposition Members have been cynical at worst, sneering at best, and grudging with their praise. Perhaps they are irritated because, having thought of it first, they were not quick enough off the mark in making the public realise that, or perhaps because we thought of it first. That is a foolish game to play.
More seriously, perhaps Opposition Members are irritated that ordinary people believe that the charter stands for something important. The Opposition's patronising attitude towards the charter annoys those who use it not simply to obtain a better level of service for themselves but to deliver better services to others.
The charter and the new office that it creates will, for the first time, offer accessibility, courtesy, punctuality, and openness—all central to the agenda of public service. Opposition Members dismiss the charter as gloss, public relations, and hype—not realising that those who use our public services are crying out for higher standards, and that the providers of our public services want to do a better job. Many of them welcome the challenge that the charter presents, and are proud of the charter mark.
I have long wondered why there is only one Monopolies Commission, so I warmly welcome the fact that public bodies having that monopolistic status—such as the Benefits Agency and the courts—are to be confronted by a series of ever more stringent standards, designed to deliver the best service and value for money. Being treated courteously and quickly by a named official is not trivial but a fundamental change of approach. Standards are important, but so are incentives, and for half a million civil servants now to receive performance-related pay is as it should be.
The good news is, all that is begining to work. After yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, I mentioned that I happened to be the grateful recipient of a refund from British Rail after travelling on a severely delayed train. Of course we would all prefer our trains not to be late; but the refund not only compensated me completely for the money that I had spent and lost, but will help, cumulatively, to concentrate the mind of British Rail.
At this point, the Opposition will no doubt cry—certainly they should cry—that the answer lies in further investment. So it does, but it does not inevitably and solely lies in further cash investment. Investment is also possible in terms of better management, better practice and better service.
The British Rail passengers charter, published in March —happily, on my birthday; I see the whole thing in personal terms, and the joy of the citizens charter is the way in which it relates to the citizen as an individual—is just one part of a package of measures designed to make life easier for the rail traveller. The targets have been set;

1057
performance is being monitored, and the results are being published; fares are being adjusted to take account of different standards of service on different routes.
Previously, such disciplines have been conspicuous by their absence. It is no use Opposition Members saying that everything is all right as it is. Without the charter, the standard to which I have referred would not have been introduced. Under the charter, British Rail has introduced the standards of reliability and punctuality that passengers should be able to expect. Every four weeks, as part of its "track record" initiative, British Rail is publishing up-to-date performance figures. The results show that, while many routes are meeting their targets, some are still failing to do so. On routes where British Rail continues to under-perform, season ticket rebates of up to 10 per cent. may be triggered by the charter.
The principles of the passengers charter are to be extended in the future: British Rail has now committed itself to publishing conditions of carriage that are fairer, simpler and easier to understand, and the 1993 reliability and punctuality standards for Inter-City, regional railways and Network SouthEast will be published this month.
I should like the passengers charter to be extended to cover the quality of railway stations, as well as services on trains. The conditions in ticket offices, waiting rooms and public lavatories are often an absolute disgrace; perhaps, in the fulness of time, the charter will get to grips with that. Incredibly, the ticket office at Chester station—where I shall be in a matter of hours—is currently located in a Portakabin. That is not a temporary measure; it is to remain there for a couple of years. Would hon. Members fly on an airline that made them buy their tickets from a nissan hut? No: they would feel a certain lack of confidence about the validity of their tickets.
The city of Chester is historic; it is the jewel in the crown of the north. [Interruption.] Forgive me; it is the jewel in the crown of the country. We may have to wait for the privatisation of British Rail for a solution to the problem—although I prefer to think of it as private investment in the railways. No railway station that had benefited from private investment, and from the attitudes that are prevalent in, say, the British tourist industry—attitudes that should be prevalent throughout public services—would allow the lavatories and ticket office at Chester station to remain in their present condition.
The parents charter is another of the successes of the citizens charter movement. In England and Wales, school examination results are now published, and comparative tables showing examination results in local secondary schools are now being made available to the parents of children who are about to transfer to such schools. From autumn next year, national curriculum results, truancy rates and the routes taken by pupils when they reach school-leaving age will also be published. Already, parents are receiving written reports on their children at least once a year; they are also reminded of their right to appeal if they are not successful in their choice of school. School prospectuses and governors' reports must now include examination results and truancy rates.
I am delighted at the breadth of the welcome for the publication of the tables. Noting the approval of The Guardian and that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), we begin to wonder whether the Government are on the right track; but, given that all the parents to whom I have spoken also approve, I realise that the Government certainly are. I was also delighted to read
1058
in today's press that the Opposition are apparently now back-tracking in their objection to the league tables. At least they are consistent in their back-tracking: I commend them for that.
The Opposition's earlier attitude was extraordinarily patronising to parents, who understand full well that, although examination results constitute a fundamental test of a school's performance, they are not the only test: a range of other performance indicators contribute to the overall picture. I hope that, as the parents charter progresses, those other indicators can be developed more fully. Inevitably, the cultural and the sporting life of a school will be involved. Let me declare an interest as chairman of the National Playing Fields Association. Such aspects as the number of well-used school playing fields are elements of the equation that adds up to a successful school. I hope that we shall also be able to develop performance indicators in relation to a school's commitment to the community, careers advice and further education advice, and that parents will gain easy access to those indicators.
I know full well that parents in my constituency will not only look at the league tables, but visit the school to which they intend to send their children and look at it in the round. Let me cite two schools in particular. Blacon high school has made a substantial contribution to technical education; it also has a wonderful team of handbell ringers. Currently that is not to feature in the league tables, but in time, if we can develop the right kind of indicators, we shall be able to incorporate it. Similarly, Bishops high school, in my constituency, has a marvellous community library. Its role as a community school is very important to it: the school library is shared with the community at large.
The White Paper that was published yesterday contains much encouraging material. It is, moreover, a stylish publication, featuring good English and clarity of presentation, which is important. It seems that putting over information in an accessible, clear way is now dismissed as gloss and hype, which is a pity. So much of t he paper is good that it is difficult to know what to highlight. Personally, some people might wish to highlight the various commitments in relation to the Inland Revenue—which, I must confess, wants to take more from me than I earn, and is writing to me from a variety of addresses with a series of different but equally indecipherable signatures.
I share the concern that was expressed earlier about confidentiality. If we cannot trust our bank, it is a little depressing. I have read the scurrilous stories about my right hon. Friend and flexible Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that I do not believe them for a moment—but, if they were true, how marvellously courageous my right hon. Friend was last night in voting with Conservative Members who decided to support the pay freeze. A man in those personal circumstances has a chance to offload his own problems with a single vote—and what does he do? He thinks of others first.
Although I speak in a slightly jesting manner, there is a serious undertone to this, because some 90 Opposition Members voted for a wage increase at a time when wage restraint is being urged on those in the public sector and forced on those in the private sector by the recession. It is a serious issue, particularly in the light of this afternoon's statement on the standard spending assessment.
Mr. Davidson: How many other sources of income does the hon. Gentleman have, and how much do they amount to?
Mr. Brandreth: They are negligible. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for City of Chester, I have devoted myself completely to my role as a Member of Parliament. If the hon. Member were here as often as I am, he would know that I have no time to be anywhere else but here or in my constituency, where I am committed to being a full-time Member of Parliament—fortunately, with experience from elsewhere, which I hope helps to inform my judgment.
As a constituency Member, my greatest concern is about the Benefits Agency. I am pleased that it published its customers charter at the beginning of the year. It sets out minimum national targets, including, for example, the fact that income support claims should be cleared in four days, which is down from a target of five days for the year 1991–92; that 65 per cent. of child benefit claims should be cleared in 10 days; and that 60 per cent. of family credit claims should be cleared within 13 days.
By the end of 1992, each of the Benefits Agency's 159 districts will display local targets, standards and information on performance achieved against them. Its annual report will be available at every local office. I shall study that with interest and concern, because although those standards are commendable they still are not good enough by any manner of means. I hope that it is an on-going programme, because we need to jack up standards each year.
The Benefits Agency charter commits the agency to telling customers about their appeal rights each time a decision is made about a benefit, explaining that customers who have a complaint about the service they receive can contact the customer service manager, who will respond within seven days. It has set a target that at least 85 per cent. of customers should say that they found the service satisfactory or better. I do not think that 85 per cent. of customers in my constituency are yet finding the service satisfactory or better, but I am glad that the standard has been set and I hope that we can achieve it, sustain it and then improve on it.
The major development outlined in the Secretary of State's statement yesterday and amplified today is the extension of market testing. This obviously must make sense. We want the highest standards and best value in all our public services, and all that market testing means is to test a particular service in the market to see whether it can be done better. I did not understand the semantic by-play that was going on earlier, because the issue seems quite simple: if an agency or department is delivering the goods, it has nothing to fear. If it is not, let us find something that can.
The list of Government Departments where market testing will take place, which was published yesterday, is very impressive: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Customs and Excise—I was delighted to see that —the Ministry of Defence—I was delighted to see that; we have plenty of opportunities for it in Chester—and the Department of National Heritage, where several items caught my eye, such as the national lottery. The lottery will obviously be handled most effectively by an independent agency with the right guidelines. There will be forms, a contract will be agreed and the standards will be
1060
established. All we are attempting to do is test it against the market to see who can deliver the goods most satisfactorily in terms of quality and price.
I was pleased to see the royal parks and historic royal palaces mentioned in the list. The monarchy was not listed, although it has little to fear, as I doubt that another team could do the job more effectively or could provide better value for money.
The Labour party has an enviable record for changing its mind on almost every public service reform introduced by the Government. I think I am right in saying that it opposed the next steps agencies, yet now its leader supports them, although I was a little confused by what the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said this afternoon. It used to oppose parental choice, but now it claims to back it. Last week, it opposed the publication of examination results, but this week—at least according to the news report that I read this morning—it now supports them.
I wonder how long it will be before Opposition Members drop their objections to market testing. There was a little semantic by-play this afternoon, leaving the options open, but perhaps the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) will clarify that. It would be wonderful to have a simple yes or no on whether Labour agrees with market testing.
It is understandable that some people are frightened of market testing. People are often frightened of the real world. I understand that and sympathise because I come from a family of good public servants. My mother is a teacher. I have a sister who is a teacher, another sister who is a nurse and a third sister who is a social worker. I have a sister-in-law who is a teacher and a brother-in-law who is a civil servant.
Mr. Waldegrave: Not more!
Mr. Brandreth: This is beginning to worry my right hon. Friend. Half a dozen members of my family are on the public payroll—and now me, too. A -magnificent seven" of us are living off the state. For us, the funds continue to flow in. and with any change we feel threatened.
I mentioned the threat that was clearly felt by the 90 Members who decided last night to vote against a pay freeze, despite what people are feeling all over the country and the effect that it might have if the example were followed in local authorities, which have been given a 3·7 per cent. increase. Seven tenths of local government expenditure goes on salaries, but if authorities keep to the guideline of up to 1·5 per cent. that will not force cuts on anybody. But cuts will be forced if people follow the example given by Opposition Members, including, I believe—I am ready to be corrected—Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who voted to put their own snouts in the gravy at a time when restraint is called for.
A survey of Members conducted at the last general election showed that 79 per cent. of the new intake had no experience of business or manufacturing. They were teachers, social workers, lawyers—dirty work I know, but somebody has got to do it—journalists, trade union officials and political researchers. It is a pretty depressing litany and we have to break the mould. We must confront the real world, which is what market testing is all about.

1061
We must break the mould and cope with change, because without it and without being ready to confront change, we shall not achieve any improvement.
I have a distinguished—I use the word nicely—forebear by the name of Jeremiah Brandreth, who was the last person to be beheaded in this country for treason. He was executed at Derby on 7 November 1817. I do not believe that my ancestor was guilty of the sedition with which he was charged, but I must share with the House the family secret that he was a Luddite. He was known as the hopeless radical; it is a funny feeling knowing that his soul descendants are on the Opposition Benches—the other side. That is why I have that nice familial feeling tonight.
My ancestor was a Luddite; he could not cope with change. There are people—sadly, they include Labour Members—who believe that we should go on doing things exactly as we have always done them, simply because they have always been done that way. Unlike Jeremiah Brandreth, I believe in change. In Lord Liverpool's day, those who were locked in the past may have been executed; happily, today we have a much more civilised approach. We call it the citizens charter.
8 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: We were promised quality rather than quantity from the Conservative side tonight, but we seem to have had a fair amount of quantity from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth).
I was glad to see "The Citizen's Charter—First report: 1992" yesterday. One of my first contributions in the House after being elected in April was a call for the Government to follow York city council's example in being the first public authority not only to produce a citizens charter but to publish an annual report on its successes and failures in implementing its charter standards. At that stage I was not given a firm assurance that that would be mirrored by the national charter, so I am delighted that only six months later the report has appeared. I wish that all Cabinet Ministers would listen as readily to my suggestions, and I congratulate the Ministers concerned on producing such an important part of the citizens charter initiative.
I was interested in one comment made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he introduced the White Paper yesterday. He said:
"more than 90 per cent. of the 150 or so initial commitments"—
I find it slightly odd that he should talk about "150 or so" commitments rather than a precise number. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"more than 90 per cent. of the 150 or so initial commitments in the citizens charter White Paper have been met or are in hand".—[Official Report, 25 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 869.]
I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many commitments have been met and how many are in hand. I would gladly give way now if he wished to give me the information—or perhaps the question will be answered by the Minister who sums up.
I ask that question because I carried out my own survey, if that is how it should be described, by asking parliamentary questions in the summer, on the first anniversary of the publication of the citizens charter. I wanted to find out how many of the 10 key promises which the Prime Minister made in introducing the charter to Paliament on 22 July 1991 had been fulfilled. I found that only one had clearly been achieved one year after the
1062
charter was published. That achievement, which has already been mentioned, was to reduce the waiting time for driving tests to a little more than five weeks. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said earlier that in 1988 the waiting time was 13 weeks, but that by the time the charter was published it had fallen to seven weeks. Since publication, the time has been driven down by a further two weeks.
I do not belittle that achievement, but I wish that such demonstrable benefits could be shown in more of the areas in which the charter made promises. To say that a matter is in hand is not the same as to say that what has been promised has been done. It is a little like saying, "My cheque is in the post." It is promise rather than fulfilment.
Shortage of time prevents me from commenting on all the areas covered by the charter, but I have picked out one—the health service and the patients charter—partly because I am familar with the subject and partly because the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was Secretary of State for Health when the charter was published.
"The Citizen's Charter—First report: 1992", which was published yesterday, lists 10 key rights and entitlements under the heading of patients and the patients charter. I refer back to the document published a year ago, the patients charter, which listed 19 key rights and entitlements. What has happened to the other nine?
Among the missing rights is the patient's right to be referred to a consultant acceptable to him or her. We know that the internal market now means that patients can go only where the contract is placed. A second missing right is the right to a second medical opinion. A third is the right to ensure that everyone, including people with special needs, can use services. A fourth missing right is patients' right to have their community care needs settled before being discharged from hospital. A fifth is the right to have one's complaint, if one has cause for complaint, dealt with promptly. That was one of the three key new rights introduced in the patients charter—but it does not appear in the one-year report.
Other rights which appeared in the patients charter have now been subtly and quietly watered down. The patients charter said that patients should be guaranteed admission for treatment by a specific date. The new document says that the patient should
"be guaranteed admission to hospital for virtually all treatments by a specific date".
That is a subtle introduction of new words which allow some treatments and conditions to be exempted. Why has the commitment been watered down, and why are the reasons for watering it down not spelled out? Why is the public sector's performance against the standards set in the "150 or so" commitments not spelled out? It is spelled out for some but for many it is not.
For instance, the patients charter promised that out-patients would be given a specific appointment time and be seen within 30 minutes of that time. In the summer I asked the Secretary of State for Health to find out in how many cases that promise was being met. The answer which I received was:
"This information is not collected centrally."
Another patients charter promise was that patients would be seen immediately for an initial assessment on arrival at an accident and emergency department. I asked the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients were seen when they arrived at an accident and

1063
emergency department within five minutes, within 15 minutes and within 30 minutes. The answer which I received was:
"This information is not collected centrally."
I asked about the commitment in the patients charter to the effect that
"your operation should not be cancelled on the day you are due to arrive at hospital." [Official Report; 13 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 516 and 514.]
I asked the Secretary of State what proportion of patients had their operations cancelled on the day that they were due to arrive in hospital. I received the same answer—the information was not collected centrally.
The patients charter says that the patient has a right to have his complaint dealt with promptly, so I asked what proportion of complaints from patients were dealt with within one week, within one month, within three months or within a longer period. Again, the answer was that the information was not collected.
The patients charter says that health authorities should ensure that services can be used by everyone, including people with physical disabilities, by ensuring that buildings can be used by people in wheelchairs. That is a laudable aim—so I asked the Secretary of State what proportion of NHS buildings were accessible to people in wheelchairs. I was told that the information was not held centrally.
I could cite many more examples in which the answer to such questions is, "Dunno, mate." I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how he could be so sure when he told the House yesterday that 90 per cent. of the promises in the citizens charter were being met, when information on so many of them is not collected by the Government. How does he know?
I do not want to be uncharitable, so I point out that some of the standards are being met. The driving test standard has been met. The redundant workers charter promises that 80 per cent. of claims for redundancy payments will be paid within 14 weeks. I checked and found that the figure was 84 per cent. The charter standard has been out-performed. Some standards have been massively out-performed. Ninety per cent. of work permit applications were processed within eight weeks, against the charter standard of 75 per cent. In this area, it seems that the Government are taking a leaf out of Joseph Stalin's book. He managed dramatically to out-perform all his five-year plans by setting standards that were easy to achieve.
All the evidence tells us that if, as in the case of the work permit office, the Government set the standards low, it pays to set standards low. If, perhaps under pressure from a Minister, a civil servant is tempted to aim high, he can always get off the hook. Either the data are not collected so that no one can measure success or failure against published standards or, if the data are collected, the findings are not published in the annual report on the citizens charter. If the Government are really on the hook, the wording of a promise can be changed. The promise, for example, that patients will be treated within a certain time becomes a promise that patients will receive surgery within a certain time in almost all cases.
The golden rule seems to be that people can do what they like as long as they do not let on. If they do not let on, nobody will ever notice, they hope. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to notice and to hold the
1064
Government to account, as we are doing tonight. It is noticeable that there is no Select Committee that deals with citizen charter issues. The separate departmental Select Committees can examine the promises and the performance of individual departments, such as the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, but there is no point at which the strategy of the citizens charter is open to scrutiny in the way that the work of individual Departments is. Why are the Government so shy? What have they to hide?
8.12 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your days at school that there was an English king of whom it was said:
"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York."
To a certain extent, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). I prefer to say that the sun has come from Chester this evening. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) surpasses many this Session. I have a secret to impart to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in addition to those already revealed by my hon. Friend. We agreed to swap speeches before my hon. Friend delivered his speech. His speech was a tour de force and I congratulate him.
There are four limbs to the citizens charter programme: privatisation, where it is appropriate; competition, where it is possible; the devolution of decision-making; and the application of charter principles, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester spoke so eloquently.
There has been a good deal of progress in privatisation since 1979. Some 46 major activities and many smaller ones have been privatised, to the benefit of the British public. That scheme of things has caused annoyance, dismay and alarm on Opposition Benches. There is alarm and dismay because, as the programme unfolds year by year, Opposition Members see the good sense of it and they see the poverty of their own arguments levelled against them. Why should the British public be imprisoned by monolithic, state-run organisations? The Government —the state—had no business being involved in so many of the activities that have now been privatised. I am sure that many of my constituents welcomed the privatisations of the past few years.
We know that there are to be further privatisations, and we welcome that in matters in which the Government have no proper role and in which there is no constitutional need for them to be involved. Why on earth should the Government—the state—be involved in the running and day-to-day management of an agency such as Companies House? It is ludicrous and unnecessary for the Government to be involved in such detailed work. The work could clearly be covered by an agency and I trust that it will be before long. Other examples are the docklands light railway, the drivers and vehicle operators information technology department, the National Engineering Laboratory, Parcel Force and the vehicle inspectorate. They are all areas of national life that are capable of being dealt with by non-governmental agencies. The sooner they are, the better they will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester has dealt eloquently with the concept of market testing and I do not propose to add to what he said on competition. The third area is the devolution of decision-making, which, in essence, means taking decisions closer to the customer. As

1065
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, in instances where, for whatever reason, there is no choice but public ownership and no chance of competition being applied, the third of the four elements must come into play.
Our role must be to devise and apply disciplines that, in their own way, are no less demanding than open decisions. Why should we not bring to the public sector the disciplines of the private sector? As my right hon. Friend said, the system that we have used has been the creation of next steps executive agencies at arm's length from Whitehall. I understand that such agencies are increasingly, although grudgingly, being accepted as the proper way forward by Opposition Members.
The next steps programme, which was initially opposed by the Labour party, has revolutionised the organisation and management of the civil service. Some 76 agencies have been established and a further 27 candidates have been announced. Half the civil service is already working along next steps lines. I very much look forward to the day when the other half does the same.
The fourth element of the proposals is the citizens charter. The charter brings to bear on the public services a range of additional disciplines including the monitoring of performance and the publication of results, and consultation with service users to ensure that services are geared not to the convenience of the providers, but to the needs of the public. Why should Opposition Members fear that? Surely we are here to provide the public with a service and not a straitjacket. The third discipline is the introduction of truly independent inspection procedures so that public services are assessed not only by expert professionals, but by members of the public who use and rely on those services.
An area of the citizens charter of which I have some knowledge from my work as a lawyer is the courts charter and its application to the criminal and civil justice systems. Hon. Members may have had a chance to glance at the first report which deals in some detail with the citizens charter's application to the criminal and civil justice systems. Those of us who work in the justice system well know the frustration of clients, whether plaintiffs or defendants, or members of the police who are helping with prosecutions.
We know well the frustrations felt by jurors who come involuntarily to court to assist in the system of justice and of other lawyers who wish to get before the court when our case has finished. We know the existing deficiencies of the system, which the courts charter seeks to address. It will now be necessary for witnesses to be given more information before they arrive in court, and it will be essential, the charter promises, that they are kept in touch with the progress of their case on the day. That is not unfair; it is entirely reasonable and should be advanced as quickly as possible.
The courts charter also provides that arrangements should be made for vulnerable witnesses, such as elderly people, children and rape victims, to visit courts in advance of the proceedings. Going to court as a witness—be it involuntarily or voluntarily, to assist a friend—or as a party to a civil action, can be one of the most terrifying experiences for a member of the ordinary public. Imagine what it must be like for a person who is wholly unused to the somewhat Dickensian atmosphere of the High Court or a county court in a town or city far away from his or her
1066
own small town or village to have to come to terms with that strange environment and get used to giving evidence high up on a pedestal.
I have only had to give evidence once—at Wandsworth county court—and although by then I had had 10 years' experience at the Bar, I can assure the House that it was much more frightening than appearing before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which I did not so long ago.
The charter also includes national targets for reducing delays in bringing cases to court, which were published last July together with details of performance against those targets. One of the great frustrations that both parties and lawyers face is the problem of listing. Often, a case listed for a particular day cannot be reached because the cases in front of it have been delayed—for good or bad reasons.
I am glad to see that the courts charter deals with that, because it seems to me that a revised and modernised system of listing, which can make use of all the computer technology now available to us, will enhance the role of the listing officer at the county court or the High Court so that we get a proper standard of efficient throughput. I fully accept that there is no justice in rushed justice. If a case requires a week, let it take a week. Equally, though, there is no justice in delayed justice. A man whose case is not reached on the day on which he expects it to be has good reason to be aggrieved and will think the less of our justice system for it. The courts charter will deal with that or do its best to do so.
Some 30 per cent. more cases have been transferred from the High Court to the local county courts, which, by definition, are easier to access for parties and witnesses. I know from my own experience of the High Court here in London that many civil jury cases, particularly those dealing with false imprisonment and malicious prosecution—cases against police forces—are now being referred to county courts in and around London, especially to the Croydon court centre. That has enabled the throughput of cases to be increased greatly over the past two years.
That procedure should be encouraged, and cases that are simple as matters of law and matters of fact—albeit important to those involved in them—should be transferred to a forum as close to the citizen as possible. I applaud the trend to move cases out of the High Court to the county court. I add to that a plea that there should be sufficient judges appointed to meet the new load on the county courts, that sufficient courts should be made available for judges to sit in and that the judges should be adequately remunerated for their work—but that may be a debate for another day.
It is essential that the greatest efficiency is brought to bear on our criminal justice system and our civil justice system. Without it, the system will crumble. Without lit, well-founded feelings of annoyance will exacerbate the frustrations that we all feel when Big Brother lets us down. It is vital that, with the Government's encouragement, we proceed rapidly towards the fullest possible use of the citizens charter throughout the system of government.
8.24 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I agree with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about one thing: I, too, have given evidence in court, arid I agree with him that it is a frightening experience for anyone to be a witness, especially in a Crown court. I have

1067
not had the experience of being dismissed or declared redundant, but I imagine that that, too, is a frightening experience. That is one of the things that the debate should be about, and I shall come back to it later in my speech.
I want to deal first, however, with the speech of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). It is silly for Government supporters such as the hon. Gentleman to pretend that Labour Members are satisfied with the way things are and to claim that we accept low standards of performance from the civil service. The civil servants working in the city of Birmingham would tell him that it is Labour Members who are most demanding, who have the highest expectations and who set the highest standards of performance for civil servants. That is because we believe in the public service. We want a better public service and we are entitled to ask our civil servants to perform to higher standards, just as they are entitled to say to us that, if we want the highest possible standards, we must pay respectable wages in return. That, too, is one of the things that the debate should be about.
The hon. Member for City of Chester was too easily convinced by the targets set by the Benefits Agency. I recently went to the local office of an executive agency in my constituency and discussed with the local manager the performance targets that had been set for that office. Of the nine performance targets, seven showed no improvement this year over last. The other two showed a deterioration. In other words, the target for the current year is worse than the performance last year. When I asked that manager, "How on earth have you got away with this? How have you managed to convince your boss that you should have seven targets that are no better and two that are worse?", he told me, "Mr. Davis, I am better than the national average, so of course my boss lets me slip back a couple of performance indicators." That is how targets are operating locally.
Market testing has nothing to do with trying to get the best out of the civil service or with improvements in its quality. It is not—as the hon. Member for City of Chester said it was—something to do with getting things done in a better way. Market testing has nothing to do with the improvement of service; it has to do with two Government objectives, the first of which is cutting costs—reducing the cost of the civil service. As most of the cost of the civil service goes in civil servants' wages—it is a labour-intensive service—one can only reduce that cost by reducing civil servants' wages. It has nothing to do with measuring the human cost and everything to do with cutting the financial cost. We are talking not about doing things better but about doing them more cheaply.
The second Government objective is to privatise as much as possible. The hon. Member for Harborough was clear about it. He tore away the veil of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I respect his integrity. He is dogmatic, and believes that privatisation is better—that things are done better by private organisations. He does not realise that, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says, some things may be done better in the public sector.
The reason the Government want to privatise the civil service is that they want to create profit opportunities for private firms, both large and small. Those companies care only about making a profit. It follows that, if they are to
1068
do the work more cheaply and make a profit, they must pay lower wages and provide poorer conditions for the people who do the clerical jobs and dirty jobs in the civil service. It is inevitable that the workers will be paid less and enjoy poorer conditions.
The way in which market testing will work is that the Government will market-test a particular activity in the civil service. A contractor will tender at a price which is less than the calculated cost of the civil servants who do the work at present. The contract will be given to the outside contractor, and the people who do the work will have two possibilities.
The first possibility is that they will simply be declared redundant—at the expense of the taxpayer. The second is that they will be taken over, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confidently forecast, by the outside contractor who wins the job. There is no guarantee that the workers will be taken over by the private contractor, or that they will enjoy the same wages, negotiating conditions and terms of employment which were so hard won by the civil service trade unions. The workers will be expected to work on exactly the same basis as so many people in the health service, who are expected to do the work that they did before the service was contracted out.
Many people who do the dirty jobs and domestic jobs in hospitals, and security guards in hospitals, are paid less than they were previously for the same work. I have met unemployed people who say that they used to work at the local hospital. They do not work there any more because the work was contracted out. They were offered a job at a reduced wage by the private contractor who won the bid.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, said that his party was all about giving people control over their lives. I cannot imagine anything that takes away someone's control over his or her life more than being unemployed. Being unemployed gives people no choice whatever. It is the total destruction of their personal liberty. Their status, income and everything else depend on having a job. Not only their financial resources but their psychological value in society depend on their being employed. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats should recognise that it is nonsense to tell people that the citizens charter and market testing are all about giving people control over their lives.
Some people will become unemployed; other will keep their jobs because the civil service will be forced, in the market-testing procedure, to bid and to put in tenders for work that is already done by the civil service. We have seen the way in which the Government impede that process. The Government may say that they want to see what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster always calls a level playing field. I remind the House what a level playing field is in practical terms. We have had some experience of it.
Several of my hon. Friends mentioned the Inland Revenue. When the Inland Revenue prepares in-house bids, it is required to include an on-cost to take account of the civil service pension scheme. The on-cost is 13·5 per cent. of the wage bill because the Government have calculated that the value of the pension scheme for civil servants is 13·5 per cent. Of course, the figure takes into account everybody in the civil service—not simply people on the lowest wages who do not have a good pension but those on the highest wages who have good pensions. The process is therefore weighted against the civil servants whose jobs are market-tested.

1069
A group of typists in Bristol who are subject to market testing took the initiative and went to an insurance company for a quotation for their pension scheme. They were told that it would be 6 per cent. of their wages. That figure compares with the 13·5 per cent. that the Government make management include in the bid for the work that those people do at present. If management cannot find other savings of at least 7·5 per cent., workers lose their jobs and become unemployed. That is a scandal. It loads the dice against the people who do the jobs at present.
Another Bill is going through the House at present. The Civil (Management Functions) Bill introduces local pay bargaining and settlements for precisely the same reason as we have discussed tonight. The purpose is not decentralisation, which many of my hon. Friends support. It is to break national pay agreements and have pay agreements negotiated locally. That will enable managers to keep the work by having lower wage rates than they have at present.
Market testing is a one-way street. We never hear about market testing the other way. We never hear about the civil service being given the opportunity to quote for private work. Why should we not have public enterprise? Why should the civil service not be able to do the work it does well? If the Chancellor means what he says, he should accept that there are some things that the civil service does very well. Why should the civil service not quote for work from private companies? Apparently, that idea never crossed the mind of this dogmatic Government.
Market testing is not the only one-way street; there are others. Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned confidentiality. Indeed, some Conservative Members have made the same point. When we read this morning's newspapers, we were horrified to see the breach of confidentiality involving the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall not make any jibes about that. It is scandalous that the Chancellor's private affairs should be put on the front page of newspapers. I should condemn that breach of confidentiality whether it involved a Conservative or an Opposition Member. But that is not the point. The point is that there must have been a breach of confidentiality.
The Inland Revenue is not the only organisation with confidential information. The Department of Social Security has a great deal of information about individuals, their families and their relationships. The Employment Service has a similar amount of information about individuals, their families, their relationships and their dependants. All that information is at risk. It would be ridiculous to suggest that there would be leaks from all private firms in the country. We do not have leaks from all banks.
The difference is that, in the case of Access and the National Westminster bank, which owns Access, an individual citizen has a choice. If we believe that there is a risk of breach of confidentiality with regard to our Access or bank account, we can go to another bank. We will not be able to choose another Inland Revenue, regardless of whether its work has been market-tested and contracted out. There will only ever be one Inland Revenue, one Department of Social Security, one Benefits Agency and one Employment Service. Individuals have no choice between private and public or between different private firms. Individuals will go to the Inland Revenue, the social
1070
security office and the local employment office. What is more, they are required to give private personal information to those agencies and departments.
We can choose how much information we give our bank; we have no choice whatever about the information that we give to the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security or the Employment Service when benefits are calculated. We are required by law to give that information. All citizens and all hon. Members should he concerned about the clear risk of confidentiality shown by the experience of the Chancellor in his personal affairs.
Not only civil servants but all of us are affected. Civil servants are especially affected because their jobs are at risk. Their jobs will go as a result of market testing. That is why more than 800 typists and secretaries at the Inland Revenue—they are hardly a militant group of trade unionists—came to London today to protest about their work being market-tested and their jobs being put at risk. They are bewildered and angry, and they cannot understand why the Government are doing that to them. They have given years of service to this Government and previous Governments. Many of them have worked in the civil service for 20 or 30 years.
They have experience and proven loyalty over many years; but loyalty is another two-way street. Civil servants cannot understand why the Government are not loyal to them. The Government are prepared to sack them to get the job done more cheaply for lower wages, despite their service in the past. It is not surprising that civil servants feel that the Government have no confidence in them and place little value on their years of service. The time will come in three or four years when those civil servants will have an opportunity to say that they have no confidence in the Government.
8.38 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). I find it depressing that he scorned and jeered at the importance of trying to instil value for money and standards in the civil service, when we spend taxpayers' money on running it. I find it rather cheap that he should deliberately go in for scaremongering tactics, suggesting that jobs are at risk because contracts are being put out to the private sector. He suggests that people will automatically be paid less. Jobs put out to the private sector mean more jobs in that sector—it is merely a shift from one to the other.
We must ask ourselves; who is paying for our civil service? Undoubtedly, the answer is the hon. Gentleman, me and the taxpayer. I sometimes find it galling that the Opposition totally fail to connect Government spending with the fact that all that money comes out of every working man and woman's pay packet. Let there be no doubt about the Government's commitment to cutting waste. It is a moral responsibility, and it is admirable that they have got around to it. I welcome their initiatives in that direction.
In these belt-tightening times, it is even more appropriate that we should ensure that our civil service gives value for money, in much the same way that the private sector does. It is salutary that we should have the guts and the courage for close self-analysis.
We are talking about improving public services—improving the way in which they serve their customers and

1071
ensuring that they provide value for money. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Hodge Hill said, market testing is a good way to achieve that. I find it strange that, just for the sake of principle, he is determined to knock it down.
Market testing has been a significant step forward and the Government have been working on it for some time. It is salutary that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday announced that £1·5 billion of Whitehall work is to be exposed to competition. The Government have been developing that policy for the past four years and when they began, the amount was only £25 million. We should congratulate the Government on extending that commitment fiftyfold.
It is essential for all competing services to offer better value for money than the civil service. If work can be done cheaper outside, without any loss of quality—we set great store by quality—[Laughter.] It is true. We must use outside contractors if work can be done cheaper, as that is a far better use of taxpayers' money. The service must be exposed to competition. It has never had that pressure in the past, but the taxpayers' money now comes first.
If we consider areas where private sector companies and service users have been put in the same category, we learn a great deal. An article in the Financial Times today mentions value and the fact that tendering is good news for taxpayers, service users and private sector companies alike. It states:
"Yesterday's announcement that more than 44,000 jobs in the United Kingdom civil service are to be put out to tender is good news for companies that are well-placed to bid for the contracts…the prospect of almost £1·5 billion of new business in the next 10 months is welcome. But it is also good news for the taxpayer, who can expect significant savings in public expenditure—and better quality services to boot."
Let us examine the services that could be dealt with in that way: financial services, such as basic clerical functions; audit services; payroll duties; keeping the books; and some legal services could be included. Why cannot property and estate management be contracted out? The Department of Health is relocating one of its offices to Leeds. Why not use a private firm to look after the maintenance, cleaning, heating and lighting of the property, instead of recruiting the civil service? It would be far better if the task where leased out. The Government will maintain control of what I call the hands-on function, but it will be privately managed. In that way, one can get the best of all worlds.
What about information technology? Should not the maintenance of computer hardware and programming be put out to private contractors? What about financial legal services, such as conveyancing of Government property—for example, when the Department of the Environment buys land for roads and other projects? Many companies could compete and, with the peaks and troughs in the market, the advantage for the Government is in not having to keep on full-time staff unnecessarily. They could rise to the occasion and take advantage of outside contractors. The saving on full-time employees is obvious.
I remind Opposition Members that we would be shifting civil service employees to the private sector. There is no suggestion that they would lose their jobs. Customs and Excise debt collection is another possibility, which is also subject to variations in demand. It must be more economical.
Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Lady says that there is no question of civil servants losing their jobs and that they are simply shifting to the private sector. Is she prepared to give a firm guarantee to that effect?
Lady Olga Maitland: I am sorry, but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Davis: Is the hon. Lady prepared to say unequivocally that, as a result of market testing, civil servants will not lose their jobs, but will simply change employers?
Lady Olga Maitland: It is simply a matter of market forces and of moving from one area to another by natural selection. That is important. It is more economical to use half the civil servants on a permanent basis and to use half in the private sector according to need; hence the need to use local solicitors.
Home Office dog training is a more quixotic area, which could be contracted out. Until now, guard dogs and dogs that sniff for drugs have been trained by civil service dog trainers. Does one need in-house dog trainers? The Home Secretary could survive very well by using an outside service, from which I am sure he would get cheaper service and, in many cases, better value.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food uses the Royal Navy to mount surveillance on foreign fishing vessels which operate inside the limit. Why not use outside contractors with their own patrol boats instead? I understand that British companies are already providing such a service for companies overseas—for heaven's sake, let us use them at home.
What about engineering services? The Ministry of Defence has sub-contracted aircraft maintenance, instead of using its employees.
Catering could be contracted out. Five years ago, there were more cooks than economists at the Treasury—a strange state of affairs. Why did not the Treasury manage better and apply its financial rectitude to cookery? The answer is to contract out, put catering in the right hands and get better food, more efficient use of staff and value for money.
Why should the civil service pensions administration be considered a great sacred cow and have to be dealt with internally? The pensions work could be managed by an outside contractor. There are scores of private sector businesses providing the service for other employers. The whole pensions sphere should not be considered sacrosanct.
We can learn many lessons from the past. Where there has been competition in sections of central Government, savings have averaged 25 per cent., with no loss of quality. It is interesting to note that, when contracts have remained in-house, after close examination with outside competition, the same saving has been achieved. We must have more stringent examination of our affairs. The fact that that has not happened must mean that outside comparisons have not been made.
The Government have had great strength of character in examining the way in which we examine our affairs. They accept that we must no longer believe in the old adages about the state providing all, with other people's money being spent. We must have a more reasonable way of looking at life.
Labour Members have thrown several red herrings into the debate. For example, they talk about confidentiality.

1073
Safeguards apply in the civil service whether the work is done in-house or outside. For example, the defence industry would not flourish if the Ministry of Defence could not trust outside contractors. The code of conduct that has existed all along works very well indeed.
Why should the honesty and integrity of private sector employees be considered any less than that existing in the public sector? In many cases, a criminal offence would be committed if information were divulged, irrespective of whether employees were in the public or private sector.
I remind the hon. Member who referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's affairs that if the details had been exposed to the public through a leak by the Inland Revenue, a criminal offence would have been committed. Had the work been contracted outside the civil service to a contractor, my right hon. Friend's affairs would still have been sacrosanct. Opposition Members seem committed to opposing any privatising of the civil service. They are opposed to change, irrespective of reality and modern methods of working.
I remind them that we are talking not about the core work of the civil service but about its support services, so we should concentrae on the core business of the civil service, which we are good at and can conduct efficiently, and let the experts deal with what might be called the subsidiary work. In other words, let us ensure that the country gets real value for money.
8.53 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: Conservative Membes have indulged in some knock-about debating and general abuse of Labour's position. It is important for us to explain precisely what we favour, because our view has been rather parodied.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said, we are in favour of rigour in the provision of public services. We want efficiency, effectiveness and economy. We are also in favour—more so than Conservative Members—of equity in the provision of those services.
We support the concepts of decentralisation and devolution of implementation and we recognise that the public services must be under constant review. We have always appreciated the need for making improvements where possible, and we are keen to ensure that new ideas and systems are applied to the public service. That demonstrates our commitment to change.
We accept that the civil service should be modernised and we want many sections of it to move away from a safety-first and cannot-do attitude. The agency system has helped in that process, and we welcome it.
While the Government claim to be engaged in an exercise to improve the public service, we are bound to be cynical about their commitment to the public sector. Many people believe that the Conservative recrod shows that the Government want to destroy the public service and cast everyone concerned with it to the vagaries of the market, apart from law and order and defence—items that go to create a strong state—and a few other sectors which they feel obliged to maintain in the public sector.
The Government make the assumption that everything should go out to tender unless, for some reason, it must stay. My hon. Friends and I do not say that everything
1074
must stay in-house. We prefer to take an objective look at where services are best provided. That is the way to determine where they should be performed.
We are in conflict with the Government on certain issues. I shall concentrate on the question of devolution as compared with contracting out. In some instances there is a discrepancy between the policy of the Government of devolving management and their determination to contract out the work done by certain agencies.
The decision whether to contract out work should be determined by whether a better service would be achieved by contracting out or by leaving the service where it is. The Government seem to have a prejudiced view and think that everything would be better done in the private sector. That has led them to try to sectionalise the work of individual units or agencies.
That has led the Government to seek to break up the work of a complete organisation, such as the National Savings bank. They then identify a section of activity, such as clerical services, cost it and make it compete. That results in the staff involved, competing for their own jobs, having an inevitable self-interest in trying to minimise the amount of work that they undertake for other sections beyond the contract that has been undertaken. There is pressure on them to have a narrower focus on what they are doing, concentrating on their own self-interest.
Managers in the public sector should be set clear targets and be left to get on with determining how best to achieve those objectives. Agencies should be examined as a whole. The managers and staff should be given an opportunity to take a realistic perspective, which does not mean artificially chopping off certain sections and contracting them out. I am not aware of staff in the private sector having artificially set targets involving a proportion of work being put out to a subsidiary, to the private sector or to the public sector. Nobody in the private sector operates in that way. People make their own decisions.
There is a contradiction between saying that targets should be established for agencies and telling people how to achieve those objectives. If the Government were genuinely committed to the principles of decentralisation and devolution, they would set rigorous targets and output figures and then tell managers, "It's your responsibility. We shall not tell you exactly how to carry out those functions."
To do otherwise is to centralise. In many ways, the Government are being more centralist than previous Governments by directing managers how to go about achieving their goals.
The process of examination and review that has been going on in the public sector over a long period—not rigorously enough, in my view—shows that the existing system can modify itself. An onus should be placed on the Government to give the existing system an opportunity to self-reform before they artificially divide work tasks.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that she believed that all was likely to happen was that people presently working in the public sector would be moved into the private sector. That is unrealistic because, for many of the tasks now being contracted out or market-tested, the main expense is that of salaries and the main source of competition must come from people who undercut on salaries. That is a clear attempt to drive down wages and conditions of service. Indeed, it is a Darwinian approach. It is how the natural law of selection works.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give us evidence to back up his comments?
Mr. Davidson: Certainly. My former local authority lost public sector cleaning contracts to a private sector company solely on the ground that it undercut on wages. The hon. Lady may look puzzled, but it is true. If she wishes, I could take her to schools in Strathclyde where there is difficulty in recruiting, retaining and motivating cleaners because of the low wages that are being paid.
Many Conservative Members recognise the real difficulty. If local companies are competing on the basis of wage rates alone, in areas of high unemployment the bids —the cost of that work—will inevitably be driven down. But we end up with people who have been recruited because that was the only job available and who have no loyalty because as soon as a better job comes up, they are away. There is great difficulty in retaining those workers and the staff have no enthusiasm for their work.
If the Government insist that managers must market test, the managers involved must be left free to pick from the bids as they see fit, according to the criteria that they wish to apply. There is more to bids than cost. Local authorities have been obliged to accept bids solely on the basis of cost and have not been allowed to take quality into account. It is important that they be allowed to take multiple indicators into account when assessing bids.
Another point that I discussed in Committee was where the policy of contracting out clashes with another announced Government policy—dispersal. I am keen as are many of my hon. Friends from deprived areas of the country—areas which a Conservative Member called "the provinces"—to ensure that Government functions are transferred to our areas. We must be clear about what happens in circumstances where there is a clash between how a contract is allocated, if it is done solely on price, and the Government's regional policy.
An example was given earlier of the possibility of the Metropolitan police data processing contract going to the Phillipines, and the Minister treated it as if to say, "Oh well, that may happen."
People in my area would be horrified if an enormous amount of data processing work in the National Savings bank, which is one of the largest single-site employers in the entire west of Scotland, was alloweed to go somewhere else in the world. That would have a serious effect on the area's economy. The Government must be prepared to recognise that there is a clash between their policies. I hope that they will be prepared to bear in mind my point about the importance of regional policy.
From all that we have heard in this debate, it appears that Conservative Members are biased towards breaking up the public service. We have heard, in Committee and in the Chamber today, that a process of on-going review is under way. I understand that an organisation will be examined for its suitablity for agency status, an examination will be carried out with a view to contracting out and market testing, and subsequently there will then be an opportunity to sell the whole thing off. In those circumstances, it will inevitably be difficult to promote enthusiasm among the staff. If they achieve the targets, they will be working themselves out of a job.
The Government must say whether or not other principles will override their ideologically driven policy which pays little regard to the objectives of public service —to provide a first-class service to its recipients—and has
1076
everything to do with their ideological commitment. Such a commitment should not be the main purpose of Government policy.
9.5 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I shall be brief, as I am aware that two Opposition Members wish to speak and, subject to catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, they will.
I have long sought this opportunity to pay tribute to the ideas and ideals of the citizens charter and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on their excellent work. They are putting firm flesh on the bones of the ideas and ideals contained in the citizens charter and raising standards all round in a thoroughly practical way.
I shall also take the opportunity to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for funding the Agricultural and Food Research Council—theirs is a wide-ranging Department, which is appropriately represented at Cabinet level. We would have liked more money—we would always like more. It came as something of a culture shock to some of the professors on the council when they realised that they might have to co-operate with the private sector to obtain backing for some of their work. That was their initial reaction, but they are now getting thoroughly used to the idea of lunching, and wining—without an "h"—and dining with industrialists, which is good news.
We must be careful, where we have a successful line of near-market research for which independent backing is obtained, that additional funding is not reduced from traditional methods of funding. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their support and the interest that they take in the council. I can assure them that all those involved are grateful to them.
I heard the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I am glad to hear that we are even attempting some reform to obtain higher standards in the legal profession. I hope that over the next few decades something might be achieved. I also listened to the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). I am afraid that they will have to listen to just three or four minutes from this old lag as I comment on the four headings originally identified by my hon. Friends.
The first topic is privatisation where appropriate. I know that when other capitalist countries started to privatise things, the Labour party was against it. When it came to selling council houses, the Labour party was against it. When other socialist countries such as France started to privatise things, the Labour party still opposed it. When Russia started to privatise things, the Labour party went a little quiet. Now that Albania is starting to privatise things, the Labour party is becoming very quiet.
I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is present. I enjoyed a trip to America, the home of capitalism, with him, and I can see from his expression that he is taking in every idea for privatisation. Perhaps there are ramifications for the Dundee Labour party—who knows?
It is true that we have sold much of the family silver —I am proud of that and of the fact that so many other countries are following our example. To some extent, in

1077
cash terms, but not quality terms, we are now talking about the silver plate. Let us privatise British Coal, British Rail, Companies House, the docklands light railway, the driver and vehicle operators information technology department, London Buses, the National Engineering Laboratory, Parcel Force, the vehicle inspectorate and anything else where standards can be increased and we can raise a bob or two. I am not entirely sure, because the period of research available to me tonight was not sufficient, exactly how standards are to be maintained and performance related at the national engineering laboratory, but I am sure that there are no insuperable problems there.
Competitive tendering matters and market testing were so capably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) that I will pass them over. There are very few sectors that are such a natural monopoly that there cannot be some competition, or comparative competition, brought into them. Initially we were criticised because British Telecom, for instance, would have a monopoly, but it is quite clear, after a period of years and the growth of the market, that competitors are increasingly coming to compete with British Telecom. No doubt it will welcome, in due course, the increased competition.
I was very glad to hear that my right hon. Friend has said, with regard to taking decisions close to the customer, which must be our constant aim,
"in those instances where, for whatever reason, there is no choice but public ownership and no chance of competition being applied…our role must be to devise and apply disciplines that, in their own way, are no less demanding than open competition."
Since he said those words a few months ago, he would no doubt agree with me that the more we look into things, the fewer the cases we find in which some competition cannot be instilled. The aim of introducing competition, I believe, is that, unlike the monolithic structures of a few years ago, nowadays the buck has to stop somewhere.
I was very pleased to have the booklet "Citizen's Charter News" with the charter logo and the heading "Raising the standard"—I am not sure whether it should not be "raising the standards". From the original ideas, we now have a good idea of the very wide spread of my right hon. Friend's activities, on health, education, travel, street works, services areas—and, my word, some improved standards are needed there on a bank holiday—driving tests, railways, London Underground, utilities, post offices, employment service, the Benefits Agency, and much more besides. Everything is to do with the improvement of standards; that must be our constant aim.
There has been some criticism this week of the tables produced for certain schools. It is no great secret that in one or two cases, in the compilation of statistics, the suggestion "might do better" could apply. The basic difference between this side of the House and the other is that we believe that parents are entitled to this information and that they have enough intelligence to know that this is one of a number of factors likely to guide and guard them in choosing schools for their children. This is not a privilege for parents; it is a fundamental right. It may be that in some rural areas, such as the one that I represent, because of geography parents may not be able to make full use of those extra privileges which are rightly theirs.
1078
In conclusion, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench: well done to date; keep up the good work.
9.12 pm
Mr. John McAllion: Conservative Members, in particular the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), seemed to take great offence at the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) that privatisation leads to wage cuts. The hon. Lady called for evidence, and she was given some by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson). I will give her some direct from the civil service itself.
The Inland Revenue in Nottingham has recently contracted out its typist and secretarial contracts to the private sector company Blue Arrow. Civil Service rates for typists are in the pay band up to £9,405 outside London; the Blue Arrow rate is £7,800, with a 20p productivity bonus. The civil service rate for personal secretaries is in the pay band up to £11,521; the Blue Arrow rate is £8,775—considerably less. If the hon. Lady does not understand now, she had better come to understand in the future that you get what you pay for. If people are looking for real value for money in the public services, they should keep jobs inside the civil service, where people are properly paid and where they reach the proper standards expected of important Government Departments.
When the Chancellor of the Duchy introduced the citizens charter White Paper in the House yesterday, he spoke of a future agenda for further action. A key part of the agenda is the extension of compulsory competitive tendering and market testing. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that these and other measures would be at the heart of the Government's agenda for the 1990s.
Before the right hon. Gentleman thrusts market testing and CCT to the heart of the Government's agenda for the next decade, he should try to understand the full implications of those processes. For instance, does he fully understand the implications of the TUPE regulations? He will know that they are the regulations that protect workers whose employer changes hands as a result of a legal transfer or merger. He will also know that the very core of the regulations is that workers' existing contracts of employment are automatically continued under the new employer. They may move from the civil service to the private sector, but under TUPE they should get the same wages, conditions, holiday entitlements and redundancy agreements.
The Thatcher Government did not introduce the regulations on their own initiative. The natural instinct of her Government was to undercut workers' rights, not to protect them. The regulations were introduced in 1981 as a result of European Community law, because they were meant to implement EC directive 770/187, which first came into force in 1979.
It took the then Tory Government two years to pass the United Kingdom legislation to give effect to this directive. Even then they tried to get off the European hook of being forced to protect workers' rights under existing contracts by excluding from the TUPE regulations transfers in the public sector described as involving non-commercial ventures. The exact words were:
"Does not include any undertaking or part of an undertaking which is not of a commercial venture".
Since then, the phrase

1079
"not in the nature of a commercial venture"
has been interpreted as excluding from the TUPE regulations the contracting out of public services such as catering, laundry services and cleaning services. With the ever closer European union of which we are now a part, the Government could not go on getting away with this for ever. The TUPE regulations are clearly in breach of the European directive.
Recently, the TUPE regulations' credibility received two massive blows—first, from the ruling by the European Court of Justice in the Sophie Rodmond Stichting case; and, secondly, from the High Court ruling secured by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, in the judicial review against the Secretary of State for Education.
The European Commission has already begun proceedings against the United Kingdom Government for failure to implement the directive correctly since 1979. Moreover, clause 26 of the new Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill effectively accepts that TUPE is in breach of the directive and goes some way towards trying to remedy that. It is clearly an attempt by the Government to head off the European Commission before it drags them through the European Court for being in breach of the directive—an attempt which is unlikely to work because clause 26 goes nowhere near meeting all the EC criticisms of the Government's failure to implement.
All this leaves us in an interesting situation. A number of civil service departments are already beginning to apply TUPE to contracting out. The Central Office of Information has applied TUPE to the contracting out of its photocopying services. The Department for National Savings has applied TUPE to a catering contract that it is putting out to tender, and many other Departments have delayed their market testing programmes while they seek legal advice.
A report in the Financial Times—dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam—is headed:
"FO drops plan for contracting-out".
It goes on to say:
"The Foreign Office announced last night that it had suspended preparations to contract out services because of new regulations protecting workers' pay and conditions when they transfer to the private sector.
The Foreign Office lead is likely to be followed by other departments and underlines the extent to which the government's £1bn programme of contracting out has been thrown into confusion by the regulations."
The Minister may try to deny it, but the source for the story was an official Foreign Office on-the-record briefing, given at its press office to the journalists concerned.
I also have a copy of a letter from the Welsh Office to general managers of district health authorities and other groups which says:
"The issue has arisen as a result of a request for guidance for South Glamorgan Health Authority in relation to catering contracts and we have suggested to the Authority that they should take no further steps to let contracts to a private contractor until we have legal advice. We are drawing this to the attention of all Health Authorities and NHS Trusts so that they can take the fact into account in current market testing exercises."
I also have a letter from the Home Office to the Home Office trade union which says:
"The application of TUPE to contracting out is a very complex area and ought to be considered, and legal advice taken if appropriate, before the tender documents are sent out
1080
since it will significantly affect the position of any tenderer. The general line the Home Office intends to take is that pending clarification from the centre, Invitations to Tender would make it clear that TUPE does apply unless Legal Adviser's Branch have confirmed otherwise."
Some might ask whether all this matters. Yes, it does matter, because if TUPE applies to the transfer of workers from the civil service to the private sector, many contractors will be deterred from bidding for such work. The only way in which the in-house bid can be undercut is by slashing the wages and conditions of the workers involved.
A transcript of the Radio 4 programme "Face The Facts" records John Cutner of Onyx UK, one of the companies involved in trying to win contracts from the public sector, as saying:
"I think it would slightly emasculate what the Government's intention was behind the Compulsory Competitive Tendering regulations which is to reduce the costs to local authorities by opening it up to private sector tendering which would mean that if the private sector win, the employees would effectively be employed on normal private sector conditions."
That means lower wages and worse conditions.
"Therefore, if the regulations are changed, and we would be obliged to take over the ex-council employees on the existing conditions, this of course would mean that our price would be higher and the price of all our competitors would be higher."
Mr. John Hall, chairman of the CBI's competing for quality committee, has already been quoted. He has said:
"On the face of it, there is no longer any point in companies taking part in tenders for public services."
Mr. Hall said that contractors might find it hard to take on existing work forces profitably.
The Minister may argue that it does not matter if the private sector does not try to get the jobs that he is putting through the market testing programme, but it does matter. How else will the 44,000 new jobs be market-tested and put into the private sector if no private sector companies are prepared to pay for existing wages and conditions in the civil service?
The Minister once said that he was interested only in the most competitive supplier and that whether it was public or private did not matter to him; he was interested only in value for money. That is what he tells the House of Commons, but I have here a note from the Treasury which was sent to the principal finance officers, principal establishment officers and others, paragraph 2 of which clearly says:
"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 the private sector rather than the public sector".
The Government's policy is to privatise as much of the public sector as possible. If the TUPE regulations are to be applied they will not be able to achieve the aim of privatising those jobs.
In the past decade, tens of thousands of workers in local government, the national health service and the civil service have lost their jobs or had their wages cut and their conditions made worse as a result of contracting out. Clause 26 in the new employment Bill cannot be applied retrospectively and nor can the TUPE regulations. But the European directive, which came into force in Britain in 1979, can be applied retrospectively.
Trade unions will be making sure that applications are made to the European Court to apply that directive retrospectively to workers affected by it since 1979. Far from contracting out being at the heart of the

1081
Government's agenda in the 1990s, the Minister will find that it will be driven off that agenda by the application of the European directive.
9.24 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: As time is short, I will go to the heart of the matter. It has been argued that this debate is about different issues. We heard from the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) that it is about the state of a portakabin on Chester station, and from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that it has to do with matters such as dog training. Earlier, the Chancellor of the Duchy said that it was nothing more than a question of management adjustment, yet important voices outside the House who understand the issues—I do not mean just the civil service unions—say that market testing is a major constitutional change and ought to be treated as such.
A new managerialism is sweeping across public services throughout the western and eastern world, and it encompasses all ideological perspectives. The key issue is the terms on which it is implemented, yet the House has not quite grasped that. I may add that, although it is late on Thursday evening, it is shameful that only a dozen right hon. and hon. Members are present in the Chamber to debate such a major change.
The Government are determined to cut the public sector, costs and size of the civil service using a variety of strategies and from a number of directions. The terms on which they are doing so give everything away. Are the Government really concerned about the citizen rather than consumers? The apostrophe in "The Citizen's Charter" is very important. A consumer is concerned about a school's position in the league table, whereas a citizen is concerned about the quality of all the schools in the league table.
That is the crucial distinction between the approach to public services on this side of the House and that taken by the Government. One attitude is, "I'm all right, Jack," and the other is, "How is Jack down the road doing?" That will always be the fundamental ideological difference between the Labour and Conservative parties.
If cost-cutting were not the thrust behind the Government's actions, we would be considering the quality of public services and, for example, measures to extend the activities of the National Audit Office. The most recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states that there is massive scope for fast dealing—for making a fast buck and for fraud—in the contracting-out process.
We would also be arguing, given the new spread of Government activity, that only 50 value-for-money audits annually are inadequate. If cost-cutting is not the Government's prime consideration, they would not have resisted the establishing of a Select Committee to examine the citizens charter process. We are told that the charter goes to the core of Government policy, yet they refuse monitoring and regulation and do everything themselves.
The danger signs are seen every time that a right hon. or hon. Member receives a letter from a Minister—as I have, every week for the past three weeks—stating, "Don't write to me any more about these issues—write to the head of the agency." The danger signs are seen every time that we see the fragmentation of the civil service and hear from constituents about quality being driven down because of a preoccupation with cutting costs.
1082
Last week, a local authority carpenter asked me, "Why am I told to use wood that I know is rotten? Because that is the only way that we could get the contract." The same story is told across the length and breadth of the public services, because no independent, external, regulatory agency is monitoring what is happening.
Conservative Members completely misrepresent our approach to public services. Two approaches are currently on offer. The first can simply be called "business government". We have heard of it through the ages: it basically means, "Turn the business of government over to business men." In the past, it has been presented from time to time as an eccentric opinion; this is the first time that it has been taken seriously and placed at the heart of government.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) talked about Stalin, but that approach is really Lenin's idea of getting rid of policy and turning it into administration. What the Government are offering is one version of the end of politics: politics, representation and participation become irrelevant, and everything is dissolved into administration.
The second approach on offer is our approach. We propose a renewal of the public service tradition, to make it much more powerful and responsive to users. One approach renews the tradition; the other damages it, and may even destroy it.
9.30 pm
Ms. Kate Hoey: Despite the small number of hon. Members who are present, I applaud the quality of the debate—even if I cannot applaud the quantity.
Opposition Members feel strongly that we are tremendously well served by our public service—in the civil service, local authorities, the national health service, schools and, indeed, the House. Certainly the civil service is represented in the Officials' Box in terms of quantity, and I presume that there is quality there, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) summed up Labour's position admirably. We are in favour of efficiency and quality, but we are also in favour of extending access and choice. We want to empower people. However, we are also in favour of change when it is proved to be necessary. The Government seem to view the public services purely in terms of a contractual relationship between consumer and provider. We care about the consumer too, but many of our citizens are in no position to have their needs met, and the Government and the community must help to meet those needs.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), I have no children—indeed, tonight's Opposition Front Bench is very much a childless one. That, however, does not lessen my commitment to extending and developing the provision of good-quality child care for everyone.
Let me mention some aspects that the Minister has not dealt with in detail. First, the citizens charter promised to make the business of government more open and acceptable, and therefore more accountable. Similar claims were made at the launch of the next steps programme. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's last report on next steps made the following recommendation:

1083
"The provision of information is vital if agencies are to be accepted by Parliament and the public. We consider it a necessary counterweight to the Minister's voluntary relinquishing of control over matters of routine."
The Select Committee welcomed the publication of business and corporate plans and recommended that
"all agencies should publish them, unless there are pressing commercial reasons which make this inappropriate".
The Government added that it was necessary
"to protect other sensitive information".
There are, in fact, at least 41 agencies whose corporate plans are tagged "commercial—in confidence", and are therefore unavailable for public scrutiny. At least 30 agencies' business plans are similarly restricted. The situation reaches farcical proportions in some agencies. For example, the Transport Research Laboratory describes its business plans as "commercial—in confidence", but they are available for £995. That is commercial, but it is confidential only to the general public. The only people who will benefit are large motor manufacturers and the road industry lobby; few members of the public will do so. We heard little about open government from the Minister.
I am pleased that the Government are catching up on our commitment to decentralise such services closer to the communities that they serve, but I repeat that many of their policies often serve to erode local democracy and accountability.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster added little to the prospects for improving the civil service. The announcement that up to 44,000 of the 560,000 civil service jobs are to be market-tested will have been a sharp pre-Christmas blow to the morale of the service. The Minister has conceded that good morale is vital to the implementation of quality public services, and we agree, so how on earth does he expect the morale of the Inland Revenue's typing and secretarial staff in Glasgow to be anything other than at rock bottom when they read in an advertisement in The Times that their jobs are likely to be given to others in January?
Many hon. Members have expressed concern about the serious issue of confidentiality. The independence, impartiality, objectivity and confidentiality of the civil service are being undermined by market testing and privatisation. Much sympathy has been expressed for the personal difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but many of our constituents constantly experience similar problems with debt companies, hire purchase companies and, indeed, banks. That is the reality of private sector involvement in confidential areas.
The role of the civil service is solely to serve the Government of the day. The role of private companies is much more varied and they have a number of different interests. Civil servants in the Inland Revenue have an exemplary record on confidentiality. The civil service is respected as being objective and free from outside influence. If we go ahead with this proposal, we shall be going down a slippery road indeed.
Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Hoey: I cannot, because I know that the Minister wants 20 minutes compared with my 15 minutes.
If the Government are determined to push through such changes on dogmatic grounds, I hope that they will at least have the good sense to agree to our request to
1084
implement all necessary measures to ensure objectivity. I call on the Minister to accept our invitation to form an independent body to advise on the maintenance of confidentiality in services being considered for privatisation and to regulate and monitor confidentiality post-privatisation.
I move a little from the civil service to draw some parallels with public servants in local authorities. Compulsory competitive tendering has been central to the Government's approach to local government. How can they seriously propose to introduce market testing and privatisation into branches of the civil service at the whim of Ministers, as was stated tonight, and on a strategic basis without considering an in-house bid? The Minister must reply to the questions that we have asked about in-service bids. If a service is efficiently and effectively provided by civil servants and if local managers and workers believe that they can beat off external bidders, are the Government saying that managers and workers will not be allowed to bid? That would not offer a level playing field and would be similar to ordering the team off before they had been allowed to start the game.
Many examples have been given, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), of good practices by Labour authorities that owe everything to good management and local accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar cited many examples of privatised services getting it wrong, and I shall contrast that with one or two examples of how Labour councils have got it right, in-house.
York has already been mentioned, but I also cite the London borough of Merton, which, after moving to Labour control, found itself able to rebuild many of the services which had been dismantled by the former Conservative administration. In the aftermath of the utterly conclusive rejection of opting out by schools, including the Prime Minister's school, the council has been able to offer in-house cleaning contracts of a better standard and at a winning price, compared with the existing privatised service That has been achieved through better management, and by paying a sufficiently decent wage to avoid the problems of low morale, high turnover, frequent sickness and low commitment to the job. Better pay and conditions, happier staff and cleaner schools are all possible, because the council is not trying simply to make a fast buck out of the exercise.
Newcastle city council provides another example. It runs an architects department so successful, especially in designing energy conservation schemes, that it is in great demand from the private sector. The market has shown that the service is not only cheaper but better overall. Only the Government's absurd rules prevent the department from selling its expertise to the private sector, insisting that it be sold only to other councils.
I hope that their own experience will enable hon. Members from both sides of the House to see through the Government's boasts about cutting costs. The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) made an interesting speech, showing an intelligent scepticism and open-mindedness. Unfortunately, he is no longer in the Chamber—or perhaps it is just as well that he cannot hear me praising him. The hon. Gentleman pointed to many of the deficiences in the Government's handling of the move towards privatisation, and he asked, as we all should, whether we are going down the right road to improving quality.

1085
The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central urged caution over British Rail privatisation, too. Despite the rail charter, InterCity has already applied to the Department of Transport to downgrade some of the standards and Network SouthEast has applied to downgrade the Kent coastal line services on the grounds of inability to maintain operating equipment due to lack of investment and falling passenger receipts. A charter for train passengers is not much good if they do not have a train to travel on in the first place.
Elsewhere, in other branches of public service, the Government are forcing through change for change's sake. Will they not concede the basic principle that quality and value for money are improved by good and responsive management and by motivated work forces, working to meet the aims of their local communities? Those shared aims are not achieved simply as a result of being in the private sector or the public sector. They are certainly not achieved by cuts in funding, which inevitably lead to cuts in services.
I hope that the Government have taken on board the many constructive comments which have been made this evening and will feel able to build on the areas of agreement and deal with the concerns raised, rather than simply exaggerating and misrepresenting the areas on which we fundamentally disagree. I hope that the Minister will undertake to return to the House with some answers and some concrete and positive proposals to address those important questions.
9.43 pm
The parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) on what I believe was her debut at the Dispatch Box—and very elegantly she carried it out.
A combination of events this week has given the House a full opportunity to discuss the future of the public services. There was question time on Monday; we published the citizens charter White Paper yesterday, and there was a statement and a debate on that. We had debates last week on the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill. Tonight we have this debate.
We can all agree that that has been a welcome opportunity to debate an important set of subjects. I agree with the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on that, and I share his regret that others have not seen the importance of the issues at stake in this debate.
The debates have brought out clearly the range, the depth and the strength of the Government's commitment to the public service and to the improvement of the public service. They have also brought out clearly the strength of our commitment to the public service, to its staff, to its traditions, to its values and to its ethos. Nothing in our reforms is inconsistent with that commitment.
I was also happy to note how this debate has brought out the extent of agreement between the parties about what our objectives for the public services should be, and about the need to maintain and to improve the quality of our public services. That was very welcome. However, from the speech by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and from the tone and the temper of many other speeches by Opposition Members, it appears that there
1086
continue to be some disagreements between the Government and the Opposition about the means to the shared end of public service improvements.
I can express the difference simply. The Government are committed to public service: the Opposition are committed to public provision. A real difference in perspective is summed up there. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood spoke briefly, but pregnantly, when he pointed out that there was a new managerialism sweeping the world. That has led the Government to seek to identify clearly each particular function within the public service and to put it on to a more businesslike basis. The key to that—I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) later —is a clearer specification of the objectives of each function and the embodiment of those clearer specifications in contracts.
The hon. Member for Redcar does not seem to quarrel with that stage of the analysis. She appears to go along with the view of the left-wing think tanks and of some of the progressive Labour authorities in favouring the idea of management by contract. However, she seems to draw back—this is the key point between us—from the next logical stage of the process.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) percipiently asked, having established a contractual relationship between a Minister and a public sector adviser, why not test the competitiveness of the potential public sector contractors by enabling the private sector to compete for the contract? I put it to the hon. Member for Redcar that it simply is not logical to say, as she seems to, that she is in favour of market testing provided that the private sector is not permitted to compete for the contract. After all, what else is market testing but testing in the marketplace? Why are the Opposition caught up in that illogicality?
I can think of only one explanation, which was sapiently pointed out by the hon. Member for Truro (M r. Taylor), who told me that he could not be here for the winding-up speeches. The explanation is the Labour party's prejudice against the private sector. That was reflected all too eloquently—it made up most of the speech by the hon. Member for Redcar—in the catalogue of petty criticisms of the private sector. It embodied all the old Labour party prejudices against private business.
Mr. McAllion: Will the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply to every civil service job that is put out to competitive tender?
Mr. Jackson: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's point about TUPE, so he does not need to remind me of it.
Another old Labour party prejudice was on display tonight—the prejudice in favour of high spending on producer interests. I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) by referring to a point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
It is surprising to hear a distinguished member of the Public Accounts Committee speak slightingly of the Government's perfectly proper concern to ensure that the cost to the taxpayer of providing public service is kept at the lowest level compatible with satisfactory quality. How can the hon. Gentleman allow himself to slight that approach—especially as he will, I am sure, have heard what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of

1087
Lancaster said about our agreement with the Treasury that all savings from market testing will be retained by the Departments concerned and will be ploughed back into the services they provide to the public?
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked me about two points of detail, the first of them on in-house bids. We encourage in-house bids in the context of market testing but we are not insisting that they should be mandatory. That would, in effect, give a veto to the employees concerned. We cannot compel employees to put in a bid: if they do not come forward, that should not exclude market testing.
Confidentiality has arisen again and again. We do not accept the Opposition's idea, which seems to be that servants of the public who work in the private sector have a lower standard of integrity than public servants who work in the public sector.
To the hon. Members for Truro and for York (Mr. Bayley), I would say that it is not good enough to complain that some targets for public services are not being met. Of course some of them are not being met. It would be deeply suspicious if all our targets were met.
I see that the hon. Member for York is in his place. He asked a series of specific questions about performance against targets under the patients charter. They were good questions and I shall come back to him later on the detailed points that he raised. Meanwhile, I remind him, and others who have made comments about targets, that targets for the public service are now being set for the first time and that the performance of those services against those targets is now being monitored for the first time. That is what is new and what is important.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on a graceful and witty speech and on acting during the debate as my honorary parliamentary private secretary—he will soon be a real PPS, I am sure. He brought out well the important point that the Government's programme for public service reform is welcomed by many people working in the public service who see in that programme opportunities to do better, both in terms of assuming new responsibilities and in terms of providing better-quality services. My hon. Friend was also right to stress that investment in the public service is not only a matter of investment of cash; it is a matter of investing in new thinking, new structures and better management.
I should not like to forget the point made by the hon. Member for Truro, to which I now return. He asked whether the Government were ensuring that the users of public services were being consulted about the setting of targets. The answer to his question is yes, and I invite him to look at the citizens charter White Paper, which details our plans for regular surveys of the customers of public services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made an eloquent speech, bringing home from personal and professional knowledge the importance of the new courts charter launched yesterday. I hope that he will maintain his close interest in the courts charter and assist us in the Office of Public Service and Science and the whole House in the work of applying that charter and
1088
progressively improving its effectiveness—because we intend that our charters should be upgraded and improved in the light of experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam made a valuable point about the concerns expressed, especially by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill, about jobs in the civil service. She pointed out that market testing does not necessarily entail any net loss of jobs. Jobs will stay in house if the in-house team provide the best value for money. Where contracting out offers better value for money, I give the assurance that contractors will be encouraged to take relevant staff; otherwise, Departments—again, I give an assurance—will make every effort to redeploy staff or absorb them through natural wastage. That has happened in the vast majority of cases in the past four years, and I see no reason why it should not continue to be the pattern of market testing in future.
The hon. Member for Govan continued in the thoughtful and constructive vein of his speeches on Second Reading and in Committee—where he made an active contribution—on the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill. He articulated his fears about the fragmentation of the civil service and the loss of what he called a holistic sense of responsibility in the new regime by the management of contracts and competitive tendering.
The Government recognise that that could be a danger, but it will happen only if the policy is pressed to exaggerated lengths, which I do not believe will happen. Our watchwords in the policy of market testing will be balance and common sense, and I have no doubt that that will he in conformity with the mood of public servants who, like the hon. Member for Govan, exhibit a sense of balance and common sense. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), asked about the implications of the TUPE regulations for market testing. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he sought: the TUPE regulations do not conflict with the contracting out or market testing of work in the public sector.
Mr. McAllion: Will the TUPE regulations apply in every case in which a civil service job is put out to competitive tender?
Mr. Jackson: The TUPE regulations have always applied to transfers. The amendment to another Bill that the Standing Committee is examining simply makes it clear that the regulations can apply irrespective of the commercial status of the employer. That being the case, organisations tendering under the compulsory competitive tendering programme must take into account the possible effects of the regulations and directives. There is nothing new in that.
I turn to the characteristically thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who emphasised the importance of leadership. I agree with him. The key point which I hope he will recognise is that the changes which we are making to the structure of public services will create new opportunities for leadership in the provision of public services.
The central theme of our management changes is devolution and decentralisation of responsibility, together with a much clearer specification of the performance standards. Local leadership is responsible for the delivery of those standards. My hon. Friend will have seen that

1089
leadership at work in the schools and hospitals in his constituency. The principle will be applied increasingly widely in other fields of public service.
Many of the speakers in this interesting and worthwhile debate about the public service have focused on the citizens charter. That is right and proper, because the citizens charter is the part of the Government's public service reform agenda which is most visible to our constituents. I stress the connection between the citizens charter and our public service reform agenda.
Too many people, especially in the London media, have not yet understood that the citizens charter is not simply a set of pious aspirations. The charter is integrally bound up with the far-reaching changes that we are making in the machinery of government. The essence of the changes lies in the combination of decentralisation and responsibility for service delivery with the specification of performance targets and the embodiment of those targets in con tracts which are increasingly open to competition. That will provide a powerful mechanism for systematically drafting standards of quality and performance in the public sector.
Let me simply say that this is the agenda for the 1990s. Although we are grateful for signs of support from the Opposition for the agenda, I am nevertheless happy that this debate has confirmed that the agenda continues to be dominated by the Conservative party.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

UN Peacekeeping Operations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
9.59 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyhealth): I am delighted to have this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House, as I last did in an Adjournment debate in March 1989 and 10 years before that, the expansion and success of the United Nations peacekeeping operations. I also want to mention some of the current problems and put forward ideas on future developments.
I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has recently taken over responsibility for this area of policy. This short decade will given him the opportunity to tell the House his personal thinking on this topic and the official views of the Foreign Office. His speech will be listened to and read in Hansard tomorrow with great care.
The award of the Nobel peace prize in 1988 to United Nations peacekeeping forces highlighted the renewed interest in that form of intervention and its part in the peaceful settlement of disputes. It highlighted the ending of the vastly disagreeable, dangerous and wasteful cold war. It gave a new emphasis to the work of the United Nations and its charter.
Russia now supports the United Nations in the peacekeeping aspect of its international responsibilities. There have been many—clearly far too many—new demands on United Nations peacekeeping. Commitments have grown far faster than resources. Let me define my terms. I see peacekeeping as the use of an international—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
Mr. Townsend: I see peacekeeping as the use of an international force by invitation to reduce violence. I am not discussing the use of military force to liberate a country such as Kuwait, impose order or suppress an opponent. I shall not refer this evening to the protection of the Kurds in Iraq or the need for better protection of the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be interested to know that I hope to have a chance to refer to the marsh Arabs tomorrow morning.
As a former regular soldier, I believe that peacekeeping has become an essential part in the 1990s of the work done by the United Nations for international harmony and, above all, security. Obviously, peacekeeping must always be properly and carefully considered and then authorised by the Security Council in New York.
I am acutely aware of some obvious problems today, but surely there is one area of United Nations activity in which we can build on progress already made. It would be a dereliction of duty not to try to do so. I am describing an invention of the United Nations which is still evolving in a variety of forms to match a range of problems. It may take the form of patrolling buffer zones between two armed opponents or checking troop levels or even making sure that elections are not disrupted by violence. Nothing quite like that role existed for the old League of Nations. It is not even mapped out in the charter.

1091
For several decades, at least one United Nations force has been on duty at any given time in some corner of the globe. Many thousands of soldiers have given their lives while attempting to keep the peace. Substantially more than 100,000 soldiers from one third of the world's armies have worn the pale blue beret or helmet. Japanese soldiers have just joined the ranks of the United Nations.
United States forces watched over the two truces of 1948 between Israel and its Arab neighbours. In 1949 they watched over the ceasefire in Kashmir and showed the world that a relatively small number of military observers could help to maintain a ceasefire. In 1956, after the Suez fiasco, they supervised the withdrawal of Israeli, British and French forces. In 1960, events in the Congo tied up 20,000 United Nations soldiers for four years.
I suggest that UN peacekeeping has been shown by experience since 1948 to be more effective than unilateral, bilateral or multilateral intervention from outside the control of the United Nations. The ill-fated multinational force in the Lebanon, in which the United Kingdom took part under American control, helps to make my point.
I turn to Britain's sterling contribution to United Nations peacekeeping. I only wish that it were better known. One purpose of this debate is to give it some publicity. British soldiers have proved themselves particularly good at peacekeeping. They know how to be firm but fair. Years of using minimum force in aid of a civil power in Borneo, Aden, Belize and Zimbabwe have given them an enviable record, which few other countries can match.
Peacekeeping is superb training for our defence forces, giving them a rare opportunity for overseas service outside Germany, which has real value for the young non-commissioned officer and the newly joined soldier who seeks a bit of excitement.
Recently, British signallers served with the United Nations force in Namibia. They performed with every satisfaction and, I have no doubt, reaped enormous benefits from their time with the other troops in the United Nations transitional assistance group, UNTAG, in a fascinating part of southern Africa. It was no surprise to me that Britain was subsequently asked to send a training team to Namibia, which leaves in April next year, its work being completed.
I am not convinced that the study of UN-style peacekeeping receives sufficient attention in the British Army. I am advised by those in a position to know that training in peacekeeping of officers and units could be further improved. They know a lot—they do not know all there is to know. The Nordic countries are perhaps better than us at co-ordinating the training of staff and technical officers for duties within United Nations peacekeeping forces.
The Minister will know that British soldiers will be asked to do far more work for the United Nations and they must be 100 per cent. trained for it. May I please be told in a letter how much time a British officer gives in cadet and staff colleges in 1992 to the study of United Nations peacekeeeping?
A few years ago I spent a fascinating morning with 40 Royal Marine Commando, who were on duty with the United Nations along the so-called green line in Nicosia and had reached a rare peak of proficiency. I should like
1092
to ask the Minister about the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations force in Cyprus. We play the main role within that force, which has been in Cyprus since the ethnic fighting in 1964, and we administer it from our sovereign bases—a major undertaking.
The United Kingdom force is to be reduced by 100, from a total of 755, as part of a general reduction in troop levels. Of the other three contributors, Denmark plans to withdraw its entire 341 strong contingent; Austria is to reduce its commitment from 410 to about 300; and Canada will reduce its 575 troops to 510. We are told that those countries feel that their contributions could be better deployed elsewhere; and of course there will be financial considerations. Incidentally, it is wrong that the burden is borne by the Foreign Office and not by the Ministry of Defence.
The latest effort to solve the Cyprus problem has failed and our decision has been ill-received in Cyprus. What talks took place with President Vassiliou—a wonderful Commonwealth leader—before our announcement? Turkey has an occupying force of more than 20,000 in the north and the Greek Cypriots believe that a thinning out of United Nations forces will put the south at a disadvantage. It would also suggest a lack of interest in Cyprus. As a guarantor power, Britain has a special and unique responsibility for that beautiful but tragic European island.
I move on to Cambodia, where I am proud of our experienced military observers with the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, UNTAC. However, the news from that unfortunate country is very disturbing and the United Nations peace force may collapse, endangering United Nations troops taking part in that large and expensive operation. There have been all too many ceasefire violations. Violence and intimidation are widespread and the elections are in jeopardy. I hear that the dreaded Khmer Rouge is increasing the area it controls. The House will want to hear the latest news on the situation from my right hon. and learned Friend.
Hon. Members will wish me to raise the question of our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, where there are well-armed warlords, thugs and bandits as well as the established military forces. While I fully supported the dispatch of medical personnel, engineers and signallers to the UN forces before the House rose for the summer recess, I have grave reservations about the dispatch of the Cheshire Regiment, a fine, down-to-earth and highly professional unit with an outstanding commanding officer. They have been placed in a difficult and vulnerable position. The carrying of humanitarian aid is normally left to United Nations agencies and civilian transport. I wish the battalion well and know that it will perform well, but I hope that it will be withdrawn before too long. The Government know as well as I do how easy it is to commit troops and how difficult it is subsequently to withdraw them.
We are grappling with centuries-old feuds in difficult, heavily wooded and mountainous country. There is a strict limit on how much can be achieved and how much Britain should get involved. In that respect, Turkey and eight Balkan countries have urged the development of UN forces in Kosovo. Where do the Government stand on that request?
I must refer to the UN forces in Lebanon. Few people appreciate that Britain administers that force, too, from our sovereign base in Cyprus. Since it was established in

1093
1978, the force has suffered 200 fatalities. Its mandate must be strengthened. Israel is responsible for the South Lebanese army, which regularly fires on UNIFIL soldiers. I deplore what has been happening in southern Lebanon. Israel should withdraw forthwith, as required by UN resolution 425, and UNIFIL must be allowed to deploy to the international border.
The time is ripe to look anew at the money and machinery for, and conduct of, UN peacekeeping operations. At a time when the UN has acquired a wider and generally more accepted role, it is essential that some changes are made. At present, there is a crisis over funding. Britain has a superb record of paying the UN the full amount on time. The United States has a disgraceful record and owes $202 million to the separate and vital peacekeeping account. It plans to pay that over a five-year period, but the money and example are needed now.
Does the Minister support the call for the reactivation of the military staff committee with a wider membership and better terms of reference? Why should countries such as Canada, Nepal and Fiji, which can boast considerable peacekeeping experience, be excluded in the 1990s? Does he consider that the standard operating procedures for United Nations forces are adequate and, if not, how can they be improved?
I would like to see the assembling of a cadre of international experts to facilitate the dispatch of United Nations forces. It would include specialists in logistics, communications and training. They should be given a proper database which would cover who could be called on and how much notice would be required. In recent years, the construction of the United Nations force has frequently looked clumsy and amateurish.
It is important also that United Nations peacekeepers have access to the latest appropriate technology. That includes satellite communications and navigational aids, night surveillance equipment, including infra-red aids and listening devices such as our troops employ at night in Northern Ireland. To illustrate my point, electronic devices could help to reduce the possibility of surprise attack across the border and help to reduce tensions in the area.
Could consideration also be given to that cadre at the United Nations having a highly-trained and mobile disaster relief element? That could assist particularly in poorer and less developed countries after earthquakes, cyclones or major chemical or nuclear leaks.
I hope that I have said enough to activate the Government. Britain could and should use its privileged position as a permanent member of the Security Council to strengthen the world body's peacekeeping role. Unless we are careful, demand for United Nations peacekeeping will far exceed the United Nations' military and financial resources.
Experience suggests that a comparatively small United Nations force can reduce tension and limit aggression, thus giving diplomats a chance to reach a peaceful settlement of an international dispute. United Nations peacekeeping has proved itself. It is good news and practical. It is no woolly, over-idealistic pipedream. The blue helmets have been a success in many difficult and complex situations. It would be splendid to see this country mark out the way forward at the United Nations.
10.15 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on selecting this subject for the Adjournment debate. It is an important issue which he has raised in the past and it is right that the House should focus on peacekeeping by the United Nations. I accept my hon. Friend's definition of the term "peacekeeping" and I think that I can respond within the definition to many of the questions that he has posed.
One has only to look at the newspapers to see evidence of the increasingly important role being played by the United Nations in conflicts the world over. In Croatia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique and Somalia, United Nations personnel are engaged in trying to solve a range of different problems. Those are only the operations receiving current attention in the newspapers. There are many more: Cyprus, central America and the middle east, all of which contribute to the resolution of local conflicts.
There has been a dramatic expansion in United Nations peacekeeping in recent years, in terms of both numbers of operations and numbers of troops on the ground. Since 1988, 13 new peacekeeping operations have been established—the same number as in the whole period between 1948 and 1987. At the beginning of 1992, the number of United Nations civil and military personnel deployed on peacekeeping operations was about 11,500. Today, the figure is some 51,000, and rising.
Not only has the number of operations increased; so, too has the complexity of those operations. The United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, the United Nation's biggest and most ambitious operation to date, is effectively administering the country in the run-up to the elections, in addition to its talks of repatriating refugees, training in mine clearance, holding human rights education campaigns and registering voters—to name but a few of UNTAC's responsibilities.
The United Kingdom's involvement in UN peacekeeping operations has also increased substantially in recent years. With the recent deployment in Bosnia, there will be more than 3,000 British troops on the ground under UN command, making us the third largest troop contributor after France and Canada. We have also seconded experienced military staff to the field operations division in the UN to help to improve the logistics back-up for UN forces on the ground.
My hon. Friend rightly said that the United Kingdom forces bring great skills to bear, and there are further skills that they can learn. He was correct to identify the Nordic countries as a source of those further skills. We are looking to the Nordic countries for the possibility of further training. My hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that service with peacekeeping forces will become an ever-increasing part of the military career of the average British soldier.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to Bosnia. You, Madam Speaker, and other hon. Members will have watched with considerable pride and concern the deployment of British troops in Bosnia, particularly those from the Cheshire Regiment. They are clearly doing an extremely important job in circumstances that are difficult and that are sure to become more difficult as the winter closes in.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces covered our involvement in Bosnia in detail

1095
in last week's debate, so I shall not go into too much detail now. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath raised the issue of the length of deployment, which is 12 months. We shall review the possibility of a further extension of that deployment towards the end of the 12 months. At the end of that period, we must determine whether it would be right further to extend the time that British troops spend in Bosnia.
As my hon. Friend well knows, the purpose of the troops is humanitarian. Their purpose is, essentially, to convey humanitarian supplies, and also, in appropriate circumstances, to escort refugees. Their purpose is not to fight their way through but to proceed by negotiation, although they have the ability to defend themselves and those for whom they have responsibility. They have already opened fire for that purpose.
My hon. Friend spoke of Kosovo and asked whether we would accede to the Turkish suggestion that there should be a United Nations peacekeeping force in Kosovo. It is important to remember that Kosovo is part of Serbia —a sovereign state. That fact distinguishes it from other parts of former Yugoslavia. At present, a team of observers from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is in Kosovo. The observers' principal purpose is to diffuse tension.
I see considerable advantages in the presence of a United Nations team of observers in Kosovo, as they could reinforce the efforts of the CSCE team. However, that would need the consent of the Government of Serbia because Kosovo is part of Serbia. I do not think that, at least for the foreseeable future, we shall see a peacekeeping force of the sort that I think that my hon. Friend envisages, in Kosovo. I make a distinction between a peacekeeping force and a team of observers.
The involvement in Bosnia demonstrates clearly the complex situation faced by United Nations forces on the ground—the appalling combination of ethnic conflict, territorial disputes and humanitarian tragedy is, unfortunately, becoming more and more commonplace, and does not make it an easy environment for United Nations troops.
The increase in the range and complexity of peacekeeping operations is putting enormous pressure on the Secretary-General and his staff. It was the recognition of this new environment that lay behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal at the Security Council last January, endorsed by colleagues, for a report on ways in which the United Nations could reinforce its capacity for preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping and peacemaking. The Secretary-General's report in response to this proposal was published in July.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, the Community believes that the report contains a very important collection of proposals. Among these proposals are a number of new areas for United Nations activity, some of which are already resulting in concrete activity.
A good example is co-operation with regional organisations, and a good example of that is the way in
1096
which the United Nations and the European Community came together in the London conference to address the tragedy of what was Yugoslavia.
Another example also to be identified within what was Yugoslavia is preventive diplomacy. A current proposal to consider a pre-emptive United Nations presence in Macedonia is a good illustration of that. My hon. Friend did not particularly mention Macedonia, but I think that he too would welcome the possibility of a United Nations team of observers in Macedonia to assist in the defusing of tension.
Against the background of these positive proposals, a dialogue is going on between the United Nations secretariat and member states on the sort of forces that they might be prepared to make available to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations. The dialogue also addresses the kind of specific questions that my hon. Friend posed—for example, the question of the military committee. I believe that it would be premature for me, or indeed any other Minister, and probably for any Minister of any participating country, to reach any conclusive views at this stage.
My hon. Friend posed the question of the peacekeeping force in Cyprus and he is right in saying that this is another area where United Kingdom troops are playing a key role. There are about 800—he said 750, my brief says 800; there is not much between us—United Kingdom troops on the ground. The security position in Cyprus is now a great deal more stable than at any time since 1974 and it is the subject, of course, of continuing political dialogue under United Nations auspices. I very much hope that an agreement on a lasting settlement can be reached.
I certainly accept that the force has played a vital role in maintaining a climate in which it is possible for a settlement to be negotiated, but I think that the size and format of the force that is required to stabilise the situation have changed over time and I believe that it is possible to reduce the force present to enable contributing countries to contribute more troops to other parts of the world where the position is more acute.
I say specifically to my hon. Friend that I do not believe that the thinning out of the United Nations force in Cyprus reduces the security that is acquired by its presence. I do not believe that it is the numbers of the United Nations force in Cyprus that give stabilising security; I believe that it is the fact of its presence. Therefore, although I listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the consequences of thinning out, so long as there is a substantial presence of United Nations forces in Cyprus, the strategic objective is attained.
A range of other questions will have to be addressed over a period. My hon. Friend, I know, has won the ballot for 4 December and I am to have the pleasure of responding to his debate then. I fancy that he and I will be pursuing this debate for some time to come, including tomorrow morning, Madam Speaker, because my hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye or the eye of one of your deputies in the course of tomorrow's debate. I look forward, therefore, to pursuing this discussion with my hon. Friend tomorrow and on 4 December.
That being so. I think that I have said enough tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Land and Property
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what steps are taken to secure an independent valuation of church land and property before disposal.

  Mr. Michael Alison
  The Commissioners normally ask for an independent valuation when their statutory consent is sought to a sale of ecclesiastical property. The property investments which they themselves own are professionally valued every year.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping and Seamen
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that new arrangements which may be brought forward for the General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen will include requirements which specifically protect the records of ships' movements and the records of sailors in world war I and world war II.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is aware that the records presently held are of historical interest. They will continue to be retained under Public Record Office (PRO) rules.

  Small Ships Register
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which organisation submitted the lowest tender in respect of providing a contract service for the Small Ships Register;

  (2) if he will give full details of the tender process followed with regard to the contract for the Small Ships Register including a list of the tenderers, a list of those short-listed and the successful tenderer;

  (3) what factors were taken into account in deciding the placement of the contract for the Small Ships Register.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answers 19 and 20 November 1992]: The tender process followed the Department's normal rules for competitive tender which comply with guidance notes issued by the Treasury's central unit on purchasing, with EC regulations and with Government accounting.

  Seven firms were invited to tender, but offers were received from only three. In addition an inhouse hid was submitted by the Department's client division (The Register of Shipping and Seamen).

  Placement was decided on compliance with the Department's specification, value for money and quality. The contract was awarded to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency which submitted the tender which best met these requirements.
  746
  It is not departmental policy to release information on firms tendering as this is regarded as commercial-in-confidence.

  Consultants
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision of the Government to cancel Cooper and Lybrand's commission to prepare a report on the post-monopoly charges for use of British Rail's rail track and infrastructure.

  Mr. Freeman
  Coopers and Lybrand is continuing to advise the Government on liberalising access to British Rail's track and infrastructure and charges for its use. The Government intend to publish proposals soon.

  Nuclear Material
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the safety standards required in the transportation of plutonium in respect of the temperature and length of time of ship fires.

  Mr. Norris
  The safety test standards required for the transport of all radioactive material by all modes are those prescribed in the International Atomic Energy Agency's publication "Safety Series No. 6, 1985 Edition" (as amended 1990). These include a thermal test at a minimum temperature of 800 deg C sustained for a period of 30 minutes, after which the package must be shown to maintain its essential functions of containment, radiation shielding and criticality safety to prescribed limits.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications of kinetic energy for safety standards which apply to the transportation in casks of plutonium in British coastal waters where a ship is travelling at 15 knots; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Safety standards for the carriage of radioactive material in such flasks take into account the factors that could affect possible accidental damage to the cask, including energy absorbed. The fraction of the kinetic energy of a ship that would be so absorbed in an accident would be small; most of it would be dissipated in deformation of the ship's structure.

  Working Group
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the submissions to be considered by the joint International Atomic Energy Authority-International Maritime Organisation-United Nations Environment Programme.

  Mr. Norris
  Submissions to the joint IAEA-IMO-UNEP working group have not yet been completed. I shall place in the Library copies of any submissions that the United Kingdom makes.

  Okehampton Bypass
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many acres of public open space were lost in the construction of the Okehampton bypass.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: Of the land acquired for the Okehampton bypass:
  747
  1–9 acres were open space;

  approximately 20 acres were land which had previously been used by the public for recreation, and in respect of which the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport accepted the recommendation of the inquiry inspector that they be treated as "open space".

  In addition to these 22 acres, temporary access rights were obtained to a further 1–6 acres during the construction period.

  Road Capacity, Heathrow
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he is currently undertaking as to the capacity of roads in the west London and Heathrow areas to accommodate present and projected traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The capacity of roads is a matter for the responsible highway authority. The British Airports Authority has consulted widely about its proposals for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport and my Department is considering with them what improvements to the trunk road network may be necessary as a result of these proposals.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communication his Department has had with the Clinton-Gore presidential transition team on policies towards the international transport of plutonium.

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Heathrow Airport (Emergency Services)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the capacity of the emergency services to deal with any crash at or near Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has taken advice from the Civil Aviation Authority and BAA plc on this important matter.

  I am advised that the emergency services at Heathrow are able to mount a massive response in the event of any disaster occurring in the vicinity of the airport. The current procedures ensure, initially, that air traffic control (ATC) provides the pilot of an aircraft in distress with whatever assistance he requires to effect a safe landing. This includes immediately alerting the ground emergency services.

  BAA manage the emergency services at Heathrow and under the terms of the aerodrome licence issued to it by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which derives from guidelines laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), it is obliged to provide a specific number of staff, fire-fighting and emergency equipment and medical expertise to deal with any aircraft disasters which occur either at Heathrow airport itself or within a two-mile radius.

  The emergency services provided by BAA exceed by almost double the quotas specified in the licence. Nevertheless, close ties are maintained with the police, fire brigades, ambulance services and local hospitals to ensure that back-up services are available to provide additional and immediate assistance should the need arise.

  Continuous reviews of the system ensure that the emergency procedures are kept up to date. Annual
  748
  exercises conducted with volunteers and involving all the emergency services and local hospitals ensure that all concerned are familiar with the procedures. The last such exercise took place on 8 October 1992.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce into the driving test requirements for motorway driving and night driving.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no such plans. Including motorway and night driving in a test would imply a multi-part test without clear evidence that the significant extra costs would be justified. But I shall be considering whether, in the light of the recent consultation exercise by the Driving Standards Agency, these topics should be tackled more thoroughly in the theoretical element of the test.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what substantive changes have been made to the requirements for the driving test since 1962.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Key changes have been—

  the introduction in 1969 of a separate test for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles;

  the introduction in 1985 of a separate test for drivers of coaches and buses;

  the introduction in 1989 of a motorcycle test with the examiner accompanying the candidate;

  the introduction in 1991 of a reverse-parking manoeuvre into the car driving test;

  the introduction in 1992 of a double-length driving test for certain disqualified drivers.

  Local Safety Schemes
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what applications he has received from local authorities in their transport policies and programmes submissions for schemes which are likely to give rates of return in excess of those typically achieved by local safety schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: It is not possible to make such a direct comparison. Local safety schemes are assessed according to their first year rate of return in casualty reduction terms. Major road improvement schemes are subject to a detailed cost benefit analysis over a period of 30 years.

  Returns provided by local authorities indicate that the amount earmarked for local safety schemes in the transport supplementary grant settlement for 1991–92 produced an average first year rate of return of 76 per cent. and over the first three years an average rate of return of 213 per cent.

  Initial analysis of authorities' transport policies and programme submissions for 1993–94 indicates that the average benefit to cost ratio of major scheme bids for TSG is 4·4:1.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the 1993–94 specific allocation in transport supplementary grant for local safety schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: The specific allocation to local safety schemes will be announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State as part of the local roads capital settlement, probably next month.
  749
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when guidance will be issued to local authorities to enable them to use signing for red light and speed cameras for deterrence and road safety purposes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]Trials are currently taking place to determine the most effective signing for camera installations. I expect to be able to issue guidance after these trials are completed early next year.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total bid of local authorities for transport supplementary grant for local safety schemes for 1993–94.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: A total of £117 million.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, columns 81–86, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency's visits to (a) Brussels on 4 November 1991 and (b) Paris on 12 October.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The total cost of each of these visits to the Exchequer was as follows:

  Place

  Air fare

  Total

  Brussels

  £257·60

  £394·36

  Paris

  £263·80

  £414·85

  Vehicle Certification Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, columns 81–86, what has been the cost to the Exchequer during the last 12 months of the chief executive of the vehicle inspectorate's visits to (a) Munich and (b) Madrid.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is expected to be no real cost to the Exchequer in respect of the Vehicle Certification Agency's chief executive travelling to Munich and Madrid because the agency's costs are covered by fees paid by applicants for type approval.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what documentation is included with new driving licences sent out from the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea; and at what cost.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea sends a basic information booklet and an organ donor card to drivers with their driving licences.

  The annual cost of providing the booklet is £152,000. The cost of the organ donor card is met by the Department of Health.

  British Rail
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 424, if he will list the six companies who tendered for the consultancy on the sale of British Rail's freight operations.
  750
  Mr. Freeman
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, columns 81–86, what has been the cost to the Exchequer during the last 12 months of the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre's visits to (a) Dublin, (b) Germany and (c) Veendam, Holland, in October 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The costs are £5671, £685 and £531 respectively.

  1 A joint visit (September 1991) to both Dublin and Coleraine.

  A1 (Upgrading)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what asessment his Department has made on the effect of the upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard on trade in the north east.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None. There is little doubt the upgrading of the route will open up development opportunities given the benefits of better access and communication. But it is too early to make accurate assessments.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 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.

  Iraq
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister how many defendants in the Matrix Churchill case had assisted(a) the Secret Intelligence Service or (b) the Security Service in monitoring Iraq's defence capability.

  The Prime Minister
  It would be contrary to normal practice to comment further on intelligence matters.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Press Intrusion
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will publish his proposals on press intrusion into the private lives of individuals.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall announce what action the Government propose to take over press regulation after I have considered Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation, which I hope to receive early in the new year.
  751

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations he has received about the amendment of existing regulations to extend access by senior citizens living in sheltered housing accommodation to concessionary television licences; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to relax the regulations affecting sheltered housing complexes to allow greater access for senior citizens to the concessionary television licence scheme;

  (3) if he will estimate the cost of the existing licence concession scheme for retired people living in sheltered housing complexes;

  (4) if he will agree to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss the future development of the concessionary scheme for retired people living in sheltered housing complexes.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 13 April this year, I have received 97 letters from Members of the House and 103 from members of the public, local authorities and other organisations on the subject of the concessionary television licence scheme. The current cost of the concessionary scheme in lost licence revenue is approximately £40 million a year. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they have no plans to amend or extend the regulations governing the scheme, which were thoroughly overhauled in 1988 after long and careful consideration. I therefore consider that no useful purpose would he served by a meeting with representatives of local authorities to discuss the future of the scheme.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all of the reports commissioned from external consultants since April 1992; 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. Key
  The Department of National Heritage has commissioned the following reports from external consultants since April 1992:

  Price Waterhouse—Investment analysis for DNH headquarters project.

  TECTUS—Space planning report for DNH headquarters project.

  Charles Douglas—Assessment of telephone installation options for new headquarters project.

  Robin Johnson—Design proposals for housestyle plus design guide.

  PE International—Scoping study on provision of central services for DNH. This led to a further consultancy for PE International giving expert assistance for implementation of recommendations in their first report.

  GAH Group—Report on aspects of the proposed National Lottery. These consultants were subsequently engaged to make a presentation to the Secretary of State and senior officials on the subject.

  Ernst & Young—Report on the scope for market testing in the British Library.

  Library and Information Statistics Unit, Loughborough University—Provision of selected public and university library statistics to the Library and Information Services Council for their Annual Report.

  752

  PA Consultants—Report on aspects of the British Library St. Pancras project.

  Price Waterhouse—Report on financial systems and controls in place on British Library St. Pancras site.

  Watts and Partners—Report on options for managing the maintenance and refurbishment of various historic state buildings and monuments in London.

  Mr. Geoffrey Page—Report on an information technology strategy for the Royal Parks.

  Mr. James Berry—Production of landscaping and ecological appraisals for the Royal Parks.

  Mr. John Wilkinson—Development of a programme of free public entertainments in the Royal Parks, and research into sponsorship possibilities.

  KPMG Management Consultants—Study for the Royal Parks Constabulary on the scope for use of information technology. This led to a design consultancy for KPMG Management Consultants for the management of the Royal Parks crime statistics.

  Thesaurus—Statistical report on objects sold at auction in United Kingdom.

  Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Newcastle University —To establish a method for calculating numbers of day visitors to destinations within the United Kingdom for inclusion in local authority standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Francis Butlin—Report on care and conservation of works of art in the Government Art Collection.

  Ms. Isabel Horowitz—Report on care and conservation of works of art on the Government Art Collection.

  Mr. David Harding—Report on care and conservation of works in Government Art Collection.

  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency has commissioned the following reports from external consultants since April 1992:

  Communication by Design—Improved local signage for Kensington Palace.

  Travers Morgan—Identification of plants for the Privy Garden at Hampton Court Palace.

  Percy Flaxman—Restoration of Hampton Court maze.

  Land Use Consultants—Ground maintenance costs of Hampton Court Gardens.

  David Watson and Associates—Utilities tariff analysis and efficiency.

  Protective Security Systems Limited—Security systems at Kensington Palace.

  Grant Leisure Group—Catering facilities at the Tower of London.

  TOR Systems—Ticketing at the Tower of London.

  H. H. Angus and Associates (UK) Ltd.—Electrical supply requirements at the Tower of London. This led to a design consultancy which has now been placed with RMJM (London) Limited.

  Alan Baxter and Associates—Car parking at Hampton Court Palace.

  Alan Baxter and Associates—Brown road signs to Hampton Court Palace.

  Fielden and Mawson—Real tennis court at Hampton Court Palace.

  Royal Ordnance—Security at Tower of London.

  Baxter, Williams and Smith—Suitability of different types of building contract.

  Caroe and Partners—Stonework at Tower of London.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to respond to the letter of 18 November from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye concerning Mackay and Sons Ltd., Ross-shire; and if he will make a statement.
  753
  Sir John Cope
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly in response to his letter of 18 November. I can tell him that Customs are prepared exceptionally to renegotiate payment in this case.

  Regulatory Measures
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any area for which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since 9 April.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No such measures have been taken.

  Aero Technologies Ltd.
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations have been conducted by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise officers into the trading activities of Aero Technologies Ltd. with(a) Iran and (b) Iraq in military equipment.

  Sir John Cope
  It would not be appropriate for information relating to any particular investigation to be made public other than in the course of court proceedings.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the main measures of deregulation, or simplification of regulation, which his Departments have carried out, or caused to be carried out, since 9 April.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have laid draft regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act before Parliament on 17 November in order to implement the second banking co-ordination and consolidated supervision directives. Although these measures are long and complex, and amend a number of Acts, they implement two measures that are central to a single market in banking. This will allow EC credit institutions—broadly speaking, banks and building societies—to offer banking services throughout the Community on the basis of a single authorisation under the prudential supervision of a single supervisor.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am responsible to the Chancellor for such matters.

  Civil List
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to initiate a revision of the 10-year agreement concerning the civil list so as to include it within the 1·5 per cent. pay ceiling policy.

  Mr. Lamont
  No. The royal household committed itself on 12 November to apply the pay limitations for 1993.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's most recent estimate of the loss to the Exchequer if widows' pensions were to be treated as non-taxable income.
  754
  Mr. Dorrell
  At 1992–93 levels, the revenue cost of exempting from tax widows' pensions, including widowed mothers' allowances, would be about £100 million.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the value of imports and exports and the trade balance in manufactured goods in current and real terms for each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on imports, exports and the balance for manufactured goods is published regularly in the Central Statistical Office's "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and is available on a quarterly basis on the Central Statistical Office databank which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to sell the Government's residual shareholding in British Telecommunications plc.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As my right hon. Friend announced in the debate on the autumn statement on 18 November, at column 303, the Government intend to sell all or part of their residual shareholding in BT next year. No decisions have been taken about the precise timing and the number of shares to be sold. We will shortly begin to appoint advisers to certain of the key roles and to incur preliminary sale costs.

  Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a spring supplementary estimate for Her Majesty's Treasury's sale of shares in British Telecommunications plc and sale or redemption of privatised companies' debt vote—class XVIII, vote 19. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure, not expected to exceed £2 million, will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund. Preliminary and main sale expenses incurred in 1993–94 in connection with the sale of shares will be met from receipts from the sale.

  Iraq
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury became aware that Bank of Credit and Commerce International accounts were being used to facilitate arms trade with Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: So far as can be ascertained, the Treasury has not had information that BCCI accounts have been used to facilitate arms trade with Iraq, although it has seen the material in Senator Kerry's report on this point.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now authorise publication of appendix 8 to the Bingham report on BCCI.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made clear to the House, the balance of public interest weighs against publishing any of the appendices to the Bingham report.
  755

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charterline
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 13 November,Official Report, column 982, how many companies, other than Price Waterhouse, applied for the tender to pilot the charterline service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Six.

  Public Appointments
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place the list of names on the central database within the public appointments unit within the Office of Public Service and Science in the Library.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  No. Information about the 5,500 names on the public appointments unit's database is provided in confidence and, under the Data Protection Act 1984, publication of the names would be precluded. But the unit is always ready to receive details of those whom hon. Members consider suitable for consideration for public appointments, and individuals are free to nominate themselves on application forms available from the unit. At the present time there is a particular need for nominations of more women suitable for national level appointments and for names of members of the ethnic minorities.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a full list of public appointments, with the time period of appointment, stating whether part or full-time, and whether expenses, including child care, are payable in each case.

  Market testing plans for completion by 30 September 1993

  Department

  Approximate value of activities to be tested £ million

  Approximate number of staff involved in this work

  Illustrative activities to be market tested

  Charity Commission

  1·2

  50

  Printing and reprographics; Facilities management

  Crown Prosecution Service

  5·8

  461

  Facilities management; Typing services; Document and package transmission; Recruitment

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  1·0

  52

  IT support; Legal Services; Word processing

  Forestry Commission

  7·8

  500

  Forest operations and surveys; Research: chemical analysis, IT and statistics;

  Intervention Board

  4·3

  126

  Office support services; Debt recovery; Registration of documents; Computer operations

  Land Registry

  4·2

  100

  Building management and estates services; Records management; Legal services

  Office of Fair Trading

  0·4

  13

  Distribution of publicity material; Reprographics; Travel

  OPCS

  2·1

  85

  Day security (London); Reprographics

  Ordnance Survey

  14·5

  360

  Management of site services, maintenance and engineering advice; Catering; Internal audit

  Treasury Solicitors

  2·1

  42

  Messenger services; Record storage/management; Security and custody guard services

  Central Office of Information

  6·3

  84

  Despatch services; accommodation management; Messenger and postal services; Catering

  Central Statistical Office

  1·0

  2

  Retail Price Index (RPI) local price collection; Company Accounts—provision of key data items

  756
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  "Public Bodies", published annually by the Cabinet Office, gives details of the bodies to which Ministers make appointments, and whether the appointments are part time or full time. A copy of the 1991 edition is in the Library of the House; the 1992 edition is expected to be published at the end of the year. Responsibility for the period of an appointment rests with each appointing Minister. No information is kept centrally about such terms which vary in length but in most instances do not exceed five years. The Women's National Commission's "Handbook for Women's Organisations", also in the Library, includes some information about the normal terms of appointments to some bodies.

  The authorisation of travelling and subsistence expenses is the responsibility of individual Departments, but such expenses are normally met. Child care expenses may also be reimbursed where this help secures the appointment of someone who might otherwise have to decline, or to avoid the risk of non attendance.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish figures showing the year on year increase in the amount of central Government market testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 November 1992, column 606–74]: The details of the market testing plans of main Departments were published yesterday in the citizens charter White Paper. The breakdown of the market testing plans for other Departments and agencies is as follows.
  757

  Department

  Approximate value of activities to be tested £ million

  Approximate number of staff involved in this work

  Illustrative activities to be market tested

  Department of National Savings

  11·7

  477

  Typing, messenger and reprographics services; Agency accounting; Internal audit; Training

  HMSO

  17·6

  542

  Reprographic Units; Manchester Forms Centre; Bristol Distribution Centre

  Paymaster General

  1·1

  69

  Data preparation; Internal audit; Mainframe operations; Despatch

  Others

  1·5

  —

  Total

  82·6

  2,963

EDUCATION

  East Gate School, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the address of the East Gate school, Nottinghamshire, listed in his Department's table of school examination results.

  Mr. Forth
  The address of the school referred to—the William Crane School—is East Gate, Minver crescent, Aspley, Nottingham, NG8 5PN.

  Students (Overseas Placements)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students are currently on placements abroad as an integral part of their first degree courses.

  Mr. Forman
  Information on total numbers of students on placements abroad is not available within the Department. Figures are however available for students studying abroad under the ERASMUS and LINGUA programmes, which by definition require placements abroad to be integrated in the home course. For 1991–92 about 6,500 United Kingdom students undertook periods of study abroad on this basis.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to ensure that students currently on placements abroad as an integral part of their first degree courses have had their grants adjusted to take account of the devaluation of sterling.

  Mr. Forman
  There are special rates of grant for students studying at overseas institutions for at least one term as a necessary part of their courses. They are fixed for the current academic year by the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1992—SI 1992 No. 1270—which came into force on 1 September 1992. The rates represent only a contribution towards costs faced abroad, and are not normally revised during the year on account of currency or other fluctuations. My right hon. Friend will review the rates in due course when he makes the new regulations to come into force on 1 September 1993.

  Interim Funding, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to end his Department's post-Inner London education authority interim funding; and if he will make a statement.
  758
  Mr. Forth
  The Government are providing £250 million in inner London education grant over the first five years in which the inner London boroughs have responsibility for education. This is transitional support to protect local tax payers while the boroughs bring the education spending they inherited from the Inner London education authority under control, and will end in March 1995. The Department has also provided grant totalling £1·5 million over the three years 1990–91 to 1992–93 in order to enable 29 Londonwide educational voluntary organisations to make new funding arrangements with the London boroughs and charitable trusts. Over the same three year period the Department has provided pump-priming funding to the Foundation for Young Musicians—FYM totalling £336,000.

  There is no commitment to extending the scheme of grants to the Londonwide educational voluntary organisations or FYM grants beyond 31 March 1993 although an application from the FYM is under consideration.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research his Department has commissioned into the effect of the acquisition of grant-maintained status on school effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is not necessary to commission special research into the effect of the acquisition of grant-maintained status on school effectiveness. The publication of school performance tables under the parents charter, in which each school's type is clearly stated, will help all concerned to judge the relative effectiveness of different types of school. Her Majesty's inspectorate's observation of GM schools has already attested to their effectiveness. The Office for Standards in Education will undertake some full inspections of GM schools over the coming year as part of its programme for training registered inspectors.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those local education authorities in which at least 15 per cent. of primary or secondary schools will be grant-maintained by January 1993, and those local education authorities in which at least 10 per cent. either of primary or secondary pupils will be educated in grant-maintained schools in January 1993.

  Mr. Forth
  On the basis of proposals approved to date, in the following LEAs at least 15 per cent. of secondary schools will be GM by January 1993:

  Berkshire

  Dorset

  Bromley

  Ealing

  759

  Essex

  Northamptonshire

  Gloucestershire

  Surrey

  Hillingdon

  Sutton

  Kensington

  Wandsworth

  Kent

  Warwickshire

  Lincolnshire

  There are no LEAs in which 15 per cent. of primary schools will be GM by January 1993.

  On the basis of schools already operating as GM or approved for incorporation up to and including April 1993, and using latest available pupil numbers, we estimate that in the following LEAs at least 10 per cent. of secondary pupils will be educated in GM schools by April 1993. In the time available it is not possible to calculate figures for January 1993.

  Barnet

  Hillingdon

  Berkshire

  Kensington

  Birmingham

  Kent

  Brent

  Kingston-on-Thames

  Bromley

  Lincolnshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Norfolk

  Calderdale

  Northamptonshire

  Croydon

  Surrey

  Cumbria

  Sutton

  Dorset

  Walsall

  Ealing

  Wandsworth

  Essex

  Warwickshire

  Gloucestershire

  Wolverhampton

  Hammersmith

  There are no LEAs at present where we estimate that 10 per cent. of primary pupils will be educated in GM schools by April 1993. Pupil numbers are based on January 1991 form 7 returns in respect of LEAs and numbers given in proposals for GM status submitted by schools in the case of schools operating or approved for GM status.

  1989 October-December

  Country

  Received

  Upheld

  Refused

  Withdrawn

  India

  209

  52

  173

  37

  Bangladesh

  67

  8

  40

  15

  Pakistan

  385

  77

  172

  73

  Ghana

  57

  6

  21

  10

  Nigeria

  106

  3

  20

  5

  Jamaica

  32

  11

  12

  5

  EEC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  330

  45

  95

  42

  Total

  1,186

  202

  533

  187

  1990

  Country

  Received

  Upheld

  Refused

  Withdrawn

  India

  2,064

  191

  583

  187

  Bangladesh

  880

  61

  290

  96

  Pakistan

  1,614

  327

  869

  186

  Ghana

  230

  35

  103

  26

  Nigeria

  679

  27

  200

  28

  Jamaica

  101

  19

  73

  22

  EEC

  3

  —

  4

  1

  Other

  2,543

  169

  567

  212

  Total

  8,114

  829

  2,689

  758

  760

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Visa Appeals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are his estimates of the savings resulting from the provisions contained in the Asylum and Immigration Bill to abolish a right of appeal for those refused a visa to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The appeals to which the hon. Member refers are normally dealt with on the papers only and so make fewer demands on resources than cases where hearings take place. It is difficult, therefore, to estimate precisely what savings may result. However, these provisions will enable us to use resources to tackle priorities more effectively.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against refusal to grant visas to visit the United Kingdom have been lodged, to date, in each of the last three years, on the basis of nationality; how many such appeals were(a) upheld, (b) refused, (c) withdrawn and (d) awaiting determination at the latest available date.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The immigration appellate authorities keep statistics by the country from which the appeal originates, not by nationality. Visit visa statistics are not kept separately from other appeals against refusal of short-term visas and the figures given are achieved by applying a typical proportion of visit visa appeals to the total in each period. On that basis, the number of appeals against refusal to grant visas to visit the United Kingdom that have been lodged in each of the last three years, by country, is set out in the table.

  The information requested concerning the number of visit visa appeals currently awaiting determination is not available.
  761

  1991

  Country

  Received

  Upheld

  Refused

  Withdrawn

  India

  1,911

  347

  976

  338

  Bangladesh

  454

  75

  446

  91

  Pakistan

  2,108

  268

  920

  209

  Ghana

  288

  39

  146

  31

  Nigeria

  1,460

  70

  580

  63

  Jamaica

  177

  44

  177

  51

  EEC

  —

  —

  10

  1

  Other

  3,275

  331

  1,503

  357

  Total

  9,673

  1,174

  4,758

  1,141

  1992 January-September

  Country

  Received

  Upheld

  Refused

  Withdrawn

  India

  1,135

  377

  1,275

  231

  Bangladesh

  430

  76

  382

  65

  Pakistan

  1,513

  326

  1,282

  225

  Ghana

  425

  42

  137

  39

  Nigeria

  1,260

  125

  882

  65

  Jamaica

  104

  59

  258

  30

  EEC

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Other

  2,461

  369

  2,001

  264

  Total

  7,328

  1,374

  4,217

  919

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals, in all categories of entry clearance to the United Kingdom, are, to date, outstanding; what is the average delay, between appeal applications being lodged and appeals being heard at each appellate centre in the United Kingdom; how many adjudicators are in place currently; and what proportion of each adjudicators' work load at present is taken up considering appeals against refusal to grant visit visas.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As of 30 October 1992 there were 23,047 appeals outstanding. The average time between an appeal being lodged and it being heard is 16 months. This includes an average period of nine months for the parties to prepare their case and indicate readiness for the appeal to be heard. Cases where parties have so indicated are now being listed for full hearing on the following dates at the appellate centres:

  Thanet house

  17 May 1993

  Harmondsworth

  1 May 1993

  Birmingham

  14 January 1993

  Manchester

  1 April 1993

  Leeds

  1 February 1993

  Glasgow

  1 March 1993

  Hearings can sometimes be brought forward if the appellant so requests and an earlier date becomes available. Steps are being taken to shorten the time taken, wherever possible, for a case to come before an adjudicator for example, by increasing hearing room availability and increased administrative efficiency.

  Cases where no hearing is required are currently being determined on the papers within six to eight weeks of the parties indicating they are ready for the case to be dealt with by the adjudicator.

  There are 19 full-time adjudicators and 78 part-time adjudicators in post. It is not possible to calculate what proportion of the adjudicators' time is taken considering appeals against refusal to grant visit visas.
  762

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what studies he made, before deciding to remove or reduce the rights of people in particular income groups to receive legal aid, into the ability of people within those income groups to pay the contributions which are now to be required of them.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the light of the Government's priorities for public expenditure and the rapid growth in the cost of legal aid, the Lord Chancellor and I have considered carefully what can be afforded and have taken measures which will ensure that the resources available are directed to those whose need is greatest.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people will have their rights to legal aid removed or reduced as a result of the measures he announced on 12 November.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although such estimates are necessarily subject to many assumptions, we estimate that around 2 per cent. of households will no longer be eligible for legal aid as a result of measures taken to align legal aid allowances with income support levels. Around 14 per cent. of households who now receive legal aid free of contribution will be required to contribute. In addition, about 8 per cent. of households who fall out of eligibility in the current year because their income has risen above the upper income limit will not be restored to eligibility as a result of the decision not to uprate the upper limit in April of next year.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what analysis he has made of the reasons for the increase in spending on legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The reasons for the increase in legal aid expenditure are complex. There are two basic components involved. First, the number of people assisted
  763
  under the various parts of the legal aid scheme is increasing —around 3 million acts of assistance were paid for in 1991–92 as compared with around 2 million in 1985–86. Secondly, the unit cost of each act of assistance is increasing at a higher rate than inflation.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will make a statement on the error which the Benefits Agency committed in assessing applications for civil legal aid between 1 October 1991 and 30 March 1992; and what compensation he proposes to pay legal aid practitioners for their costs incurred in checking whether their clients meet the criteria for reassessment set out in the Benefits Agency letter of 2 November.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on Tuesday 17 November,Official Report, columns 103–4.

  Justiciary (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on the appointment of magistrates for each of the commission areas in England and Wales are of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of members of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees who are of Afro-Caribbean or Asian racial origin are as follows:

  Commission area

  Asian

  Afro Caribbean

  Cleveland

  1

  —

  East Sussex

  1

  —

  Inner London

  1

  1

  Isle of Wight

  —

  1

  Leicestershire

  —

  2

  Middlesex

  1

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  1

  Oxfordshire

  —

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  4

  —

  West Yorkshire

  4

  —

  No other advisory committees presently have members of Afro-Caribbean or Asian racial origin.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many justices of the peace, for each of the commission areas in England and Wales are of Afro-Caribbean or Asian origin.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost, but of 2,017 appointments made in 1991, a total of 97 were from the ethnic minorities. That is a total higher than the proportion of ethnic minorities in the age group from which magistrates are normally appointed.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Timber
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the International Tropical Timber Organisation 764
  concerning (a) the implementation of its Target 2000 campaign for a sustainable timber trade and (b) the level of imports and exports of tropical timber.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We fully support the objectives of Target 2000. We are proposing to fellow members of the International Tropical Timber Organisation in the context of the current renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement, that its resources and methods of operation be improved to enable it to promote the objectives of Target 2000 as effectively as possible. The ITTO's priority objective should be the promotion of sustainable forest management at national level and hence sustainable trade.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of United Kingdom or multilateral overseas aid money being improperly appropriated by Government or other officials in Kenya, Somalia, Zaire or Namibia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no evidence of improper appropriation of aid funds provided by the United Kingdom or multilateral organisations. We have rigorous safeguards in order to minimise the risk that our aid resources are misused. These include competitive tendering wherever possible, and direct payment to contractors. Purchasing agents have to be British and approved by us; payment is made direct to the supplier. There is an extensive system of financial control, reporting and audit, backed up by physical monitoring on the ground to help ensure that aid is achieving the intended purpose.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate has been made of the percentage of overseas aid provided by Her Majesty's Government which reaches its intended recipients and of the percentage which is sold on the black market.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration has systems and controls, second to none, for seeking to ensure that British aid is used for the purpose intended. We have a well-established system of financial reporting, physical monitoring and audit, including visits to projects by British officials, to ensure that our aid is achieving the intended benefits on the ground. If there were any evidence of corruption related to a British aid-funded contract, we would investigate vigorously and, if proven, withdraw from it.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the World bank report "Effective Implementation: Key to Development Input" for the Government's financial support for the World bank and for the role played by the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The report on effective implementation of projects financed by the World bank recommends a number of changes in policy, priorities and procedures. The president of the bank has welcomed the report and has
  765
  proposed an immediate start on the measures necessary to strengthen its performance. The report is now being considered by executive directors.

  The report itself makes no recommendations on funding, nor on the role of executive directors. Our support for the 10th replenishment of the International Development Association, will help provide the basis for implementing the report's findings. Our executive director will continue to play an important and active role.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the influence that the destruction of tropical rain forests in developing countries has had on the Government's policy towards the third world debt crisis.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The links between international debt and deforestation are complex. The pressures which cause deforestation exist independently of the size of a country's debt. Nevertheless, for wider economic and developmental reasons, Britain has led the way in promoting debt relief measures, particularly for the poorest.

  Twelve low-income, highly indebted countries have benefited from substantial reductions in their official debt as a result of the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms initiative. The terms currently reduce eligible payments due to Governments by as much as 50 per cent. We continue, however, to press for even more generous debt relief to be made available to those countries that need it.

  For middle income countries, which owe their debt largely to banks, we are providing support for commercial debt reduction through the Brady plan. This international agreement allows International Monetary Fund and World bank to devote some of their lending resources to

  ATP agreements concluded during 1989

  Country

  Project

  Lead United Kingdom company

  Amount (£ million)

  Egypt

  Maghara Coal Mine

  Babcocks

  0·080

  India

  URI Hydro Electric Power Station

  Boving and Co.

  17·146

  Indonesia

  Cigarding Port Extension

  Tarmac International Special Projects

  13·266

  Indonesia

  Radio Studios

  David Whittle Associates

  0·378

  Indonesia

  Satellite Remote Sensing

  Technology Applied Systems

  0·028

  Indonesia

  Scattered Diesels

  GEC Diesels

  5·891

  Kenya

  Mombasa South Coast Link Road

  Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners

  0·350

  Kenya

  Digital Micro Wave System

  Telectron Systems

  4·214

  Morocco

  Nador Steel Works Study

  W. S. Atkins

  0·133

  Pakistan

  Karachi Water II

  Portals Water Treatment

  6·629

  Philipines

  Gas Turbines Power Station

  JBE

  13·125

  Red Sea

  Regional Hydrocarbon Study

  Robertson Research International

  0·187

  Swaziland

  Fire Equipment

  Carmichael Fire and Bulk

  0·123

  Thailand

  Diesel Multiple Units

  BREL

  4·487

  Thailand

  Railway Signalling

  Transmark

  0·773

  Tunisia

  Railway Equipment

  Balfour Beatty

  0·500

  Tunisia

  Yarn and Fibre Plant

  Extrusion Systems Ltd.

  0·337

  ATP agreements concluded during 1990

  Country

  Project

  Lead United Kingdom company

  Amount (£ million)

  Botswana

  Flight Information Region

  Siemens Plessey Radar

  2·938

  China

  Beijing Subway

  Balfour Beatty (Metrotec)

  9·987

  China

  Danyang Aluminium Plant

  Davy McKee (Poole) Ltd.

  3·532

  Colombia

  San Andres Power Station

  Hawker Siddeley Power Engineering

  3·430

  Cyprus

  Limassol Water Treatment Plant

  Water Engineering

  1·470

  Indonesia

  Citayam/Cibinong Railway

  Foster Wheeler World Services

  20·105

  Indonesia

  Cigading/Serpong Railway Rehabilitation

  Davy/British Railway International

  24·690

  Indonesia

  Radio Communication System for the Ministry of Forestry

  Philips Radio Communication Systems

  34·111

  766
  facilitate voluntary debt reduction agreements between banks and debtors. Brazil, for instance, has been able to agree in principle a deal which will effectively reduce its £29 billion debt to banks by around a third.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Treasury minute on the first to 11th reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1992–93, paragraph 161, what proposals he has to change the auditing arrangements of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no plans to change the auditing arrangements for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Under the provisions of the CDC Act 1978, as amended in 1982 and 1986, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is responsible for appointing external auditors and for laying the CDC's annual report and accounts before Parliament. In addition, the CDC is subject to scrutiny by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Aid and Trade Projects
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each aid and trade provision project since 1989, with the companies and the sums of money involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: Aid agreements involving aid and trade provision funds have been concluded with Governments of developing countries since 1989 for projects for which the following companies are lead United Kingdom contractors.
  767

  Country

  Project

  Lead United Kingdom company

  Amount (£ million)

  Indonesia

  Radio Studio Rehabilitation

  Audix Ltd.

  5·040

  Indonesia

  Shortwave Radio Transmitters

  Marconi

  26·911

  Indonesia

  Aircraft Simulator Consultancy

  CAA

  0·050

  Kenya

  Moi University Consultancy

  Cambridge Education Consultants

  0·034

  Kenya

  Distribution Transformers

  N. I. Transformers

  0·688

  Kenya

  Rural Telecommunications Equipment

  Telectron Systems

  4·363

  Morocco

  Gas Turbines

  JBE

  7·276

  Morocco

  Diesel Electric Locos

  British Electrical

  6·107

  Malaysia

  Connaught Bridge

  NEI Parsons

  23·485

  Malaysia

  Medamit 2 Hydro Electric

  Sir William Halcrow and Partners

  0·244

  Malaysia

  Nucleus Hospitals

  John Laing International

  13·159

  Philippines

  Small Island Electrification - Phase I

  Dale Electric

  2·065

  Tunisia

  Dump Trucks

  Terex Equipment

  0·949

  Zimbabwe

  Fire Fighting Vehicles

  Carmichael Fire

  3·264

  Zimbabwe

  Harare Airport Radar

  Siemens Plessey Radar

  1·462

  ATP agreements concluded during 1991

  Country

  Project

  Lead United Kingdom company

  Amount (£ million)

  China

  Shanghai Telephone Equipment 520

  GPT International

  1·595

  China

  Duck Processing Units

  APV Baker

  1·942

  China

  Cotton Textile Machinery

  Piatt Saco Lowell (UK)

  1·065

  China

  Flour and Feed Mills

  Robinson Milling Systems

  2·333

  China

  Yue Yang Power Station Training

  GEC Alsthom Turbine Generators

  0·450

  China

  Xinjiang Ethylene Plant

  Snamprogetti

  47·179

  Ghana

  Fifth Power Project

  Hawker Siddeley Power Engineering

  7·280

  Ghana

  Kotoka International Airport

  Plessey Airports

  10·180

  Indonesia

  Western Universities Equipment

  Philip Harris International/Gallenkamp

  13·671

  Indonesia

  Airport Security System

  International Aeradio

  10·455

  Indonesia

  Jambi Power Station

  Mirrlees Blackstone (STPT)

  5·345

  Indonesia

  Flight Simulator

  Aeronautical Systems Designers

  4·659

  Indonesia

  Steel Bridging II

  Mabey & Johnson

  3·669

  Indonesia

  Cikampek/Padalarang Toll Road

  Cementation

  1·700

  Indonesia

  Automotive Sector study

  de Montfort Management

  0·489

  Malaysia

  Double Tracking

  Transmark

  0·798

  Malaysia

  Pergau Hydroelectric Project

  Balfour Beatty Cementation

  234·000

  Malaysia

  Nucleus Hospitals II

  John Laing International

  5·442

  Philippines

  Small Islands Electricity Phases 2 & 3

  Dale Electric International

  4·902

  Turkey

  Equipment for State Universities

  TQ International

  23·363

  Zimbabwe

  Airfield Crash Tenders

  Carmichael Fire

  2·479

  Zimbabwe

  Harare International Airport

  Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick Partners

  0·325

  Zimbabwe

  Supply of AWD Bedford Trucks

  AWD (Export)

  16·116

  Zimbabwe

  Supply of ERF Trucks

  ERF

  8·575

  ATP agreements concluded during 1992 to date

  Country

  Project

  Lead United Kingdom company

  Amount (£ million)

  China

  Urumqi PTA

  Foster Wheeler Energy

  39·000

  China

  Dalian Steam and Power

  Gibson Wells Engineering

  2·336

  China

  Twist Steel Wire

  Marshall Richards Barcro

  1·085

  China

  Fushun Heat and Power

  Gibson Wells Engineering

  13·172

  China

  Urumqi PX

  Babcock Contractors

  13·045

  Ghana

  Oil and Gas Storage Depots

  Motherwell Bridge Projects

  1·793

  Indonesia

  Western Universities Training Centre

  Sunderland Engineering Education Services

  2·214

  Malaysia

  Sibu Airport

  John Laing International

  1·933

  Republic of Yemen

  Tractor Implements and Spares

  Massey Ferguson UK

  4·650

  Republic of Yemen

  Mechanisation Study

  Not yet appointed

  0·497

  Tunisia

  Sewage Treatment Water Training

  Lagoon Technology International

  0·053

  Zimbabwe

  AWD Trucks Delivery

  AWD Export

  0·840

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a table showing how much of the assistance which was given by the United Kingdom to Somalia in each of the last 10 years 768
  went to the northern region known as the Republic of Somaliland, giving the figure and percentage of the total given (a) in humanitarian aid, whether by cash grant or in kind, (b) in development aid, whether by cash grant or in kind, (c) loans and (d) in any other form in each year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question of

  769
  Monday 23 November, at column 453, which gave a financial summary of our assistance to Somalia for each of the past 10 years. Aid is given to the country as a whole and statistics showing expenditure by region are not readily available.

  Albania
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response his Department made to the International Committee of the Red Cross appeal in July for food aid for targeted groups in need in Albania; whether that response was made bilaterally or through the EC; what total response was made by the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: We are aware of the appeal that was made in September and are in touch with the British Red Cross about it. It is sending a delegation to Albania next week to assess how the United Kingdom can best respond to the appeal and we expect it to submit a proposal on its return. We have already provided £1·3 million of bilateral humanitarian assistance to Albania. The bulk of our contribution is through the EC which has already this year provided 80 mecu of food aid direct to the Albanian Government, and agreed a further tranche of 40 mecu in October.

  Aid Budget
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the aid budget is spent in dollars and ecus; and what effect there has been on the purchasing power of the overseas aid budget since the recent devaluation of sterling.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: In 1992–93 it is estimated that £73 million, 4 per cent., of the provision for overseas aid for developing countries will be paid in US dollars and that £375 million, 20 per cent., will be paid in ecu. Given that exchange rates move up as well as down during the course of a year, it is not yet possible to predict what impact recent changes in the value of sterling will have on the purchasing power of the aid programme for developing countries.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the overseas aid budget in both percentage and cash terms is spent through multilateral organisations; how much, in both percentage and cash terms, is provided in non-sterling currencies; which currencies are used; and what is the impact on the aid budget in terms of additional sterling resources required to finance these commitments since the devaluation of sterling since the United Kingdom left the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: In 1992–93 it is estimated that £829 million, 44 per cent. of the provision for overseas aid for developing countries, will be spent through multilateral organisations. Approximately £462 million, 25 per cent. of the aid programme for developing countries, is paid in the following non-sterling currencies: the ecu and, in smaller amounts, the currencies of Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, eastern Caribbean, Fiji, France, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Netherlands, Solomon Islands, South Africa, United States and Vanuatu. Given that
  770
  exchange rates move up as well as down during the course of a year, it is not yet possible to say what impact recent changes in the value of sterling will have.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Albania
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic contacts there have been in recent weeks with Albania; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's current relations with Albania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British charge d'affaires in Tirana is in daily contact with the Albanian authorities. Her Majesty's ambassador at Rome, who is concurrently accredited to Tirana, also visited Albania recently and met President Berisha on 23 November. They discussed among other issues the United Kingdom's and Albania's close interest in political developments in the former Yugoslavia. Our relations with Albania are developing rapidly and are now very good.

  Visa Appeals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the total cost to his Department, over each of the past three years, of work associated with appeals by those appealing against refusal to grant visas to visit the United Kingdom; how many explanatory statements have been prepared over this period by British posts overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Information on costs is not available in the form requested.

  The number of explanatory statements prepared by British posts overseas in the last three years is as follows:

  Settlement

  Non-settlement

  Total

  1989

  4,330

  7,303

  11,633

  1990

  4,970

  12,445

  17,415

  1991

  4,162

  12,349

  16,511

  TOTALS

  13,462

  32,097

  45,559

  Special Operations Executive
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to release the records of the wartime Special Operations Executive.

  Mr. Hurd
  As part of the initiative which I announced on 14 May to review records withheld for more than 30 years, work has started on reviewing the SOE archives.

  A large proportion of the original records of SOE were destroyed, both by SOE itself at the end of the war, and in a fire at the Baker street headquarters in late 1945. The remaining archives are substantial and complex and the complete review will take some time. However, a first batch should be released in the second half of 1993.
  771

  President de Klerk
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held with President de Klerk during his visit to the United Kingdom on 14 and 15 November.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: The Prime Minister had a full discussion with President de Klerk. Their talks covered both the reform process in South Africa, and regional matters.

  Malawi
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will now take to secure the release of Mrs. Vera Chirwa currently held in prison in Malawi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the death of Orton Chirwa on 20 October, we have again urged the Malawian Government to release Vera Chirwa on humanitarian grounds. We shall continue to take every opportunity to press for her release.

  South African Arms Sales
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received the letter from Mr. Abdul S. Minty, director of the World Campaign Against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa, concerning Mr. Mark Thatcher and the sale of South African arms to Saudi Arabia; and if he will publish his reply.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A letter from Mr. Minty dated 3 June 1992 was received in the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on that day. The reply, from an official, dated 25 June, stated:"The United Kingdom adheres to UN Security Council resolutions 558 and 591 concerning, inter alia, the import of South African-produced arms. We take seriously allegations of British involvement in any contravention of these resolutions."
  In the case the hon. Member raises, we have no knowledge as to whether South African-produced arms were purchased by customers in third countries. But we shall investigate any alleged British involvement if it is established that such arms were imported in breach of the above resolutions.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position was adopted by Britain's representative on the United Nations 421 Arms Embargo Committee of the Security Council's consideration of the report concerning Mr. Mark Thatcher and the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There has been no substantive discussion within the committee to date, although the chairman has undertaken to seek information on the report from the relevant parties. But if the committee were to establish that arms have been imported in breach of United Nations Security Council resolution 558, we would of course be prepared to investigate any allegations of British involvement.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations 772
  he has received from the Government of the United States of America concerning the activities of Mr. Mark Thatcher on arms deals involving South Africa; and what action he took in response.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware of any such representations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria for granting entry visas to those from former Yugoslavia; and what criteria he has agreed with the International Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for selecting those suitable for entry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Visas will be granted to those nationals of the former Yugoslavia requiring visas where they meet the requirement of the immigration rules. Visas will also be granted where the applicant meets the definition of a refugee under the terms of the 1951 convention or has been displaced from his home by the civil war in the former Yugoslavia and, because of close links with the United Kingdom, including close family ties, the United Kingdom is the most appropriate country of refuge for that person. In addition, visas will be granted to those people and their dependants whom the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross judge to be in need of evacuation, and whom the United Kingdom has agreed to receive. We understand that initially the international organisations would wish to evacuate detainees from the existing detention camps in Bosnia.

  Operation Container
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects Operation Container to end in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Every effort is being made to bring down the number of prisoners in police cells. Provided that the prison population remains at or below its current level, I would expect the bulk of the police cells problem in Greater Manchester to end early next year. However, until Manchester prison becomes fully operational in June 1944, a rise in the prison population could lead to further calls on police cells.

  Prison Education Service
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of qualified teachers employed at each of the London prisons on 18 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Full and part-time salaried teachers employed in prisons have relevant qualifications. The numbers employed on 18 November in the following prisons were:

  Number

  Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh

  6

  Her Majesty's Prison Brixton

  5

  Her Majesty's Prison Holloway

  9

  Her Majesty's Prison Pentonville

  6

  773

  Number

  Her Majesty's Prison Wandsworth

  6

  Her Majesty's Prison Wormwood Scrubs

  3

  In addition to salaried staff, sessionally paid teachers are employed whose numbers vary according to the number and range of classes provided at each establishment.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the funding for each of the last five years for education services in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Total expenditure on education services in prisons in England and Wales in the past five years was as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  16·9

  1988–89

  19·5

  1989–90

  22·9

  1990–91

  25·5

  1991–92

  29·5

  Indictable Offences
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of indictable offences by age for the period 1987 to date.

  Mr. Jack
  The data available relates to the number of "known" offenders, that is, persons found guilty or cautioned. Information on indictable offences by age for the period 1987 to 1991 is included in table 6 of the Home Office statistical bulletin 30/92—"Cautions, court proceedings and sentencing, England and Wales, 1991", issued on 28 October 1992. A copy of the bulletin is in the Library. The 1991 data are provisional.

  Firearms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving the use of replica firearms have been committed in each police authority area in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures for offences involving imitation firearms are set out in the table. These figures include replica firearms and all other types of imitation firearms including toys.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which imitation firearms were reported to have been used

  Year

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  1987

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1988

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1989

  1

  3

  6

  3

  1990

  1

  11

  3

  7

  11991

  2

  1

  11

  9

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose a review of police procedures with a view to reducing the number of shotguns; and if he will make a statement.
  774
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  New controls on shotguns were imposed by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Since then, the number of shotgun certificates on issue has fallen by 18 per cent., from 882,000 in 1988 to 724,600 in 1991.

  Shotgun certificates are issued by chief officers of police. Before granting each certificate, the chief officer must be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to public safety.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to tighten gun control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 tightened the already strict controls on the possession of firearms and shot guns. The firearms consultative committee keeps the Firearms Acts under close review. It is open to the committee to recommend changes in the controls if it thinks fit.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a timetable for the adoption of the European convention on human rights into domestic law.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We do not plan to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law. We believe that it is for Parliament rather than the judiciary to determine how the principles of human rights in the convention are best secured.

  Police (Housing)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of the 10 November,Official Report, column 690, if he will list by location how much revenue his Department expects to raise from each of the five police houses in south Yorkshire that have been identified as being put on the housing market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office will not receive any revenue from the sale of the five houses. The proceeds will accrue to the South Yorkshire police authority. No information about the location and potential value of the properties is held centrally.

  Prisoner Escapes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are now at large after escaping either from custody whilst travelling under escort or from places of detention.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of those prisoners who have escaped from prison custody since 20 June 1988, either from prison establishments or whilst travelling under escort, 117 remain unlawfully at large, as at 24 November 1992.

  Police Inspections
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each regional crime squad in England and Wales the dates on which it is projected that each shall next be inspected by Her Majesty's inspector of police.
  775
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The programme of inspections of regional crime squads is as follows:

  Date of inspection

  Number of regional crime squad

  1992 1 to 3 December

  No. 5

  1993 15 to 17 February

  No. 3

  1993 8 to 10 March

  No. 4

  1993 11 to 13 May

  No. 7

  1993 10 to 12 August

  No. 1

  The programme of inspections after August 1993 has not yet been agreed.

  Underground Facilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he estimates will be raised for the public Exchequer as a result of selling off underground facilities for use in wartime or emergency.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is too soon to provide an estimate of the potential value of the four sites which are to be sold.

  Parole Documents
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether persons sentenced to imprisonment before October shall have access, in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 1992, to parole documentation which was written and submitted after October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no statutory requirement in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for prisoners to have access to parole documentation. Prisoners sentenced before 1 October 1992 will continue to have their cases reviewed under the current arrangements by local review committees and the parole board until 30 September 1994. After that date, they will be reviewed in accordance with the new procedures applying to those sentenced on or after 1 October 1992 which, inter alia, provide for disclosure of dossiers considered by the parole board.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will inform the British high commission in Islamabad of the outcome of their inquiries into an application by Mr. Shabir Ahmed, ref.: GV100/16328/TAH, who wishes to come to the United Kingdom as a priest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A letter from the British deputy high commissioner in Karachi referring Mr. Ahmed's application to the Home Office was received on 6 November. The immigration department wrote to the Nusrat-ul-Islam Mosque on 12 November seeking further information about Mr. Ahmed's proposed employment and are awaiting a reply. A decision will he taken as soon as the necessary enquiries have been completed.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries whose nationals are required to obtain a visa overseas prior to entering the United Kingdom; in what year the visa 776
  requirement was introduced in each of those countries; and for which countries a visa requirement has been withdrawn.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Visa requirements for the United Kingdom are set out in the appendix to the immigration rules—HC 251 as amended. The available information on the changes made to visa requirements is set out in the table.

  Changes to United Kingdom visa requirements since 1 January 1973

  Year

  Country

  Visas imposed

  1973

  Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Pakistan1

  1976

  Surinam

  1980

  Iran

  1982

  Argentina

  1985

  Sri Lanka

  1986

  Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ghana

  1987

  Nigeria

  1989

  Turkey, Haiti

  1990

  Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia

  1991

  Uganda

  1992

  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

  The territories formerly comprising the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (excluding Croatia and Slovenia).

  Visas abolished

  1973

  Iran

  1974

  Niger

  1978

  United Arab Emirates, Surinam

  1990

  German Democratic Republic, Argentina, Hungary, Czechoslovakia

  1992

  US Pacific Trust Territories, Poland

  1 Limited to dependants of those settled or admitted with an avenue to settlement.

  Bosnian Nationals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when is he going to take a decision on the applications by Bosnian nationals, sponsored by the Leeds-based Alert organisation, who applied to enter the United Kingdom for medical treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It has been agreed to grant exceptionally and on compassionate grounds visas for two individuals to come to the United Kingdom to claim asylum and receive medical treatment. Six members of the families of these two will be allowed to accompany them. Sponsors have agreed to meet the cost of medical treatment.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what right of appeal is available to those Bosnian nationals, sponsored by the Leeds-based Alert organisation, whose applications to enter the United Kingdom, exceptionally, outside the immigration rules, have been refused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  They may appeal to an adjudicator under section 13(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.
  777

  Welsh Police Authorities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for amending the boundaries of the Welsh police authorities, pursuant to proposals for local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are currently considering a range of issues concerning the future of the police service in England and Wales, including the boundaries of police force areas. We have yet to reach any firm conclusions.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter of 13 September from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth requesting details of his Department's approach and guidance on procedures for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice.

  Mr. Jack
  I have written to the hon. Member today.
  778

  Probation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of people who were released on parole and supervised by the probation service for the most convenient date in each of the years(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c)

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the numbers of prisoners granted parole is published annually in the report of the parole board—table 3 of the 1991 edition. For information for January to September 1992, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 11 November,Official Report, columns 780–81. Information on the numbers commencing parole supervision by the probation service and the numbers receiving such supervision on 31 December is published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin—tables 1 and 2 of issue 26/92. Information for 1992 is not yet available. Copies of these publications are in the Library.
  779

  Fire Authorities, Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the boundaries of fire authorities in Wales in the light of the proposed local government unitary authority boundaries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be considering the arrangements for the most effective provision of fire cover in Wales in the future in the light of proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be bringing forward to change the structure of local government in Wales, and of advice from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council.

  Speeding Offences
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the law relating to speeding offences so that the number of penalty points reflects the seriousness of the offence.

  Mr. Jack
  No. Courts can award between three and six penalty points for exceeding the speed limit and are already required by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to pass a sentence which reflects the seriousness of the offence committed.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total sum made available by central Government (i) in the current year and

  Police grant paid to police authorities

  Police authority

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Avon and Somerset

  26,409

  27,039

  29,119

  31,394

  35,101

  38,476

  41,528

  44,676

  57,273

  61,594

  62,425

  Bedfordshire

  9,271

  9,574

  10,332

  11,124

  11,572

  13,313

  14,265

  15,627

  17,352

  21,443

  21,338

  Cambridgeshire

  10,134

  10,205

  11,191

  12,568

  14,297

  16,132

  15,925

  18,150

  20,969

  26,284

  26,295

  Cheshire

  16,251

  16,505

  18,049

  19,510

  19,418

  24,319

  24,478

  26,730

  32,057

  37,587

  37,067

  Cleveland

  12,689

  12,908

  14,111

  15,175

  16,107

  19,422

  21,160

  23,029

  26,584

  31,001

  31,726

  Cumbria

  9,700

  9,714

  11,446

  10,637

  14,209

  15,331

  15,465

  18,067

  19,646

  24,572

  25,144

  Derbyshire

  14,925

  16,856

  26,847

  37,531

  25,025

  22,913

  26,401

  27,785

  32,844

  35,194

  36,301

  Devon and Cornwall

  25,170

  26,378

  29,067

  32,023

  34,626

  40,787

  41,115

  46,264

  52,323

  62,743

  66,557

  Dorset

  11,077

  10,955

  12,661

  14,179

  15,531

  18,493

  18,131

  20,984

  25,508

  30,164

  30,617

  Durham

  11,108

  12,175

  19,607

  15,620

  14,274

  17,256

  18,610

  19,812

  22,131

  27,656

  27,276

  Essex

  22,811

  23,275

  26,701

  28,407

  31,360

  37,609

  39,753

  42,712

  54,190

  62,845

  65,065

  Gloucestershire

  8,488

  9,577

  10,426

  11,606

  12,376

  14,163

  15,287

  16,715

  20,893

  25,081

  24,801

  Hampshire

  27,491

  28,010

  30,566

  32,233

  36,697

  42,149

  45,001

  48,998

  56,889

  65,949

  69,252

  Hertfordshire

  14,504

  15,158

  15,395

  15,737

  18,567

  21,618

  22,471

  26,076

  29,668

  33,964

  34,704

  Humberside

  17,440

  18,903

  39,237

  19,671

  23,243

  27,469

  27,332

  31,422

  35,548

  41,105

  42,640

  Kent

  26,078

  26,588

  43,747

  33,017

  34,485

  38,583

  45,780

  48,688

  53,327

  65,673

  70,718

  Lancashire

  27,763

  28,591

  31,596

  32,370

  35,085

  41,694

  44,753

  48,048

  54,551

  65,833

  67,676

  Leicestershire

  15,903

  16.605

  29,606

  20,029

  20,007

  23,634

  25,559

  26,831

  35,689

  35,821

  38,042

  Lincolnshire

  10,338

  11,227

  11,563

  12,041

  13,277

  16,010

  16,587

  18,806

  20,609

  24,849

  26,584

  Norfolk

  10,748

  11,846

  12,513

  13,353

  14,651

  17,819

  18,364

  20,785

  23,922

  28,882

  29,824

  Northamptonshire

  9,280

  9,733

  10,592

  11,402

  12,655

  15,235

  15,579

  18,870

  21,030

  23,776

  25,639

  North Yorkshire

  12,316

  12,987

  22,415

  19,306

  15,742

  17,885

  19,168

  22,386

  24,445

  28,264

  29,067

  Nottinghamshire

  20,208

  24,585

  73,689

  22,110

  24,603

  29,570

  29,340

  31,628

  39,420

  46,123

  47,666

  Staffordshire

  17,193

  18,556

  20,747

  22,313

  23,007

  27,863

  29,168

  32,789

  37,317

  45,509

  46,269

  Suffolk

  10,425

  10,784

  11,599

  12,719

  14,288

  16,112

  16,563

  19,548

  22,647

  26,254

  26,726

  Surrey

  13,585

  14,221

  15,449

  16,656

  18,542

  20,850

  22,157

  25,339

  29,558

  35,236

  35,290

  Sussex

  24,351

  25,424

  26,326

  29,271

  29,742

  36,351

  37,321

  41,912

  46,274

  58,294

  58,447

  Thames Valley

  27,788

  30,452

  33,163

  36,740

  39,393

  51,375

  50,677

  57,924

  71,712

  83,360

  83,923

  Warwickshire

  8,457

  8,920

  24,259

  8,328

  11,918

  13,017

  13,864

  15,257

  19,457

  21,936

  22,505

  West Mercia

  16,480

  18,134

  20,554

  20,613

  24,101

  25,344

  29,495

  29,959

  36,195

  41,736

  44,930

  Wiltshire

  8,907

  9,072

  10,208

  11,553

  12,146

  14,947

  15,151

  17,449

  19,908

  25,137

  25,365

  Greater Manchester

  59,792

  62,997

  66,621

  67,784

  78,444

  88,826

  92,046

  103,337

  117,946

  137,122

  138,996

  Merseyside

  40,389

  43,756

  49,779

  50,029

  57,945

  60,228

  64,182

  72,117

  80,252

  94,753

  98,505

  Northumbria

  29,673

  31,121

  37,162

  37,985

  40,870

  47,746

  47,618

  53,342

  64,228

  76,526

  74,822

  South Yorkshire

  25,525

  26,442

  50,769

  35,230

  33,486

  35,790

  38,598

  46,423

  50,135

  56,536

  58,200

  West Midlands

  54,422

  57,925

  62,449

  65,758

  75,188

  81,568

  91,740

  100,385

  114,533

  142,264

  140,619

  780
  (ii) for the 1993–94 financial year for (a) fire services, (b) civil defence and (c) other emergency services in each county and metropolitan area in England and Wales;

  (2) what is the total figure provided by central Government in each of the last 10 years for (a) fire services, (b) civil defence and (c) other emergency services in each county and metropolitan area in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]The Government do not pay specific grant for fire services. Central Government support is currently provided through the revenue support grant system in the form of redistributed business rates and revenue support grant. Prior to 1990 it was by means of rate support grant. These are intended to support each local authority's services collectively, and no part of them is assigned to any particular service. It is therefore not possible to provide details of the amount of Government financial support applied specifically to fire services.

  The tables give details of grants paid by the Home Office to local authorities specifically in support of police and civil defence expenditure from 1982–83 to 1992–93. In addition, the proportion of police and civil defence expenditure not covered by Home Office grants will have received support through the rate or revenue support grant systems, although this cannot be quantified. Subject to parliamentary approval, 1993–94 provision for England and Wales is likely to be £3,060·3 million for police grants—current, capital, loan charges and special grants—and £20·2 million for civil defence grants—current and capital.
  781

  Police authority

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  West Yorkshire

  42,817

  45,380

  55,235

  51,887

  60,292

  61,224

  71,756

  83,812

  94,046

  109,725

  114,370

  City of London

  6,133

  6,708

  7,330

  7,665

  8,658

  9,780

  10,194

  11,343

  19,454

  21,338

  22,681

  Metropolitan Police

  303,249

  335,275

  363,895

  385,874

  434,212

  464,551

  500,687

  554,057

  646,400

  728,916

  788,120

  Dyfed-Powys

  7,454

  7,540

  8,273

  10,039

  10,216

  11,891

  13,033

  13,747

  16,227

  18,576

  19,917

  Gwent

  8,069

  8,393

  9,960

  10,347

  10,841

  12,191

  12,972

  15,032

  17,635

  21,134

  21,651

  North Wales

  11,178

  11,538

  13,923

  13,551

  14,395

  16,914

  17,764

  20,141

  23,869

  25,672

  27,879

  South Wales

  25,954

  27,660

  33,737

  33,327

  36,156

  40,042

  41,868

  46,439

  54,170

  64,090

  65,450

  Civil Defence Grant paid to local authorities in support of approved revenue and capital expenditure, mainly at the rate of 100 per cent, (some revenue expenditure supported at the rate of 75 per cent.)

  (000s)

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  31992–93

  ENGLAND

  (i) County Councils1

  Avon

  75

  89

  52

  86

  258

  279

  239

  313

  288

  332

  322

  Bedfordshire

  94

  86

  108

  90

  118

  159

  164

  175

  208

  238

  226

  Berkshire

  138

  190

  198

  237

  284

  444

  388

  391

  407

  494

  447

  Buckinghamshire

  64

  78

  124

  245

  235

  321

  301

  318

  359

  421

  395

  Cambridgeshire

  111

  206

  305

  371

  274

  353

  397

  334

  385

  415

  582

  Cheshire

  163

  182

  196

  234

  346

  614

  630

  578

  247

  905

  345

  Cleveland

  67

  76

  74

  70

  123

  166

  181

  192

  219

  240

  247

  Cornwall

  74

  89

  110

  147

  149

  305

  330

  267

  179

  404

  367

  Cumbria

  101

  171

  142

  176

  200

  285

  562

  523

  387

  436

  384

  Derbyshire

  96

  104

  98

  n/a

  140

  192

  187

  164

  226

  259

  241

  Devon

  147

  210

  345

  365

  517

  673

  544

  661

  731

  743

  659

  Dorset

  87

  134

  184

  221

  279

  289

  317

  301

  333

  356

  379

  Durham

  88

  119

  134

  137

  125

  190

  251

  262

  242

  243

  235

  East Sussex

  167

  125

  184

  182

  175

  249

  258

  309

  321

  375

  364

  Essex

  219

  236

  315

  353

  377

  466

  551

  710

  489

  791

  515

  Gloucestershire

  104

  121

  154

  226

  278

  351

  326

  355

  445

  313

  304

  Hampshire

  156

  162

  141

  179

  203

  265

  303

  373

  382

  427

  417

  Hereford and Worcester

  78

  122

  115

  115

  136

  197

  213

  352

  345

  318

  351

  Hertfordshire

  123

  120

  181

  177

  253

  520

  444

  433

  442

  498

  491

  Humberside

  155

  164

  366

  277

  235

  405

  415

  394

  459

  396

  309

  Isle of Wight

  32

  43

  76

  82

  106

  213

  232

  264

  280

  303

  291

  Kent

  195

  383

  379

  450

  592

  679

  762

  524

  707

  741

  558

  Lancashire

  172

  190

  267

  269

  334

  457

  454

  453

  359

  324

  310

  Leicestershire

  151

  129

  180

  184

  146

  207

  280

  265

  279

  297

  223

  Lincolnshire

  100

  116

  115

  326

  279

  379

  395

  355

  615

  641

  794

  Norfolk

  119

  148

  180

  335

  457

  427

  409

  448

  621

  588

  490

  Northants

  68

  81

  109

  195

  148

  197

  262

  375

  424

  378

  305

  Northumberland

  100

  140

  191

  144

  219

  229

  384

  359

  433

  305

  333

  North Yorkshire

  156

  185

  228

  304

  261

  392

  404

  339

  336

  364

  353

  Nottinghamshire

  176

  188

  215

  251

  269

  368

  477

  391

  350

  349

  330

  Oxfordshire

  54

  103

  74

  126

  377

  449

  379

  441

  413

  437

  441

  Shropshire

  54

  82

  178

  105

  87

  129

  179

  283

  222

  274

  259

  Somerset

  112

  160

  155

  198

  408

  312

  305

  302

  319

  353

  335

  Staffordshire

  115

  125

  130

  219

  254

  360

  356

  351

  488

  347

  349

  Suffolk

  70

  102

  125

  223

  241

  279

  356

  367

  339

  335

  334

  Surrey

  244

  328

  506

  355

  404

  436

  444

  n/a

  420

  393

  614

  Warwickshire

  60

  119

  159

  151

  252

  230

  250

  259

  296

  320

  308

  West Sussex

  70

  84

  124

  121

  194

  303

  584

  359

  329

  340

  335

  Wiltshire

  186

  205

  184

  248

  348

  362

  324

  322

  336

  337

  330

  (ii) Metropolitan Areas2

  London

  347

  275

  458

  412

  772

  1,277

  1,558

  1,745

  1,743

  1,818

  1,755

  Greater Manchester

  242

  206

  299

  304

  159

  399

  409

  406

  522

  574

  565

  Merseyside

  172

  166

  177

  199

  266

  374

  416

  517

  537

  629

  573

  South Yorkshire

  91

  97

  107

  125

  212

  377

  347

  379

  437

  508

  464

  Tyne and Wear

  65

  81

  73

  80

  89

  299

  328

  556

  445

  495

  461

  West Midlands

  250

  268

  273

  288

  239

  413

  453

  458

  522

  687

  480

  West Yorkshire

  200

  193

  196

  236

  257

  325

  391

  406

  445

  451

  431

  (iii) Police Authorities

  Avon-Somerset

  49

  52

  65

  51

  49

  78

  82

  2

  3

  5

  8

  Devon-Cornwall

  50

  55

  64

  65

  76

  83

  87

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  143

  168

  187

  5

  4

  3

  6

  Hampshire

  53

  70

  80

  118

  106

  91

  106

  0

  0

  6

  7

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  81

  82

  116

  7

  7

  6

  16

  Northumbria

  63

  61

  108

  93

  120

  139

  147

  11

  11

  14

  14

  Sussex

  19

  23

  21

  16

  17

  17

  45

  0

  0

  0

  5

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  35

  0

  0

  0

  Thames Valley

  33

  53

  58

  96

  74

  71

  62

  13

  12

  3

  14

  West Mercia

  43

  55

  55

  65

  75

  93

  91

  3

  0

  3

  6

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  97

  144

  152

  0

  6

  3

  7

  782 783

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  31992–93

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  70

  72

  83

  12

  0

  0

  0

  (iv) London Boroughs and City of London

  179

  415

  169

  470

  741

  504

  544

  146

  152

  90

  2

  WALES

  (v) County Councils

  Clwyd

  52

  87

  90

  114

  143

  246

  287

  301

  336

  393

  386

  Dyfed

  45

  70

  86

  295

  254

  207

  228

  218

  243

  312

  277

  Gwent

  71

  118

  128

  144

  151

  216

  267

  252

  305

  344

  339

  Gwynedd

  42

  47

  68

  68

  82

  132

  165

  245

  255

  282

  264

  Mid Glamorgan

  42

  32

  31

  35

  41

  115

  176

  207

  263

  653

  570

  Powys

  36

  37

  146

  53

  56

  110

  138

  156

  162

  184

  166

  South Glamorgan

  83

  66

  76

  63

  80

  123

  158

  174

  201

  227

  193

  West Glamorgan

  45

  50

  56

  40

  59

  156

  253

  245

  247

  233

  264

  (vi) Police Authorities

  Dyfed-Powys

  8

  8

  15

  25

  38

  53

  27

  1

  1

  1

  5

  North Wales

  54

  50

  50

  46

  53

  47

  71

  0

  0

  0

  2

  South Wales

  44

  49

  53

  56

  62

  61

  102

  1

  1

  0

  2

  1 Includes any grant paid to districts in that county.

  2 Up to 1985–86, grant paid to the Greater London council, metropolitan county councils and metropolitan districts; from 1986–87, grant paid to fire and civil defence authorities.

  3 Preliminary approved estimates of expenditure in grant terms (comparable figures for London boroughs not available).

  Interpretation Services
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statutory obligation the probation services in England and Wales lie to provide interpretation services to clients of the service during interviews for pre-sentence reports or in any other appropriate circumstances.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: There are at present no statutory obligations on probation services in respect of interpretation. But national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community endorse the need to take reasonable steps to communicate effectively with, and understand offenders at all times.

  Broncoscopy Facilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the broncoscopy facilities available(a) in south Glamorgan and (b) in Wales; and what plans his Department has to curtail or reorganise those services.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  Broncoscopy facilities are available at the following hospitals—latest available centrally validated figures, as at 1990.

  Wales

  South Glamorgan

  University Hospital of Wales Cardiff Royal Infirmary Llandough Hospital Sully Hospital

  Clwyd

  Abergele Chest Hospital Ysbyty Glan Clwyd Maelor General Hospital Bronglais Hospital

  East Dyfed

  West Wales General Hospital Prince Phillip Hospital Llanelli General Hospital Bryntirion Hospital

  784

  Gwent

  Nevill Hall Hospital Royal Gwent Hospital St. Woolos Hospital County Hospital Griffithstown

  Gwynedd

  Ysbyty Gwynedd Llandudno General Hospital

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bridgend General Hospital Princess of Wales Hospital East Glamorgan Hospital Prince Charles Hospital

  Powys

  Machynlleth Chest Hospital

  West Glamorgan

  Morriston Hospital Singleton Hospital Neath General Hospital

  The provision of such services are matters for individual health authorities to determine based on local needs.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional secure places are to be provided for juvenile offenders by 1995; and what is the estimated cost of each place.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Plans are being prepared to provide an additional 60–65 secure places in order to implement the new juvenile remand provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 by the mid 1990s.

  For planning purposes, the cost per place (including professional fees) has been estimated at £200,000. Actual costs will be dependent on a number of factors including size and location of the new accommodation, the competitiveness of the local construction industry, and the level of professional fees incurred. The aim will be to ensure that the design and development of the schemes represents good value for money.
  785

DEFENCE

  Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the armed forces bases located outside the United Kingdom which currently have an on-site school for the children of military personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  a.Bases in Western Germany

  Ayrshire Barracks, Monchengladbach

  Buller Barracks, Munster

  Catterick Barracks, Bielefeld

  Clifton Barracks, Minden

  Dennis Barracks, Munster Oertze

  Fallingbostel Camp, Fallinghostel

  Hobart Barracks, Detmold

  Hohne Camp, Hohne

  Mansergh Barracks, Gutersloh

  Muna Barracks, Wulfen

  Napier Barracks, Dortmund

  Nelson Barracks, Munster

  Normandy Barracks, Sennelager

  Oxford Barracks, Munster

  Prestatyn Barracks, Osnabruck

  Rheindahlen Military Complex

  RAF Bruggen

  RAF Gatow

  RAF Laarbruch

  RAF Wildenrath

  Roy Barracks, Ratingen

  Suffolk Barracks, Dortmund

  Torfek Barracks, Hildesheim

  Wavell Barracks, Berlin

  Wentworth Barracks, Herford

  b.Bases in Cyprus

  Ayios Nikolaos Camp

  Dhekelia Garrison

  Episkopi Garrison

  Pergamos Camp

  RAF Akrotiri

  United Nations Force in Cyprus (British Contingent)

  Base, Nicosia

  c.Bases in Hong Kong/Brunei

  Gun Club Hill Barracks, Kowloon

  Stanley Fort, Hong Kong Island

  Brunei Garrison

  d.Other Overseas Bases

  Gibraltar Garrison

  Belize Garrison

  RAF Mount Pleasant, Falkland Islands

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 105–6, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Hydrographic Office's visits to (a) Romania in June, (b) Russia in October 1992 and (c) Monaco in May.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Responsibility for the matter has been delegated to the Hydrographic Office under its chief executive Rear Admiral Myres. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  786
  Letter from Rear Admiral J. A. L. Myres to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 November 1992:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence for the cost to the public purse of the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office's visits to (a) Romania in June, (b) Russia in October 1992, and (c) Monaco in May.

  The following were the costs of travel and subsistence for these visits:

  £

  (a)Romania (June 1992)

  1,373

  (b)Russia (October 1992)

  814

  (c) Monaco (May 1992)

  970

  Mr. Mark Thatcher
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all communications between his Department and Mr. Mark Thatcher concerning the defence and security exhibition in Bahrain on 11 May.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not the practice for Government Departments to list communications with members of the public.

  Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies bid for the contract to service Harrier aircraft at HMS Heron at Yeovilton.

  Mr. Aitken
  The following companies put forward bids for the contract to service Harrier aircraft at HMS Heron at Yeovilton: Airwork, British International Helicopters Ltd., Clarke Chapman Engineering Services, Field Aircraft Ltd., FR Aviation Ltd., Line Up Aviation Personnel, and Lovak Ltd.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which company has been awarded the contract for the servicing of Harrier aircraft at HMS Heron, Yeovilton.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contract for the servicing of Harrier aircraft at HMS Heron, Yeovilton, has been awarded to Field Aircraft Ltd.

  Exports (Albania)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his policy towards the export of military equipment and technology to Albania.

  Mr. Aitken
  All exports of military equipment and technology are considered on a case-by-case basis. All relevant factors are taken into account. In the case of Albania, a major factor is that it remains a proscribed destination of the co-ordinating committee on multilateral strategic export controls (COCOM).

SCOTLAND

  Health Budget
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the projected budget allocation(a) for each health board in Scotland and (b) in total for Scotland for the next three years.
  787
  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend will soon be announcing the allocations he proposes to make to his various spending programmes, including the health programme.

  The budget allocation for each health board is set annually. They have not yet been agreed for 1993–94, but once they are they will be announced in the usual way.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current numbers of staffed beds for(a) orthopaedic surgery, (b) general surgery and (c) general medicine at (i) Stracathro hospital, (ii) Arbroath infirmary and (iii) Tayside health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  National Health Service Average available staffed beds by selected specialty, quarter ending 30 June 1992

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Orthopaedic surgery

  General surgery

  General medicine

  (i) Stracathro hospital

  47

  34

  71

  (ii) Arbroath infirmary

  —

  —

  26

  (iii) Tayside health board

  258

  272

  379

  Health Board Funding
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the progress in implementing the move to parity of funding for Scottish health boards;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the funding implications for Scottish health boards of moving to parity of funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  There has been steady progress towards the fairer distribution of available resources to health boards in line with the population-based methodology set out in the Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation —SHARE—working party report. Latterly, allocations have been made to health boards as purchasers of services, based solely on weighted capitation of their resident populations using SHARE methodology as proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients", Cm. 555.

  In the present financial year, allocations ranged from 3·99 per cent. above the parity target to 4·69 per cent. below, compared with 16 per cent. above and 34 per cent. below in 1977–78 when SHARE-based allocations were first introduced.

  Further movement to parity is proposed, but is constrained by the effect that significant changes would have on the financial situation of individual health boards.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the way and the period of time that the consultation procedure was carried out over the proposals for health and social services trusts in Northern Ireland; and what representations he has received expressing concerns over the timing of the consultations.
  788
  Mr. Hanley
  In both rounds to date the applications prepared by the units which aspired to trust status were issued widely for a period of public consultation which lasted for three months.

  Of 61 respondents to the first round, one expressed concern as to the timing.

  In the second round the corresponding figure was three out of a total of 271 respondents.

  Security
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Since I answered a similar question on 29 October 1992 there have been 11 deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, including nine civilians, one RUC officer and one soldier.

  The Government continue to lend their full support to the security forces in their relentless efforts to bring those responsible for these heinous crimes to justice. To early November this year, 365 people have been charged with serious terrorist-type offences, including 94 with murder or attempted murder.

  Select Committees (Evidence)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions he, his Ministers and officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments have given oral or written evidence to Select Committees since April 1989.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have not yet given evidence myself, but since April 1989 NIO Ministers have given oral evidence on three occasions and officials on 14 occasions. Written evidence has been submitted on 14 occasions.

  Urban Development Grant
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to extend urban development grant to urban areas outside Belfast and Londonderry.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Urban development grant is targeted towards areas of greatest need and there are no plans to extend it to areas outside Belfast and Londonderry. The International Fund for Ireland operates a similar scheme called the urban development programme which promotes the rehabilitation, revitalisation and development of the commercial centre of towns and villages outside Belfast and Londonderry.

  Terrorism (Security Services Involvement)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to investigate the involvement of members of the security services in terrorism following the conviction of Mr. Brian Nelson.

  Mr. Mates
  The investigation of any allegations of criminal conduct is a matter for the RUC.
  789

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of completion of the Scottish interconnector to Northern Ireland on competition in electrical supply.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for developing competition in the supply of electricity rests with the Director of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland. In drawing up his proposals he will take account of the interconnector to Scotland which will offer access to a wide range of generation sources and to alternatively priced electricity.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the arrangements for the allocation of a further tranche of electricity generation.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for ordering new generating capacity rests with NIE plc. NIE is currently having discussions with the Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland and hopes to announce the start of the competition for new plant next year.

  Examiner of Statutory Rules
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the present Examiner of Statutory Rules was appointed.

  Mr. Mates
  1 July 1992.

  Water Quality and Sewage Disposal
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest estimate of costs needed and time required to improve water quality and sewage disposal for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Drinking water quality and standards of sewage treatment are already high in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, there is a need for continuing improvement. An enhanced programme of capital works is in hand to ensure that older water and sewage treatment works are modernised or replaced to ensure compliance with the latest standards. This programme will mean an increase in capital expenditure from the current level of £49 million in 1992–93 to a projected level of £80 million in 1995–96 and expenditure would remain at that level for the rest of the decade.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his latest proposals to improve water quality and sewage disposal for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has a programme of capital works extending over the next 10 years to improve its water and sewerage infrastructure.

  President-elect Clinton
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet representatives of the incoming Clinton administration to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland.
  790
  Mr. Mates
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present, but we look forward to establishing contact at an appropriate moment in the new year.

  Children Order
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate when he hopes to publish the draft Children Order.

  Mr. Hanley
  Work is nearing completion on the preparation of a draft Children Order which will reform the law in Northern Ireland on the care and upbringing of children along the lines of the Children Act 1981. My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, hopes to publish a proposal for a draft order for consultation early next year.

  Electricity Charges
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the effect of charges for electricity in manufacturing industry on existing jobs and future job creation in high energy-consuming industries.

  Mr. Atkins
  The restructuring of the Northern Ireland electricity industry will bring increased efficiencies and greater competition leading to downward pressure on prices. This will improve the competitiveness of all Northern Ireland manufacturing industry which is the best means of securing existing employment and creating new jobs.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding the privatisation of the water service in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been representations made by some 40 individuals or organisations.

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with representatives of the trade unions in Northern Ireland about the implications of the autumn statement on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  I have not had any discussions with the trade unions in Northern Ireland about the autumn statement.

  Intergovernmental Talks
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Government of the Irish Republic and indicate what further plans he has to meet them.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I last met the Irish Government on 16 November 1992 at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference when we discussed the matters described in the joint statement issued after the meeting. I hope to have a further meeting with the Irish Government as soon as practicable after the Irish general election.
  791

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to complete the privatisation of the trust ports in the Province.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is expected that the draft Order in Council which will provide the necessary powers to enable any of Northern Ireland's trust ports to be privatised, will be laid before both Houses in the summer of 1993. It will become law two months from the date made.

  The draft order will allow any Northern Ireland trust port authority to submit a privatisation scheme for approval and provide the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland with powers to initiate a scheme to privatise a trust port with a turnover of more than £5 million in at least two of the proceeding three years, if that port authority has not itself submitted such a scheme within two years of the enactment of the order.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a response to the most recent representations he has received about the case of Colin Wallace.

  Mr. Mates
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Robert Atkins), Minister responsible for the economy and the environment.

  Health and Social Services Boards
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what organisations are invited to nominate people to serve on the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland; how such nominees are chosen to serve; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Organisations were not asked to nominate individuals for membership of the health and social services boards which came into existence on 1 April 1991. The non-executive members on each board were appointed on the strength of their experience and for their particular abilities in various fields including management, personnel, finance and the voluntary sector and not as representatives of particular organisations.

  Some of the members served on the boards prior to 31 March 1991 and their services were retained to provide the new boards with stability and continuity during the change over period.

  Care Homes
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residential care homes for fewer than four people are registered in Northern Ireland, in each of the health and social services boards areas.

  Mr.Hanley:
  None
  792
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional money will be included in the Northern Ireland budget provisions to provide for the additional key workers to be employed to ensure that the terms of the new Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order are fulfilled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  From 1 April 1993 the health and social services boards will, like, local authorities in England and Wales, employ "key workers" as part of their care management responsibilities. These arrangements will apply whether the client is living independently at home or in a residential care or nursing home setting, with the costs being met by the boards out of their community care budgets, which are being considerably enhanced from the 1993–94 financial year.

  Neither the draft Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order nor the draft regulations to be made under that order contain provisions which require the employment of additional key workers by voluntary and private sector homes.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to whom the people to be employed at the proposed arm's-length unit for the inspection of registered homes in Northern Ireland will be responsible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Registration and inspection units were established in 1991 under the community care reforms Responsibility for their organisation and management and for ensuring their independence from operational management lies with the area general manager of each health and social services board who is, in turn, directly accountable to his board for the functions and performance of the unit.

  Each board has also established an advisory committee to provide a link between its registration and inspection unit and the public interest which it serves. Membership of the advisory committees is intended to reflect the scope of the units' activities and is drawn from the groups of service providers—such as private sector residential care or nursing home proprietors—with whom the units work.

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average number of applications for vacancies for general practitioner's posts in Northern Ireland every year since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is available only in respect of single handed-practice vacancies. Partnerships select their own candidates and information on these is not held centrally.

  Year

  Average number of applications

  1989

  34

  1990

  35

  1991

  36

  1992

  40

  793

  Housing Executive
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the budget to the Housing Executive to meet housing needs in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The resources available to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for 1992–93 have recently been increased by £3 million to enable it to purchase dwellings for people in urgent need of housing. A further £1·3 million has been added mainly to cover the cost of bomb damage repairs to executive property. This means that the resources available to the executive for 1992–93 have been increased to approximately £490 million.

  Lanark Way
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when it is proposed to reopen Lanark way for the convenience of the general public in their private and business interests in the pursuance of their lawful activities in commuting across the community divide.

  Mr. Mates
  The opening and closing of the Lanark way gates is an operational matter for the RUC, which must take into account the level of terrorist threat and the need to protect the community. I understand that although there are no current plans to reopen the gates, the RUC is keeping the situation under constant review.

  Laganside Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Treasury Minute on the first to eleventh reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1992–93, paragraph 161, what proposals he has to change the auditing arrangements of the Laganside corporation.

  Mr. Atkins
  The audit arrangements for Langanside corporation are laid down in the Laganside Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. The legislation requires that the corporation's accounts be audited by an auditor to be appointed annually by the Department of the Environment. This arrangement has the approval of the Northern Ireland Audit Office which has the right under articles 8 and 9 of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to inspect the records of the corporation to ensure that the corporation is using its resources economically, efficiently and effectively.

  In view of the Treasury minute on the first to eleventh reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1992–93, paragraph 161, the Department will now take steps to provide the Audit Office with wider access to the books and records of Laganside corporation. This will be done through the financial memorandum which regulates the financial arrangements between the corporation and the Department.

  Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was (i) the total cost, adjusted to 1992 prices of the wildlife incident investigation scheme for Northern Ireland and (ii) the proportion of the total cost contributed by the agrochemical industry levy, in each of the last five years.
  794
  Mr. Hanley
  An overall costing for the Departments involved in the operation of the scheme is not available.

  Diagnostic services carried out by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in 1991–92 were costed at £14,824. This amount was recouped by means of the agrochemical levy. Prior to 1991–92 diagnostic testing was financed by DANI.

  Conservation Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many road development plans currently mentioned within local authority structural plans in Wales threaten special protection areas and Ramsar sites; and if he will list the proposed developments and the sites involved;

  (2) if he will list the local authority development plans which currently pose (a) one and (b) two or more threats to Ramsar sites and special protection areas in Wales; and if he will list the sites affected.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The only proposal in a county structure plan in Wales which crosses part of a designated special protection area, which is also a Ramsar site, is the Shotton to Connah's Quay bypass, a non-trunk road scheme on the A548, identified in the approved Clwyd structure plan. This will involve a new crossing of the Dee estuary. There are no proposals in approved local plans in Wales for development on areas within a designated special protection area or Ramsar site.

  Young Farmers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce measures to encourage young farmers to(a) convert redundant farm buildings to housing and (b) to build new homes near to their holdings.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Our rural housing reserve offers local authorities the opportunity to address a range of priority social housing needs.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue new guidelines to local authorities in Wales on(a) housing needs assessment research and (b) the development of housing needs strategies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish an agency to co-ordinate housing needs research and the development of localised housing needs assessment plans in Wales, with the responsibility for providing guidelines and funding for such localised initiatives.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) nature conservation review sites and (b) national nature reserves there are in Wales; and if he

  795
  will list the nature conservation review sites which have been created as national nature reserves in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of nature conservation review sites and national nature reserves in Wales are 111 and 49 respectively. The nature conservation review sites which have been declared as national nature reserves within the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Declared as national nature reserve

  1988

  Coed y Cerrig

  1989

  None

  1990

  Kenfig

  1991

  Coedmor

  Corsydd Llangloffan

  Crymlyn Bog (Extension)

  1992

  Coed Rheidol (Extension)

  Cors Caron (Extension)

  Dyfi (Extension)

  Rhos Llawr-Cwrt (Extension)

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase available funding to nature conservation review sites for the maintenance of the sites of special scientific interest network and their effective monitoring.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Countryside Council for Wales, which has statutory responsibility for these activities, determines the amount of resources to be allocated to each of its programmes within its overall budget. Decisions on the future funding of the council will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to set a target of transferring at least 10 nature conservation review sites into national nature reserves per annum.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The responsibility for declaring national nature reserves in Wales rests with the Countryside Council for Wales. The rate of progress depends on the funds available and the willingness of site owners to enter into the required commitments.

  Smoke Control Orders
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many smoke control orders were in force in Wales, what area was covered in thousands of hectares and how many premises were affected in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of smoke control orders in force in Wales is not held centrally. However, Welsh Office records indicate that 37 such orders were introduced in Wales in the period 1960–1988, covering over 1,500 hectares and more than 24,000 premises. No new orders have been made since 1988.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether discharges of mercury from dental surgeries pose an environmental risk.
  796
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All persons charged with the maintenance and operation of dental surgeries are covered by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, as amended. On the basis of an international standard specification, dental practices are required to install units to extract solid amalgam for recycling.

  The Health and Safety Executive has inspectorial rights generally, and family health service authorities have the right of access to premises where general dental services are provided, to confirm appropriate standards of provision.

  There is no evidence to suggest that free metallic mercury from dental practices is presenting a significant hazard to the environment. The use of capsulated materials prevents the release of mercury vapour or liquid into the environment.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by family health service authority area the general dental practitioners who are now de-registering national health services patients.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not held centrally. I am aware that some de-registration is taking place in all authority areas, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, the overall number of NHS registrations in Wales continues to rise, and stood at 58·5 per cent. of the population as at 30 September 1992. This is a higher proportion than health departments or the profession anticipated at this stage of the contract.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many new patients have been registered with dentists in Wales in each of the last three years; and how many were(a) children receiving NHS treatment, (b) children receiving non-NHS treatment, (c) adults receiving non-NHS treatment, (d) adults receiving NHS treatment but not entitled to exemption payments and (e) adults receiving NHS dental treatment and receiving exemption payment;

  (2) how many dentists have been operational in Wales in each of the last three years; and what are (a) the total numbers of (i) NHS and (ii) non-NHS children treated in each year and (b) the total numbers of (1) NHS and (2) non-NHS adult patients treated.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of dental practitioners who were in contract with family health services authorities in Wales in each of the past three years is as follows:

  As at 1 October 1990: 837

  As at 1 October 1991: 832

  As at 30 June 1992: 844

  Information is not held centrally on non-NHS treatment.

  Information on the number of patients receiving NHS treatment is not available, however the number of patients registered with a GDP in Wales is as follows:

  Children

  Adults

  As at 30 September 1991

  388,495

  891,380

  As at 30 September 1992

  416,308

  1,270,178

  Since the introduction of the new contract in October 1990, information is not available centrally on the number of NHS courses of treatment undergone by children as

  797
  treatment for children is now paid for on a capitation basis. The number of NHS courses of treatment undergone by adults in Wales in 1991–92 was 1,342,273. Of these 74·8 per cent. had a patient charge and 25·2 per cent. had remission or exemption of charges. As charges and remission/exemption are for a particular course of treatment, it is not possible to say how many people these figures relate to.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will reconsider his policy of appointing the same person to more than one public body in Wales, especially when the posts are paid.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No, all public appointments will continue to be made on the basis of aptitude and merit.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures he will follow in filling the vacancy on the board of the South Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 24 November, at column 633.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the names of chairmen-elect of the second-wave NHS trusts.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An announcement was made on 23 November.

  National Nature Reserves
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total amount of funding granted to national nature reserves by his Department in each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Prior to 1 April 1991, this was the responsibility of the Nature Conservancy Council and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate costs. Funding made available by the Countryside Council for Wales for National Nature Reserves in 1991–92 was as follows:

  1991–92 £

  Acquisition costs

  820,393

  Management costs

  1,032,097

  Totals

  1,852,490

  These figures include expenditure on marine nature reserves.

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by how much West Glamorgan health authority will increase its use of the treatment centre at Bridgend, and the treatment centre in Bangor, in accordance with his decision letter on the future provision of night-time casualty services in west Glamorgan of 29 October.
  798
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The use of these treatment centres, beyond that level centrally funded by the Welsh Office, is a matter for each health authority to negotiate directly with the centres.

  Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing concentration rates of(a) sulphur dioxide, (b) black smoke and (c) nitrogen oxides at each monitoring site in Wales in each year since 1976; and what was the corresponding EC limit value in each case.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures showing the concentration rates of sulphur dioxide and black smoke at urban and rural air monitoring sites in Wales are on pages 98 and 99 of the "Environmental Digest for Wales No. 6 1991", copies of which are held in the Library of the House. Tables giving EC directive limit and guide values for smoke and sulphur dioxide are at page 97.

  Nitrogen oxides have been monitored continuously since 1987, but no specific figures are available for Wales. However, the "Survey of Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations in the United Kingdom Using Diffusion Tubes, 1991", a copy of which is also in the Library of the House, indicates that, on the basis of the monitoring undertaken, nitrogen dioxide levels in Wales are below recommended EC directive limits.

  Education Bill
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place the results of consultation on the Education Bill in the Library.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Such correspondence is a private matter between the individual and the Department. It is nevertheless open to those who responded to make their comments public and indeed, some organisations have already done so.

  Deeside Industrial Park
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement concerning planning applications by the Welsh Development Agency and Alyn and Deeside district council to extend Deeside industrial park;

  (2) when he expects to rule upon applications to extend Deeside industrial park.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State called in the planning application for proposed business and industrial development on land north of Shotwick road, Deeside because it raises planning issues of more than local importance. A decision on the application will be issued as soon as possible after the inspector's report has been received following a public local inquiry.

  Car Journeys
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of car journeys in Wales were for distances of 5 miles or less for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 1985–86 national travel survey —the latest for which results are available for Wales—found that 65 per cent. of car journeys in Wales covered distances of 5 miles or less.
  799

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local authority in Wales(a) the number of young people between the ages of 15 and 17 years who have been placed in bed and breakfast accommodation in the latest year for which figures are available and (b) the cost of such placements.

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

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures for the number of properties in council ownership in Wales, by authority, that have smoke alarms fitted.

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

  Transport Efficiency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the relative efficiency in Wales in terms of megajoules per passenger kilometre of(a) cars in urban areas, (b) cars in rural areas, (c) taxis, (d) buses, (e) motor cycles and (f) British Rail trains.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not collected centrally. Figures on United Kingdom energy consumption by transport mode are given in "Transport Statistics: Great Britain 1992", a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the bus routes which have ceased to operate since the implementation of the bus deregulation proposals in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Agricultural Tenancy Law
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will propose measures to facilitate the introduction of retirement tenancies as part of reforms of agricultural tenancy law.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government's proposals for reform of agricultural tenancy law would give landlords and tenants the freedom to agree the period of tenancy which was suited to their particular needs. The parties would be able to take account of all factors in deciding the appropriate period including any retirement plans of the tenant.

  Seven-year-olds (Testing)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase funding for rural schools in Wales in light of his proposal to introduce mandatory testing for seven-year-olds; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Statutory testing of seven-year-olds has been in place since the summer term 1991. Rural 800
  schools benefit from the significant levels of support already being made for assessment. Test material and related teacher guidance is issued free of charge to all participating schools. Additionally £2·5 million was approved in 1992–93 under the grants for education support and training arrangements for providing teachers with assessment skills and for local education authority support.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified nurses are currently employed in care in the community in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Hydroelectric Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the possible environmental impact of the proposed hydroelectric scheme on the Afon Conwy; if he will establish a public inquiry into the proposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The environmental impact of the proposed hydroelectric scheme on the Afon Conwy will be considered by the local planning authority during the determination of the planning application and by the National Rivers Authority when considering the necessary application for an abstraction licence.

  We will consider fully the hon. and learned Gentleman's request that there be a public inquiry into the proposal and I will write to him when a decision is taken.

  Canada Geese
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to prevent agricultural damage in Wales caused by Canada geese; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in Wales provides guidance to farmers on various methods of controlling Canada geese. Farmers suffering agricultural damage from Canada geese can control these birds during the open season by legal methods which include shooting or deploying scaring techniques. During the close season, which runs from 21 February to 31 August, licences to shoot Canada geese are available from the Welsh Office, provided applicants can demonstrate the need to prevent serious agricultural damage.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Canada geese were estimated to be inhabiting Wales in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1992; what is the estimated agricultural damage these geese have caused since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not collected centrally. There have been reported increases in the numbers of Canada geese in recent years. Various measures to control them are available to the farming industry.
  801

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the recent investigation of the accounts of the Welsh Development Agency, in particular severance payments made to departing staff.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department and the agency are studying the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Craig y Nos Castle
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the funding for Craig y Nos castle; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The importance of Craig y Nos castle and its related theatre is recognised. The castle is listed as a building of special architectural or historical importance at grade II and the theatre at grade I.

  On the basis of advice from the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, we have made available a grant of £22,500 for works to the theatre. Part of this grant has been claimed but we have not received further requests for assistance. If a further application for assistance with conservation work to the structure is received, we shall consider it as soon as possible.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the funding for the architectural heritage of Powys; what proposals he has to increase funding for the upkeep of buildings of special architectural interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Funding for the architectural heritage is allocated according to the needs of individual structures rather than geographically. We are guided in this by the Historic Buildings Council for Wales and substantial grants have been made on its advice to properties such as

  Average daily available beds

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Llandough

  52·6

  54·4

  55·1

  54·5

  56·5

  Sully

  47·8

  44·4

  49·8

  49·2

  29·0

  Comparable information for 1992–93 is not available centrally. The South Glamorgan health plan, however, states that activity for thoracic medicine will remain constant.

  Hamilton Oil plc
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the result of the public inquiry into the application by Hamilton Oil plc with regard to developments at Talacre, Clwyd.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As soon as possible.

  Sully Hospital
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has received regarding the future of X-ray facilities at Sully hospital;802
  Powis castle. I will shortly decide on the allocation of resources to individual programmes for future years under the normal arrangements.

  However, considerable financial support to the built heritage is provided through maintenance and restoration of the properties in the care of the state. The estate in care is administered by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments. Examples of such support are the development of a new car park, interpretative panels and ongoing conservation works at Montgomery castle in Powys.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to clean up beaches in Wales that have banned swimming due to pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has agreed with Dwr Cymru, as a first priority, a programme of improvement works to bathing waters in Wales designated under the terms of the EC bathing waters directive which presently fail or are at risk of failing to meet the bacteriological standards of the directive. I am not aware of bathing having been banned at any of those locations. Once this improvement programme has been completed, it will be for the National Rivers Authority to agree priorities with Dwr Cymru about improvement work remaining to be done.

  Chest Medical Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals in South Glamorgan which provide chest medical services and to provide a table showing the number of beds available(a) in each of those hospitals in each of the past five years, (b) currently and (c) projected for 1992–93.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information for the latest five years, which relates to the number of beds in the specialty of thoracic medicine, is given as follows:

  (2) if he will make it his policy that any proposals for the closure or reduction of X-ray services at Sully hospital should be subject to formal consultation processes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. Any proposals which represent a substantial change in the provision of these services will be subject to the normal consultation procedure.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures of consultation were followed prior to the temporary closure of Powys ward at Sully hospital; and when it is planned to reopen Powys at Sully hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Temporary closures are a matter for local management and do not require formal consultation. The reopening of this ward is a matter for the health authority at this stage.
  803

  Further Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman-elect of the Welsh Further Education Council concerning the(a) funding, (b) start date and (c) course provision at the proposed new further education college extension at Lockwith, Cardiff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I met Mr. Malcolm Wallace, chairman of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, on 23 October to discuss a number of issues, including the funds which will be available to the council in 1993–94. I also met Councillor P. Perkins, chairman of the education committee for South Glamorgan on 26 June to discuss the future of further education courses in the Cardiff area.

  Responsibility for planning further education courses in the Cardiff area rests with South Glamorgan county council until 31 March 1993, after which the responsibility transfers to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. The director of Education for South Glamorgan wrote to the Welsh Office on 12 October with certain proposals regarding the establishment of further education facilities at Leckwith. This has been drawn to the attention of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. it will be for the council to determine its own expenditure priorities for 1993–94 when it is informed of the funding available to it.

  I understand that the funding council is currently considering the pattern of provision for further education in Cardiff in the light of the letter from the director of education.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proposals he has for the alignment of(a) purchaser, (b) directly manager provider units and (c) trusts with the boundaries of the proposed unitary authorities under local government reorganisation;

  (2) what proposals he has to align the boundaries of the three emergency services; if he will institute a study into the costs and benefits of such multi-purpose alignments; and if he will make a statement on the implications of local government re-organisation on the emergency services;

  (3) what provisions he has made to compensate local government officers for any reduction in pay following their transfer to unitary local authorities after local government reorganisation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall be announcing decisions on matters relating to local government reorganisation in due course.

  Croft Nursery School
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Croft nursery school, Aston, Deeside; and if he will make a statement on the future of the school.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I has any plans at present to do so. The county council has published a notice proposing to close the school. If there are statutory objections, the decision is one for my right hon. Friend.
  804

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the proposed Gwent-South Glamorgan-Powys Ambulance Trust will provide the ambulance service for the Rhymney Valley or any part of it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The application for national health service trust status made clear the intention to provide ambulance services for the health authority areas of Gwent, Powys and South Glamorgan. Detailed operations from 1 April 1993 when the South and East Wales Ambulance National Health Service Trust commences formal operation will depend on the contracts negotiated with the purchasers of the ambulance service. However, I would not expect the trust or any other ambulance service in Wales to discontinue the existing practice of operating within the margins of neighbouring health authority areas, especially when responding to emergency calls and any local arrangements to meet the needs of patients.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what level he proposes to set the total revenue support grant to Welsh local authorities in 1993–94; and if he will announce his decision on council tax transitional relief.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As I announced in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) on 12 November at columns 890–91, I propose a level of aggregate external finance—AEF—for 1993–94 in support of local authority spending in Wales of £2,342·6 million. AEF has three components: the distributable amount of non-domestic rates, the total of relevant specific and supplementary grants and revenue support grant.

  I intend to specify that the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account should be £470·2 million on the basis that the Welsh national non-domestic rating multiplier for 1993–94 will be 44. I propose that relevant specific and supplementary grants towards local authority revenue expenditure should total £204·6 million.

  I further propose that the total of revenue support grant should be £1,667–8 million of which £1,666·7 million should be paid to Welsh county and district councils and £1·1 million to certain specified bodies.

  My officials are today writing to Welsh local authorities setting out my proposals for the component amounts of AEF and inviting their views. I am placing a copy of that consultation letter, which details the relevant specific and supplementary grants and the amounts to be paid to specified bodies, in the Library of the House.

  If local authorities spend in line with the plans that I announced on 12 November they should be able to set council tax for a band C property of £232, which is £34 a year less than the average community charge payable by two adults for the current year, after taking into account relief through the community charge reduction scheme. It is also £95 less than the average domestic rates bill per ratepayer in Wales for 1989–90. The level of council tax local authorities set will depend on their budget decisions for 1993–94 and council tax standard spending can only be indicative, but I will use my capping powers, if necessary, to ensure that authorities set reasonable levels of tax. I will be announcing my proposals on capping shortly.
  805
  Around two thirds of properties in Wales fall in valuation bands A to C. Almost half of properties fall in bands A and B and their council tax bills should be proportionately less than £232. Single adult households will be entitled to a 25 per cent. discount and people on low incomes can qualify for council tax benefit. Those in receipt of income support will pay no council tax at all.

  I have given careful consideration to the need to provide transitional relief for the introduction of the council tax, but I have come to the view that a transitional scheme cannot be justified.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the total current cost and (b) the average cost per applicant within each local authority in Wales for administering (i) housing benefit and (ii) community charge benefit; and what are the estimated total costs per

  Average cost (£/case)

  Housing benefit subsidy

  Community charge benefit subsidy

  Housing benefit cases

  Community charge benefit cases

  Authority

  £

  £

  Aberconwy

  98,834

  76,688

  32·22

  14·58

  Alyn and Deeside

  93,632

  81,072

  25·47

  14·27

  Arfon

  129,108

  111,144

  28·35

  14·70

  Blaenau Gwent

  204,806

  138,548

  25·56

  14·76

  Brecknock

  50,518

  37,168

  27·03

  14·16

  Cardiff

  762,686

  479,774

  30·77

  14·06

  Carmarthen

  79,320

  58,874

  28·73

  13·87

  Ceredigion

  103,146

  100,784

  32·65

  20·27

  Colwyn

  125,806

  98,642

  33·15

  14·24

  Cynon Valley

  143,546

  111,506

  27·84

  14·18

  Delyn

  98,290

  87,708

  24·62

  14·20

  Dinefwr

  61,992

  50,486

  29·16

  14·69

  Dwyfor

  49,600

  40,748

  33·47

  14·79

  Glyndwr

  62,306

  47,364

  27·90

  14·54

  Islwyn

  122,362

  94,960

  25·83

  14·48

  Llanelli

  165,236

  142,534

  26·84

  14·08

  Lliw Valley

  100,002

  92,072

  24·92

  15·61

  Meirionnydd

  49,614

  46,762

  28·35

  14·36

  Merthyr Tydfil

  170,222

  112,572

  26·37

  13·70

  Monmouth

  93,912

  74,722

  27·41

  14·06

  Montgomeryshire

  69,448

  51,854

  30·63

  13·98

  Neath

  128,476

  112,238

  26·27

  14·49

  Newport

  340,288

  283,998

  27·40

  14·67

  Ogwr

  234,384

  262,198

  26·65

  14·48

  Port Talbot

  111,084

  87,342

  24·95

  13·79

  Preseli

  128,636

  97,296

  29·22

  14·25

  Radnor

  36,994

  22,558

  33·54

  13·91

  Rhondda

  153,892

  175,436

  27·14

  18·33

  Rhuddlan

  139,754

  94,254

  36·04

  13·35

  Rhymney Valley

  240,412

  212,230

  24·96

  12·66

  Rural Wales

  12,606

  0

  25·78

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  80,622

  59,992

  28·72

  13·95

  Swansea

  449,962

  408,930

  27·63

  16·78

  Taff-Ely

  155,312

  143,766

  25·49

  14·34

  Torfaen

  203,060

  144,926

  23·16

  13·65

  Vale of Glamorgan

  200,788

  144,940

  31·45

  13·95

  Wrexham Maelor

  277,442

  231,806

  25·34

  15·06

  Ynys Mon

  134,508

  119,108

  26·12

  13·61

  Total

  5,812,606

  4,737,000

  27·72

  14·59

  Note: Expenditure data are the 1992–93 administration subsidy figures for Wales, and include both the direct grant paid to authorities by the Department of Social Security and the amounts reflected in the Revenue Support Grant arrangements. The caseloads used in the calculation of the average amounts, are the averages of the four quarters (May 1991 to February 1992) figures as reported by local authorities. Estimates, based on average movements in national caseloads, have been included where authorities have not provided the necessary information.
  806
  local authority for administering such benefits following the introduction of competitive tendering into housing benefit administration.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows the total costs to central Government of subsidising the administration of the housing benefit and community charge benefit schemes for each local authority in Wales and the average administrative cost per benefit applicant. This Department pays 50 per cent. of authorities' total estimated costs by way of a direct grant. The balance of expenditure not subsidised by specific grant is reflected in the revenue support grant arrangements which are the responsibility of the Welsh Office. The exception to this is the Development Board of Rural Wales which receives 100 per cent. direct subsidy from this Department.

  We are not aware that any local authority in Wales has contracted out activities connected with the administration of housing benefit.
  807

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the percentage of people in Britain who were living on or below the supplementary benefit level in(a) 1979, (b) 1987 and (c)

  Mr. Burt
  The Department no longer produces estimates of this kind, following the recommendations of the technical review of low income statistics in March 1988. A copy of this report can be found in the Library. Information for 1987 and 1990 is therefore not available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. Estimates for 1979 were published in "Low Income Families—1979", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the effects of the Child Support Act 1991 on the number of families entitled to(a) family credit and (b) income support distinguishing between lone-parent families and the families paying maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  We estimate that in the long run increased payments of child maintenance under the Child Support Act will result in some 60,000 to 80,000 lone parents moving off income support. It is expected that the majority of these will move on to family credit. Of lone parents already on family credit, we estimate that around 10,000 will move off this benefit. These estimates are based on 1987–88–89 family expenditure survey data.

  The entitlement to income support of absent parents with families living with them will not be affected. The family expenditure survey does not contain information on absent parents and therefore it is not possible to say how their entitlement to family credit will be affected by policy changes.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any areas for which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since 9 April;

  (2) if he will list the main measures of deregulation, or simplification of regulation, which his Department has carried out, or caused to be carried out, since 9 April;

  (3) which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My noble Friend, Lord Henley, is responsible for the oversight of deregulation within the Department of Social Security.

  The potential impact on business and members of the public is taken into account in assessing any proposals for changes in policy and procedure. Moreover, the scope for deregulation and simplification is kept under constant review in the Department.

  From April 1992 two changes have been made to the way normal earnings are assessed and verified in family credit making it easier and less time consuming for employers to provide earnings information. The Contributions Agency has a number of initiatives in hand
  808
  to improve procedures affecting business and to help them towards a better understanding of the National Insurance scheme. A review has been completed of the definitions of earnings for PAYE and national insurance purposes, and its recommendations for simplifying the rules will be implemented from the start of the new tax year, 6 April 1993. Other items currently under review include the frequency with which some people need to renew their NI "exception" certificates, and certain procedures affecting people working abroad.

  Since the last general election the Department has laid or made the regulations set out in the tables. Most of these are amendment or technical regulations which do not increase the total regulatory burden or business or the public.

  1198—The Income Support (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992

  1312—The Social Security (Australia) Order 1992

  1326—The Income-Related Benefits Amendment Regulations 1992

  1431 (C.48)—The Child Support Act 1991 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1992

  1440—The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1992

  1531—The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1992

  1532 (C.52)—The Social Security Act 1990 (Commencement No. 5) Order 1992

  1555—The Occupational Pension Schemes (Deficiency on Winding Up etc.) Regulations 1992

  1585—The Income-Related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1992

  1695—The Social Security (Widows Benefit and Retirement Pensions) (Amendment) Regulations 1992

  1700—The Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Amendment Regulations 1992

  1735—The Social Security (Jersey and Guernsey) Order 1992

  1812—The Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations 1992

  1813—The Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations 1992

  1814—The Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992

  1815—The Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992

  1816—The Child Support (Arrears, Interest and Adjustment of Maintenance Assessments) Regulations 1992

  1909—The Council Tax Benefit (Transitional) Order 1992

  1938 (C.67)—The Child Support Act 1991 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1992

  1989—The Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

  2148—The Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefits (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1992

  2149—The Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1992

  2155—The income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1992

  2182—Fines (Deductions from Income Support) Regulations 1992

  2322—The Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations 1992

  2448—The Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992

  2595—The Social Security (Miscellaneous Provision Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992

  2640—The Child Support Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1992

  2641—The Child Support Appeal Tribunals (Procedure) Regulations 1992

  2642 (C.82)—The Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, Section 62, (Commencement) Order 1992

  2643—The Child Support (Collection and Enforcement of Other Forms of Maintenance) Regulations 1992

  2643 (C.83)—The Child Support Act 1991 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 1992

  809

  2645—The Child Support (Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) Regulations 1992

  2804—The Income Support (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1992

  Unemployed Blind People
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to amend the actively seeking work rules for unemployed blind people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid regulations before Parliament which will help unemployed blind people who wish to undertake a training course in the use of a guide dog. Such courses significantly improve the employment prospects of blind people. The effect of the regulations will be to remove an anomaly in the actively seeking work rules which might have deterred some blind people from undertaking training. In particular, blind people who have taken a holiday for up to two weeks earlier in the year will, when the regulations come into effect on 17 December, be free to undertake a course without the risk of a benefit sanction.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been received to date for the new disability working allowance; and how many of these have been approved for payment.

  Mr. Scott
  By 20 November 1992 the number of claims for disability working allowance received was 22,833 and the number of awards made was 2,938.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases involving injury as a result of the mustard gas explosion in Bari harbour, Italy, in 1943 have been dealt with by his Department in each year since 1980; how many cases have resulted in war pensions being paid; how these pensions have been calculated; and what representations he has had to backdate payments to the period before 1986.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 4 February 1991 at column 63 and my reply of 14 February 1991, at columns 586–87. Records of claims for war pension as a result of the Bari harbour incident have not been kept since the special tracing exercise conducted in 1986–87 and the statistical information now requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Contribution income (£ billion)

  June 1992 Price3

  Percentage of Exchequer income

  Employers NICs

  Employees2 NICs

  Employers NICs

  Employees NICs

  Employers NICs

  Employees NICs

  1982–83

  12·02

  9·20

  20·39

  15·61

  9·77

  7·48

  1983–84

  12·45

  10·53

  20·19

  17·07

  9·84

  8·32

  11984–85

  12·20

  11·29

  18·83

  17·42

  8·87

  8·20

  1985–86

  12·53

  12·11

  18·34

  17·72

  8·38

  8·10

  1986–87

  13·82

  12·79

  19·59

  18·13

  8·69

  8·04

  1987–88

  15·33

  14·13

  20·60

  18·99

  9·03

  8·32

  1988–89

  17·28

  15·65

  21·65

  19·61

  9·22

  8·35

  1989–90

  18·50

  14·74

  21·77

  17·34

  9·06

  7·22

  1990–91

  20·55

  14·86

  22·77

  16·47

  9·50

  6·87

  41991–92

  21·66

  15·33

  22·46

  15·89

  9·88

  6·99

  810
  War pensions are calculated by reference to the degree of disablement due to service assessed by making a comparison between the condition of the ex-service men or women and the condition of a normal healthy person of the same age and sex.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the application by Mr. Peter Lynch for his renewal of mobility allowance sent in on 17 June is to be dealt with; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of mobility allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 25 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 when the application by Mr. Peter Lynch for his renewal of Mobility Allowance (MobA) will be dealt with.
  I should explain that a decision has now been made on Mr. Lynch's claim and this has been notified to him. I have replied to you separately in greater detail about this.
  Clearly this case has not been handled with the efficiency I would expect and I offer my sincere apologies for the distress and inconvenience caused to your constituent. My letter of 19 October to all MPs explained the problems the Agency has faced since the introduction of Disability Living Allowance in April 1992, which replaced MobA and Attendance Allowance for those whose disabilities began before age 65, and set out the measures we have taken to resolve these problems successfully.
  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.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of(a) employers' and (b) employees' national insurance contributions collected for each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) at June 1992 prices and (c) as a percentage of total Exchequer income.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.
  811
  1 Includes national insurance surcharge in the period to 1984–85.

  2 Includes national insurance contributions by self-employed for which separate data are only available from 1986–87.

  3 Treasury estimate of GDP deflator in the second quarter of 1992 used to covert current price to constant June 1992 prices.

  4 Estimate.

HEALTH

  Romanian Adoptions
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for health (1) what her Department is doing to renegotiate the age limitation of 35 years with the Romanian adoption committee;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the current state of negotiations with the Romanian adoption committee about adoption from Romania.

  Mr. Yeo
  The agreement between the Romanian Committee for Adoptions and the United Kingdom will be reviewed in the new year. Age limitation will be among the issues to be discussed.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many couples are on her Department's approved list for adoption from Romania; and how many of these couples have become ineligible because of the terms of the agreement with the Romanian adoption committee;

  (2) if she will bring forward proposals to refund payments for approved home studies by couples who have become ineligible for adoption because of the terms of agreement with the Romanian adoption committee.

  Mr. Yeo
  Twenty one couples resident in England have been given approval to adopt children from Romania. Sixty-five couples, resident in the United Kingdom, were advised that they were ineligible following the agreement signed on 19 March 1992. The question of repayment for home study reports carried out for unsuccessful applicants is a matter for individual local authorities.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State Health (1) what action is now being taken to facilitate the adoption of named children from Romania;

  (2) how many children were adopted into the United Kingdom from Romania (a) in 1990, (b) in 1991 and (c) since the signing of the agreement with the Romanian adoption committee.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1990, a total of 13 children from Romania were granted entry clearance approval with an understanding that adoption proceedings would be undertaken in the United Kingdom. In 1991 there were 215 and in 1992 there were four such approvals. No children have as yet been admitted under the agreement procedures.

  We have asked our ambassador in Bucharest to raise with the Romanian Government our concerns about the delays experienced in processing adoption applications of United Kingdom citizens.

  NHS Targets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 910, when baseline data for severe mental illness, gonorrhoea, under-16 conceptions and accidents for regional and district health targets will be ready.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A supplement to the common data set was published in October. This provided baseline data for 812
  all the key areas in the White Paper except for suicide rates for the severely mentally ill and gonorrhoea. The latter are not routinely collected for local populations. The Department is working with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the feasibility of collecting the information on severe mental illness. Data about the incidence of gonorrhoea are not available by area of incidence. The Department is however examining the data aggregated by National Health Service regions in which clinics are situated to see whether they lend themselves to use for target setting at this level. A copy of the guide to the data file is in the Library.

  Seasonal Affective Disorder
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has undertaken on the incidence of seasonal affective disorder; and what proposals she has to reduce its incidence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department has undertaken no research into this disorder and has no plans to do so.

  European Year of Older People
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 13 July,Official Report, columns 430–31, on the European year of the elderly, if she will outline her plans to focus on the housing needs of the elderly.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department, in co-operation with the Department of Social Security, has overall co-ordinating responsibility for the European Year of Older People in the United Kingdom and we are now well advanced with our plans. The task group concerned with problems of housing, isolation and loneliness, information needs, transport and community care issues—social and environmental integration—has put forward a number of proposals to mark the year in the United Kingdom including: national conferences on social and environmental integration to be held in April and December 1993 together with local events and exhibitions throughout the year focusing on issues of housing, transport, community care and communications; a European tenant exchanges scheme to give older people a wider knowledge of what is, or might be, available to them in sheltered housing; a study by Anchor housing trust entitled "Available Options", a review of the developments in public policy in the areas of housing, care, income and savings for older people.

  The Department of the Environment will also be issuing a revised edition of their publication "Your Home in Retirement—Housing Advice for Older People".

  Drugs
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what categories of drugs are currently on the limited list; and what proposals she has for adding to the list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The limited list applies to drugs which may be prescribed only in specified circumstances and currently contains five items. These are Acetylcysteine Granules, Carbocisteine, Clobazam, Cynocobalamin and Pregnavite Forte F.
  813
  The selected list scheme applies to categories of drugs from which only a selected number of products can be prescribed under the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 November, the scheme is to be extended from the current seven categories to include a further 10 categories.

  The current categories are:

  Analgesics for mild to moderate pain

  Indigestion remedies

  Laxatives

  Cough and cold remedies

  Vitamins

  Tonics

  Benzodiazepine sedatives and tranquillisers.

  The new categories are:

  Anti-diarrhoeal drugs

  Drugs for allergic disorders

  Hypnotics and anxiolytics

  Appetite suppressants

  Drugs for vaginal and vulval conditions

  Contraceptives

  Drugs used in anaemia

  Topical antirheumatics

  Drugs acting on the ear and nose

  Drugs acting on the skin.

  In making the regulations required to bring particular drugs within the scope of the limited list and selected list arrangements, my right hon. Friend will continue to act on the advice of the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will place in the Library copies of the evaluation report on her Department's recent public awareness campaign on solvent abuse.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have today placed a copy of the report "Research into Parents' Attitudes to Drugs and Solvents" in the Library.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what annual capital guidelines and supplementary credit approvals she is making available for the personal social services for 1993–94.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Annual capital guidelines of £122·5 million will be available for 1993–94, a real terms increase of 6·5 per cent. Supplementary credit approvals will again be available for mental illness—£10–5 million —information technology for community care—£10·2 million—and AIDS/HIV services—£3 million. In addition, local authorities will be able to use certain receipts from the sale of capital assets including additional receipts available because of the relaxation of the rules on the use of capital receipts announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 November.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources will be provided for local authorities as a consequence of the changes to the independent living fund announced on 24 November.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In addition to the £539 million I announced on 2 October for the community care special transitional grant, we have decided to allocate extra 814
  resources to local authorities to enable them to play a full part in meeting the needs of severely disabled people. I am therefore increasing the community care special transitional grant by over £26 million to £565 million in 1993–94. In 1994–95, the grant will be increased by £64 million to £716 million, and in 1995–96 it will rise by £100 million to £618 million. The detailed arrangements and distribution of the resources will be discussed with the local authority associations.

  Pharmaceutical Investment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for health (1) what assessment her Department has made of the likely effect of the proposed extension of the limited list on medical research investment by United Kingdom-based pharmaceutical companies;

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the likely effect of the proposed extension of the limited list on the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry's international competitiveness;

  (3) what assessment her Department has made of the likely effect of the proposed extension of the limited list on attracting new inward investment in the United Kingdom pharmaceutical research and production.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The selected list scheme provides that particular drugs may not be prescribed under the national health service where there are effective alternatives available at lower cost. It mirrors measures being taken throughout Europe to limit rapidly rising drugs bills. The relative competitiveness of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry and decisions on investment in medical and pharmaceutical research and production depend on many factors in both the United Kingdom and other key pharmaceutical markets. It is not possible to identify specifically the impact of the proposed extension of the selected list arrangement separately from that of other changes in both the United Kingdom and other countries.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the likely effect of the proposed extension of the limited list on employment in the research-based sector of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on 12 November, the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs will make recommendations about which products within the additional therapeutic categories may not be prescribed under the NHS. The companies concerned may wish to make representations to the committee before it makes its final recommendations. Until decisions on the individual products have been taken, it is not possible to assess whether there will be any effect on employment in the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry.

  Chemical Entity Medicines
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many product licences for innovative new chemical entity medicines have been granted by the Medicines Control Agency in the seven therapeutic categories currently covered by the original limited list regulations since 1985.
  815
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on product licences granted by the United Kingdom licensing authority is as follows:

  Number

  Indigestion remedies

  1

  Laxatives

  1

  Vitamins

  1

  Tomlinson Report
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy, in her decisions on the Tomlinson report, to require that no beds will be closed in London before steps are taken to improve community health services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have made clear that the Government's response to the Tomlinson report will be made early in the new year. Clearly a key element will be to ensure that the shift in the balance of care from acute to primary and community health services is carefully planned and co-ordinated.

  Interleukin-6
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to her answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 942, what requests have now been made to Coopers and Lybrand in connection with the interleukin-6 research project; if she will make it her policy to publish the result of reports from auditors into the interleukin-6 project; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will ensure that any inquiry carried out on behalf of United Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust into the interleukin-6 research project should take evidence from all relevant witnesses; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust has no plans to institute a formal inquiry into the interleukin-6 research project which is primarily a matter for the university of Leeds.

  At no time have the auditors employed by the United Leeds teaching hospitals national health service trust or the then Leeds Western health authority made a report in connection with the interleukin-6 research project. However the trust has now asked Coopers and Lybrand to look at the feasibility of estimating any possible loss to the NHS of the interleukin-6 research project.

  Heartstart 3000 Machine
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations have taken place into the Heartstart 3000 machine used by emergency ambulance crews; how effective this equipment is; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has conducted a three-day comparative trial using a front line ambulance and defibrillators from four manufacturers. The ambulance was driven around a set course, over rough ground, along motorways and past power stations, and the ecg recordings were compared. The Laerdal Heartstart 3000 was entirely satisfactory, as were all the others.
  816
  In addition to the trial described, a full technical evaluation has also been carried out. The equipment was found to be satisfactory.

  Newcastle General Hospital
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what weight she gave to the amount of provision for(a) general medical, (b) surgical, (c) paediatric and (d) geriatric beds at Newcastle general hospital in her decision to turn down its application for trust status; and what assessment was made of the relative cost per bed of alternative local provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Newcastle general hospital applied for National Health Service trust status in 1990. In assessing that application the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) considered the views expressed in public consultation and the advice of independent financial management consultants. The pattern of service provision is primarily a matter for the local district health authority, as the main puchaser of health services for the local population.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations her Department has initiated between the regional health authority, the management and senior clinicians at Newcastle general hospital, the Comunity Health Council and local general practitioners concerning the future of Newcastle general hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East can expect a reply or acknowledgement to his letter dated 26 October, about Newcastle general hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  An acknowledgment was sent on 5 November, the day following receipt of the letter. I sent a full reply on 24 November.

  Relate
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to increase funding to the Relate marriage guidance organisation.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that there can be no automatic assurance for Relate or any other marriage guidance organisation which the Home Office funds about the future level of support.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aircraft Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in the aircraft industry in(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The annual census of production shows UK aerospace employment in 1980 as 198,300 and the provisional figures for 1991, which may be subject to revision at a later date, as 166,000.
  817

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, column 310, how many individuals from the firms listed by him are currently on secondment to his Department.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department currently has two secondees from one of the firms listed in the answer given on 4 November. A further three secondees arc from two firms the predecessors of which are listed in the answer.

  Timber
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the timber imported from the Philippines is categorised as(a) rough sawn and raw logs and (b) semi-manufactured; what criteria his Department uses to make such categorisations; what differences there are between United Kingdom criteria and Philippine criteria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Rough-sawn and raw logs accounted for 1·3 per cent of total timber imports from the Philippines in 1991. Semi-manufactured timber accounted for 98·7 per cent. of imports over the same period.

  The United Kingdom statistics follow the United Nations' standard international trade classification system which is also used by the Philippines.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list which directors of private companies act as advisers to Companies House.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Companies House steering board advises on strategic priorities for Companies House. Its full membership was set out in the 1991–92 annual report and accounts, which has been laid before the House. The private sector members are:

  Mr. David Eggleton—Chairman, Cranfield IT Institute

  Mr. Iain Ferguson—Chairman, Plant Breeding International

  Mr. Tony Glaze—Managing Director, Group Personnel

  David Young—Finance Director, John Lewis Partnership

  Food Imports
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of the current level of food imports into the United Kingdom from other EC member countries by(a) country of origin and (b) type of foodstuffs.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of the current level of food imports as requested are given in table II of "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a list of the published inspectors' reports in which the inspectors have urged him to ban auditors from selling non-auditing services to their audit clients.
  818
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I do not recall there being any such urging by inspectors.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ask the Financial Reporting Review Panel to examine a sample of quoted companies' accounts for compliance with the Companies Acts' requirements.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Halocarbon-free Technologies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is currently being undertaken by his Department to encourage industry to develop halocarbon-free technologies for appliances to be sold to the mass markets; and if he will make it his policy to establish an incentive scheme to assist industry with this process.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is in close touch with representatives of the sectors of industry concerned to ensure that they are fully informed of the intention to phase out the production of halocarbons, and the need to develop alternatives. The DTI, together with the Department of Environment, already operates schemes offering financial support for the research, development and dissemination of sound environmental technologies, and the replacement of halocarbons is a priority area within those schemes.

  Balance of Trade
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the most up-to-date details of the United Kingdom balance of trade with each of the other member countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom visible trade is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Maxwell Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the business connections of the inspectors appointed to investigate the Maxwell group of companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc under sections 432(2) and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 are Mr. J. L. Thomas QC and Mr. R. T. Turner FCA, a partner to Messrs Neville Russell, chartered accountants.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the net contribution to general Government accounts made by the Post Office group of companies for each of the last five years; and what contribution is projected for the current year and for each of the following three years.

  Mr. Leigh
  The actual and projected net contributions through the external financing requirement from the Post Office group of companies are as follows:
  819

  £ million

  Actual

  1987–88

  80·0

  1988–89

  102·0

  1989–90

  101–9

  1990–91

  nil

  1991–92

  74·0

  Projected

  1992–93

  66·0

  1993–94

  181–0

  1994–95

  176·0

  1995–96

  158·0

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the ratio of imports to exports of environmental protection technologies in(a) 1980 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  Environmental protection technology is not a stand-alone technology but a term that can be applied to elements of a wide range of technological processes and products. As trade statistics are compiled by product area, it is not currently possible to identify separately the value or quantity of environmental import and export.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the proportion of the worldwide market for environmental protection technologies supplied by each of the Organisation for Economic Protection and Development nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Environmental protection technology is not a stand-alone technology but a term that can be applied to elements of a wide range of technological processes and products. Trade statistics are prepared on a product basis throughout the OECD countries; it is therefore not possible to identify separately the proportion of environmental protection technology supplied by each of the OECD nations. Similarly, it is not possible to identify the size of the world market for such technology with any accuracy.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has held with the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment concerning exports of environmental protection technologies; what assessment he has made of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology report on the worldwide market for environmental protection technologies; what plans he has to promote exports of environmental protection technologies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have recently received the second report from the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment (ACBE) which contained a number of valuable and constructive ideas aimed both at business and Government. One recommendations was that a joint environmental markets unit should be established to catalyse planning and marketing of environmental opportunities, both at home and overseas, to companies. The Advisory Committee on Science and Technology report also intensified the need to help industry to exploit its environmental expertise more effectively. I was therefore happy to accept the ACBE recommendation and the unit, staffed jointly by DTI and DoE officials, has already been set up.
  820
  In addition to the new unit, the DTI is hosting a technology partnership initiative conference in March 1993. This conference is designed to enable developing countries to share the benefits of technology in partnership with British Companies.

  External Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring up to date table F2 of the monthly review of external trade statistics to take account of changes in the exchange rate since the last date on which the country figures were available; and if he will give an up-to-date figure for the weighted average excluding the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested will be published in table F2 of the monthly review of external trade statistics as soon as it becomes available. Data are currently available up to and including the first quarter of 1992. These were published in the November edition of the above publication, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Machine Tools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the total sales in 1992 prices of British machine tools for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available at 1992 prices. Sales at 1985 prices are shown in the table.

  Sales at current prices1 £ million

  Producer Price Index (1985 = 100)

  Sales at 1985 prices1 £ million

  (1)

  (2)

  (1)/(2)

  1979

  664

  63·0

  1,054

  1980

  705

  73·6

  958

  1981

  565

  77·3

  731

  1982

  598

  82·6

  724

  1983

  562

  87·1

  645

  1984

  683

  92·4

  739

  1985

  822

  100·0

  822

  1986

  840

  104·7

  802

  1987

  877

  108·1

  811

  1988

  1,118

  113·8

  982

  1989

  1,162

  120·3

  966

  1990

  1,201

  127·8

  940

  1991

  2960

  132·0

  2727

  Source: Business Monitor PQ3221.

  1These figures represent the total sales of principal products of the machine tools industry and include parts and accessories.

  2Provisional.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of trade if he will make a statement on the improvements instituted in export control procedures for sensitive technologies since November 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  The improvements instituted in export control procedures for sensitive technologies since November 1990 are as follows:the establishment of a new section within the Export Control Organisation to process export licence applications for

  821
  sensitive destination. The identification of sensitive destinations embrace a wide range of policy interests and concerns and is kept under regular review. The sensitive destinations are primarily of concern for chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons and missile delivery purposes; the introduction of revised procedures including:

  (i) a requirement in all cases for comprehensive documentation covering the capability of goods to be exported to accompany the export licence application.

  (ii) detailed technical assessment of all licence applications for sensitive destinations;

  (iii) a requirement in all cases for a full and unambiguous statement of the intended end-use and end-user;

  (iv) a requirement for rating requests to be made in writing. Exporters are asked when making enquiries to write to ECO;

  (v) revision of the rating request form. Exporters must make clear if the goods are for military chemical, nuclear or missile applications;

  (vi) revision to the export licence application form to incorporate an explicit question on whether the goods are for use for military purposes;

  the extension of computerisation within the ECO to improve the capability for processing export licence applications; the publication of more detailed and comprehensive guidance to exporters in guidance notes accompanying application forms and in literature describing in detail the purpose of controls and their operation;
  the introduction in December 1990 of an "end-use" control which places a legal responsibility on the exporter to take all reasonable steps to ensure that goods are not being exported for use for CBW purposes, and making it an offence to export goods without a licence whether the exporter knows or suspects they are for use for such purposes. This was extended in 1991 to cover nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems;
  developing closer links and improving co-ordination with and among other Government Departments which advise DTI on licence applications.

  Piper Alpha
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 343, in respect of the conditions attached to the Piper Alpha abandonment programme, what is (a) the contractor employed in the recovery of the debris from the seabed and (b) the type of vessels engaged therein; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Trawling for debris has been carried out by SFF Services Ltd, a commercial enterprise owned by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, using the trawlers Constant Friend and Starlight. Debris too large or too heavy to be lifted in a trawl has been recovered by Rockwater Ltd. using the diving support vessel Rockwater 2.

  Recovery of remaining debris in the 500 to 1,500 m annulus is scheduled to be completed during the second quarter of 1993. Invitations to tender for this work will be issued in the new year.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Internal Market Council on 10 November.

  Mr. Needham
  I chaired the Internal Market Council on 10 November. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage also attended the Council.

  The Council reached agreement on three important items. A resolution was agreed emphasising the importance of ensuring that the single market will work in practice; measures covering trade in cultural goods were
  822
  agreed with amendments which meet essential UK interests; and a future medicines licensing system which will compete the single market in pharmaceuticals now seems certain to be agreed during our presidency.

  The Council adopted our presidency resolution identifying steps which the Commission, member states, and the Council need to take to ensure the effective working of the single market. The resolution stresses the importance of even implementation and enforcement of single market legislation across the Community, and encourages co-operation between administrations to achieve this. Member states have through this resolution, underlined the importance of working to fulfil all single market obligations. The Commission will publish annual reports on the working of the single market.

  Political agreement was reached on the directive, and the regulation on cultural objects. We won important concessions on three issues of immediate concern to the Government—a definition of "public collections", a legal base on which to license goods coming from outside the Community after 1 January 1993, and a practical solution to the requirement to license archaeological items of limited importance, regardless of monetary value. A satisfactory resolution of each of these was agreed for inclusion in the texts of the proposals. In addition, the burden of proof in Article 10 of the directive is now clearly stated as being
  "governed by the legislation of the requested Member State".

  Broad political agreement was achieved, subject only to waiting reserves, on future medicines licensing systems. Final agreement on the proposed regulation and three directives is now expected to be reached this year.

  Four intellectual property items were taken by the Council. Discussion on the proposed Community trade marks regulation focused particularly on the language regime for the Community Trade Marks Office operations. No final agreement was reached, but we still hope that decisions can be reached on the proposal at the December Council. This Council had a short orientation debate on the Commission's draft directive on harmonisation of the duration of copyright and we hope that decisions can be reached on the draft at the December Council. The Council also noted, and remitted for further work, a Commission paper identifying a series of principles intended to ensure that intellectual property rights are not infringed by the work of international standardisation bodies. Finally, the Commission expressed its intention to bring forward proposals for a blank tape levy.

  A brief discussion of the European company statute proposal achieved progress on some technical points, but confirmed that substantial problems still remain. There was no discussion of the linked worker participation directive.

  Finally, the Council agreed final adoption of the third life assurance, and vehicle noise type approval directives.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ministerial council of the European Space Agency held in Granada on 9 and 10 November.

  Mr. Leigh
  I am pleased to report that Ministers at the European Space Agency meeting at Granada adopted a new, well-balanced, long-term plan which sets the course of European space activities until the end of this century.
  823
  The main achievement for the United Kingdom was an agreement to proceed with the full development of a major new Earth observation mission, known as Envisat-1. This mission will be flown on the British-led polar platform in 1998 and will carry the British-developed advanced synthetic aperture radar and a variety of environmental research instruments. This mission will provide an important contribution to our understanding of global environmental and climate issues and will lead to opportunities for commercial exploitation of the data in the future. Preparations will also be made for an operational meteorological mission, using the polar platform, to be carried out in collaboration with Eumetsat.

  The conference also considered ESA's manned space programmes. The Hermes project will not proceed as planned but instead will be replaced by a three-year programme to study alternative options in collaboration with the USA and Russia. Other programmes which were approved were the Columbus manned attached laboratory and the data relay satellite system.

  Amongst proposed future programmes is a study of options for future re-usable launchers such as the horizontal take-off and landing launches.

  On a proposal from the United Kingdom, Ministers welcomed the work carried out to date by the Committee on Earth Observations Satellites (CEOS), aimed at co-ordinating the Earth Observation activities of the world's space agencies and recognised that CEOS and other international bodies could in time contribute to the emergence of a world space agency.

  The result of this conference is a space programme with a much better balance between the applications of space and infrastructure programmes and with a greater emphasis on international collaboration. The United Kingdom welcomes ESA's drive to achieve effective collaboration both within Europe and with its international partners, including the USA and Russia.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the numbers of new business start-ups for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The best available guide to trends in numbers of business starts comes from VAT data. The number of businesses newly registered for VAT for each year since 1980 are given in the table.

  Registrations: 1980–1991

  Thousand

  Registrations

  1980

  158

  1981

  152

  1982

  166

  1983

  180

  1984

  182

  1985

  183

  1986

  192

  1987

  210

  1988

  240

  1989

  256

  1990

  239

  1991

  206

  824

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am the Minister responsible for deregulation within this Department. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is the Cabinet Minister with overall responsibility for the Government's deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken since 9 April to encourage other Government departments to examine the possibility of deregulation or simplification of matters for which they have responsibility; what the results of these steps has been; what requirement he has now laid, or is about to lay, on Departments to discover and publish the cost of any new and old regulations for which they are responsible; what plans he has to increase the deregulatory momentum of the Government; how he proposes to monitor these matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has set in course a number of initiatives to increase and monitor the momentum of the Government's deregulation initiative. In this he has the full support of the Prime Minister.

  All Departments have been asked to identify primary and secondary legislation and forms affecting business. Over 6,000 pieces of legislation and over 2,500 forms have been identified so far.

  Some studies of individual businesses are currently underway to assess the cumulative burdens on business. The results of these two exercises will be used by Departments to draw up a prioritised programme of review.

  On 30 June, I announced nine pilot local authority/ business partnerships, a major initiative to improve the way local authorities apply regulations to business.

  All Departments are required to conduct a compliance cost assessment on regulatory proposals which would impact on business. When these are published, copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she reached a decision on the timing of the introduction of legislation to implement her proposed abolition of wage councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Queen's speech announced our intention to introduce a Bill to continue the reform of industrial relations in this parliamentary Session and we made it clear that we would introduce the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of job vacancies in the east midlands.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On the seasonally adjusted basis, there were 6,000 unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres
  825
  in the east midlands region, in October 1992. Jobcentre vacancies do not represent the total number of vacancies available.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment is she will make a statement on the work of the Health and Safety Executive in relation to asbestosis.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive enforces a comprehensive package of legislation designed to protect workers from contracting asbestosis and other asbestos-related diseases. The asbestos regulations and their associated approved codes of practice—ACoP—shave recently been revised to implement three EC directives; they will come into force on 1 January 1993. The changes to the ACoPs introduce technical revisions to improve overall standards for all work with asbestos, especially the treatment and removal of asbestos insulation.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of employees in employment in manufacturing(a) in total, (b) by sector and (c) by standard region in 1979 and for the latest available date; and what was the percentage change in each case.

  Mr. McLouglin
  The information is shown in the table.

  Employees in employment in manufacturing not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Per cent. change

  Region

  June 1979

  June 1992

  June 1979 to June 1992

  (a) United Kingdom

  Total

  7,253

  4,589

  -37

  (b) Metal manufacturing and chemicals

  1,147

  635

  -45

  Metal goods, engineering and vehicles

  3,374

  2,030

  -40

  Other manufacturing

  2,732

  1,924

  -30

  (c) South East

  (inc. Greater London)

  1,871

  1,115

  -40

  East Anglia

  206

  165

  -20

  South West

  439

  323

  -27

  West Midlands

  985

  569

  -42

  East Midlands

  606

  445

  -27

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  708

  460

  -35

  North West

  971

  572

  -41

  North

  410

  254

  -38

  England

  6,188

  3,903

  -37

  Wales

  315

  220

  -30

  Scotland

  604

  368

  -39

  Northern Ireland

  146

  970

  -33

  Job Club, Burslem Methodist Mission
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the reasons for the closure of the job club held at Burslem Methodist mission; and if she will review the decision to withdraw funding.
  826
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Ms. Joan Walley, dated 26 November 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the closure of the Jobclub held at Burslem Methodist Mission. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Jobclubs continue to be both popular with the people who join and an effective way of helping them to find work. Since Jobclubs were introduced in 1984, 410,000 people have been helped to find work, and just over 130,000 others have gone on to other positive outcomes such as training. Following the announcement made by Secretary of State earlier this month, a substantial expansion of the programme will take place in 1993/94. We will then be able to help some 295,000 people, more than ever before.
  To ensure that the funds available to operate Jobclub are used in the most effective way, decisions about the size and shape of the programme are taken by my area managers. They have the responsibility to target the resources available in a way which will help the greatest number of unemployed jobseekers. Because there was under utilization of capacity, Mrs. Joy Cross, my Area Manager for Staffordshire, decided to consolidate provision in the area and to close the Jobclub at the Burslem Methodist Mission operated by BTG Training and Consultancy. This decision was not taken lightly as we recognise that BTG is an organisation with which we had a good working relationship.
  Alternative places will be offered to members in the remaining Jobclub in Burslem or, if preferred, in Hanley or Kidsgrove. Fares to attend Jobclubs are refunded in full to those who attend so no one will incur extra expenditure as a result of the changes.
  In addition to taking members from the Jobclub which is closing, the remaining Jobclubs still have enough capacity to meet the expected demand for places from unemployed people for the foreseeable future.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Canada Geese
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to prevent agricultural damage in England caused by Canada geese; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Farmers are free to control geese during the open season using methods not prohibited by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. During the close season, from 1 February to 31 August, the Ministry may grant licences to permit the control of Canada geese in order to prevent serious agricultural damage. Advice to farmers on the most suitable and effective methods of control of Canada geese is available from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Ministry's wildlife advisers. Ministry funded research into more effective control of Canada geese has developed a simple method of making Canada goose eggs unviable without causing undue suffering to the adult birds. Research is also being
  827
  undertaken on the population dynamics and movements of Canada geese to provide background for future studies on the effects of various control methods on population size and movement.

  Hens
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps, along with his EC colleagues, to ban the rearing and keeping of hens in battery cages.

  Mr. Soames
  It is already the Government's policy that the current battery cage design, in which only feeding and drinking facilities are provided, must be phased out on a Community basis. We will press for this when the Commission's proposals for the revision of the battery hens directive and new standards for hens kept in alternative systems are negotiated.

  Milk Sampling
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the charges to producer-retailers of his Ministry's milk sampling, in percentage and cash terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 6 November,Official Report columns 418–19. The £16–34 per cent.—increase in the charge for milk sampling and testing takes effect on 27 November 1992.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to end the duplication of milk sampling by his Ministry and environmental health authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no duplication. The Ministry is responsible for the on farm sampling, and subsequent testing of untreated milk. This work is undertaken by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. Local authority environmental health officers are responsible for checking the quality of all milk once it has left the farm. This involves some sampling and testing. In rare instances when milk is suspected of causing food poisoning they may also take a sample of milk on dairy farms in the course of their investigations.

  Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the role of the wildlife incident investigation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Under the wildlife incident investigation scheme, inquiries are made into reports of suspected poisoning by pesticides that involve vertebrate wildlife, chiefly birds and mammals, companion animals and honeybees. The results are used in reviews of the conditions of approval of pesticide products. Evidence of misuse or abuse may also contribute to prosecutions or other enforcement action.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was (i) the total cost,828
  adjusted to 1992 prices of the wildlife incident investigation scheme for England and Wales and (ii) the proportion of the total cost contributed by the agrochemical industry levy, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  The costs of the wildlife incident investigation scheme in England and Wales chargeable to the agrochemical levy adjusted to 1992 prices are as follows:

  £

  19881

  630,000

  19891

  465,000

  1990–91 (15 months)

  744,000

  1991–92

  815,000

  1992–93 (F)

  770,000

  1Includes figures for Scotland.

  Other costs associated with the wildlife incident investigation scheme are borne by departments, but except for 1992–93, at £374,000, are not readily identifiable.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost to date of the compensation paid to farmers and associated costs for the disposal of animal carcases from the outbreak of BSE in 1986.

  Mr. Soames
  Expenditure recorded from August 1988, when the slaughter with compensation policy was introduced, until the end of October 1992 is £74·4 million.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of diary fars have experienced at least one case of BSE in(a) Dyfed, (b) Wales and (c) Great Britain.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Dyfed Per cent.

  Wales Per cent.

  Great Britain Per cent.

  30·89

  28·48

  39·40

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE to date during 1992, and the total number of cattle diagnosed that were(a) under two years of age, (b) aged two to three years, (c) aged three to four years, (d) aged five to six years and (e) aged seven or more years.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested for cases notified in Great Britain in 1992 by age at onset of clinical symptoms is as follows:

  Number notified

  Number confirmed

  Outstanding results

  Less than 2 years

  39

  0

  3

  2 and less than 3 years

  247

  19

  29

  3 and less than 4 years

  1,782

  1,058

  197

  4 and less than 5 years

  13,339

  11,586

  369

  5 and less than 6 years

  9,232

  7,570

  403

  6 and less than 7 years

  3,719

  2,779

  164

  7 years and over

  2,383

  1,309

  87

  Unknown

  6,199

  1,995

  3,252

  36,940

  26,316

  829
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle born after the ban on ruminant protein in cattle feed was introduced in July 1988 have since died of BSE; and if he will provide these figures for every month during 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  To 19 November 1992, BSE has been confirmed in 599 cattle born after 18 July 1988. Because of the delay caused by the necessary confirmation procedures, these cases are listed by month of birth rather than month of confirmation. Some of these cases are still under investigation for details of their history.

  Number

  1988

  July

  36

  August

  204

  September

  184

  October

  95

  November

  39

  December

  20

  578

  1989

  January

  7

  February

  2

  March

  1

  April

  2

  June

  4

  July

  1

  August

  1

  September

  3

  21

  At its meeting in October, the Tyrrell committee considered the appearance of cases in animals born since the ban and concluded that all the evidence pointed towards feed being the origin of such cases, and that there was no evidence of any other source.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of confirmed cases of BSE in Britain for each year up to 1991 and for each month during 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of confirmed cases of BSE in Great Britain since the disease was made notifiable on 21 June 1988, by date of report is as follows:

  Number

  1988

  2,185

  1989

  7,136

  1990

  14,180

  1991

  25,025

  Number

  January 1992

  3,511

  February 1992

  2,971

  March 1992

  3,277

  April 1992

  3,040

  May 1992

  2,264

  June 1992

  2,495

  July 1992

  2,555

  August 1992

  2,676

  September 1992

  2,366

  October 1992

  1,161

  830
  1992 figures are incomplete due to the time between cases being reported and confirmation by histopathology.

  Apples (Dumping)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to(a) the French authorities and (b) the European Commission on dumping of apples from France in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  I know of no illegal aids to justify any representations. If evidence were presented to me I would make the appropriate representations.

  Regulation Measures
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any area for which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since 9 April.

  Mr. Curry
  Much of the legislation handled by my Department is governed by the EC. No Bills of a regulatory nature have been enacted by this Department since the last general election.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sellafield
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the facilities at Sellafield to treat the spent nuclear fuel containing highly radioactive isotopes currently on site will be started.

  Mr. Maclean
  Facilities at Sellafield presently reprocess spent Magnox fuel and have done so since the early 1960s. The thermol oxide reprocessing plant facilities will not start the commercial reprocessing of oxide fuel until the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is satisfied with the safety of the plant and the regulatory authorities have no objections on waste management grounds.

  Water
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce new legal standards on phosphates in water.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have no immediate plans to introduce new legal standards on phosphates in water.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the planned lead times between the laying of the regulations under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning water licensing and the implementation of the licensing system(a) when the Act received Royal Assent, (b) when the consultation papers were issued in August and (c) what is the proposed lead time now;

  (2) when he will bring before Parliament regulations under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 introducing a new waste management licensing system.

  Mr. Maclean
  The waste management licensing system will be implemented by means of secondary legislation and
  831
  guidance issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It was not therefore necessary to establish an implementation timetable at the time the Act received Royal Assent. The Government published a legislation timetable on 25 June 1991 which envisaged laying regulations on waste management licensing in December 1992 to come into effect in April 1993. Consultation is proceeding on the complex and detailed measures needed to implement the new system and the resulting regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible; it is still my intention to bring the licensing system into force on 1 April 1993.

  Industrial Effluent
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to establish a statutory register indicating the levels of industrial waste released into sewers through the conclusion of trade effluent consents/agreements between industrial companies and water authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Water Industry Act 1991, details of consents for discharges to sewers issued by sewerage undertakers are available for public inspection. Under the arrangements for integrated pollution control of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, controlled releases will be subject to monitoring, upon which, as a condition of authorisation, data must be supplied to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and placed on public registers.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he and his Department have had in the last six months with the council of the Association for the Conservation of Energy on energy efficiency matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I met the council of the Association for the Conservation of Energy on 15 October, and my officials also keep in touch with the association to exchange views on a range of energy efficiency matters. I value the contribution that the association makes to the development of policy and the way it represents the views of its members.

  Recycling
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish a United Kingdom-wide target for the recycling of 25 per cent. of all household waste by the year 2000.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have already set a target of recycling half of the country's recyclable household waste by the end of the century, in the 1990 White Paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200). In the White Paper, it was estimated that this equates to about 25 per cent. of total household waste.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's latest estimate of the amount of domestic waste being recycled; and if he will list the six best and the six worst local authorities in this respect.
  832
  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's statistical report "The UK Environment", published in October 1992, estimates that about 5 per cent. of household waste is currently recycled. More detailed information is not currently available but local authorities have been asked to provide it in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's new statistical returns on waste collection and disposal. The results of those returns should be available early in 1993.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to limit the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, methyl bromide and methyl chloride to applications in which effective recycling can be guaranteed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Negotiations are currently under way into the renegotiation of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, where controls on HCFCs and methyl bromide will be discussed. I understand that all uses of methyl chloride are as feedstock, where the substance is destroyed.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the newspaper and textile industries to promote and participate in recyling schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The newspaper and textiles industries already promote and participate in recyling schemes throughout the country. In particular, the Newspaper Publishers Association agreed in 1991, after discussions with the Government, to aim to increase the proportion of waste paper used in newsprint consumed in the United Kingdom to at least 40 per cent. by the end of the decade. I am also aware that the textile reclamation industry has been actively seeking to increase recycling rates in association with local authorities.

  The measures being taken by the Government to set the right economic and legislative framework for recycling, set out in "This Common Inheritance: the Second Year Report" (Cm 2068), will encourage further activity by those industries.

  Waste Carriers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of(a) registered waste carriers, (b) applicants for registration not yet processed and (c) applications where the applicant or other relevant person had an unspent conviction for prescribed offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held by my Department. Each waste regulation authority is required to maintain a register, available for public inspection, which contains, inter alia, details of registered waste carriers and any unspent convictions they may have for prescribed offences.

  Emission Levels
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the progress made to date within the United Kingdom in implementing the UN Commission for Europe convention on long-range transboundary air pollution relating to nitrogen oxides.
  833
  Mr. Maclean
  Under the 1988 Sofia protocol to the convention, the United Kingdom is committed to bringing emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) back down t o their 1987 levels by 1994. Measures being taken which will help to meet this target include the implementation of tough new emissions standards for most road vehicles, of the new controls on industrial emissions under part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and of the EC large combustion plants directive. Further details are given in the Environment White Paper 1990, "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200), and the first and second year reports of the Paper (Cm 1655 and 2068), copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department in fulfilling the obligations on emission levels imposed by the EC large combustion plants directive.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has recently sent emission figures for 1991 to the European Commission, reporting on progress under the EC large combustion plants directive, which requires reductions in sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions—the major contributors to acid deposition—from existing large combustion plants. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. The figures show that the UK is meeting its national plan for reducing emissions of SO2 and NOx from existing plants. The figures also

  Average 98th percentile of sulphur dioxide concentrations in each of the local authorities having derogation in respect of the European Community Directive 80/779/EEC

  Local authority

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Allerdale

  58

  49

  45

  51

  58

  63

  69

  43

  33

  32

  45

  20

  Barnsley

  170

  302

  184

  172

  154

  143

  135

  134

  141

  149

  142

  169

  Bassetlaw

  156

  184

  101

  137

  119

  141

  177

  98

  81

  92

  60

  125

  Blyth Valley

  144

  113

  116

  161

  126

  111

  118

  128

  91

  74

  75

  *

  Bolsover

  133

  *

  *

  *

  *

  134

  197

  149

  148

  130

  163

  168

  Bradford

  139

  187

  163

  179

  120

  110

  122

  125

  97

  90

  115

  107

  Cannock Chase

  157

  199

  158

  160

  134

  102

  91

  44

  144

  116

  159

  123

  Castle Morpeth

  92

  94

  156

  158

  107

  105

  75

  66

  94

  *

  *

  *

  Chesterfield

  95

  94

  57

  55

  57

  60

  53

  49

  56

  38

  42

  44

  Copeland

  110

  120

  99

  74

  93

  74

  68

  50

  55

  50

  48

  26

  Crewe and Nantwich

  105

  184

  98

  138

  118

  103

  85

  79

  117

  35

  39

  74

  Doncaster

  198

  285

  176

  199

  155

  199

  138

  133

  115

  104

  114

  128

  Kirklees

  154

  233

  144

  156

  148

  139

  130

  139

  104

  117

  111

  121

  Mansfield

  197

  258

  168

  200

  160

  177

  147

  156

  135

  124

  152

  162

  Newark

  138

  184

  142

  155

  121

  139

  138

  136

  147

  105

  63

  204

  Newcastle under Lyme

  163

  157

  167

  150

  152

  136

  129

  109

  55

  88

  91

  93

  Nottingham

  163

  209

  139

  166

  145

  130

  116

  149

  108

  97

  100

  94

  Rotherham

  156

  257

  179

  198

  155

  151

  153

  140

  123

  126

  143

  183

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  *

  *

  117

  177

  135

  109

  89

  91

  84

  89

  82

  96

  Sunderland

  111

  225

  124

  146

  106

  119

  125

  100

  94

  112

  120

  87

  Wakefield

  164

  244

  172

  173

  140

  146

  155

  142

  127

  103

  106

  151

  Wansbeck

  157

  219

  136

  124

  126

  85

  94

  88

  20

  49

  55

  90

  Cunninghame

  79

  121

  87

  64

  54

  57

  59

  67

  46

  25

  23

  *

  Falkirk

  107

  110

  95

  94

  91

  83

  85

  76

  *

  106

  68

  71

  Glasgow

  145

  175

  107

  96

  102

  82

  101

  68

  62

  82

  74

  63

  Strathkelvin

  103

  158

  111

  110

  92

  90

  85

  72

  56

  67

  68

  57

  Belfast

  79

  104

  93

  129

  198

  169

  210

  179

  154

  195

  229

  179

  Derry

  148

  148

  122

  81

  122

  95

  88

  68

  55

  114

  89

  72

  Newry and Mourne

  78

  147

  108

  113

  85

  105

  62

  59

  122

  120

  75

  50

  (The figures represent the average 98th percentile of all daily mean concentrations, in micrograms per cubic metre, taken throughout the year from all the monitoring stations in each local authority area.)
  834
  indicate that the UK is on course to meeting the directive's target of a 20 per cent. cut in SO2 and a 15 per cent. cut in NOx by 1993.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are currently being undertaken by his Department to improve the accuracy of data relating to emissions of volatile organic compounds in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  One of the principal objectives of my Department's air quality research programme is to improve the accuracy of data on volatile organic compound emissions in the United Kingdom, Warren Spring Laboratory and the National Physical Laboratory have been contracted to work on sources and emissions of volatile organic compounds and options for their abatement. The university of Leeds has been contracted to provide information on the impacts of individual VOCs on ozone production.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authority areas granted derogations on ground level concentrations of sulphur dioxide and smoke in respect of EC directive 80/779; and what are the levels of(a) sulphur dioxide and (b) smoke concentrations in each such area, expressed in micrograms per cubic metre, in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:
  835

  Average 98th percentile of black smoke concentrations in each of the local authorities having derogation in respect of the European Community Directive 80/779/EEC

  Local authority

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Allerdale

  71

  108

  53

  47

  50

  75

  94

  79

  47

  67

  55

  55

  Barnsley

  164

  341

  161

  181

  126

  139

  130

  125

  130

  111

  110

  143

  Bassetlaw

  113

  183

  101

  114

  92

  118

  153

  95

  134

  106

  56

  119

  Blyth Valley

  166

  249

  195

  194

  99

  161

  106

  115

  72

  81

  117

  *

  Bolsover

  87

  *

  *

  *

  *

  85

  177

  152

  114

  99

  91

  95

  Bradford

  66

  109

  57

  73

  66

  55

  57

  70

  52

  30

  64

  74

  Cannock Chase

  127

  271

  162

  171

  164

  209

  196

  96

  168

  120

  117

  96

  Castle Morpeth

  65

  80

  266

  210

  146

  203

  73

  75

  64

  46

  *

  *

  Chesterfield

  88

  162

  80

  78

  88

  60

  58

  27

  12

  9

  8

  8

  Copeland

  174

  302

  134

  173

  *

  82

  121

  91

  104

  85

  54

  28

  Crewe and Nantwich

  78

  176

  93

  133

  116

  112

  129

  106

  103

  105

  122

  45

  Doncaster

  172

  280

  186

  155

  100

  160

  110

  147

  111

  109

  90

  108

  Kirklees

  68

  146

  79

  82

  76

  82

  82

  112

  66

  91

  73

  75

  Mansfield

  135

  237

  142

  136

  108

  106

  80

  96

  87

  110

  102

  120

  Newark

  96

  179

  136

  104

  107

  113

  165

  116

  133

  65

  30

  130

  Newcastle under Lyme

  114

  145

  100

  126

  97

  100

  97

  82

  26

  75

  72

  58

  Nottingham

  79

  124

  96

  104

  71

  70

  88

  73

  56

  76

  35

  82

  Rotherham

  133

  221

  148

  139

  116

  106

  102

  118

  87

  124

  114

  127

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  *

  *

  144

  166

  103

  121

  112

  115

  155

  81

  89

  125

  Sunderland

  117

  203

  128

  162

  100

  172

  138

  186

  99

  143

  112

  Wakefield

  128

  247

  173

  148

  118

  147

  121

  141

  109

  86

  78

  109

  Wansbeck

  215

  254

  189

  169

  148

  146

  148

  124

  41

  45

  74

  64

  Cunninghame

  64

  110

  65

  58

  44

  53

  50

  61

  36

  21

  18

  *

  Falkirk

  68

  143

  92

  81

  60

  87

  82

  64

  *

  70

  37

  51

  Glasgow

  82

  185

  94

  75

  86

  70

  80

  72

  65

  144

  80

  66

  Strathkelvin

  106

  271

  167

  144

  83

  94

  100

  152

  67

  178

  71

  83

  Belfast

  133

  206

  115

  93

  121

  113

  113

  128

  123

  160

  202

  122

  Derry

  89

  118

  124

  129

  178

  132

  137

  85

  131

  64

  89

  88

  Newry and Mourne

  119

  404

  195

  199

  310

  204

  171

  *

  *

  344

  211

  147

  (The figures represent the average 98th percentile of all daily mean concentrations, in micrograms per cubic metre, taken throughout the year from all the monitoring stations in each local authority area.)

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the work undertaken by his Department resulting from the report and maps published by the United Kingdom critical costs advisory group in March.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report and maps published by the United Kingdom Critical Loads Advisory Group are being used by the Department to provide a scientific basis for the evaluation of air pollution emission control scenarios and the evolution of cost-effective emission control policies.

  Sand Dredging
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to him to control the discharge of salt water that has been extracted from dredged sand.

  Mr. Baldry
  Discharges of salt water from land based accumulations of dredged sand can be controlled by the National Rivers Authority under the Water Resources Act 1991. Conditions controlling the rate and quality of the water discharged can be imposed, via discharge consents, in order to protect receiving waters.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set a target of transferring at least 10 nature conservation review sites into national nature reserves per annum.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The designation of NNRs in England is a matter for English Nature. The rate of
  836
  progress depends on the funds available and the willingness of site owners to enter into the required commitments.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of public money was spent by English Nature for the purchase of national nature reserves in 1991–92; and what is the expected spend for 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 November 1992] English Nature's expenditure on purchase of national nature reserves was £81,944 in 1991–92 and is expected to be £93,000 in 1992–93.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total tonnage of toxic waste transported from the United Kingdom to developing countries during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been no exports of hazardous waste for final disposal to developing countries over the last three years.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase available funding to nature conservation review sites for the maintenance of the sites of special scientific interest network and their effective monitoring.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has recently announced an additional £625,000 in the current financial year to
  837
  allow English Nature to finalise long-standing management agreements inheritated from the former Nature Conservancy Council. Next year's general improvement area settlement, announced earlier this month, will enable English Nature to meet its core site protection and management responsibilities. English Nature aims to undertake appropriate management and monitoring of the SSSI network.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to draw up a code of noise pollution control measures for public houses to replace the existing music licensing system.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to replace the current system of licensing music in public houses. In addition to licensing conditions, noise from licensed premises can he controlled by the local authority under the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Acid Waters Review Group
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the work undertaken by his Department resulting from the United Kingdom acid waters review group report published in 1988.

  Mr. Mclean
  A number of the recommendations on the United Kingdom acid waters review group report have been implemented. These include the setting up and operation of the United Kingdom acid waters monitoring network; the appointment of a critical loads advisory group, acid waters sub-group under the chairmanship of Professor Battarbee, University college, London; the recent completion of a nationwide survey of lake and stream acidity; the development of freshwater chemistry and biological acidification models; and departmental sponsorship of research at a number of universities and research institutes throughout the United Kingdom.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to enforce section 33 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 in relation to releases of ozone-depleting substances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no executive responsibility for the enforcement of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Waste regulation authorities, as the authorities that will have the duty of granting waste management licences, will be mainly responsible for enforcement, but there is no restriction on who may instigate prosecutions for offences under section 33.

  Section 33(1)(c) of the Act, 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. 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
  838
  was issued in a code of practice published jointly by the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and my Department in December 1991. The provisions of sections 33 and 34 of the Act are not specific to particular substances, 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 will he issued before then.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Government policy towards the proposal from the United States of America that the climate change convention agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development be ratified by the end of the current year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government welcome the ratification of the UN framework convention on climate change by the United States of America, and by other countries, including China. Along with the other Group of Seven countries and member states of the European Community, the United Kingdom is committed to seek to ratify the convention by the end of 1993.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific action has been undertaken by his Department resulting from the report of the United Kingdom review group on acid rain published in 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1990 report of the United Kingdom review group on acid rain contains a large number of research recommendations. In response to these, work has been commissioned within my Department's air quality research programme aimed at improving information on emissions of acidifying compounds and of their precursors, on the transport and transformation of these compounds in the atmosphere, on the quantities deposited and on their impacts in the environment.

  Photochemical Oxidants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement outlining the work undertaken by his Department resulting from the United Kingdom photochemical oxidants review group report published in 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1990 report of the photochemical oxidants review group contains a number of research recommendations. The response of my Department has been to maintain and expand monitoring for nitrogen dioxide and other air pollutants highlighted in the report and to continue work on the atmospheric chemistry of nitrogen oxides and ammonia and on their environmental impacts.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent of the loss of the ozone layer over the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on proposals to eliminate ozone-destroying chemicals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest estimate of the average depletion of the ozone layer at British latitudes, based on
  839
  the 1992 World Meteorological Organisation/United Nations Environment Programme scientific assessment of ozone depletion, is 8 per cent. per decade. International negotiations on the control of ozone-depleting substances are currently taking place in Copenhagen.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Minister in his Department is responsible for the oversight of deregulation of regulatory matters which fall within the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have oversight of deregulation of such matters within the Department of the Environment, working closely with my colleagues.

  Contaminated Land Registers
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the basis for excluding the Kaolin mounds of Cornwall from the draft regulations under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

  (2) what is the basis for excluding the old tin mining areas of Cornwall with arsenic contaminant from the draft regulations under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

  (3) what is the basis of excluding the former zinc mining areas with cadmium contaminant from the draft regulations under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr Maclean
  The uses of land listed in the draft regulations for initial coverage by registers are those considered most likely to give rise to contamination. The china clay waste mounts of Cornwall do not give rise to significant potential for contamination. Current research being undertaken for my Department is identifying, in general terms, areas of metalliferous mining and the occurrence of natural contaminants associated with mined ground.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which rights of way have been stopped up since 1990 and when the stopping up was undertaken, under(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 247 and (b) previous procedures, since 1962; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Powers under section 247 are exercisable by the Secretary of State for Transport, as well as the Secretary of State for the Environment. Information as requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make the single household discount 50 per cent. instead of 25 per cent.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.
  840

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 1993–94; and if he will explain the basis of his calculations.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 12 November that the non-domestic rate multiplier for 1993–94 will rise by 3·5 per cent. from its 1992–93 level to 0·416. The distributable amount of non-domestic rates based on this poundage will be £11,559 million. This includes an Exchequer payment of £922 million into the non-domestic rates pool to compensate local authorities for the shortfall in 1992–93 and 1993–94 which would otherwise occur as a result of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992. The basis of the calculation is set out in the table.

  Rural Land Loss
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that present Government guidance on rural land loss is accurate and up to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: Current Government guidance on rural land loss is based on the land use change statistics (LUCS) collected for my Department since 1985 by the Ordnance Survey as part of its map revision work. Recent research has confirmed the robustness of the data, particularly for monitoring changes to urban uses. Some time does, however, elapse before changes in land use are recorded in the LUCS series and Ordnance Survey is testing new procedures with the objective of providing consistent information for urban areas within one year of any change occurring. The 1990 countryside survey, which is part-funded by my Department, will provide an independent source of estimates of rural change between 1978, 1984 and 1990, based on sampled data.

  Recent research commissioned by my Department has recommended that the need for consistent information across all land uses would be most effectively met by a census approach carried out by Ordnance Survey and continuously updated by a revised system of land use change statistics. The Department is proceeding to develop the methodology and carry out pilot work for this land use stock system.

  Conservation Bodies (Land Purchase)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of grant was made by English Nature under section 38 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to voluntary conservation bodies for the purposes of land purchase in 1991–92; and what is the expected spend for 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: English Nature made land purchase grants to voluntary conservation bodies totalling £258,632 in 1991–92 and expects to spend a further £252,000 on such grants in 1992–93.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent or minimise and render
  841
  harmless the heavy metals and nickel sulphate released into air, water and land by the burning of orimulsion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The burning of orimulsion or other fuels at a power station requires an authorisation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP).

  In granting authorisations, HMIP will have regard to the advice contained in the chief inspectors guidance note IPR1/1, "Large Boilers and Furnaces 50MW(th) and Over". This provides guidance on the techniques considered by the chief inspector to be appropriate to achieve the requirement set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent or minimise pollution.

  A copy of the guidance note has been placed in the House Library.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what external legal advice he has taken over who is responsible for the cost of clearing any future river pollution arising from the closure of collieries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: None. It is for the National Rivers Authority, and in turn, the courts, to apply the provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991 and any other relevant legislation to any particular case.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority, water company chairmen and British Coal about the environmental effects of colliery closures; what consultancy work is planned and by whom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: It is for British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first place, to assess the environmental effects of colliery closures. The NRA is currently carrying out a review of water pollution from abandoned mines.

  Leasehold Properties
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department holds on the total number of blocks of flats containing either four

  1992 prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF Guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Rechar Community Initiative 1992 to 1993

  Tawsen (North East)

  Total allocation

  11·80

  14·52

  2·20

  2·71

  —

  —

  14·01

  17·23

  Grant so far approved

  1·69

  2·08

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  1·69

  2·08

  Durham and Cleveland

  Total allocation

  8·62

  10·60

  1·38

  1·70

  —

  —

  10·00

  12·30

  Grant so far approved

  0·74

  0·92

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·74

  0·92

  South Yorkshire

  Total allocation

  23·25

  28·60

  4·59

  5·65

  —

  —

  27·85

  34·25

  Grant so far approved

  2·21

  2·71

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  2·21

  2·71

  Mid Yorkshire

  Total allocation

  11·07

  13·61

  2·32

  2·85

  —

  —

  13·38

  16·46

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  0–00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  Lancashire

  Total allocation

  5·63

  6·93

  1·15

  1·41

  —

  —

  6·78

  8·34

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  842
  or six flats in England, and on the proportion of these in which the freehold belongs to (a) a local authority or housing association or (b) a private landlord.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: The Department does not hold information on the number of blocks of flats in England. The best estimate comes from the 1986 English house condition survey, which suggests that there are some 164,000 purpose-built and converted blocks in England containing either four or six flats. No data were collected on who owns the freehold of these blocks.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Structural Funds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will set out the distribution in the United Kingdom of each of the Community initiatives under the European structural funds, in each assisted region, in terms of(a) allocation of grant in ecu and in pound sterling at current exchange rates in total and sub-divided into European regional development fund, European social fund and other structural funds and (b) the value of grant so far approved in ecu and pound sterling at current exchange rates; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of allocations to the United Kingdom from the Community initiatives under the European structural funds; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the European structural funds Community initiatives; what was the allocation to the United Kingdom for the period 1991 to 1993 in ecus and in pound sterling at current exchange rates in total and sub-divided into European regional development fund, European social fund and other structural funds; and what was the United Kingdom allocation under each programme as a percentage of the total allocation for each programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: The allocation of funds to Community initiatives is determined by the Commission within an overall budget limit.

  The European Commission has launched 13 such initiatives. The most recent (RETEX) has not yet reached the stage of firm allocations. The available figures for the other 12 initiatives are as follows:
  843

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF Guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  South Staffs

  Total allocation

  3·43

  4·22

  0·63

  0·78

  —

  —

  4·07

  5·00

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  North Warwickshire

  Total allocation

  2·53

  3·11

  0·63

  0·78

  —

  —

  3·16

  3·89

  Grant so far approved

  0·04

  0·05

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·04

  0·05

  Notts and North Derby

  Total allocation

  20·75

  25·52

  4·11

  5·06

  —

  —

  24·86

  30·58

  Grant so far approved

  1·52

  1·87

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  1·52

  1·87

  Western Scotland

  Total allocation

  2·72

  3·34

  0·54

  0·67

  —

  —

  3·26

  4·01

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  Eastern Scotland

  Total allocation

  10·85

  13·34

  2·17

  2·67

  —

  —

  13·02

  16·01

  Grant so far approved

  3·18

  3·91

  0·86

  106

  —

  —

  4·03

  4·96

  South Wales

  Total allocation

  23·17

  28·50

  2·23

  2·74

  —

  —

  25·40

  31·24

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  0·41

  0·50

  —

  —

  0·41

  0·50

  Total United Kingdom

  Total allocation

  123·81

  152·29

  21·97

  27·02

  —

  —

  145·78

  179·31

  Grant so far approved

  9·38

  11·53

  1·27

  1·56

  —

  —

  10·64

  13·09

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  254·22

  312·69

  45·12

  55·49

  —

  —

  299·34

  368·18

  UK per cent. share of total allocation

  48·7

  48·7

  48·7

  48·7

  —

  —

  48·7

  48·7

  1992 prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF Guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Stride community initiative 1992 to 1993

  Great Britain

  Total allocation

  12·75

  15·68

  0·41

  0·51

  —

  —

  13·16

  16·19

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  Northern Ireland

  Total allocation

  12·15

  14·94

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  12·15

  14·94

  Grant so far approved

  0·51

  0·63

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·51

  0·63

  Total United Kingdom

  Total allocation

  24·89

  30·62

  0·41

  0·51

  —

  —

  25·31

  31·13

  Grant so far approved

  0·51

  0·63

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  0·51

  0·63

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  348·78

  429·00

  16·49

  20·28

  —

  —

  365·27

  449·28

  United Kingdom percentage

  share of total allocation

  7·1

  7·1

  2·5

  2·5

  —

  —

  6·9

  6·9

  1992 prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF Guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Leader Community Initiative 1992 to 1993

  England

  Total allocation

  0·76

  0·94

  0·16

  0·20

  0·37

  0·46

  1·30

  1·60

  Grant so far approved

  0·18

  0·22

  0·04

  0·05

  0·09

  0·10

  0·30

  0·37

  Scotland

  Total allocation

  3·44

  4·23

  0·76

  0·93

  1·67

  2·05

  5·86

  7·21

  Grant so far approved

  0·27

  0·33

  0·06

  0·07

  0·13

  0·16

  0·46

  0·57

  Wales

  Total allocation

  1·71

  2·10

  0·37

  0·46

  0·83

  1·02

  2·91

  3·58

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Northern Ireland

  Total allocation

  1·88

  2·31

  0·59

  0·72

  0·83

  1·02

  3·30

  4·06

  Grant so far approved

  0·71

  0·87

  0·00

  0·00

  0·30

  0·37

  1·01

  1·25

  Total United Kingdom Total allocation

  7·79

  9·58

  1·88

  2·31

  3·70

  4·55

  13·37

  16·44

  Grant so far approved

  1·16

  1·43

  0·10

  0·12

  0·52

  0·64

  1·78

  2·18

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  194·31

  239·00

  24·31

  29·90

  144·88

  178·20

  363·50

  447·10

  United Kingdom percentage share of total allocation

  4·0

  4·0

  7·7

  7·7

  2·6

  2·6

  3·7

  3·7

  844 845

  1992 prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF Guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Envireg community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom1

  Total allocation

  13·82

  17·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  13·82

  17·00

  Grant so far approved

  4·31

  5·30

  0·00

  0·00

  0·30

  0·37

  4·61

  5·67

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  427·75

  526·13

  8·68

  10·67

  15·62

  19·21

  452·04

  556·01

  United Kingdom percentage share of total allocation

  3·2

  3·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  3·1

  3·1

  Prisma community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom1

  Total allocation

  4·07

  5·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·07

  5·00

  Grant so far approved

  0·00

  0·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·00

  0·00

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  93·74

  115·30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  93·74

  115·30

  United Kingdom percentage

  share of total allocation

  4·3

  4·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·3

  4·3

  Telematique community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom1

  Total allocation

  4·07

  5·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·07

  5·00

  Grant so far approved

  0·56

  0·69

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·56

  0·69

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  186·50

  229·40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  186·50

  229·40

  United Kingdom percentage

  share of total allocation

  2·2

  2·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·2

  2·2

  1 All Northern Ireland.

  1992 prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF Guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Euroform community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom

  Total allocation

  —

  —

  28·33

  34·84

  —

  —

  28·33

  34·84

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  6·94

  8·54

  220·41

  271·10

  —

  —

  227·35

  279·64

  United Kingdom percentage

  share of total allocation

  0·0

  0·0

  12·9

  12·9

  —

  —

  12·5

  12·5

  Now communitv initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom

  Total allocation

  —

  —

  7·57

  9·31

  —

  —

  7·57

  9·31

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  8·67

  10·67

  82·42

  101·38

  —

  —

  91·10

  112·05

  United Kingdom percentage

  share of total allocation

  0·0

  0·0

  9·2

  9·2

  —

  —

  8·3

  8·3

  Horizon community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom

  Total allocation

  —

  —

  15·58

  19·16

  —

  —

  15·58

  19·16

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  17·35

  21·34

  120·57

  148·30

  —

  —

  137·92

  169·64

  United Kingdom percentage

  share of total allocation

  0·0

  0·0

  12·9

  12·9

  —

  —

  11·3

  11·3

  Regen community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom

  Total allocation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grant so far approved

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  300·20

  369·25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  300·20

  369·25

  United Kingdom percentage share of total allocation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992 prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Regis community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom Total allocation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  846 847

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Grant so far approved

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  162·25

  199·57

  6·94

  8·54

  46·85

  57·63

  216·04

  265·73

  United Kingdom percentage

  share of total allocation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Interreg community initiative 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom1 and

  Republic of Ireland

  Total allocation

  47·63

  58·59

  3·63

  4·46

  14·03

  17·26

  65·29

  80·31

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  670·69

  824·95

  26·90

  33·08

  48·59

  59·76

  746·17

  917·79

  1 No specific allocation to United Kingdom.

  1992 prices

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF Guidance

  Total SF

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  Total Community Initiatives 1991 to 1993

  Total United Kingdom

  Total allocation

  226·08

  278·08

  79·36

  97·61

  17·73

  21·81

  323·17

  397·50

  Grant so far approved

  15·92

  19·58

  1·36

  1·68

  0·82

  1·01

  18·10

  22·27

  Total EC

  Total allocation

  2671·41

  3285·83

  551·83

  678·75

  255·94

  314·80

  3479·17

  4279·38

  UK Percentage Share of total allocation

  8·5

  8·5

  14·4

  14·4

  6·9

  6·9

  9·3

  9·3

  Note: The authentic figures for allocations are those expressed in ecu. Equivalents expressed at the current exchange rate of £1 = 1·23 ecu are for illustrative purposes only. For most initiatives part of the allocation has already been received from the Commission at a previous exchange rate. The final sterling sums available to the programmes will depend on the exchange rates at the time the various payments arc received.

  The figures for grant so far approved are being constantly updated as frequent programme committee meetings are held.
  848
  Though precise calculations are not possible, the United Kingdom's share of expenditure under the initiatives is similar to its share of expenditure from the structural funds as a whole.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Post Office Counter Services
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to relax or remove restrictions on the type of transaction permitted to be conducted at Post Office counters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, we are currently undertaking a review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office. Among the issues being considered is the future of Post Office Counters Limited, which will include the level and type of business it should undertake.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that in country districts where the Post Office offers perhaps the only counter open to the public, a wide series of services from that counter can be of great assistance to people who would otherwise have to travel many miles to find a shop? Is it the intention of the Government to pursue the investigation with that in mind?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that we have a commitment to a nationwide network of Post Offices which includes rural Post Offices. We are well aware of their special importance in rural communities.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Post Office is ideally suited to be a major retailer of lottery tickets? When the legislation goes through, will the Government bear that in mind?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that the Government intend to extend the powers of Post Office Counters to allow it to bid for work as a sub-contractor to the national lottery.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance to the House today that she will not make the future of the Post Office a lottery? Can she give Post Office staff, especially those of Post Office Counters, some indication of security? The staff are prepared to fulfil the full range of duties, wherever they are and whatever is needed. They need encouragement and support and not investigations that lead to uncertainty about the future.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we are well aware of the dedication that is seen in postal services. I am delighted to re-confirm that the maintenance of a nationwide network of Post Offices is part of our policy.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Question actually concerns removing restrictions on what Post Offices can do. Is the noble Baroness saying that the Government are looking at the issue with a view to removing such relaxations, not only in respect of lottery tickets but also many other things? In my experience Post Offices are better than banks in terms of the way that they look after their customers. Would it not be a good idea if they extended the range of financial services that they offer to the public?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as one of our well-known economists to the practicalities of the Department of Trade and Industry. I take this opportunity to say that we will consider any requests from Post Office Counters to undertake new business as and when it arrives. However, we must measure such requests against our desire not to widen significantly the scope of the public sector.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, did I hear the noble Baroness say that the Government's policy was to ensure that there was a proper network of Post Offices in the country? If so, perhaps I can write and tell the Minister that our Post Office in a small village in Essex was closed a few years ago. No effort has been made to provide another one. Elderly people in the village now have to travel up to three miles to the nearest Post Office.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, obviously specific cases are a matter for the Post Office. I repeat that we are aware of the services that Post Offices provide. There have been specific measures introduced to ensure that some even continue on a part-time basis to help provide a service.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can my noble friend help those who work in the City of London, where I spent all my working life, and who have a lunch hour between the hours of one and two? Can my noble friend urge the Post Office to open more counters for City workers, particularly junior workers who have a severely restricted lunch hour and find difficulty in obtaining service at that vital time?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am quite certain that there are people in the Post Office responsible for taking on board the views of your Lordships' House. I am sure that that point will be registered.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Peston, is it not more essential than ever that the Post Office should be able to extend its range of services, preferably under public ownership, bearing in mind that the banks are closing so many branches throughout the country and their business is obviously insecure?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 29th July that a Post Office review is looking at the future structure and organisation of the Post Office. I am sure that all those matters will be taken into account.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's helpful reply, can she further indicate when it is likely that a government decision will be announced?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, this is an extremely important matter and we would not wish to make a decision prematurely. It will be announced as soon as the options have been considered and conclusions arrived at.

Sheep Dip: Research into Effects
3.8 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What research is being conducted into the effects upon humans of organo-phosphates, in particular sheep dip, used in agriculture.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the companies who market organo-phosphorus sheep dips have been asked to carry out detailed research into the effects of these products. In addition, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is funding work by the National Poisons Unit to follow up its recent report on cases of sheep dip exposure. Similarly, the Health and Safety Executive, as well as a number of academic groups, is carrying out research into the possible chronic effects arising from occupational use.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that full Answer. Does he accept that a significant number of people associated with sheep dipping or handling sheep after they have been dipped, including myself, have been suffering from a bewildering and weird number of complaints over the past years? We have been able to obtain no diagnosis from a GP and are rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is sheep dip that is poisoning us. Does the noble Earl appreciate also that since the 1960s scientists have suspected that organo-phosphates have long-term effects upon the human central nervous system? Can he say what advice he is giving to sheep handlers and GPs with regard to looking out for the symptoms and caring for patients afterwards?
Earl Howe: My Lords, naturally I sympathise with the noble Countess in her misfortune. In April 1991 the Chief Medical Officer wrote to all medical practitioners in Great Britain alerting them to the issues and to the need to report details of incidents involving veterinary medicines to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Additionally, the October 1991 edition of Current Problems, a bulletin circulated to all GPs, included details of symptoms associated with organo-phosphorus poisoning. We are considering what further action is required.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of a recent learned paper from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne which states that acute organo-phosphate poisoning is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the developing
1048
world and that epidemics of poisoning have occurred? Will the Government urgently review the situation with a view to the withdrawal of this highly toxic substance from the agri-chemicals market?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of that particular report. However, it is recognised that the inhalation of fumes from concentrated sheep dip should be avoided. That is stated on product labels. When sheep dips are diluted and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions, and taking account of COSHH requirements, there is no evidence to indicate that inhalation would pose a significant risk.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in this new era of open government can the Minister inform the House why his department refused a MAFF consumer panel access to the original data for the licence application for sheep dip; the survey of its use, which was conducted by the Health and Safety Executive in Devon; and the study by the National Poisons Unit at Guy's Hospital? Can the Minister further say why the Veterinary Medicines Directorate refused approval for a member of the consumer panel to speak to the consultant at the National Poisons Unit which, as the Minister knows, has studied sheep dip poisoning?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is no question of barring access to the finished report prepared by the National Poisons Unit. It was simply not felt appropriate for discussions to be held until the full report had been finalised and published. That has now been done and copies of the report are freely available to inquirers from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. There is absolutely no restriction on discussion of its findings with the researchers at the unit.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister say how many sheep dips there are without organo-phosphates? If sheep dipping is not now compulsory, are the sheep being monitored for sheep scab?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the overwhelming majority of sheep dips contain organo-phosphorus. There is another kind which I believe is based on a pyrethroid formula. It is unfortunately a fact that compulsory measures were not successful in eradicating the disease. They imposed a heavy burden on the farming industry. It is still a matter of good animal husbandry to dip sheep whenever a welfare problem is suspected.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it sufficient to say "Do not come into contact" when in fact it is only safe if one wears a gas mask to avoid spray?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Earl is not correct. That is not what the manufacturers necessarily recommend. All product labels contain recommendations on precautions to be taken when handling the sheep dip concentrate and dipping sheep. Those include the wearing of rubber gloves, rubber boots, a waterproof coat or apron and a face shield when handling the dip concentrate.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, whatever decision the Government come to, will my noble friend bear in mind that if we do not dip our sheep there is enormous cruelty to our animals? A lamb will probably die within 48 hours. Will my noble friend's department encourage the use of the new mobile dips, which are very efficient? One does not get covered in dip as I do with the type of dip that I use. I have yet to manage to do it without falling in. Perhaps that accounts for the fact that my noble friend sits so far away from me.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as to the second point made by my noble friend, he is absolutely right. The responsibility to make sure that effective treatment is used properly lies with individual farmers. We will take action against anyone who causes a welfare problem by failing to deal properly with sheep scab.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister referred approvingly to the report on this subject from the National Poisons Unit at Guy's Hospital. Can he tell the House of his department's decision as regards the further funding of the study?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the National Poisons Unit is continuing its survey of the effects on human health from exposure to sheep dip. In 1991 the unit examined 34 cases of suspected exposure reported to it by doctors. The conclusions were reported in a letter in the British Medical Journal of 31st October. The full report was published by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate which is funding the work at the same time. Further casework is expected to be completed by December 1992 with the results being made public in the middle of next year.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider the advice being given by the Health and Safety Executive about clothing? I believe that organo-phosphates are capable of passing through rubber. Will the Minister also bear in mind that when a sheep gets out of the dip the first thing it does is shake itself? The air becomes filled with droplets which presumably contain organo-phosphates. Not all of it will have stuck to the sheep's wool. The handlers will be inhaling considerable amounts if they are dipping between 500 and 1,000 sheep.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the work being carried out by the manufacturers of organo-phosphates includes work in the very areas which the noble Countess mentioned, including the details of the protective clothing worn and studies to show which areas of the operators' bodies are most exposed.

M. Delors: Term of Office
3.16 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the appointment of M. Delors as President of the EC Commission comes to an end.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, at the Lisbon European Council on 26th–27th June, M.
1050
Delors was reappointed President of the Commission for two years in accordance with the provisions of Article 161 of the Treaty of Rome. His term of office will expire on 6th January 1995.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in that case can the Minister assure us that the Government will not enable either M. Delors or M. Mitterrand to sabotage the GATT agreement at the last ditch? Meanwhile, will the Minister note the pronouncement by M. Giscard d'Estaing, who is a great authority on these matters, that the so-called Luxembourg compromise is no longer valid?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note with care what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has just said. I believe that the views of certainly 11 member states are very much at one on this issue. We shall work for a successful conclusion to the Uruguay GATT Round.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the time that elapses before M. Delors pursues a political career in one of the member states, will the Minister undertake that the Prime Minister will approach M. Delors, in his usual kind and courteous fashion, and point out to the President of the Commission that the country still expects M. Delors to comply with Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome? The noble Baroness will recall that paragraph 2 states that in the performance of their duties Members of the Commission,
"shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or from any other body".
Will she also ask the French Government suitably to comply with not endeavouring to give any such directions?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord knows only too well that we consider Article 157 to be very important. I hope that it is one which is also remembered by all member states and their governments. While I cannot bind my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to putting it in quite such specific terms, we shall find a way of making sure that it is heard.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, can my noble friend say how M. Delors' successor is elected? Is there some form of democratic process or is it a question of Buggins's turn?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the procedure is most certainly not democratic in the terms in which we mean it. The member governments themselves select the most suitable one from among the Commissioners who are appointed by their individual governments.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister mean that it is done through the customary methods of consultation, which is the phrase which one used to associate with the party opposite when it was thinking about its leaders? Being more serious, can the Minister say whether in recent discussions which the Government have had with the President of the Commission they have discussed the issue of subsidiarity and its more precise definition? Can the Government tell the House whether they believe that a more precise and acceptable definition of

1051
subsidiarity will have to be included by way of amendments to the treaty or what other method do they see of doing that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows that there are usual channels in Europe, just as there are between the different parties in another place and, indeed, in your Lordships' House. As far as the precise definition of subsidiarity is concerned—the noble Lord's main question—perhaps I may assure him that work is going on at the moment not only on the principles, but on how it will work out. This matter will be considered at Edinburgh.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, should not we amend "Hymns Ancient and Modern" to read, "When comes the promised time when Delors shall be no more"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is a very modern suggestion, but one that I am sure that your Lordships' House might like to take up.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Luxembourg compromise, which has saved the European Community from total collapse on three or four occasions, is still effective and not dead as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jay?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that it could be re-enlivened, but I hope that that situation will not occur in coming to a successful conclusion of the Uruguay GATT Round and that no nation will seek to use it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does not the Minister's earlier answer on subsidiarity mean that it is an objective of Her Majesty's Government at the Edinburgh Summit to obtain a strict definition in legal terms?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend give us any comfort and, considering that the Italian Minister of Agriculture has just gone on record as saying that the new GATT terms are not acceptable to Italy, can she go on record as saying—as hoping—that M. Delors, the President of the Commission, will forgo his national ambitions and push the Community view as hard as he can, which is, as I understand it, that the GATT agreement is completely within the meaning of the reform of the common agricultural policy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we do, indeed, believe that the agreement so far reached is in the best interests of Europe and certainly in the best interests of free trade throughout the world, particularly for the developing countries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the known fact that the longer that people are in power the more arrogant they become and the more remote from ordinary folk, is not 10 years far too long for the President of the European Commission to
1052
reign? Could we not at least have a bar, as in the United States, at eight years? Would not that be progress?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, knows that I have always been one to argue for a limitation on terms of service. The point about the re-appointment of M. Delors is that there were simply no other candidates. Therefore, there was unanimity that he was the best candidate available at the time.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness again, but she has now told the House that the Government want a more clarified legal definition of subsidiarity to emerge from the Edinburgh Summit. Does she see that as having to be incorporated in the treaty or does she see it in some other way as running alongside it without actually being part of the treaty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it quite clear that arriving at the proper definition of subsidiarity with examples of how it will apply and getting that accepted by all member nations does not need to be part of the treaty but, if it were not agreed or if it were contested, it would then have to go before the Court.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the interpretation of subsidiarity entirely dependent on the length of office of M. Delors? If not, are we not straying a little from the point and should we not by now be looking at the protection of fire in historic buildings?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is quite right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the extent to which supplementary questions have gone wide of the original Question on the Order Paper mark a new departure, and in future will all supplementary questions be allowed to depart as widely from the original Question as this one has?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, a few moments ago I considered reminding your Lordships' House that we were a long way from the subject of the reappointment of M. Delors. However, I did not wish to be rude to your Lordships and I thought that, on this occasion, I would try to put your minds at rest on other subjects, too.

Historic Buildings: Fire Precautions
3.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to install sprinklers as an automatic and immediate measure against the spread of fire in appropriate historic buildings for which they have responsibility.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government's policy is that all historic buildings should have adequate fire detection and prevention systems which

1053
are suitable for the individual building. Each historic building is unique. Method of construction, contents, location and number of persons who may be present have to be taken into account when considering whether sprinklers are appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very sensible Answer. But are not sprinkler systems especially suitable for premises which are unoccupied for many hours? Although the water may cause some damage, is it not likely to be much less than that from the hoses which might be used on a fire later?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, sprinklers are indiscriminate in their use and can be triggered by a false alarm or smoke. A planned response to the particular circumstances of a fire is preferable. Sprinkler technology is, of course, improving all the time and its appropriateness will be kept under review. The National Gallery, for example, has recently installed a fire detection system. A sprinkler system has been installed in the non-picture areas of the gallery, but the gallery's view is that sprinklers are not installed in the picture areas as they can often do more damage than fire to the paintings.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount for drawing attention to the risks to pictures, and ask the Government to take into account also the risks from sprinklers to historical manuscripts?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes. Another reason why sprinklers are not always appropriate in certain rooms is that they may contain items such as manuscripts.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask whether this magnificent Chamber has sprinklers?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that, but I believe not.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the use or non-use of sprinklers needs fine judgment and expert advice whereas there is no substitute for a well-trained firefighting force or for well-trained staff working in a snatch squad, as has been so effectively shown recently at Hampton Court and at Windsor Castle?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Montagu. Following the Hampton Court fire, a detailed survey of electrical services and fire precautions was carried out at Windsor Castle and included the Chester Tower. In addition, in 1988 the Property Services Agency surveyed every part of the interior of the castle and recorded its findings in drawings, photographs and written reports. As a result of that, a works programme costing over £20 million was started in 1988 and is now nearing completion. It included fire prevention measures, such as re-wiring, an automatic fire detection system and fire-retardant measures.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I understand that the 1971 Fire Precautions Act requires premises to have a
1054
fire certificate. May I ask whether Windsor Castle had and has a fire certificate; and, if so, did it help, and if not, why not?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is quite right that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 requires certain premises designated by the Home Secretary to have fire certificates. Royal residences are not included. The fire authority's responsibility is to ensure that the premises have adequate means of fire warning, escape and fire fighting. Incidentally, there is no specific requirement to fit sprinklers. The advice of the fire inspector depends on the circumstances. However, it is the policy of the Royal palaces to comply with the Act on a voluntary basis. The guidance in the regulations was more than fully complied with at Windsor Castle.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has pointed out the danger of the accidental triggering of sprinkler systems and the damage that follows, but has thought been given to the use of sprinkler systems triggered by the fire brigade on arrival in areas which the fire brigade cannot safely reach once a fire has broken out, such as the void above ancient ceilings and that which exists above this Chamber?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton makes an important point. He referred to one of the difficulties at Windsor Castle. The fire spread through roof voids which were difficult to reach and, equally, are probably rather difficult in which to install sprinklers. It is too early to tell what lessons may be learned from the Windsor fire, but we shall certainly look at the report very carefully when it is available.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any recent examination of the desirability of improving the fire precaution facilities in the Palace of Westminster has been carried out and, if not, would it not be desirable for such an examination to take place?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I think that that has been done fairly recently. I am sure that, in the light of the fire at Windsor, many owners of historic properties will look carefully at their fire precautions.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Sunday Trading in England and Wales. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Local Government Finance: England.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I move on to a matter of a restorative nature with regard to your Lordships. It is proposed that the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday, 17th December and return on Monday, 18th January. For those of your Lordships who are keen to match up your diaries for next year as we proceed, it may be for

1055
your Lordships' use and consideration to know that it is proposed that Holy Week will be the week set aside for the Easter Recess.

River Humber (Upper Burcom Cooling Works) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Campbell of Croy,

L. Elton,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish,

L. Rippon of Hexham (Chairman),

L. Shaughnessy,

L. Shepherd,

L. Wigoder.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time; and that the Committee do meet on Wednesday 2nd December at half-past ten o'clock. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 is to introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in England and Wales by the enactment of the Registered Homes Act 1984. I believe that it may be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The order strengthens, updates and replaces the existing Northern Ireland legislation on the registration and inspection of residential care homes and nursing homes in the private and voluntary sectors. These homes provide accommodation and care for a wide range of people who are unable to continue living independently in their own homes because of old age and infirmity, illness or disabilities.
The review of legislation which led to the promotion of the order was prompted by two main factors. The first of these was the very substantial increase in recent years in the number of private and voluntary sector homes in Northern Ireland and the growing pressure on the registration authorities, the
1056
four health and social services boards, to ensure that satisfactory standards are maintained. The second main factor was the more up-to-date legislative provision made in England and Wales through the Registered Homes Act 1984 and its associated subordinate legislation.
The order includes a number of new provisions which strengthen the powers boards have to ensure that private and voluntary sector homes provide high standards of care for their residents or patients. It provides for the registration of both the person or organisation in control of a home and, where different, the manager. It enables the department, by regulation, to require notice to be given during prolonged absence of the registered person or persons. It enables a home to be registered both as a residential care home and a nursing home. It introduces a procedure for the urgent cancellation of a registration in cases where a justice of the peace is satisfied that the residents are at serious risk. It gives the department and health and social services boards a right of entry at all times to residential care and nursing homes operated by the private and voluntary sectors. It enables the department, for the first time, to prescribe by regulation registration fees and annual fees for residential care homes and annual fees for nursing homes. Current legislation provides only for the charging of registration fees for nursing homes. The introduction of fees will help to ensure that, as far as practicable, the boards' work of regulating these homes will become self-financing. It establishes a Registered Homes Tribunal to hear appeals from proprietors of private and voluntary homes against the decisions of the boards.
The order also takes account of the provisions of the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991. The equivalent provisions in the order are intended to provide the minimum controls necessary to prevent unsuitable people operating small residential care homes for fewer than four people. I should add, however, that under the existing legislation in Northern Ireland such small homes have always had to be registered.
These provisions are designed to safeguard vulnerable people from unscrupulous owners of small homes, without subjecting families who are participating in such worthwhile schemes as the stay-a-while scheme for elderly people and adult placement schemes for mentally handicapped people to the full rigours of registration applied to the owners of larger homes.
The order also provides a convenient vehicle for an amendment to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 which is required to ensure that the department and health and social services boards have unequivocal powers to make contracts with the private and voluntary sectors for the provision of health and personal social services.
This amendment is contained in paragraph 2(1) and (2) of Schedule 1 to the order. Although this amendment can only be related loosely to the other provisions of the order, it is required as a matter of

1057
urgency following legal advice that the existing contractual powers in the 1972 order are open to challenge.
The order will make a significant contribution towards safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable people living in private and voluntary sector homes in Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, at the outset I should like to thank the House authorities for making it possible to discuss Northern Ireland matters at a reasonable hour of the day.
This is an important order for the elderly and infirm in Northern Ireland and for those suffering from disabilities and those who are vulnerable to abuse. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, is the Minister with direct responsibility for this area of policy in Northern Ireland. I want to thank him for explaining to the House so clearly the anticipated effects of the order. I propose to spend a little time on the order but the House will be pleased to know, particularly my colleagues from Scotland, that I shall not be spending long on the second order.
I am sure the Minister can confirm that over recent years there has been substantial growth in the number of residential care and nursing homes in Northern Ireland. I believe that there has been a fourfold increase over the past seven years. The incidence of infirmity and disability in Northern Ireland is even higher than on the mainland. Given that small piece of statistical information, I should like to know from the department whether it is financing research towards identifying broad groups of elderly and infirm people within categories of disability, and also research into the need for particular services. I have seen many references to planning research units, but what areas do they research? I know of the good work that has been undertaken at the Professorial Department of Geriatric Medicine at Queen's University. I wonder what specific areas of research it is undertaking which is helpful to the department.
The noble Earl confirmed that the order establishes a new framework for registration and cancellation of registration. He did not touch on closure but he could have mentioned that closure and inspection of care homes and nursing homes in the private and public sectors is based on the Registered Homes Act 1984 and the amending Act which came before the House last year.
We submit from this Front Bench that it is not satisfactory that the elderly and infirm in Northern Ireland should have to wait eight years for the shield of the 1984 legislation to be in place in Northern Ireland. We do not blame the Minister for that failure, but it is not good enough for Ministers to come up with the excuse, "This delay has enabled the Northern Ireland department to gain valuable experience". We accept that lessons have been learned since 1984, but, on the other hand, vulnerable elderly people in care homes and nursing homes in the community in Northern Ireland may have suffered unnecessarily as a consequence of the delay in updating the 1984 legislation. If the 1984 Act was then deemed to be
1058
necessary for England and Wales, with their lower incidence of disability and infirmity, should not the department have given a higher priority to the formulation and issuing of the order?
The Minister has confirmed that not all nursing and care homes will be covered by the order. Children's and young persons' homes will be exempted. If I am correct in assuming that that exemption applies because children's homes are already regulated and inspected under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, perhaps I may ask the department whether it is now actively engaged in drafting an amendment to update the 1969 legislation in line with the relevant provision of the Children Act 1989.
There is a second exempted group which is worrying: homes governed by chartered bodies, the health boards, or social service trust boards will also be exempt. I notice that that baffled Members in another place and they know a thing or two about the failures of the present arrangements in Northern Ireland. It is our experience that within all human institutions there is a gap between aspiration and performance. We therefore say that all residential and nursing homes in Northern Ireland, be they in the public or the private sector, should be subject to the same controls and regulatory procedures. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that exemption is justified in the public interest.
The order came before the other place on 11th November. The business immediately ahead of it having collapsed, an opportunity opened up for the articles and the important schedule contained in the order to be discussed for about four hours instead of the usual 90 minutes. In fairness to the elected Members from Northern Ireland, they took advantage at very short notice of the opportunity that had offered itself and they fired a barrage of questions and criticisms. I suggest that Hansard of that debate is essential reading, because it records the interests and anxieties of all the Members who spoke, apart, possibly, from one voice which I shall not name. It will not be lost on the readers that their criticisms broadened out to include membership, policies and irregularities—if I may use that neutral term—of the health boards, about which we hear a great deal. I sought to voice many of those criticisms when we debated the latest appropriation order during the summer.
I could not help but read in the Hansard report of the debate in the other place that some criticism—I have mentioned this to the Minister—was made of the Minister's own office, and the Minister's alleged inability or unwillingness to meet representatives of the owners of homes in the private and voluntary sectors. Does the Minister intend to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association in the near future?
Again, I cannot help asking why Sir Edward Archdale, holder of the DSC, a retired naval captain and, as I am assured, a well known figure in the County of Fermanagh, felt it necessary recently to resign his membership of one of the health boards. That is worrying. I am realistic enough to know that some of the evidence reported to Members in another

1059
place may have been innocently exaggerated by constituents, but I have a strong feeling that the core evidence which was referred to recently during the debate is not far off the mark. It is an old but reliable adage that there is no smoke without fire. I trust and hope that the Minister will confirm to the House that all claims and allegations of irregularities which went unanswered on llth November in another place will now be vigorously examined by the department's senior officials, with outside help if necessary, so that the alleged mischiefs can be identified and removed.
The order provides a framework, and no more. It will be reinforced by a number of regulations and orders which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place nor is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If they were here I am sure that they would confirm that that procedure does not provide the best and most effective filter known to legislators. But, given the importance of the order for so many vulnerable people and their families, surely this subordinate legislation should require an affirmative resolution. The order is fairly short. It contains about 38 articles and one significant schedule. I have seen a reference to subordinate legislation in about nine articles. Although I am not certain how many will be published, I am sure the figure will not be so high as nine. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many orders will be published.
I do not expect the Minister to reply today to the question I shall ask him, but perhaps the department can write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library. I should like to be assured that the orders will contain criteria on the 10 following matters: the misplacement of residents or patients by virtue of their disability—people in the wrong places; inappropriate treatment with drugs; urinary incontinence; food and diet control; the keeping of residents' medical and care notes; complaints by residents/patients and by staff members—both sets of complaints are at an exceptionally low level in comparison with levels of complaints in the rest of the United Kingdom, which I find rather odd—an adequate level of pocket money; privacy for residents and patients; facilities for visitors; and, lastly, the monitoring of standards. We know from our experience in the UK generally that those are the grey areas which can be so troublesome.
I should like to know whether the Minister can explain why the draft regulations covering those matters—whether it is four, five or six—have not been placed in the Library in draft form. I understand that they are ready to be issued within the next week or so.
Finally on this point, may we receive a firm assurance from the noble Earl that the subordinate legislation will be the subject of adequate consultation with the caring staff, representatives of the residents, the community, proprietors and managers of the homes and also the Labour Relations Agency? I mention that agency as I am informed in a letter received today that there may be a potential overlap or conflict between this piece of legislation, this order, and the employment legislation, although I am not aware of the precise area of conflict.
1060
On the question of consultation, the Minister will know very well that there is a sharp division of opinion as to whether or not this order has received adequate consultation.
I am not quite certain whether the Minister referred to the procedure in the order for the urgent cancellation of a registration, a home certificate, in cases where the residents are at risk. In practice, we from this Front Bench fully support the giving of such power to the boards, but we are concerned that under Article 10, the board has to apply to a justice of the peace for such an order instead of making an application to the resident magistrate. I understand that in Northern Ireland the judicial or quasi-judicial role of a justice of the peace in the petty sessional division is normally carried out by the stipendiary magistrate. Perhaps we may have an explanation on that point.
I come to my last point—and no doubt the noble Earl is pleased about that. It is about Schedule 1, to which the Minister referred. It is an important schedule which introduces four statutory changes and two brand new articles: Articles 14A and 50, which will be inserted in the earlier order. I think it is the correct description that one "stumbles", unalerted, across the sweeping provisions of the new Article 14A. The Minister was frank with the House and, in fairness to him, he did not find the real reason—that this schedule is not directly related to the subject matter of the order. In fact, it seems to many people that Article 14A has nothing to do with the registration and conduct of residential care homes and nursing homes. However, it has everything to do with assisting the owners of homes in the private sector. Its purpose is to empower the department to assist a third party who wishes to provide any health services by permitting him to use premises, vehicles, equipment, goods or materials belonging to the Department of Health or to employ the department's staff on such terms and conditions as may be agreed.
I ask the Minister to confirm that the article does not authorise the department or the health boards to donate or in any way give away or sell at a discount any of their premises, equipment, goods or materials to the private sector; or to provide unfair financial advantage to any party.
I thank the House for having allowed me 16 minutes to present our comments on this important order. I could go on talking about it, but I shall refrain. The order contains some very good provisions, notwithstanding the reservations which I have expressed. I believe that the registration and inspection powers, if applied widely across the sector, could provide a strong shield against the abuse of standards.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I too may thank the noble Earl for his presentation of the order. In responding I shall be somewhat briefer than the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, not least because he has very eloquently asked some of the questions which I wished to put. However, there are one or two observations I wish to make and one or two questions I wish to ask.

1061
The first observation is that this is an important order because it deals with the elderly, the infirm, the ill and the disabled—people who are vulnerable and therefore particularly deserving of the protection of the Government and Parliament. I believe it would be a mistake if that observation were to carry any implication that the growing number of homes in Northern Ireland—and the number has grown extraordinarily—as a matter of course ill treat their residents. We all know that the great majority give careful and loving care; it is the exceptions against whom the vulnerable need protection.
Since we are talking about the vulnerable, I wish to ask why any voluntary home or HSS home which falls under the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986 appears to be excluded from the registration and inspection procedures of the order, given that children are the most vulnerable group. In another place, the Minister, Mr. Hanley, said that there was provision in the Children Act itself for registration and inspection. I believe he said that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, would be bringing forward a proposal to update that legislation.
If the legislation needs updating, that suggests prima facie shortcomings under the Children Act 1989. Might it not be desirable therefore to include children under the provisions for inspection in this Registered Homes Order in the meantime? Perhaps the noble Earl can give some idea of the timescale under which he is operating.
I wish briefly to refer to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. Establishments which are run by health and social service board trusts are exempt because they will no longer be under board management. That means that they fall outside the inspectorate control envisaged in the order. I shall be interested in the noble Earl's observation on why that should be. Why should there not be parity of treatment?
The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned about the justices of the peace also deserves the Government's attention. In Northern Ireland the title of JP does not mean exactly what it means in the rest of the United Kingdom. JPs are not trained as lay assessors. They have no legal experience. They do not take part in the court process. In many ways, the title of JP in Northern Ireland is an honorary one. Would it not be better if registered magistrates were to decide in this situation?
Finally, I wish to raise the question of financing. The board's registration and inspection work with regard to the private sector—and most of these small homes are in the private sector—is to be self-financing. I believe that is stated on page 49 of the explanatory document. Are the Government satisfied that, in this rather marginal and not prosperous sector of the economy, the private sector will be able to finance it themselves? Is it a realistic proposition? Is the noble Earl entirely satisfied, given the importance of the order, that that is the proper way to provide for inspection?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their general tenor of agreement with
1062
the order. I also acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has personal knowledge and experience in the field. That is why he asked those interesting and profound questions. Therefore, I hope that both noble Lords will forgive me if I take a short time to answer the questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked what research was being done by the department of geriatric medicine at the Queen's University of Belfast. The department of geriatric medicine has been engaged in research into hypothermia and the effects generally of cold weather on elderly people's health. I understand that the department wishes to build further on that research.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked why it had taken so long for the order to be promoted when the Registered Homes Act 1984 came into effect on 1st January 1985. As I mentioned in my opening speech, there is legislation in existence now to regulate registration and inspection of residential care homes in Northern Ireland. There is separate legislation to regulate registration and inspection of nursing homes.
Up to the early 1980s there was no significant increase in the establishment of new homes in Northern Ireland. In the 1980s there was a marked increase in the development by the private sector of residential, and particularly nursing home, care. For example between 1982 and 1987 the number of places in nursing homes increased from 347 to 1,564. That represents an increase in five years of over 350 per cent. At that stage it was decided that a review of existing legislation should take place and a wide consultation exercise on the need for, and scope of, new legislation was conducted in 1988 through to 1989. Following hard on the heels of that consultation exercise came the major review of policy on community care for this decade which in itself required legislative provisions to implement the Government's policy objectives on community care in Northern Ireland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, the consequential delay in bringing forward the registered homes order has, however, undoubtedly—I do not use this an an excuse—enabled Northern Ireland to benefit from the practical experience of the 1984 Act having been in operation in England and Wales for several years. Both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked whether children's homes should not be included in the order. Children's homes are already protected through the provision for registration and inspection contained in the Children and Young Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1968 and we intend shortly to bring forward a proposal for more up-to-date legislation based on the Children Act 1989 which is in operation elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether the order applies to statutory homes provided directly by health and social services boards. The answer is no: the order applies only to private and voluntary sector residential care homes and nursing homes. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked how many regulations will be needed to implement the order. The draft order

1063
will be supported by three sets of subordinate legislation: first, the residential care homes regulations; secondly, the nursing homes regulations; and, thirdly, the registered homes tribunals rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether the department is conducting research on elderly, infirm and disabled people and whether the British Geriatric Society is helping in that work. The policy planning and research unit in Northern Ireland is conducting a survey on behalf of a number of Northern Ireland departments of the levels of disability and the need for services. That survey mirrors and builds on the OPCS survey conducted in the rest of the United Kingdom. To date one out of the seven separate studies in the survey has been published and a second is about to be published. The British Geriatric Society is not participating directly in this major piece of research. The Northern Ireland section of the society, however, is active in promoting the interests of elderly and infirm people and from time to time promotes its own research.
Why have the draft regulations to be made under this order not been placed in the Library, asked the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and why are they subject to negative and not affirmative resolution? The draft regulations issued on 16th November for consultation were sent to a very wide range of interested parties in the statutory, private and voluntary sectors. They were issued to every Northern Ireland Member of Parliament. Though subject to negative resolution, they have been given the widest possible consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the matter of the new Article 14A being inserted into the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Act 1991. The existing Northern Ireland legislation contained in Article 71 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 permits the health and social services boards to enter into contracts with voluntary organisations to provide any of the health and personal social services. Unfortunately, similar powers do not exist to permit the boards to enter into contracts with private sector organisations for the provision of such services.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked why a justice of the peace is involved in the urgent cancellation procedure and whether the procedure will be on oath. The urgent cancellation procedure is expected to be used rarely and only in cases where there is a serious risk to the well being of the residents. A justice of the peace is involved because of the need for speed. This procedure has been agreed with the Northern Ireland court service. Further, the procedure does not involve the administration of an oath.
I was asked by the noble Lord whether we intend to meet members of the Northern Ireland Care Homes Association in the near future. I have to say that the association has not in fact asked to meet me about the registered homes order. I have had correspondence with the association on other matters in the community care field and certainly if its members still have concerns and feel that I have not fully answered them, I shall be happy to hear from them again.
1064
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether there would be consultation with the Labour Relations Agency because of potential overlap between the order and employment legislation. I am happy to state that I am not aware of any overlap between the order which I bring before your Lordships' House today and employment legislation. My department did not therefore have consultation with the Labour Relations Agency.
What will the regulations cover the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked. I can tell him that the regulations will cover matters such as the conduct of homes; the provision of facilities and services, including adequate and balanced diet; registers and records to be maintained by homes, including medical records; visits by relations and guardians; religious observance; notification of death and illness; notice of absence of the proprietor or manager; notice of termination of accommodation; complaints procedures; and inspection of homes by the registering authorities.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, particularly asked whether inspection would really be self-financing. We are satisfied that the boards' inspection units should be adequately funded to carry out these registration and inspection duties under this order by virtue of fees paid by the private and voluntary sectors and by virtue of community care funds already made available to them in acknowledgement of their other duties to inspect statutory homes. I can assure your Lordships, however, that I shall be keeping the financial position of the units under very careful review.
I apologise if I have not answered all the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, but I shall do so after having carefully examined Hansard. I conclude by saying that the provisions of the order are designed to protect some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society—that point was made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—particularly the elderly and severely disabled people.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992
4.9 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order amends the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which is the legislative base dealing with all aspects of private streets matters in Northern Ireland. It contains provisions to amend the powers and duties of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, as road authority, and the responsibilities of developers in certain matters relating to the planning, construction and subsequent adoption of private streets. The amendments will bring Northern Ireland legislation broadly into line with corresponding legislation in Great Britain.

1065
The effect of the draft order will be to introduce changes in five distinct areas. Firstly, Northern Ireland is at present the only part of the United Kingdom where the cost of lighting in private streets is met by the road authority. Article 3 effectively places responsibility for the provision of street lighting in new developments upon developers or, in the case of existing streets which are to be adopted, upon the owners of adjoining land.
Secondly, under existing planning legislation the department's current policy provides that where new developments cannot be accommodated except by improvement of the existing public road—for example, the provision of a footway or road widening —developers may be required to carry out the necessary improvements works. The provisions in Article 4 do not represent a departure from this practice.
Thirdly, under Article 5 the department will be empowered to stop up or temporarily close any street which has been constructed before or in contravention of planning permission.
Fourthly, in recent years there has been some pressure from the private housing sector, particularly at the more expensive end of the market, to permit completed streets to remain private rather than become public roads. Article 7 will enable the department, on request, to permit certain streets in new developments to remain private while continuing to ensure that such streets are built to a proper standard.
Finally, under Articles 6, 8 and 9 the procedures for dealing with expenses are modified and extended to include the costs of inspecting street works and the registration of various statutory charges. These changes basically reflect the general principle of recovering expenses from the responsible party and follow the widely accepted consumer pays philosophy.
The proposal for this draft order was circulated for comment to a wide variety of interested parties, including all district councils and relevant representative bodies. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved. —(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again I would like to thank the noble Earl for explaining clearly and succinctly his five main objects. I hasten to confirm that this Front Bench is pleased to support the order.
I should like to thank the Department of the Environment for having kept the opposition spokesmen well informed about the discussions on the draft order. In view of the criticism which I levelled earlier at the inadequacies of the consultation procedures in one department it is only fair that I should congratulate the Department of the Environment on the procedure it has adopted in respect of this narrow order. The department issued a statement setting out a clear summary of the general points of principle which have been raised in the consultation, together with helpful comments. That means that we know the pros and cons of the order. We have here an attempt at improving accountability to Parliament, which I am sure the whole House will welcome.
1066
I should be content if the Minister would throw light on just one matter of detail. I have mentioned it to the noble Earl. Under Article 5 the department is given a new power to stop up or temporarily close any street in prescribed circumstances. We agree that it should be given that power and we assume that the party who will be affected by its exercise will be given adequate written notice of the department's intention. Can the Minister confirm that?
If so, what will be the duration of the notice? How will it be served? Will the developer have the right of appeal? If so, who will determine it? Furthermore, what would be the position if the developer is bankrupt, if the developer no longer has a lawful right of access to the land, or if the owners of adjoining houses request the department to exercise or not to exercise, as the case may be, the new power?
I am sure that those points of detail arising from Article 5 can be clarified very quickly by the Minister.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for his introduction to the order. I should like to ask two brief financial questions. First, the order states that the DoE should secure a guarantee from the contractor by the means of a guarantee bond and that the need for a guarantee bond is demonstrable. I can quite understand that if the contractor goes bust insurance becomes important. For example, Down View Road in Green Island, Antrim, has never been made up as a result of the contractor going broke before 1973. It thus effectively remains a cart track. Therefore, the question of insurance is important. But the order goes on to say:
"or by any other means acceptable to the Department".
I should be interested to know what other means would be acceptable to the department in terms of a contractor guarantee.
The other financial question is this. Accepting that essentially the Government are carrying out some tidying up here, I hope that they are satisfied that the additional burden that this measure places on the construction industry, at a very difficult time for the industry, is justified. It has been estimated that it could, for example, add £500 or so to the price of a house or else the cost would have to be swallowed by the contractor concerned. Is the noble Earl confident that this is the right time to go ahead with the order?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their helpful comments on this particular order. Perhaps I may take the question of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, first. He asked whether it was possible that the exercise of the power to stop up or temporarily close a street could deny access to occupied homes. This provision will essentially serve as support for existing enforcement powers and should prove to be a useful deterrent, in particular against persistent offenders. It will be used with caution, usually in the early stages of a development, and certainly not in circumstances where access to occupied houses could be denied.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked whether there would be a right of appeal against a

1067
closure notice issued under Article 5. The answer is no. As the power of closure would only be applied in the early stages of a development prior to the occupation of houses notice of appeal is not considered appropriate.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked, among two or three questions, what other means of guarantee there are. The answer is cash or insurance bond. Perhaps, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I may be allowed to answer his other questions, which will require a little consideration, in writing as soon as I possibly can.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Damages (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [Enforcement by executor of rights transmitted to him.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved the amendment:
Page 2, leave out lines 41 to 46 and insert—
("Enforcement by executor of rights transmitted to him.
2A.—(1) For the purpose of enforcing any right transmitted to an executor under section 1A or 2 of this Act the executor shall be entitled—

(a) to bring an action; or

(b) if an action for that purpose had been brought by the deceased but had not been concluded before his death, to be sisted as pursuer in that action.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove tabled a similar amendment to Clause 4, the principle of which I was happy to accept. I was grateful to my noble friend for agreeing to withdraw his amendment at that stage to allow a few minor drafting points to be considered. I undertook to bring forward at Report stage an amendment providing a similar tabulated version of the clause, which has now been done.
This is purely a drafting amendment which does not affect the provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that it renders the provisions somewhat easier to understand. As noble Lords will note, it stands in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Carmichael and I understand that it carries Government support. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I confirm that the amendment does indeed have Government support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Sunday Trading
4.19 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement on Sunday trading in England and Wales which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows.
1068
"My original intention had been to come to the House once the judgment from the European Court was available. But I now understand that, because of circumstances that have recently arisen at the court, this is unlikely to be before January. I have therefore decided to let the House know how we propose to proceed.
"The Government are determined to give Parliament the opportunity to settle the vexed question of the reform of the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales.
"There is no body of opinion that finds the existing law wholly satisfactory. Everyone from Sabbatarians to deregulators is critical of some aspects of the Shops Act 1950. But there is a very wide spread of opinion about how it ought to be reformed.
"The House will wish to know how we intend eventually to ask Parliament to resolve the issue.
"The question now is not whether there should be reform but what that reform should be. This is a matter upon which every Member of Parliament is likely to have his or her own views. Views cut quite across our usual party lines. It is the opinion of Parliament as a whole which must determine the issue. The Government would expect to give their own supporters a free vote on the key issue of whether restrictions should apply to trading on Sunday and, if so, what they should be.
"Madam Speaker, the Government will in due course invite Parliament to decide between the three main options: total deregulation; proposals put forward by the Shopping Hours Reform Council; and proposals put forward by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign.
"Total deregulation would place the law in England and Wales on the same basis as the present law in Scotland. This gives complete freedom of choice and allows opening to be determined by commercial judgments of the wishes of the shopping public. I make no secret to my constituents that that is my own preferred option.
"The Shopping Hours Reform council propose a quite different model. Under theirs, any small shop would be able to open at any time on a Sunday to sell anything it chose to sell. Larger shops would be able to open only for a limited period of six hours. They propose a local authority registration scheme in which shops would inform the local authority of their intention to open on a Sunday.
"The Keep Sunday Special Campaign put forward proposals which would in general prohibit trading on Sunday but exempt certain classes of shop. These would be shops catering for recreation, emergencies, social gatherings and travel. Whether such a shop could open on a Sunday would be determined by what it sold. For some types of shops, whether they could open would depend on their annual turnover in a list of permitted goods. There would be a maximum floor size for some types of shop. For some shops, those wishing to open on a Sunday would have to register with their

1069
local authority, which would have the discretion to decide whether any shop should be permitted to open.
"The Government have concluded that Parliament should fully debate all three options to see precisely what each implies for shops, what they can sell, and what their customers can buy. This House should then decide which option is to be preferred.
"We have already begun to work on a Bill which will provide a mechanism for Parliament to make that choice. I have today written to the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and Shopping Hours Reform Council inviting them to work with the Government in formulating their proposals for a Bill. The Bill presented to the House will contain all three models as alternatives. One will be chosen by the House and that model will then go through the normal refinement process at Committee and Report stages. The result at the end of the parliamentary debates in both Houses will be the preferred legislative solution.
"We shall publish before Second Reading an explanation of the practical effect of each set of proposals. We will aim to draft each model with care to make them easy to implement, readily enforceable, and as free from anomaly as possible.
"The Bill will contain Government clauses to provide protection for existing shopworkers from being compelled to work on a Sunday if they do not wish to do so. We must, however, remember that a great many people would positively welcome the opportunity to work on a Sunday and their freedom must be protected too.
"I cannot yet say when the House will be given the opportunity to settle the law on Sunday trading. Our proposals will need to await a judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). That court is considering a number of cases referred to it by some English courts, including the House of Lords, to establish whether our Sunday trading laws are compatible with the free trade articles of the Treaty of Rome. We are still hoping that the court will deliver its judgment soon. It would be wrong to enact fresh legislation while that judgment is awaited. To do so would risk a brand new law falling foul of Community law and therefore having to be replaced. But there is no need to delay the preparation of a Bill. I will be pressing ahead with that, seeking and expecting the co-operation of the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council so that, once we have the European Court of Justice's judgment, we are well placed to take advantage of the earliest opportunity that can be found for legislation.
"Madam Speaker, I have described a process which will enable Parliament to settle the issue on Sunday trading reform. I hope that we shall be able to bring forward the legislative proposals without undue delay. I invite the House to endorse my proposals so that we can proceed, with the co-operation and assistance of the various interested parties, to draft the necessary Bill. I believe that this method of proceeding offers the
1070
welcome prospect of a conclusion to the uncertainty and anomalies of the present legal situation on the subject."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.26 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a fairly remarkable Statement in a number of ways. The first remarkable aspect of it is the timing. If it is now considered proper to make this Statement before the decision of the European Court of Justice, what on earth prevented the Government from doing it more than a year ago, when the matter was first referred to the European Court of Justice? What has been the benefit of the delay which the Government have permitted to take place?
There have certainly been disbenefits. Does the Minister agree that there has been considerable disruption caused for shoppers, those who work in the retail trades and local authorities by the confusion which perhaps has not been caused by this Government but has certainly been prolonged by this Government?
The second remarkable element of the Statement is the promise that Conservative Members of Parliament will be given a free vote. Noble Lords will recall that on this side of the Chamber we had a free vote on the Shops Bill. It is a matter of record and I do not wish to disguise the fact that I voted with the Government against most of my colleagues in favour of the Shops Bill at that time. I, like the Home Secretary, am a supporter of almost total deregulation. What has changed the Government's mind on this matter? Is it a change of conviction or is it a failure of nerve? I rather suspect that it is a failure of nerve.
The third remarkable aspect of the Statement is that it proposes a Bill with three options. Is it proposed that those options will be delivered raw, so to speak? Is it simply the opinion of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Keep Sunday Special Campaign that will determine the words which parliamentary draftsmen put into the proper form? Or will the Government have any say on that? The Statement makes the rather curious assertion that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposes to have a local authority registration scheme. I am not aware that such a scheme has any prominence in the Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposals. Is that an indication that the Government will doctor the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council before they come before Parliament?
The Statement refers to government clauses which will provide what seemed to be a very limited protection indeed for shopworkers on a Sunday, protection limited only to existing shopworkers or presumably those working in shops at the time when the Bill is either introduced or passed. Will the Government now go rather further in the protection of shopworkers and do what the Shopping Hours Reform Council certainly would wish and what I imagine many of your Lordships would wish to do; namely, to provide protection not only for existing

1071
shopworkers but for future shopworkers and to ensure that there are premium payments made for those who find it necessary to work on Sunday?
In all of this there is a curious lack of reference to the role of local authorities. The "Keep Sunday Special" campaign proposes that local authorities should have considerable discretion and responsibilities in regulation and policing. The Government appear to believe that there is some such reference in the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. The question which must be asked is: what guarantee can the Government give the House that adequate resources will be available to local authorities for the additional work that will be placed upon them?
The Statement is strange in a number of ways. It is early days for us to make a judgment on it. I repeat that Members of these Benches will have a free vote on the legislation when it appears. I welcome the Government's belated conversion to a more rational approach to the vexed issue of Sunday trading.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I also welcome the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. We shall be spending many happy hours together. It is only right to express some regret at the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, although he has been called to higher things. He spent many hours trying to improve legislation in relation to the Home Office. I express my gratitude for the help that he gave to Members on these Benches and to the House as a whole.
I turn to the Statement. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary announced that there will be a free vote on this matter in the House of Commons. If on the previous occasion his predecessor but three had taken the same view the Government would not have experienced their humiliating defeat on Second Reading when they tried to pass the Bill on a whipped vote. Therefore, the free vote is a great improvement. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, Members on the Labour Benches had a free vote as did those on this side of the House. It is far better to allow Parliament to decide difficult questions with free votes rather than imposing the discipline of the party whips; all the more so when that proves to be ineffectual.
The next issue is the way the Government have chosen to proceed. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I believe that what they have suggested is a sensible procedure. It gives Parliament the right to determine as between total deregulation, the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and those of the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign. Does the noble Viscount agree that Parliament's final decision and the efficacy of the legislation will be determined by two questions? The first is whether the law will be enforceable and the second is whether powerful interests will be prepared to obey the law. Is he aware that many of us, whatever our views on Sunday trading, find it deeply distasteful that powerful interests have chosen to ignore the
1072
provisions of the existing law? That includes a number of people who have spent a great deal of time talking about their support for the cause of law and order.
I assume that the Bill will be introduced in the House of Commons. Most of us take the view that that would be sensible because we spent many days debating the previous Bill only to have it flung out on Second Reading in the House of Commons. Obviously, it would be extraordinarily foolish to repeat that procedure. It would be far better for the elected House to make a decision on the principles involved and then for this House to act in its traditional role as a revising chamber.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the somewhat guarded support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I think that the noble Lord welcomed the Statement although he was rather upset by the fact that we were giving choices. The Government are usually accused of being dogmatic. Here we are giving a choice and being criticised for that.
Everyone agrees that the present law is unsatisfactory. However, the problem of reforming it has so far proved impossible to solve, whatever the complexion of the government of the day. There have been many attempts to seek parliamentary approval for reform and all have failed. Since 1956 there have been 21 Private Members' Bills. The Government's 1985 Bill was passed by this House but was rejected on Second Reading in another place. Therefore, the Government have recognised the special nature of the problem and the need for a new approach.
On Second Reading in another place the Bill will contain all three options for reform. It will provide that only one will be brought into force and the precise details need to be worked through. Your Lordships will be offered the same three choices when the Bill reaches this House. Our proposals for reform will contain provisions for the protection of shop workers. This House will have a full opportunity to consider them in their proper context.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me about local authorities. Each scheme involving a local authority's registration is self-financing. Obviously no government legislation can be enacted before a European Court judgment. We expected the judgment to arrive sooner than now appears will be the case and therefore it is sensible that a Statement is made at this stage. We plan to introduce a Bill in the future.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the Minister say when the European Court might come to a decision and how long will the present unsettled position be allowed to continue? In that context can he give some guidance to local authorities about their duty in attempting to enforce our out-of-date legal system which is still the law? Can the Minister give some guidance to local authorities because it is ridiculous that, on the one hand, a state of law can continue while, on the other hand, the law can be allowed to lapse? Is my noble friend aware that the matter is urgent because during the weeks before

1073
Christmas many shops open on Sundays? Is it not the duty of local authorities to prosecute those which open?
Furthermore, why is this a matter for the European Court? It is a wholly domestic matter; that is, domestic to this country. Will the Minister indicate why it is assumed that a decision of the European Court, wise or foolish, should be binding on this country? In that context will he indicate whether if the decision is to be binding in England, it will be binding in Scotland? In Scotland deregulation has worked happily and successfully for many years and has caused no difficulties for anyone. Is the European Court to be allowed to interfere with that too?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made an important point about enforcement. We do not believe that the European Court judgment will arrive before January. Of course, questions of enforcement are not for the Government but for my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General acting in his independent capacity as a law officer of the Crown. The Attorney-General explained in his Answer on 11th May that local authorities can issue summonses if the courts decide that the Shops Act is compatible with Community law. Any summons issued can be carried through to whatever result the court considers appropriate. Further to that the Attorney-General said in his Written Answer on 15th July that:
"The decision of the House of Lords [in the Kirklees case] means that local authorities can apply for interim injunctions against retailers in order to enforce the law without giving cross-undertakings in damages".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/92; col. 707.]
The House of Lords acting in its judicial capacity has concluded that our Sunday trading laws are unclear. It has, therefore, referred them to the European Court of Justice to clarify whether they are compatible with European Community law. Until the European Court of Justice gives its ruling to the House of Lords the fundamental question is whether the relevant provisions of the Shops Act 1950 remain the law. Therefore, it would be wrong to insist that the law should be obeyed when it is not clear what the law is.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend answer the point about Scotland?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as your Lordships know there is Sunday trading in Scotland except, I believe, for hairdressers and barber shops. But that is not the point. The 1950 Act does not refer to Scotland, and the question about referral to the European Court is on the 1950 Act.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in replying to questions from both Front Benches the noble Viscount seemed to indicate that there would be three options in the Bill, and that each House would then have the opportunity of choosing one of those options. Did I understand him correctly? If I did, how will the Government deal with a situation that is perfectly possible in which one House opts for option one and the other House opts for option two or three? It is important that this aspect of the Bill should be
1074
clarified. I trust that the noble Viscount will reflect on what he said so that at some time he can give us an assurance as to what the procedure will be.
Secondly, options two and three—that is to say, those from the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Keep Sunday Special groups—whatever their merits may be, would, if they became the finding of Parliament, produce a law relating to Sunday trading in England that did not coincide with the law in Scotland. That would not be a recipe for solving the problem. Ultimately, Parliament must decide, but whatever is the view of Parliament as regards England and Wales in the interests of peace and quiet it may need to apply also to Scotland, failing which we will never solve this problem.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a particular point about Scotland, which of course he knows well. Scotland is not included in this Bill. He quite rightly asks what will happen if another place choose one option and your Lordships' House choose another. The answer is that the position is exactly the same as for any Bill that arrives in this House which is amended by your Lordships and sent back to another place. It is the same situation. What is important is that your Lordships will have the same three choices in this House as in another place.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it seems to me that my noble friend has produced a form of procedure that I do not think can conceivably work. Surely if the Bill starts in another place and comes here as a Bill that it has reviewed and an option inserted, I do not see how this House can do other than perform its role as a reviewing Chamber and review the Bill as received from the other place. I do not see how we could have another Bill that must go back again, when the other place had already passed it and given its option. I do not think that that is a possible form of procedure.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the plans in another place are that there will be three distinct clauses, each with an option, and the other place will be voting on those clauses. This is not new. Your Lordships did exactly the same with the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill when we passed one option in this House. It then went to another place which was able to have that same choice of two options, and the option it chose at that stage was the same as your Lordships chose. It is not an entirely new procedure.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has not entirely resolved the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. The prescription he first gave was of a Bill that arrived with three options in it, but in reply to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw he said that there would be a Bill from which two options had been removed. Is my noble friend saying that the Government will table alternatives that we shall be able to insert, or how are we going to proceed from that point?
When the European Court has reached its decision and we have decided to change our law, whatever the decision of the European Court we are, as it were, faced with a tabula rasa; so does not this whole matter become a question of subsidiarity? As my noble friend

1075
Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, surely it is something that we can decide ourselves, and that definition of subsidiarity will presumably then at last have been agreed upon.
I am glad that there will be a free vote. I am sure it is right. It means that for once I can vote against some of my noble friends with a clear conscience. I question whether in fact it is always a good thing for Scotland to do exactly the same as England, because so often we gain from Scotland's precedent when it does something different.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Elton if I was not entirely clear. He is quite right in that there will be three options in the Bill introduced to another place. When that Bill arrives in your Lordships' House it will have one option. However, the Government will ensure that the other two alternatives will be available as amendments so that they may be debated in your Lordships' House.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that Scotland has many different laws on many different subjects. With regard to the question of Europe and the European Court, I cannot really say anything about whether this is a matter for subsidiarity until the judgment arrives from the European Court of Justice.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I must obviously declare an interest, as I have interests in a garden centre at home. Whether or not we have actually been total obeyers of the law I leave to your Lordships' imagination. I have never heard a Statement in this House where the Government have come up with something by saying, "We don't know what we want to do. We don't know when we're going to do it. We have three options, some of which can be amended and some of which can't. We don't know when it is going to come into effect, and we don't know when we are going to do it". This could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as the smack of firm government. It is a wobble of immense wobbliness.
We know perfectly well that the only option in all logic is the Scottish solution. I ask my noble friend to grasp the thistle, if that is the right analogy, and show some logic and moral courage to produce a Bill that sets the shopping laws the same as they are in Scotland. The morality in England seems to be no worse nor better than it is on the banks of the Clyde.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Onslow seems to be suggesting that he should have a degree of choice but that no one else should have a degree of choice, unless of course it is his choice. It is important that in order for the reform of the Sunday trading laws to succeed that there is a free vote in another place, and that there are a number of options that can be decided on in another place. We have had a Bill that went through this House, passed from this House to another place, and was defeated in another place. We are attempting to do something to what is obviously an unsatisfactory situation. Of course it is always open, either in this House or in another place, for anybody to put down an amendment to any of the preferred options.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what thousands of shopkeepers, millions of consumers and many shop workers want more than anything else is simply to be able to choose whether to open or not, to shop or not, or to work or not? Above all, what they want to avoid is undue complication, undue delay, and unduly prolonged uncertainty, which is the case at present.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is not satisfactory that there should be this law containing strange rulings on what can be sold and what cannot be sold on a Sunday. We have received over 29,000 written representations in favour of greater Sunday trading and only 4,900 against. It is important that we try to reform this area of the law.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, as the procedure proposed is somewhat unusual—not unique, but unusual—will my noble friend take back to his colleagues a suggestion that might be worked on here? It concerns these three weird options. Might they for once appear in plain English, not in draftsman's nonsense?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are always happy to have suggestions from my noble friend and I shall certainly pass on his comments to the draftsman of the Bill.

Local Government Finance, England
4.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, with the leave of the House it may be appropriate if I repeat a Statement being made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Local Authority Finance Settlement for England for 1993–94.
"Next year is the first year of the council tax. As honourable Members will know, the tax will reflect both the value of the property and the number of people who live in it. The lowest value properties are in band A; the highest in band H. The occupants of a band H property will pay no more than three times as much in local tax as the occupants of a band A property in the same area, thus preventing a return to the excessive variations in household bills which occurred under the rates. All six million single adult households will receive a 25 per cent. discount. Almost all full-time students will be exempt. Three million households on income support will pay nothing. There will be transitional protection for those households facing higher bills. The new tax will be cheaper and easier to collect than the community charge because there will be only one bill per household and no need to keep a register.
"The council tax will place local government on a strong financial footing. I believe that it has considerable support not only among members of the public but also among local authorities. They have worked hard with us to ensure a smooth and

1077
successful introduction of the new tax. I am grateful to them and the local authority associations for the constructive role they have played.
"In considering the details of the settlement, I have taken into account the representations made to me by local authorities and their associations, the responsibilities which local authorities face and the scope for further improvements in value for money. I have had in mind our intention that public sector pay settlements should fall within the range 0 to 1.5 per cent.
"I have also considered very carefully what the country as a whole can afford. Local government expenditure accounts for 26 per cent. of general government expenditure. It has increased by 3.6 per cent. per annum in real terms over the past two years. In present economic circumstances it is unreasonable to expect such growth to continue. The Government must keep a tight grip on public spending and within the total we must give as much priority as we can to capital spending. Local government must play its part too.
"Authorities will be able to spend considerably more on capital projects next year since they will have full use of nearly all the capital receipts they receive from 13th November to the end of December 1993. I expect this change to make an extra £1.75 billion available to local authorities for capital expenditure. As an additional incentive, I have already announced a range of capital partnership programmes which offer authorities extra support from my department to make these receipts go even further and to encourage projects of lasting benefit to local communities and industries.
"It was against this background that, on 12th November, I announced the aggregate figures for the local government settlement for the coming year. Those figures have now been increased by £26 million, as announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health today in the light of changes to the Independent Living Fund. Taking account of this additional sum, the Government's view is that the appropriate level of spending for local authorities in England in 1993–94 will be £41.168 billion. Central government funding in support of that expenditure will be £33.545 billion.
"These figures reflect a number of changes in local authorities' functions next year. They include £565 million which we intend to set aside as a special grant to help authorities as they take on their important new responsibilities for community care. On the other hand, they make no provision for functions—principally further education—for which local authorities will no longer be responsible next year and for which about £2.5 billion was provided in the current year.
"Making full allowance for these changes, the year-on-year increases underlying my proposals are 3.1 per cent. (about £1.2 billion) in the appropriate level of spending, and 3.7 per cent. (which is also about £1.2 billion) in government funding. These increases should enable local authorities to
1078
maintain service provision. Overall, local authorities should need to raise no more next year through the council tax than they have budgeted to raise this year from the community charge.
"I am today issuing a consultation paper setting out how we propose to distribute that funding. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library and are being sent to every local authority.
"In the Statement I made on 12th November I proposed that the non-domestic rate poundage for 1993–94 should increase by 3.5 per cent. to 41.6 pence in line with the rate of inflation. This will ensure that businesses continue to benefit from the Government's success in reducing inflation. In addition, under the changes announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget Statement earlier this year, business ratepayers who stood to benefit from the introduction of the unified business rate or from the 1990 revaluation will receive the whole of their benefit next year. Transitional protection will continue to be available for those who stood to lose and the shortfall will be made good by the Exchequer.
"I now propose to set the distributable amount of non-domestic rates at £11.559 billion. This represents a reduction of £747 million from 1992–93, largely as a result of repayments following appeals. I am today publishing details of the full calculation. All receipts from non-domestic rates continue to be distributed in full to local authorities.
"I propose that the total of revenue support grant for 1993–94 will be £17.052 billion. In addition, some £4 billion of specific grants will be available.
"My detailed proposals for the way in which standard spending assessments will be calculated for 1993–94 are set out in the consultation paper. I have also provided the provisional figure for each authority's standard spending assessment. I am proposing some modifications to the way in which SSAs are calculated.
"The main changes are inevitable as they result either from changes in local authorities' responsibilities or from the new basis of local taxation. The main change of functions is in relation to further education, which will become the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council from April 1993. This means that a simple comparison of proposed SSAs for 1993–94 with those for 1992–93 will, for all education authorities, show a decrease.
"Expenditure on authorities' new community care responsibilities will be funded by the special transitional grant and so there is no allowance for this expenditure in the SSA element for personal social services.
"Other changes to the calculation of SSAs result from the use of more up-to-date information. In particular, we now have estimates of resident population for mid-1991 based on the 1991 census. I propose to include these in SSAs for 1993–94 as they clearly represent a better basis than the previous figures based on the 1981 census. But I

1079
realise that for some authorities there will be changes, either up or down, between these better estimates, only very recently available, and those previously used. I therefore propose to pay a special grant to those authorities whose SSA in 1993–94 will be reduced by 5 per cent. or more as a direct result of incorporating the population estimates based on 1991 census results rather than those based on 1981 census results.
"Council taxes will be set locally by individual councils. They will depend on how much councils decide to spend and how much they provide for non-collection, community charge arrears and successful appeals. There are 366 billing authorities and eight separate valuation bands. So tax levels will inevitably vary widely.
"At the level of the individual household, the variation in bills will be even wider because of single person discounts, income support exemption, council tax benefits and transitional relief. Against this background, any figure for average taxes needs to be treated with great caution. What matters is the individual tax bill for the individual taxpayer.
"But in order to distribute grant fairly to each council, we have to allow for different levels of taxable resources in each authority. This means that for each of the eight valuation bands we have identified a notional council tax for standard spending which can be derived from the figures. For example, for band C—and two-thirds of all properties fall in bands A to C—the CTSS is £439. I emphasise that these figures are part of the grant calculation. They are not predictions or averages.
"Many households, particularly those living in properties in the lower bands, will gain from the council tax. On the other hand, those living in properties in the higher bands should expect to make a relatively larger contribution to the cost of local services. But I am determined that any year-on-year increases in bills between the community charge and the council tax should be held down to affordable levels.
"I am therefore proposing a scheme of transitional relief which will ensure that no household faces an excessive increase in liability next year as a result of the introduction of the council tax. Relief will be provided against increases above a specified amount, which will be different for each of the eight valuation bands. For properties in band A, relief will be provided against increases above £1.75 a week. For each higher band the starting point for relief will rise by an additional 25 pence. So for properties in band B it will be £2 a week and for properties in band H it will be £3.50 a week.
"I expect that in most cases the calculation of relief under this scheme will be based on authorities' actual budgets and not assumed budgets. The scheme will last for at least two years, and we shall review the arrangements for later years in the light of experience of the operation of the scheme in 1993–94. I will set aside resources from
1080
the total of government support to meet the cost of the scheme, which I expect to be about £340 million in the first year.
"My department has written to local authorities today with details of the scheme. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
"I have consistently made clear to the House that I am determined to protect local taxpayers against unreasonable demands by their local authority. I have no doubt that most authorities will wish to play their part in setting reasonable budgets and reasonable levels of council tax. But where councils propose excessive budgets or excessive increases in budgets, I shall not hesitate to use my powers to protect council tax payers from the consequences and to ensure that local government spending does not rise above affordable levels.
"I am today announcing my provisional capping criteria which authorities will need to take into account when they set their budgets over the next few months. I am also issuing my proposals for exercising my statutory powers to specify for each authority a base position—known as a notional amount—by reference to which I intend to measure budget increases for the purposes of applying capping criteria. I have placed papers in the Library and Vote Office setting out in detail my provisional criteria and my proposals for notional amounts. Copies have been sent to local authorities.
"No authority which sets a budget at or below its SSA can or will be capped. Only those which budget above their SSA are potentially liable to capping. I intend to allow larger increases for authorities with budgets close to their SSAs than for those whose budgets are higher. Where budgets are very substantially above SSA, I intend to seek budget reductions. But in all cases I intend the reductions to be manageable.
"I am proposing that each authority's notional amount is to be its 1992–93 budget adjusted to reflect changes in boundaries and functions, and that under the new council tax system interest on collection fund cash flow will for the first time fall within the authority's budget.
"My intended criteria are therefore that any increase of more than 2½ per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over the authority's SSA; that any increase of more than 1¾ per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 1 per cent. above the authority's SSA; that any increase of more than 1 per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA; and that any increase of more than ½ per cent. over the 1992–93 notional amount will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
"In addition I intend that any budget requirement more than 12½ per cent. above the SSA

1081
will be considered excessive save that an authority will not be designated if it fulfils certain conditions equivalent to the conditions which I applied this year.
"This year I adopted a de minimis proviso allowing authorities budgeting by no more than £1.50 per adult above the criteria for excessiveness not to be designated. I told the House at that time that it should not be assumed that in any future year we would judge such a de minimis provision to be appropriate. Local authorities should not assume that there will be any such proviso or principle for 1993–94.
"My proposals allow for the particular circumstances of the inner London boroughs, which still bear the cost of overspending inherited from the Inner London Education Authority, and of the City of London.
"These criteria are necessarily provisional. When I come to make my decisions on capping I will, of course, take into account all appropriate considerations.
"My proposals for local authority spending and for external support are realistic and manageable in the current economic circumstances and, in particular, in the light of the Government's policy on public sector pay. We expect pay settlements for local government employees within a range of 0 to 1.5 per cent. over the coming year. Given my proposed increases of 3.1 per cent. in total spending and 3.7 per cent. in external support, provided that local authorities manage their resources efficiently they should be able to maintain the full range of services they provide.
"This settlement also means that authorities will not need overall to raise from their tax payers next year any more than they did under the community charge this year. For individual taxpayers, my proposals will provide additional protection in two ways: through capping, which will restrain unreasonable levels of spending, and through the transitional relief scheme.
"I am confident that this settlement will provide local authorities with the resources they need to deliver the wide range of local services of the quality people expect and deserve and at a level of tax which they can afford."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating what is an extremely difficult and complex Statement. I must say at the outset that this is one of a succession of Statements that we have heard which tend to erode the basis of local democracy. I shall come back to that.
The Statement says that the council tax will place local government on a strong financial footing. What is the justification for that statement? As I understand it, the council tax is going to be the last resort for councils who wish to provide services for the needy. If they have to do that and the revenue support grant, under the standard spending assessment, will not
1082
allow them to do so, then the only means they have at their disposal is to raise the council tax. There is a gearing factor in the council tax which I believe will become fundamentally unpopular.
The Statement goes on to say that the Government must keep a tight grip on public spending and that,
"within the total we must give as much priority as we can to capital spending".
It goes on to say that the Minister expects the change in allowing capital receipts to be used by local authorities to make available an extra £1,750,000 to local authorities for capital expenditure. What is the basis for that calculation? Is this going to be a question of "fire sales" of council houses in order to get that money? What is the basis?
The Statement says:
"These increases should enable local authorities to maintain service provision".
Does the Minister not acknowledge that local authorities will be £200 million short in cash, if we compare this year's budget with next year's settlement? Given that, how on earth can they maintain service provision?
Can the Minister indicate how the non-domestic rate will be distributed among local authorities? Will it be, as now, per head of population? Or will it be by need? If it is by head of population then clearly the method proposed is not the right way to go about it. If it is on the basis of need, then we shall certainly look at that with some favour.
The Statement says a good deal in regard to the council tax and how it will operate. However, all predictions on the poll tax turned out to be wrong. The poll tax was always higher than the Government estimated. We have had estimates for the council tax starting at £356 and going to £439. I strongly expect from the information I have been given that even that figure is low and we should be talking of something nearer £500.
Transitional relief is welcome for those who are rich and able to afford to pay their just obligations towards local authority services. Can the noble Lord say what will be the effect of the transitional relief scheme in the London borough of Wandsworth? As I understand it, the transitional relief scheme there will be such as to ensure that Conservative voters continue to vote Conservative come what may.
As to the capping provisions, we must wait and see what the criteria really mean. As the noble Lord said in repeating the Statement, criteria are necessarily provisional. The Statement says:
"These criteria are necessarily provisional. When I come to make my decisions on capping I will, of course, take into account all appropriate considerations".
What appropriate considerations is the Secretary of State going to take into account when he decides on his final criteria?
Finally, there is a philosophical point. As I said when I started, this is another Statement the effect of which is to destroy local democracy. Those who look carefully at the documents supporting the Autumn Statement may wish to note that the planning total previously used as the main figure to be controlled by government has been superseded by a new controlled total. The new controlled total includes local authority

1083
self-financed expenditure, whereas the planning total excluded it. The Treasury's reason for bringing forward that new definition is that the total cannot sensibly be allowed to vary without any requirement for offsetting adjustments. In other words, the Treasury must control the whole of local authority expenditure. Therefore, the total of council expenditure is now planned for each year up to 1995–96. However, there is no plan at all—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—for detailed service-by-service local government requirements. In short, the Government have taken stronger powers to plan the total of council spending while avoiding responsibility for detailed programmes. If ever there was an example of power without responsibility, that is it.
I do not believe that the central control—consciously adopted—of local authority expenditure will work. If and when growth ever returns to our economy—goodness knows, that may be a long time —council spending will have to resume its upward path. If control is centralised in the way the Autumn Statement and this Statement provide for, then 24,000 elected councillors in England will be effectively redundant. That is the price that the Government are asking us to pay for what is now still conceived as local democracy.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as a local councillor who is certainly feeling semi-redundant, if not completely so, having heard the Statement. I thank the Minister for making it and echo his thanks to the local authorities and the local authority associations for the work that they have put in over the past few months in an attempt to make this extremely difficult tax have a prayer of becoming workable. The following question was put to me this morning, and though I repeat it I do not seriously expect the Minister to respond to it. Do the Government intend to bleed local government to death or to administer a swift death blow? The contents of the Statement confirm the underlying anxieties of that question.
We have heard a good deal about capital receipts and their use by local authorities both today and in the Autumn Statement. Does the Minister not agree that unless the market improves the capital receipts will simply not be there to be spent? He says, and I do not disagree, that priority must be given to capital expenditure. I do not disagree because capital expenditure has its benefits in assisting the economy. But does the Minister not agree that if the capital receipts do not become available then credit approvals for local authorities will need to be given in order to replace those moneys?
Perhaps I may ask specific questions with regard to the comment in the Statement on population changes. While I agree that it must be good practice to use the latest available figures, we are told that if those figures mean that the SSA is reduced by 5 per cent. or more, then a special grant will be made. Five per cent. is an extremely large sum. Can the Minister say how many local authorities will be eligible to receive that grant and how that will affect the capping arrangements? if
1084
the capping arrangements relate to SSA, which they do, will the grant be of any use to the local authority, bearing in mind that its expenditure is capped?
We are told that the reductions brought about by capping are to be manageable and the first of the criteria given is an increase of more than 2.5 per cent. over the current notional amount. In order that your Lordships may assess the equivalent and the considerably tightened rules that are to apply, perhaps the Minister will confirm that the figure for the current year is 6.5 per cent. I believe that those criteria are similar to the Scottish criteria which apply. Comments have been made to me by those running well organised authorities, not extravagant ones, who fear that there may be such tight criteria that massive and unmanageable reductions will be required. Will the Minister confirm that if the local authorities which are required to apply the reductions are able to demonstrate quite genuinely that they are massive and unmanageable reductions, they will be among the appropriate considerations to be taken into account?
The transitional relief is welcomed. But is it not the case that those in properties in the higher bands who are said to be required, appropriately, to make relatively larger contributions, do not necessarily have an income which matches the value of the property? We have spent a good deal of time in this House discussing the council tax and considering the plight of those who have large properties which, particularly in the current market, they cannot easily sell at the expected price. They do not have the income to maintain the lifestyle which, from a swift and unquestioning assessment, might appear to be relative to the property.
We have had long debates and knowing the further business to come in the House this evening, it would not be appropriate to repeat all those points now as regards the council tax. I wonder whether we would not all agree that to call it the council tax is a misnomer and that this Statement confirms that this is a central tax locally collected.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their responses to the Statement. Perhaps I may begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who, I believe, is representing his party for the first time on this particular portfolio dealing with the Department of the Environment. I believe that he will find it as interesting and stimulating as I do.
The noble Lord began by saying that the Statement was difficult and complex and he is absolutely right. It deals with issues which go to the core of our local government structure and the money it can raise and spend. I said in the Statement that these provisions would put local authorities on a strong financial footing. Clearly they will do so. Support for local government spending is up by 3.7 per cent. or £1.2 billion this year. We have a special grant of £565 million for community care and to help meet the needs of the severely disabled on top of that.
Of course we want to keep a tight grip on public spending. That is why we have kept the spending totals as low as possible. But we respect that there is

1085
a community in this country with special needs and which requires particular kinds of services from local authorities. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that although we want to keep that tight grip on public spending, we want to make sure that people are well catered for.
Perhaps I may talk about capital receipts which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord raised. There is an important change for the coming year. Local authorities are allowed to spend 100 per cent. of their capital receipts. I hope that it will not lead to fire sales. The provision allows local authorities to take a measured look at all their available assets and to seek to sell them. We believe that over the course of the next 12 months, as the economy grows, people will be looking to expand into various assets. We have made our calculation of £1.75 billion based on what we understand is possible and on what has happened in the past.
In a characteristic way the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put his finger on the button by saying that all our estimates could well be wrong: after all, they were on the poll tax. There was a clear reason for that. That was the extravagance and profligacy of local authorities, particularly the socialist ones, which took the opportunity between the end of the rates and the introduction of the community charge to make an increase in overall spending of about 30 per cent. I sincerely hope that local authorities will not take that opportunity; in fact I do not believe that they will be able to because of the structure of the council tax.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord talked about the philosophy of local government and its democratic basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we are allowing local authorities to bleed to death. We believe strongly in local democracy and in having strong and powerful local authorities which can make decisions to provide for the needs of their local communities. Generally speaking, I believe that in this country we have a strong tradition of civic pride. But sometimes, over the course of the past few years, we have seen local authorities behave in a wasteful and extravagant way. What we have announced today as regards the arrangements for government spending and the introduction of the council tax, will mitigate those tendencies and provide for a good and viable future for local authorities to continue doing their good work.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Statement is very long and complicated. However, one thing is absolutely certain—the Government are centralising local government even more than before. The Government might just as well send down to local authorities gauleiters or commissars to carry out their work because the local people who are supposed to be running affairs will have so little discretion that they will feel that what they do is not worthwhile. That is unfortunate for local government.
The noble Lord said that it should be relatively easy for local government to meet its targets bearing in mind government expenditure. Has the Minister made an estimate of how many additional people will
1086
become unemployed as a result of this Statement, particularly if local authorities are unable to enforce the 1.5 per cent. limit on wage and salary increases? Does he realise, and has he borne in mind, that the people on whom this limit is to be imposed are some of the worst paid in the country and are unable to bear the imposition that the Government are putting on them? Will the Minister say how many of those people are likely to be made redundant as a result of this Statement?
As regards local authorities being able to spend their capital receipts, that depends on their ability to sell their assets. Does the Minister not agree that as regards council houses, the best have already been sold? The reason so many remain is because their tenants do not believe that they are worth buying at the asking price. Therefore, how are local authorities to get the £1.75 billion estimated by the Government to help to resuscitate our economy by the expenditure of capital receipts? Do not the Minister and the Government realise that one way or the other the expenditure of capital implies further and additional expenditure on the revenue account? Anyone who has ever served on a local authority knows that. Yet the revenue account, which is going to bear the extra cost, is being squeezed by the Government. So it is all really sleight of hand and local authorities are being squeezed as never before.
As far as I am concerned the Statement is a very bad one. It will make things extremely difficult for local authorities; in particular for the people who work for them and who run our great public services.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that we have no intention of sending commissars to local authorities to help them run their affairs which are quite properly their own business. We have to make sure that local authorities do not stretch the resources of their local communities in the way they sometimes did in the past; and to make sure that the growth of public spending as a whole is kept to a minimum.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about unemployment. The whole point of this Statement, the Autumn Statement and the decision that we made on capital spending was to make sure that we had a minimum effect on the increase in unemployment and to ensure that people could keep their jobs, particularly in that most vital sector, the construction industry, where local authorities have such an important input into the provision (or at least the refurbishment) of housing.
We have set a government total of an increase in pay of between 0 and 1.5 per cent. and we have done that for very good reasons. Rather than local authorities not being able to keep their planned increases down to that level, it would be far more helpful if all sides of the House could agree that that was a reasonable increase in pay and could encourage acceptance of it. Perhaps the noble Lord, with his influence in certain quarters in local authorities and unions, should use that influence to get people to see sense and, for this year, keep their pay levels down to ensure that people are not put out of work.

1087
That is the issue at stake over the course of the next 12 months. We want to keep people in jobs. We want to keep capital spending up. We want to continue construction projects, and we want to keep the increase in pay as low as possible. That will ensure that we have an effective local authority network.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us feel that the Government have no option but to seek to control the growth of local government expenditure? Local government expenditure is now so substantial a figure and so substantial a proportion of national expenditure that any government, with their responsibility for the management of the economy as a whole, would be in default if they did not seek to control this very large element of expenditure. Therefore, although many of us who have had some experience in this area appreciate the enormous difficulty of controlling local government expenditure, is my noble friend aware that we realise that a government who did not attempt to do that—this Government seem to be attempting successfully to do so—would be failing in their duty?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right and puts his point eloquently. There is a clear responsibility on the part of the Government and on behalf of the whole electorate to keep the overall spending limits of the Government and local authorities down as much as possible. Given the vast amount of money—over £40 billion—that will be spent this year, we believe that local authorities will be able to spend the kind of resources that they need in order to provide local services. That is the most important thing.

Car Tax (Abolition) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Rights: ECC Report
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Human Rights Re-examined (3rd Report, HL Paper 10).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, just two years ago the European Commission issued a communication in which it sought a mandate from the Council of Ministers to negotiate the Community's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. The report before your Lordships today contains the results of the deliberations of the European Communities Select Committee Sub-Committee E with regard to that communication.
Our discussions centred on some complex legal issues and we are particularly fortunate this evening that we shall have the opportunity of benefiting from the very great experience and knowledge of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, in his maiden speech. He is the first member of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House who has also
1088
served both as advocate general and judge at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We very much look forward to hearing from him later.
Just 12 years ago the committee considered the same subject, arising from a Commission memorandum. The committee came to the conclusion that it did not favour Community accession to the European convention, and we have come to the same conclusion. It must be said that, as in 1980, there has been some difference in emphasis among some of our members and, indeed, as in 1980, there have been one or two cases of what one might term "reluctant acquiescence" to our conclusions. At this juncture we wish to express our thanks to all those who gave evidence, both written and oral, and to the legal adviser, assistant and clerk who devoted so much time and effort to the preparation of the report.
Since 1980 many measures have been taken to improve the protection of the human rights of individuals who live within the member states of the European Community. Not only are all member states signatories to the convention, but they now all recognise the right of individual petition and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which I shall refer to as the "Strasbourg Court". More resources have been allocated to the Strasbourg institutions, the Commission and the Court to assist them in reducing some of the delays which are inherent in the system at the moment.
It should be noted that all states applying for membership to the Community are now under an obligation to ratify the convention. Cases affecting the rights of European Community institutions' staff were at the time (1980) subject to very serious delay. The establishment of the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg has dramatically reduced waiting time for these cases which often involve the redress of grievances concerning violations of rights.
The growth in the number of petitions to the European Parliament has led to some cases coming before the Luxembourg Court, and the proposal in the Maastricht Treaty (assuming that that treaty comes into force) for the appointment of an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner to receive petitions will be one more step in ensuring greater protection of human rights. One further strengthening of protection is the new treaty provision which will enable the European Parliament to set up an investigative committee in cases of maladministration by Community institutions. On these last two matters, whether or not the treaty comes into force, the provisions could still be introduced by means of inter-institutional agreements between the institutions of the Community so as not to lose the possibility of those very valuable proposals.
The Commission bases its claim for Community adherence to the convention on two main grounds. The first is political. Adherence would reinforce the high profile that human rights protection plays in the Community's policies and activities both internally and in relation to third countries. It would also, apparently, enhance the standing of the Community itself.

1089
The committee found no evidence to support the view that there was any doubt whatever as to the Community's total commitment to the protection of human rights. The inter-institutional declaration in 1977, proclaiming determined attachment to the respect for human rights, was just one example of the Community's position. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Lord Broxbourne who was a member of Sub-Committee E and who played such a vital role in getting the declaration onto the Floor of the European Parliament and in carrying it forward to completion.
The Commission also claims that there is a gap in the Community's legal system—that, unlike the member states, the Community as such is not subject to the control system of the Strasbourg Court and that it enjoys a kind of "immunity" from the convention. In our analysis of the Commission's claims, our primary and overriding consideration (as in 1980) was whether accession to the convention would ensure greater protection of human rights. Would the individual benefit from accession by the Community to the convention or would it make no difference?
First, it is recognised that, despite recent additional protocols relating, for instance, to property rights, the convention is concerned mainly with the civil and political rights of the individual. The European Community in its treaty provisions has up to now been mainly concerned with economic and social rights. It is, of course, accepted that in the development of the Community there is a certain growing overlap of interests, but the Luxembourg Court has over the years recognised the protection of human rights as part of its general principles. Already in the 1960s, the Court stipulated in the Stauder case that,
"fundamental rights were enshrined in the general principles of Community law and protected by the Court".
Since that time there has developed a corpus of Community law concerned with the protection of the human rights of the individual with specific reference to the convention as, for instance, in the Rutili case and in subsequent cases coming before that Court.
Secondly, the committee has analysed some of the recent major cases coming before the Luxembourg Court involving human rights. The committee was impressed by the concern of the Court to ensure its protection where there has been a violation of rights suffered by an individual as a result of Community law or action or where there has been an infringement through national action implementing Community law. The Court, in applying general principles of protection for human rights, has not always confined itself to the convention. As in the Orkem case, which is also quoted in our analysis in the report, the Court went beyond the provisions of the convention and showed that it was willing and prepared to examine rights not guaranteed by the convention. A summary of our examination of case law is set out in paragraph 74 of the report.
It is accepted by the committee that there may be potential gaps in the legal system, where, for instance,
1090
the jurisprudence does not yet exist or where the individual is not able to bring a case before the Luxembourg Court. However, as we say in the report:
"None of our witnesses was able to point convincingly to a single case where an individual had been denied justice in terms of the Convention on complaining of a Community action".
I have quoted paragraph 71 verbatim in order to clarify a misunderstanding contained in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's reply, for which I thank the Minister. We did not maintain that there was not a single convincing case where an individual's rights had been infringed as a result of a Community action. On the contrary. We pointed to cases where there had been infringement, but where the individual had received justice from the Luxembourg Court.
While we consider the gap claimed by the Commission to be very marginal, in view of the development of the case law of the Luxembourg Court, the committee recommends that there should be closer co-operation between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts as well as easier access for the individual to the Luxembourg Court, mainly under Article 173 or by reference from a national court under Article 177.
Without going into the complexities of the arguments there are important legal issues which could affect the United Kingdom. These were raised in the Commission's communication and I shall touch on them very briefly. I shall not go into the legal arguments because that would take some considerable time, which I am sure would not be acceptable to your Lordships' House, particularly this evening.
First, would accession of the Community to the convention confer increased competence to legislate internally, involving supervision of national implementation of obligations? Would the Community's external competence be increased, becoming party to international agreements involving human rights provisions? The arguments set out in paragraphs 89 to 91 of the report lead to our conclusion, in agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office witness, although apparently not entirely clear in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's reply, that,
"it would be essential that any instrument of accession by the Communities should be accompanied by a statement of interpretation by all Member States which would specify that the Community accepted responsibilities under the Convention only within the limits of its own competence".
That is an important point that should be noted. We added, in paragraph 93, that it would be possible in the future for the Community to become a party to international instruments relating to human rights, but only by the unanimous agreement of the member states.
For those who would like to see the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated into United Kingdom domestic law, this issue cannot be ignored. It was touched on by our committee, although it was not one of the main issues considered. It is accepted that, Community law having supremacy over national law, in so far as the convention forms part of the principles of Community law, a national action implementing Community law can be challenged within the terms of the convention, as in the Kent Kirk case which is included in the report.

1091
The new provisions contained in the Maastricht Treaty—should it come into force—strengthen the role of the Luxembourg Court. Article F(2) stipulates that the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Even if the Community were to accede, it should be pointed out that migration and asylum questions, which are possibly among the more frequent subjects of human rights cases, would still necessitate any Community resident to have recourse to the Strasbourg Court, as these matters fall within co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs and are outside Community competence. The treaty stresses nevertheless that these issues shall be dealt with in compliance with the convention and the Status of Refugees Convention. The convention would still remain a guideline for courts when dealing with these issues although they are not within Community competence as such.
Finally, it must be observed that the Commission considered that the institutional difficulties which would be incurred in Community accession to the convention were not insurmountable, although it was recognised that they did exist. The committee concludes that institutional difficulties are among the main obstacles against accession, and witnesses agreed with that assessment. At present the convention is open only to member states. It would therefore have to be amended to allow for the Community as such to accede. The Community would claim representation on the Strasbourg Commission and the Strasbourg Court. Membership of the Committee of Ministers —the Strasbourg Committee of Ministers—poses a problem. One suggestion by the Brussels Commission was that cases considered admissible by the Strasbourg Commission should go straight to the Court—the Strasbourg Court. That is unacceptable on two counts.
First, not all admissible cases go to the Court; some are decided upon by the Committee of Ministers. Many are not of the nature or importance that they should take up the time of the Strasbourg Court. Secondly, this procedure would create priorities for EC cases over cases from Council of Europe member states which are not members of the European Community, as well as increasing the congestion with which both the Strasbourg Commission and Court are faced.
It may interest noble Lords to know that according to the latest report dated 1991 there are 2,332 cases undecided in the Commission, with 250 cases at the end of 1990 still before the Court and an average—this is a generous average—of five to six years before a case is heard. Those who follow these matters as reported in The Times will notice that the applications for nearly all the recent cases were lodged in 1986 and judgments have been coming forward in the past few months. Delay of this length cannot be conducive to redressing grievances resulting from violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The increasing number of states now becoming members of the Council of Europe and parties to the convention is to be warmly welcomed, as the
1092
principles of democracy and the guarantee of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms spread across the whole of Europe. The numbers of cases coming to Strasbourg are inevitably thereby increased and make even less attractive the idea that European citizens should have recourse to Strasbourg when they have the possibility, with very much less delay and assurance of judicial protection of their rights under Community law, of resort to the Luxembourg Court.
As it was affirmed in the Magna Carta, justice delayed is justice denied. That remains true today, 700 years later. The committee remained unconvinced that Community accession to the convention would ensure greater protection for the individual resident in the Community and we would encourage the continued development of the Luxembourg Court's jurisdiction in human rights cases arising from Community action. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Human Rights Re-examined (3rd Report, HL Paper 10)— (Baroness Elles.)
5.48 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She may remember that nearly a quarter of a century ago she succeeded me as the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations Third Committee.
I am sure she would agree that in those days this whole debate would have been inconceivable. If René Cassin, Sean MacBride and Lionel Elvin could have read this report they would have believed that their life's work was vindicated. The European Convention was an esoteric subject discussed by a few eccentrics. If I remember correctly, not a single country then accepted the right of individual petition. Now the arguments begin from the axiom that there is a substantial body of jurisprudence which has emanated from the Strasbourg Court and interfaces with human rights jurisprudence in other regions of the world and with the human rights committee under the international covenant.
As the noble Baroness reminded the House—it was repeated several times in the evidence to the committee of Mr. Lester—the Luxembourg Court, while it cannot apply the convention as it could do if the Community were to accede, a matter to which I hope to return in a moment, has repeatedly looked to the convention for guidance. One consequence of that—it was a dream many years ago—is that part of the decision-making machinery of virtually every European government is that at some stage the matter is referred to the human rights section of the Foreign Ministry to consider whether the proposal has any human rights implications.
In the early years of Amnesty International, we were struggling to get the expression "human rights" into the English language. Now, the whole concept is very much part of our governance. So the nature of the discussion has changed. The debates now relate to questions such as whether the rights to which people in this country are admittedly entitled under the

1093
convention are best protected by reference to the commission or whether they should be enforceable in the national courts. As the noble Baroness asked, how can the Strasbourg court best be helped to cope with the flow of cases? The whole human rights scene has been transformed. It is not surprising that there are people who say, "Well, you human rights campaigners, you have won all you could conceivably have hoped for. If you want more, aren't you just being fussy?".
I understand that feeling and I concede that there has been one major change since the inception of the convention. Then, human rights were thought of as contrasting with major acts of tyranny. Before the Second World War, the world believed that what a government did to its own subjects was a matter to be dealt with within the confines of national sovereignty: the rest of the world was not interested in a family affair. It was events in Nazi Germany and occupied Europe which persuaded the civilised world that the international community must establish standards for governments and the all-mighty nation state should have to answer at the bar of international opinion for its conduct to its own citizens. Never again, it was said, would the world wash its hands of tyranny in one country. That was the philosophy behind the convention.
I accept what the noble Baroness implied: that now, cases heard by the European Commission and Court relate more usually to a conflict of human rights. The issue relates to where the emphasis is to be placed between two contending rights. It is arguable that that kind of issue is best resolved by the political process, and, in the last resort, by an electoral majority following political debate. Of course, there are some situations which do not fit into that pattern; for example, where one section of the community is permanently in a minority in relation to an important electoral issue, as in Northern Ireland. But I concede that it is not self-evident that those issues are best decided by enunciating the principle in a form which commends itself to one generation, based upon the experiences of that generation, removing it from all future political debate, and then inviting the court to decide how that interfaces with another principle similarly enshrined—and all that in a situation which was not contemplated by those who enshrined it. I accept, at least, that it is not self-evident.
There is a very little historical evidence to help us to decide whether human rights are better protected under a healthy electoral system or a healthy judicial system, for the obvious reason that the two are usually found together. If the one withers, it is not often that the other maintains a robust existence. So I do not believe that a Bill of Rights—we are discussing a European Bill of rights—is a substitute for a lively political sensitivity to civil economic rights and freedoms.
A great American judge, Learned Hand, expressed it better than I could ever hope to do. He said:
"Liberty lives in hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no judge can save it".
But where the political system is in the process of being forged and where it has not yet fully matured,
1094
then there is a need for an effective judicial procedure. The European debate, in a number of countries including the United Kingdom, has reached the stage where most people and most political parties are prepared to accede to a substantial degree of integration in the regulation of economic matters, and, perhaps to a lesser degree, of social matters, and for that purpose to create a powerful bureaucracy. That is not a moral judgment. Sometimes a powerful bureaucracy is necessary if an activity is to be subject to a sensible degree of co-ordination and regulation. But a bureaucracy, by definition, consists of officials who, understandably, are committed to the implementation of what they believe to be a valuable policy. If the price in a particular instance is that the individual should be hurt, then they may be prepared, like most of us, to bear with fortitude the misfortunes of others. They are likely to perceive objections as ill-informed and unreasonable.
Justice, in its memorandum to the committee—the noble Baroness will remember—pointed out how many countries, including the United Kingdom, which believed that their human rights record was of a high order, were surprised to find how often they had violated the convention. A bureaucracy requires to be subjected to some scrutiny either by a political or a judicial process. We have been prepared to accept economic integration, with a consequent bureaucracy, but we have not been prepared to accede to the political integration which would have endowed the European Parliament with the necessary muscle to scrutinise it. So in relation to human rights, we may be in danger of finding ourselves with the worst of all worlds.
It may be that 10 years from now a parliamentary ombudsman, in a stronger European Parliament, may provide stronger support for human rights, especially when the right of direct petition is understood and widely used. But, until then, I believe it important that the commission should be subject to a more direct scrutiny than would be possible by the indirect application of the convention through the Luxembourg court. I say that with great deference in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, to whose contribution we are all very much looking forward and who is himself an exception to what I am going to say. It is a court where most of the judges achieved distinction in fields which did not include a human rights jurisprudence. It is revealing and encouraging that the commission itself feels the need for more direct scrutiny by the juridical processes of the convention. I find myself persuaded that it is right.
I am fortified in that conclusion by another matter to which the noble Baroness adverted which was put to the committee by Dr. Pipkorn that there is also a presentational factor. We are continually and properly preaching human rights to the third world and there is now a great deal of discussion about how aid should be related to human rights. The third world may wonder whether the Community is wholly dedicated to its own philosophy if it finds that the

1095
Community does not accede to the convention which embodies the international standards of the countries of Western Europe.
I accept that there may be technical difficulties. I should be worried about the future of the law and the legal profession if I believed that, where there was obviously a will, we were defeated technically in finding a way. I have the misfortune to differ from the committee's conclusions, but I am sure that the House is indebted to the committee for its careful and well-informed report and for inviting us to participate in the debate.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, the protection of human rights is a subject which can generate strong feelings, so on the first occasion when I have the privilege of speaking in your Lordships' House I must steer between the Scylla of being controversial or at any rate too controversial and the Charybdis of being so anodyne that at the end it may be thought that I have said nothing. Whether or not I steer between those dangers in the course of my speech, for which I ask the indulgence of the House, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for the gracious words with which she began her speech and for the kind remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
The proposal that it should be made possible for the European Community to accede to the Convention on Human Rights, and that the Community should do so, has had a somewhat chequered history. When I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, as Lord Chancellor, to go to the European Court of Justice 12 years ago, I found that senior lawyers in the Commission seemed very enthusiastic about the idea. Then, perhaps partly because of the report of the Select Committee of this House on human rights, but also for other reasons, the enthusiasm seemed to cool and the idea was put aside.
Now, the proposal has been revived and, as I understand it, with more vigour. There is plainly nothing wrong in the Commission reviving a proposal after leaving it on one side. On the contrary, it seems to me that the proposal needs to be looked at from time to time, if it is not adopted.
The question, however, as I see it at the moment, is whether it is now right to adopt the proposal that the Community and indeed perhaps the three communities should accede to the Convention on Human Rights. There are clearly arguments in favour of doing so, as has been shown in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
It is a natural progression, when all the member states have ratified and granted rights of individual petition. It looks right, since nationals of all member states would have a right of access to an independent commission of inquiry and a Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, if breaches of the convention by the Community or by the institutions are alleged. Accession would avoid the peculiarity of the
1096
European Court of Justice being both defendant and judge in cases brought by officials of the Court alleging breaches of human rights.
Yet, on the other hand, it is quite clear that accession by the Community would only open up such a right to go to the Court in areas concerned with Community activity. It would not affect, it would not enlarge, the citizen's rights against his own member state and it seems to me that the number of cases at the moment which are likely to be involved will be few.
In that regard, it is a critical factor, as the noble Baroness has already indicated, that from the early days the European Court of Justice has established that fundamental principles of law exist beyond those spelt out in the treaty. The Court recognised that certain rules of fairness, reasonableness and legal certainty are observed by all the member states, which member states must have intended to apply to action in the Community. Those principles, I venture to suggest, have had a very beneficial effect in protecting the citizen against arbitrary and unreasonable conduct.
The Court of Justice slowly recognised that fundamental or human rights were included among those general principles. After France had ratified the convention, she finally accepted that the principles set out in the convention should be reflected in Community law.
I suggest that that was a major step and the Court of Justice now asserts categorically that these fundamental human rights are part of the law of the Community which it is the Court's duty to secure and enforce. It has thus recognised such fundamental rights as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religious faith; the right to develop property as set out in the protocol to the European convention, subject to acceptable restrictions in the general interest by way of planning controls and otherwise. The Court has recognised rights of the defence such as the right to a fair hearing. It has recognised that retroactive legislation making acts criminal which were not criminal at the time is wholly illegal and unacceptable.
It is important, I think, to bear in mind that in all this the European Court in Luxembourg has followed the interpretation of the convention adopted by the Court and the Commission in Strasbourg and has refrained from laying down wide-ranging decisions in uncharted areas. So there is considerable consistency between what has been done by the Court of Justice and what is done by the Court and Commission in Strasbourg. I doubt very much whether it can really be said, as I think was suggested by some of the witnesses to the committee, that the court in Luxembourg is not in a position to be informed of what is going on in the Strasbourg institutions.
It is clear, on the other hand, that if these cases have been few—and they have been very few where both the principle and a breach of the principle have been established—in the definition of the rights, the Court has done much and is capable of doing much in the limited area of Community activity. It has done so —and I think this is important—to such an extent that even the German Supreme Constitutional Court—

1097
which has a basic law of human rights which at one time it was disposed to insist upon against Community legislation—now accepts that it will not test the validity of Community directives against that basic law, but will leave it to the Court of Justice to apply the necessary rules of fundamental rights.
A special point has been raised in the discussion before the committee, as appears from the report, about officials and other employees of the Community. Is it necessary that the Community should accede to the Convention on Human Rights in order to protect the interests of those officials? I doubt very much whether that is necessary. It seems to me that the detailed rules governing the conditions of employment of employees of the Community are dealt with by the new court of first instance and by the Court of Justice in a way which sufficiently protects their interests. I doubt very much whether allegations of breach of the convention are likely to be raised by officials in many cases.
So for my own part I do not feel concern that in practice—whatever the theoretical or cosmetic objections may be—officials of the Court or of the other institutions are likely to be prejudiced.
The Commission has suggested that there may be gaps. There is undoubtedly a risk that some cases will not get to the Court of Justice. The Court can only deal with situations falling within the area of Community law which come before it. But I observe that Mr. Anthony Lester (who has been referred to and who has great experience in this area and who 10 years ago was against the Community acceding to the convention) now feels on balance—I repeat on balance—that the Community should accede.
If I were satisfied that there were serious gaps, I should agree with that. But on balance I do not consider that in practice it has been shown that there is any need for the Community to accede.
Finally, it would be perhaps somewhat strange for the United Kingdom to be supporting accession when we have not made the convention part of our domestic law. This is something which I suggest needs now to be thought about again in the light of the subjects raised in the report of this committee.
On the one hand, some people are perturbed by the block which seems to have occurred in the Supreme Court of Canada by the number of cases flowing from the adoption of the charter of human rights. On the other hand, I commend to the House two considerations which arise out of this report. The first is that every time the European Court recognises a principle set out in the convention as being part of Community law, it must be enforced in the United Kingdom courts in relation to Community law matters, but not in domestic law. So the convention becomes in part a part of our law through the back door because we have to apply the convention in respect of Community law matters as a part of Community law.
Secondly, when I was counsel for the United Kingdom on many occasions in the court of the commission on human rights at Strasbourg it was
1098
quite plain that many, although perhaps not all, of the cases could be dealt with just as well and more expeditiously by our own judges here.
I have for many years felt it would be right that the convention should now become part of our domestic law. Having read the report of the committee I feel fortified in that view. I mention this briefly because it seems to me to put in perspective the proposal that the Community should accede to the convention. The committee is right to conclude that the Community for the moment has more urgent and more immediate things to do, yet the topic is an important one and the situation must be monitored. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for having introduced this debate.
6.12 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, there are a number of strands in what we are discussing this evening. We are talking only about taking note of the report of the sub-committee. The very first strand which I must grasp is the one which involves thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, for his maiden speech. He said that it was 12 years ago that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, invited him to participate in the European Court. It feels to some of us that it was about 12 years ago that this debate was due to start. However, I note there are a number of noble Lords waiting for subsequent business and I must therefore be brief.
Your Lordships will look with amazement at the distinction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, in his professional life at the Bar and in the European Court. Noble Lords will appreciate what an asset we now have in this Chamber, not only from having listened to him today but also when they realise that he has already taken charge of matters and is now chairman of the sub-committee. I had the pleasure of sitting under his jurisdiction. I know he is very much in command of the subject. Your Lordships will want to hear him on many future occasions. He made a number of very constructive comments and we welcome him as a Member of this Chamber who has now made his maiden speech. If he so wishes, he can be even more controversial in future.
There is one other person who requires a word of congratulation, and that is my noble friend Lady Elles. My noble friend must be the only person to have been in charge of the sub-committee who is not a Law Lord. She was in charge when the debate took place which led to the report now before your Lordships. She has an amazingly clever way of timing the reports. It is not just a matter of the organisation of the committee and the chairmanship of it; it is also a matter of the timing of what has been produced. If noble Lords did but know what my noble friend has done behind the scenes to get these matters at a suitable moment in front of Parliament—I hope also in front of parliaments across Europe—they too would thank the noble Baroness. I sat underneath her chairmanship, and I profited greatly from the knowledge I acquired.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, I have sat on human rights bodies. We used

1099
to talk in terms of flowers, tributes and other such things. Those matters are appropriate today both in terms of the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend. However, the flowers cover a substantial substance in this debate because although we may not be doing more than taking note of the report I believe we shall send out messages to all the Community countries as well as to those people who are interested in the matter in this country.
It is enticing to think that the European Communities should join and become members of the European convention and that it would be good for us all if they did. However, this House was not convinced in 1980 that that was the way forward and there are reasons set out in the new report before the House this evening which show that even now not only are there no more reasons but matters have progressed very much further, as indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, although I do not think he came to the same conclusion. What we have done is to look at the detail of the matter but not to go beyond the terms of reference. I know that other noble Lords will want to do that and will want to talk about wider issues. However, on this particular point and on this particular report, we in the sub-committee have had to confine ourselves to the particular issues that were before us.
There is no doubt that the technical issues that would be involved in the various European Communities joining as members of the convention would be very substantial. I say in passing that just at this moment I would have thought that there were more important and more pressing issues and tasks —as the committee says in paragraph 105—for the diplomats of the European Community to address. There may come a time when everyone has the leisure to undertake what is required, but I should have thought that this was not the moment. I do not say that through wanting to be fussy or not fussy, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said. If one looks at the substance of the matter one sees that it is not a question of fussiness at all because we already have, in terms of the results of the courts at Luxembourg and indeed in this country something which has gone beyond a mere approach to being fussy about whether we are looking after human rights.
Of course we have to look after human rights. But we need to look at the substance of the convention we are discussing and, it is suggested, the Communities should join. What are the rights that we are being asked to commit the Communities to join? They are the right to life, although that is not really something that the European Communities are involved in; inhuman, degrading treatment; slavery; a fair tribunal; a fair hearing; the avoidance of retrospective criminal offences—one might think of the war crimes legislation—private life and property; freedom of thought; conscience and religion; freedom of expression; and freedom of association. In addition there are protocols which, particularly in the case of the United Kingdom, involve rights of property.
1100
Most of those rights are already encompassed in the machinery of justice in this country and in the European Court, as the noble and learned Lord said. In this short debate we are not talking about an instant vision of what the European Communities are about. We are not considering encompassing the entire range of United Nations conventions and covenants on civil and political rights or economic and social rights. Those are not matters which are before the House this evening, however much some Members may wish that they were. Nor ought we to spend much time talking about the competence of the Communities in joining the convention on human rights, although that is equally an extremely difficult subject and one which is controversial in its own right.
We should remember that before the House, and before Parliament and the country, there is now the whole issue of subsidiarity and the way in which it will be applied, in the context not only of the text of the Maastricht Treaty but also of the Single European Act and the way in which that has already passed into law so that it now binds all of us, regardless of any amendments which may have to take place.
What is the gap? When the Commission put forward the proposal that the Communities should join the convention it saw a conspicuous gap. Noble Lords have not identified—even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, did not make much inroad into the matter—a large gap which needs to be filled by a difficult legislative process which is now being suggested. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as they now are, signed the note on page 57 of the document that we produced in 1977 saying that the Communities would abide by the convention on human rights. I suggest that no one on this side of the House would disagree with that.
Because there was some time during the general election we asked for examples of the gap and what would be achieved for the citizen by the Communities joining and becoming members of the convention. Your Lordships will see in paragraph 72 what the staff, who did so much to help us, produced by way of the jurisprudence of the European Court. They had to find a very elaborate example under Article 10, concerning freedom of expression, to show how one would get into difficulty if the Communities did not join. The rest is quite straightforward.
Noble Lords will have seen the quotations from cases which are set out in the footnotes. One which is not set out goes back to 1979. It is the case of Hauer v. Rheinland-Pfalz which concerned vine planting. It was subsequently affirmed in a milk quota case about 10 years later. The issue concerned the right of property, which is covered by Protocol 1. In summary, the court said that even if it is not possible to dispute in principle the Communities' ability to restrict the exercise of the right to property in the context of the "market", it is still necessary to examine whether the restrictions correspond to the objectives of general interest pursued by the European Communities, or whether they constitute a disproportionate and

1101
intolerable interference with the rights of the owner impinging on the very substance of the right to property.
I think that is what human rights is about. It is about property. Other issues are also involved. That is what the court was saying 13 years ago. It is saying so now, loud and clear. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Slynn, has been saying that himself in the participation which he has enjoyed in the deliberations at Luxembourg.
I ask that this evening the House takes note of the report. We should not go any further at the moment. I understand that there is an entirely different debate about whether we should incorporate the convention into our own law and whether we should subscribe to some of the protocols to which we have not subscribed. But that is not the issue which is before the House this evening. I hope, therefore, that we shall restrict ourselves to moderate and well informed debate upon the exact issue which the Commission has put forward. If we want to go further we must have another debate.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I, too, enjoyed the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn. From the other centre of good restaurants—Strasbourg—I have often watched with envy what goes on in Luxembourg. I now know that behind what goes on in the restaurants in Luxembourg is the excellence of the judicial system. Certainly, the noble and learned Lord is a great acquisition for this House.
The reports of your Lordships' Select Committee are highly respected throughout Europe. Talking to many of my colleagues, I find that more than those of any other parliament your Lordships' documents are regarded with deep respect because they convey a sense of what is right and they follow through a proper analysis. This particular report needs to be read in conjunction with the earlier report—the 71st report —which, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, dates from the 1979–80 Session.
I am sad to see that neither in that report nor in the current report was evidence apparently taken from the Council of Europe. I have had the great privilege of being a member of the Council of Europe for some 10 years. I lead the United Kingdom delegation and I have just ceased being president, the first British president for more than 25 years. It is that assembly which elects the judges and the commissioners to the commission and to the court at Strasbourg. Therefore, I have been closely involved. I put it to your Lordships that there is another side to the report which has not come out so far.
My noble friend Lady Elles spoke about the problem of membership of the court and the commission when the Community accedes. That is going to happen, there should be no mistake about that. The simplest solution is that of double hatting. It is well known in international organisations. It is known in NATO, the Western European Union and elsewhere. During the time that a particular country
1102
holds the presidency, for example, of the Commission, it would sit on the appropriate bodies of both the court and the Commission.
My noble friend also spoke about the delays at Strasbourg. Yes, indeed, there is appalling delay in the cases at Strasbourg. In comparison justice in this country is not always very swift. However, we are addressing the subject. We are considering three possible options—although I hesitate to say that after the earlier Statement. The options are: whether the judges should now become full-time judges; whether there should be a merging of the commission and the court; or whether the court should sit in panels, which is not unknown. All those ideas are being addressed with a degree of urgency because we realise that justice is being denied in that cases are taking too long.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred to René Cassin. I have a feeling that he would have been saddened at how slowly things had developed since his pioneering days. I also believe that he would have been saddened at the balance of conclusion that the sub-committee has come to in its report today. I noted one other sentence that the noble and learned Lord used. He said that the world was sad at the sight of tyranny and would never let it happen again. The people of Serbia and Bosnia must think very ill of a world where civilised governments have not had the courage to take action.
The Council of Europe is the oldest and largest institution in Europe. It has some 27 member countries, with a queue of up to 10 more countries waiting to come in. We are responsible for the convention and I believe, as does the noble Baroness, that much of what is in her report has been overtaken by events. Many who gave evidence on that last occasion have changed their minds, notably Anthony Lester. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said that, on balance, he had come to a different view. The committee in its report in paragraph 119 has also, on balance, come down against. So it is a fairly narrow feeling as to whether or not, in the view of the committee, we ought to give our voice and say "accede" to the convention, so far as the Community is concerned.
Conditions have certainly changed very much. As has already been said, every country now within the Council of Europe admits the right of individual petition. They all recognise the competence of the court, and although my noble friend said that the Community wants adherence to the convention to be a prerequisite for membership of the Community, in many cases that is a long way away: 10 or 20 years. But those countries want membership of the Council of Europe. We have made it a condition not merely of membership but of guest membership, which is the precondition state, that they must in fact accept all the principles without reservation: principles of human rights, agreement about the convention and agreement to follow multi-party democracy.
I am in the middle of preparing a report on the application of Moldova to become a guest member. One of the things that may hold Moldova back is that it has not fully committed itself to those principles. But Hungary, Poland and the Czechoslovak Federal

1103
Republic (until 31st December) have all signed. That was an enormous advance, and it will be many years before they can come to the Community.
The Commission wants to sign; it wants to accede. I suggest to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that the Commission must have taken into account its workload before deciding that it wished that to happen. So I do not believe that it thinks it has more important things to do. The European Parliament wants to sign. The Assembly of the Council of Europe wants to sign. As noble Lords well know, the Assembly of the Council of Europe is not a directly elected body; it has membership from the national parliaments of the 27—members who are close, I like to think, to what is happening in their own parliaments and in government. The body which is not sure is the Committee of Ministers. I am sad that it still has to be convinced.
Reading this report I noticed on page 11 in paragraph 17 (i) a quotation from the previous report which states:
"The Committee do not underestimate the difficulties of achieving this common level of commitment".
It is accepted that it will be difficult but those who have already said that they wish to accede have taken that into account. Further down, and perhaps even more important, in paragraph 18 we are told that in 1979 the European Parliament passed a resolution in favour. That parliament was comprised of members drawn from national parliaments. Members of our two Houses were there and took part in that decision, and they said that they wished the Community to accede to the convention. So the United Kingdom Parliament has already expressed a view. That needs to be remembered.
I had intended to mention, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned, the comment of Dr. Pipkorn, but I can save the House the trouble of listening to me on that. I should also like to tell your Lordships about the views of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Madame Catherine Lalumière, who produced earlier this year, in February, a very interesting report for the Ministers in which she makes it very clear that in her view it would be a good thing if the Community were to accede.
That matter is now being looked at by the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which has decided to refer the question to a working group for further study. A comment was made, I think by my noble friend Lady Elles, that if the Community were to accede it would require unanimity from all the countries who have membership. I might perhaps add that it was only in December 1991 that the Community became a member of the Food and Agriculture Organisation and there was little difficulty in getting unanimity on that point.
Finally, the Secretary General again stresses,
"the legal and political significance of the Community becoming a party to the Convention. This would highlight the central role of the Convention and its supervision machinery in the protection of human rights in Europe, as recognised by the Charter for a new Europe which was adopted at the CSCE Summit in Paris on 19–21 November 1990. The importance of
1104
the Convention and its role as a point of reference was emphasised in the Declaration on Human Rights adopted by the European Council on 28–29 June 1991".
It all seems very difficult but it is not for this House to solve those difficulties. All noble Lords have to do is assert that no harm can be done to the cause of human rights by saying, "Yes, it is time that the Community acceded to the Convention". If I thought for one moment that we would be infringing anyone's rights, I should have looked for a stronger report against the idea from the sub-committee, but I do not. I do not believe that that is going to happen. Some may say, "Well, it will not do much for human rights". I shall not argue on that point. But as nobody says it will harm them, I believe that we must make some progress instead of being, as I fear we are on this occasion, negative.
Therefore, I go along with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, and I disagree with the report. I hope very much that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will agree that the House and their Lordships do not share the view of the sub-committee. I am sad about the report because, as I said. they are usually superb. However, I believe that this report has gone slightly off beam. I hope too, echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Colville, that it will not be long before the House has a report with a Motion that is positive rather than one which merely "takes note".
6.40 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, two noble Lords have disagreed with the recommendation of the report of the sub-committee of which I was a member under the able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I participated in every session of our deliberations on the matter. I was present at every session of the giving of evidence, except when the Commission gave its evidence. Of course, I had the opportunity fully to read that evidence before we wrote our report. At the end of our deliberations I joined with my fellow sub-committee members in endorsing the recommendation that appears in the report.
It is right to record that I was the sub-committee member most attracted to the proposition that the Community should now accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. We considered the matter with the greatest of care. I was conscious of the greater experience of other members. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has great experience in the European Parliament and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has great experience in human rights issues and in attending important meetings on that subject in Geneva. I hope therefore that I shall accurately construe the deliberations of our committee in telling your Lordships that, in looking at the two main planks of the argument which the Commission presented to the Council, we saw the logic of the argument that the Community should in its own actions—that is, the actions of the Commission, its institutions, and directives—be subject to the human rights convention. It should not, as it were, be above the law on the issue of human rights.
It is also right to record that the sub-committee could see the logic of the Community in taking up every important human rights issue internationally.

1105
for example, we considered the Haiti response following the denial of human rights in that country after a forcible change of government. We therefore saw the logic of the argument that, in making representations in the international field, the Community should have the mantle of accession to the convention.
We also listened to the powerful arguments presented to us by a number of our witnesses. The argument presented by Mr. Philip Allott, is recorded at the beginning of our report. The quotation that we recorded in paragraph 28 was a direct quotation from Mr. Philip Allott who stated:
"The installing of fundamental rights in a constitutional system is not merely a technical matter or even a routine political matter. In the case of the EC, it goes to the very legitimacy of the EC as a democracy, a democracy containing democracies".
Notwithstanding the powerful argument we came to our decision because politics is the art of the possible and the art of the practical, is it not? Nor do I believe it right that we turn down the symbolism of the European Community acceding to the Commission. As has been said by other noble Lords, on looking at the matter with greater care there is no question of the Community having doubtful credentials in the area of human rights.
Perhaps I may give one other insight into the deliberations of the sub-committee so that your Lordships can see how eventually on balance we came down in favour of our recommendations, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, in paragraph 119. One of the issues that we considered was the advantage of an individual petition to both the Commission and the court. That has been accepted, though it has not been ratified. It is contained in Protocol 9 of the convention. In considering that matter we were aware of, and mentioned in our report, the difficulties of the individual in presenting an application to the European Court in Luxembourg under Article 173. There are severe limitations on the individual presenting a petition under that article.
Of course, we had to look at the court in Strasbourg and at the question of delay. Regrettably we found that the delay was in the region of five to six years. Such a delay is a defiance of the granting of human rights. We greatly welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, to the Chamber and to the chairmanship of our sub-committee. As he said, this is an important subject which we must continue to monitor. That also expresses the view of the sub-committee in reaching its recommendations.
I wish to draw one further matter to the attention of my noble friend the Minister. It concerns the ratification by the United Kingdom of Protocols 4, 6 and 7. One of the matters that we considered was this. If the Community were to accede to the European Convention, what would it be acceding to? Would it be acceding to the original text of the convention and how many of the protocols would it be acceding to? That focused upon the position of the United Kingdom which, with Turkey, is alone in ratifying the convention but not Protocols 4, 6 and 7. Will the Minister indicate the Government's proposals to ratify those protocols? We are rather out of line with
1106
most member states. If your Lordships later examine Protocols 4, 6 and 7 you will find them largely in accordance with English law.
Protocol 6 relates to the abolition of the death penalty. There are some exceedingly macabre statutes of Parliament dating back to the 14th century and they should have been repealed by Parliament long ago. But the practical position is that we have long since abandoned the death penalty and I am glad to record that.
Your Lordships will know that I am using new language in addressing Members on this side of the House. I should be grateful if I could have an answer from my noble friend the Minister either when she addresses the House or perhaps she will write to me afterwards.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House—I have already apologised to the Minister—because I must leave before the end of the debate. I regret that all the more since the debate has been particularly interesting. On behalf of Members on these Benches I wish to express my gratitude to the sub-committee and to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who so ably introduced our deliberations tonight.
From these Benches I speak for a party and as someone who has reached the firm conclusion that we should incorporate the European Convention into UK law. It was good to hear the judicious and elegant maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and to note that he too has reached that conclusion.
However, having reached that conclusion I do not share the noble and learned Lord's view that the time is not right to incorporate the convention into Community law. I have in that view been affected by the evidence given to the committee, which was generally of extraordinarily high quality. I refer not just to the evidence given by Justice and by Liberty and the characteristically analytical evidence given by Anthony Lester, whose contribution in this area and over many years is so immense, but also to the evidence given by the Commission's own lawyer, Dr. Pipkorn, who said—and this really summarises the position of the Commission—
"It makes the position of the Community in the field of protection of human rights more coherent and fills a gap in the protection of human rights as regards Community legal acts."
One of the reasons that the sub-committee—and I recognise that this is, on balance, a balanced argument —thought that the time was not right to do this was that the Community has, in its own words, "more pressing tasks". I am certain that the Community has many pressing tasks. We read about them in the newspapers every day. We discuss them in this House. But can they really be described as more pressing than anything that would potentially lead to the improvement of the primacy given to human rights in the European Community? In the current political climate in Europe it is surely becoming increasingly difficult to divorce human rights from other areas of Community activity.

1107
if there were accession it would mean that the European Convention on Human Rights would become directly binding on Community institutions, and this would assist in filling the gap—and I recognise that there is argument about how wide that gap is—in human rights protection that exists in areas which fall under Community competence. Individuals would have recourse under Community law in situations where a Community act can be seen to be in violation of the convention.
The real issue is: what kind of European Community do we want? That of course is not in the end a juridical issue; it is an intensely political issue and one of current controversy. There is disagreement about whether the European union that the Treaty of Rome envisages will eventually be a federal community, a confederal Community, or a looser association of nation states nevertheless striving to find some kind of political unity. On these matters there is legitimate and continuing disagreement. But I very much doubt that any of us would want to have a European Community that did not rest on the inviolability of individual human rights as its fundamental and basic principle, more important than any other pushings and shovings of the political process.
During the Maastricht debate there was discussion of what should be done in the Community and what should be done by the member states. There is no doubt that the competence of the Community over the years has increased—and probably will increase—but I would argue that it ought to be constrained at all times by the primacy of individual rights, so that as the institutions develop greater powers and wider duties and come into conflict with individual rights and freedoms, it is clear where the priority lies.
I suspect—I fear this may be the case—that the sub-committee was slightly over-influenced by the evidence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We know that the Government—and perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to refer to it in her concluding remarks—are conscious of the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument; that any discussion of the European convention is potentially embarrassing for the British Government, which, in my view curiously, refuses to incorporate the convention.
I believe that if the European convention was incorporated into Community law so that the Community could be seen to control its own human rights with integrity, this would lend credibility and moral force—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—to action that the Community takes on human rights issues beyond its own borders through the use of trade sanctions, or the linking of development aid to human rights records.
I should like for a moment to digress from the tight focus of the sub-committee's report to this question of the external attitudes of the Community. There is a case that has continually been put on the back burner, and that is the dispute in the western Sahara. Morocco has been guilty of many gross abuses of basic human rights involving both its own nationals and Sahara wari people who have been arrested, imprisoned, and
1108
tortured without trial, and who, in some cases, have disappeared without trace. I am glad to say that requests by Morocco for additional aid from the EC have recently been turned down, and rightly so, on the specific grounds that Morocco is deliberately delaying the UN peace plan for the western Sahara, and indeed that it has recently arrested hundreds more of the Sahara wari people who were peacefully demonstrating. Could Her Majesty's Government confirm that they are also opposed to these continuing Moroccan practices and are prepared to say so in New York and at the United Nations?
Reverting to the sub-committee's report, there is one other point that I should like to raise on what I might call the log-jam argument. The argument is developed quite strongly in the report that there is already something of a log jam in the European Commission and Court, and that that would be further increased. I have no doubt that there is some truth in this. It always strikes me as slightly odd that when people use this as an argument for not incorporating the European convention into Community law that they do not recognise that the logic of it is that we should help in this country to relieve some of that pressure by incorporating the convention into United Kingdom law. It is a strong supporting argument.
One final point that I should like to make is that the events in Germany and in other parts of Europe have highlighted a need for additions to the Community protections of human rights, whether we incorporate the convention or not. We desperately need a prohibition on the grounds of race discrimination to be added to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of gender. Events of recent weeks prove this. The parallel need is for governments to send a clear message both to right-wing extremists who are flourishing throughout the Community and to those whom they are persecuting that the permanent legal residents of the Community who are not EC nationals should not be considered second-class citizens. Some 8 million people in the Community continue to be deprived of the rights of free movement which are enjoyed by their EC national colleagues, and continue to be subject to cumbersome impediments to their ability to acquire EC nationality. As long as these obstacles remain no amount of rhetoric about human rights from member states will convince these people that the people and governments of Europe are on their side.
In conclusion, I would say on this issue that it would be a great shame if, yet again on these Community matters, Britain is the laggard and not the leader; that we are elaborately finding reasons for being out of step. The noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, has said that throughout the Community, its institutions and the Council of Europe, many people have thought about this and decided that it is right symbolically and probably right practically. It would be refreshing to see the Government prepared to take the lead in the creation of a citizen's Europe, because a lot of the political problems in Europe are fundamentally due to the fact that people do not believe that Europe is for the people of Europe. If nothing else, the

1109
incorporation of the convention into Community law would demonstrate that Europe is for people and not just for governments.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, one of the great things about this House is the opportunity to learn from its expertise and experience, which are so wisely deployed. I have certainly learnt from this debate today. It was a particular privilege to hear the distinguished maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. It generously fulfilled our expectations in its clarity, insight and perspective. His observations on the evolution and enhancement of the role of the European Court of Justice in the realm of human rights cannot be lightly dismissed, and I do not do so. However, I noticed that his conclusions were on balance, and he will therefore at least understand if the balance for some of us comes down in another direction.
I should like to pay tribute to the members of the European Communities Committee for producing such an interesting report on the Community's commitment to human rights, and on the question of whether or not the Community should accede to the Convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke to it well tonight. The committee has undertaken its work during one of the most significant and dramatic periods in the history of the European Community. This, I believe, has added to their burden, and it is a testimony to their diligence that they have been able to produce such a comprehensive, thought-provoking and balanced report despite the distractions caused by the Maastricht treaty negotiations and the subsequent Danish vote against the treaty, which have thrown the whole ratification process into turmoil.
Notwithstanding these recent difficulties, it has become very clear that many within the European Community have become increasingly concerned with the protection of human rights. This concern is widely regarded as central to the future economic and political development of the Community and, reflecting this, the preamble to the Single European Act specifically refers to respect for human rights.
We must build on this and develop the Community's emphasis on human rights and democracy. I shall argue the same case as I was glad to hear my noble and learned friend Lord Archer argue, together with the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Finsberg, with all his Council of Europe experience. One of the ways to promote the objectives would be for the Community now to accede to the convention and for it to take steps to strengthen the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe as regards its human rights regime. That is vital not only to the overall development of existing member states, but also to that of the former Communist states of central and eastern Europe which are currently queueing up eventually to join the European Community.
The Community that they join must be seen to have a meaningful and tangible commitment to human rights and, equally, to be seen to te taking an active
1110
part in protecting them, not only externally through its aid and co-operation policy but also internally with regard to the individual rights of its citizens. There must be no opportunity for this central priority in the fight to preserve decent society to be perceived or portrayed as part of the hollow rhetoric of armchair conscience.
The current fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina and its attendant refugee crisis, the incidence of ethnic conflict throughout central and eastern Europe and the grim resurgence of fascism in Western Europe highlight the need for the European Community demonstrably to develop such resolve and for it to take a lead in promoting effective measures to bolster the CSCE. It must be asked whether, if the latter's human rights mechanisms had been stronger, changes in the former Yugoslavia could have been less anarchic and less bloody.
The potential for ethnic conflict throughout central and eastern Europe underlines the need for both the Community and the CSCE to have strong and effective human rights regimes. The economic and political development of the former communist states can be facilitated through the European Community, but these countries must be left in no doubt that membership of the Community will ultimately depend on their commitment to democracy and their record on protecting human rights.
If those standards are not rigorously applied there is a real danger that central and eastern Europe will be plunged into still more dreadful ethnic and nationalist conflict. The incidence of the nightmare of so-called "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia and the use of national laws by certain republics of the former Soviet Union to discriminate against ethnic Russians indicates the kind of dangers that can emerge all the more easily in the absence of such criteria unyieldingly applied.
Those countries wishing to join the European Community must meet the required standards of democracy and respect for human rights. They must demonstrate their commitment in those areas and accept that they have obligations to respect the human rights of their citizens, including full rights for minority groups. However, equally, European Community recognition of new states and their international borders should depend on the respect of each of those states for democracy and human rights.
The premature recognition of the republics of the former Yugoslavia illustrates the dangers and consequently the Community must, for example, proceed with the greatest care in relation to the case of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia which is currently seeking independence and international recognition. The fulfilment of these prerequisites for international recognition could be better achieved if the European Community as such were to accede to the Convention and if it thereby became still more clear that the European Community endorsed a human rights regime which had to be met before any country was deemed fit and ready to join it.
The member states of the Community are all now party to the convention and it is this key issue of whether the European Community itself should

1111
accede which was the main question dealt with by the Select Committee. As we have read and learnt, the committee concluded that the Community should not at present accede, and I understand that view is shared by the Government. The report argued that accession would,
"not bring major practical improvements to the protection of the rights of individuals resident in the Community",
and that the technical difficulties involved would far outweigh the advantages.
In view of the outstanding quality of so much of the report, I find this a disappointing conclusion. Given the increasing human rights dimension to the role and work of the Community and its institutions—a development advanced recently by the European Parliament's adoption during April 1989 of the declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens—it is a conclusion which I find difficult to accept.
The Government's hostility to accession is, as has been pointed out, out of step—not, of course, an unusual experience these days—with current trends within the Community; trends which indicate growing support for the Community's accession to the convention. Reflecting that, accession has the support of the European Parliament and the European Commission. Perhaps in winding up the Minister will tell us when this matter will next be discussed by the Council of Ministers and what she anticipates the Government's position will be in that discussion. Perhaps she will also give an indication of current thinking within the Council in relation to accession.
The Government's hostility is also at odds with recent events which have witnessed the Community becoming involved in a growing number of areas with human rights implications. European Community law now has a direct applicability to rights guaranteed in the convention in areas such as privacy and data protection, insurance law, access to employment and education, policing and extradition arrangements, the effect of harmonisation on the differing legal status of minorities —for example, gypsies—and the impact on human rights of new technologies; for example, biotechnology and environmental protection. This is by no means a comprehensive list and Community participation has been extended further as a result of the treaty on European union signed at Maastricht. This seeks to bring matters such as freedom of movement, trans-European networks, the regulation of land use, asylum and immigration policies and judicial co-operation in civil and criminal matters within the scope of common European Community action. The treaty provides for there to be respect for the convention, but provides no specific means of ensuring it.
Organisations such as Justice have therefore found it difficult to follow the committee's reasoning that the Community's accession would provide "limited benefits" and that,
"the Community has more pressing tasks".
Surely the Government must consider that it is precisely because these pressing tasks impact on
1112
human rights that it is important that they are carried out within the framework and subject to the provisions of the convention.
There is a closely related matter; namely, the United Kingdom's refusal to incorporate the convention into United Kingdom law. That is unusual and, as has been argued tonight, it certainly demands separate debate. However, I am sure that the Minister recognises the important relationship between the incorporation of the convention into UK law and the European Community's accession to the convention. It should in that context be noted that the UK's position and that of Ireland and Denmark is increasingly isolated, particularly as the countries of central and eastern Europe now acceding to the convention at the same time automatically incorporate it into their domestic law, even though there are far greater difficulties in aligning domestic law with the convention's provisions. However, one point must be stressed, as has been underlined in the debate: whatever the arguments for incorporation into domestic law, the proposal for the European Community's accession in no way amounts to "back-door incorporation" into the UK as it would affect only the application of Community, not domestic, law.
Accession would give the European Community credence and strengthen its institutions, especially as the Community is increasingly being called upon to act on human rights violations outside its borders. Reflecting that, there are growing links between development aid and recipient countries' human rights records and increased joint action in the former Yugoslavia which may have to be replicated in other countries of the region. The moral authority for the Community's actions in these areas would be much greater if the Community's commitment to human rights extended to the supervision of its own acts. That would strengthen the Community's world role and give it greater authority in its dealings with countries and other institutions, as well as reinforcing its policies in areas such as aid and development.
The accession of the Community to the Convention is also particularly important as the Community heads towards greater levels of integration. Against that background, Justice, the United Kingdom-based human rights organisation, has stressed that any Community moves towards greater integration must be supported by the safeguard of a legal system—which, as we have heard tonight, would have to be properly resourced—based on respect for fundamental human rights. Justice has emphasised that it is vital to ensure that the Community's institutions,
"are not just committed to human rights"
but bound by them as well. This issue will not go away. Sooner rather than later the Community will have to address it.
Admittedly, the Maastricht Treaty allows for citizens of member states to petition the European Parliament and also for the creation of an ombudsman, to whom application could also be made. Justice, however, has warned that,
"welcome as these remedies are, they are not an effective substitute for a binding legal framework",

1113
which the European Community acceding to the convention could provide.
The treaty does refer to the European Convention on Human Rights as being a body of law which the European union will respect, but it fails to indicate itself how that respect is to be guaranteed. This again accentuates the need for a formal European Community accession to the convention, and it would be illuminating if the Minister could tonight elaborate on how this respect can be effectively and consistently guaranteed without such an accession.
I believe the Community's accession to the convention is desirable because democratic values and the protection of human rights are central to the future development of the Community, particularly since the countries of central and eastern Europe are desperate to join the Community. These countries must be given achievable political and economic targets which will take into account their human rights record as one of the main prerequisites for their membership. In this respect, the Community's accession could play a pivotal role in the membership process and in the overall development of the Community as a whole.
Failure to ensure the development of these countries along democratic lines and to facilitate their emergence as countries which offer full protection for human rights could plunge Europe into a destructive cycle of ethnic and nationalist violence and conflict. There is no room for complacency. The danger signs are there for all to see: indeed, those who recall the pre-Second World War history of Europe tremble at the familiar patterns which are emerging. The Government must consider how they would encourage the development of the Community and its enlargement, in the light of the Government's own hostility to the Community's accession to the convention.
Accession to the convention would enhance the world role of the European Community and reinforce its involvement in the field of protecting human rights. The Community has considerable influence, and it deals with a large number of countries and institutions. Formalising its support for this convention will give it even greater stature and provide it with the means and authority to promote respect for human rights throughout the world. Acceding to the convention is particularly important at the current moment, because the Community is in the process of embarking upon its most ambitious stage of development to date. Endorsement of the convention would therefore give a clear indication of the sort of vision and hopes its leaders have for the future of the Community, and indeed for its domestic and international role.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I start with praise and with a very deep apology. My praise is of course due to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, for steering his superb maiden speech with such authority into port. It is only too obvious how
1114
greatly his speech has been appreciated by your Lordships. It has been a rare experience to listen to the noble and learned Lord.
My apologies to your Lordships are for the fact that I, and not my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey, am standing here. My noble friend has asked me to say how very disappointed she is to miss this important debate at the last moment. Life, as we know, is a question of timing; and when two equally important events suddenly converge something has to give. My noble friend Lady Chalker is greatly beholden to my noble friend Lady Elles for initiating this debate and of course my noble friend will read your Lordships' speeches with the very greatest interest. In the meantime I can only crave your Lordships' indulgence for my inadequacies.
The Government welcome the key findings of the Select Committee report on the question of Community accession to the European Convention on Human Rights; and also the opportunity to debate the issues involved. The report of the committee provides a detailed and balanced account of these. The Government gave evidence during the hearings, and they have of course given a full response to the report. I should like, however, to restate briefly the position of the Government on Community accession.
The unique feature of the European Convention on Human Rights is this: that it provides individuals who have exhausted the national remedies open to them with a further means to seek redress from their own governments for violations of their human rights. The protection of individual rights is therefore at the very heart of the legal process in Strasbourg. We have approached the proposal for Community accession to the convention with that very much in mind. Our aim has been to determine whether accession would bring any significant benefit to the individual. It is because we consider that it would not, and also because of the considerable technical and legal problems surrounding accession, that we do not support the proposal made by the Commission.
The Commission has claimed that there is a considerable gap —this point was raised by my noble friend Lord Colville—in the protection of individual rights within the Community. We do not consider this to be the case. The United Kingdom was one of the first member states of the Community to ratify the convention, which it did in 1951. As my noble friend Lady Elles has already said, all member states have now signed and ratified the convention and have accepted the individual right of petition. They have accepted the jurisdiction of the court in human rights cases. In addition, there have been considerable improvements in the protection of human rights in the Community. The Court of Justice of the Communities has for some years consistently applied the European convention as interpreted in the case law of the Strasbourg institutions. Article F of the Treaty on European Union will commit the union to respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the convention, and as they arise from the constitutional traditions common to member states, as general principles of Community law.

1115
My noble friend Lady Elles has drawn attention to the precise terms of the committee's conclusions about the evidence given to it. The committee said in their report at paragraph 71:
"None of our witnesses was able to point convincingly to a single case where an individual has been denied justice in terms of the Convention on complaining of a Community action."
We are sorry if, in our efforts to be concise in the Government's response, we did not do justice to the precise terms of this finding. We paid tribute then—and I do so again—to the careful and thorough analysis of potential problems which the committee undertook. The findings exhibit a very proper legal caution but, as a non-lawyer, it still seems to me a fair description of the outcome of the investigation that the perceived gap in protection is potential, not actual, and small, not large.
The Government are therefore in agreement with the committee's findings on those essential points. In our response to the committee's report, we highlighted some areas where the view of the committee and of the Government to an extent diverge. I should now like to comment briefly on those points.
On the question whether accession would involve an extension of Community competence, the committee's summary conclusion was that,
"The Community could accede to the ECHR without implications for its internal competence provided that any instrument of accession was accompanied by a suitable statement of interpretation".
As I said in my response, the Government agree that an interpretive statement of that kind would help, but we remain doubtful whether it would be wholly effective in restraining an extension of internal competence in that field. Such statements as to the division of competence are quite rare and the Commission does not propose that any such statement should be made in this instant. Even if one were made, it would be for the Court of Justice, in the last analysis, to decide upon the effects, and we could not predict with any confidence what the outcome might be.
With regard to external competence, the Government and the committee are at one in the view that a consequence of accession would be to make it possible in the future for the Community to become party to other international agreements relating to human rights. The Government continue to believe that such an extension of competence externally, as internally, is unjustified and undesirable. Those are matters which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, should remain primarily for the member states.
It is also our belief that incorporation—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn—far from increasing the protection of individual rights in the UK, may actually undermine our constitutional and democratic tradition whereby Parliament has supreme responsibility for enacting and changing our laws. Direct application of its provisions in the UK court would bring British judges into the political arena by forcing them to make decisions regarding the
1116
interpretation of the convention and effectively giving them the power to strike down laws passed through Parliament.
On incorporation, I should make it clear that we do not envisage any change in policy. Both at a legal and a political level, Community accession to the ECHR might increase pressure on the UK to incorporate the convention into domestic law. If the Community acceded to the convention as a whole, as the Commission proposes, and not simply to those provisions where it has competence, the convention would become binding on member states as a matter of EC law. That might lead to a situation where the convention was applied directly in the UK courts. We would not wish to allow such an important step as incorporation to be brought in by the back door.
Incorporation of the ECHR into domestic law would therefore have more far-reaching implications in the UK than in many other countries with different constitutional arrangements. Proponents of incorporation argue that giving UK citizens the means to seek redress in our domestic courts would benefit the individual. It is by no means certain that that would be the case. The experience of other states which have incorporated the convention into their law suggests that a significant number of cases would still be decided in Strasbourg.
The committee notes in its conclusions that it inclines to the view that the Council have, under Article 235 of the EC Treaty, the power to decide that the Community can accede to the European convention if member states, acting unanimously, decide that that is necessary.
I should like to stress that that conclusion is hypothetical. Member states of the Community have only once discussed the current Commission proposal for accession. Only two member states were fully in favour of Community accession to the convention. That aside, we continue to have doubts as to whether Article 235 of the EC treaty gives the Community adequate vires to accede. The question hinges on whether the promotion of human rights can be regarded as an objective of the Community. It is because we believe that, in a legal sense, it cannot, that we continue to doubt the Commission's assertion that Article 235 provides sufficient grounds for the Community to accede.
My noble friend Lord Hacking asked about Protocols Nos. 4 and 7 dealing with immigration.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I asked also about No. 6.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am coming to No. 6. It is a different subject.
The UK has no plans to ratify the protocols. They are broadly drawn and not in conformity with our detailed laws. My noble friend asked also about Protocol 6. Successive governments have taken the view that capital punishment is an issue of conscience which will be decided by a free vote in Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that we were out of step with our Community partners. That was during the Dutch presidency last year. Given that lack of support for a measure requiring unanimity, subsequent presidencies have not scheduled discussion of the

1117
measure. With regard to the other point raised by the noble Lord—the discussion of EC accession in the Council of Ministers—I shall ask my noble friend to write to him.
I listened carefully to the arguments of my noble friend Lord Finsberg and the noble Lords, Lord Archer and Lord Holme, who indicated their disagreement with the principal conclusions of the committee. However, our position is clear.
First, I should like to record the gratitude of the Government to the Select Committee for its careful and excellent work in compiling this report. But our reservations are shared by the majority of the member states of the Community. Our opposition to Community accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is fully consistent with the Government's firm commitment to uphold and enhance human rights. We continue to work for the widest possible implementation of the established standards of human rights. Nor does our opposition to Community accession detract in any way from our support for the work of the Council of Europe; or our high regard for the European convention and the mechanisms in place for its enforcement.
During our presidency of the Council of Europe, which started this month, we will seek to enhance the convention by bringing forward discussion within the Council of Europe on reform of the procedures which are used in its application. There are important decisions to be taken in that respect. The membership of the Council of Europe is increasing rapidly. The backlog of cases, as most noble Lords commented, and therefore the delay in hearings at Strasbourg, is extremely serious. Reform will bring real improvements in the protection of the human rights of our citizens, in clear contrast to the marginal and symbolic improvements which, at best, Community accession may offer. Finally, a telling point which the Select Committee notes in its conclusions: the Community has more pressing tasks.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to our debate, especially at such short notice. We are therefore particularly grateful to her for undertaking that task. I should like to thank also all noble Lords who took part in the debate. Interestingly enough I believe we have a balance of the kind of arguments that we heard in our committee. Those in favour were slightly fewer than those against, which again reflects the committee; otherwise we should not have had that conclusion in our report.
I should like to thank most warmly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, who has brought a new light to the debates of this House. We shall at last have somebody, who will be listened to, with great authority on the effects of European Community law on our national and domestic law. He is warmly welcomed. I hope that our learning curve will go ever up through his presence in this House and his participation in our debates.
At this juncture I do not believe that noble Lords will expect me to go into the details of the debate. There were many pressing points made on all sides. I
1118
say to my noble friend Lord Finsberg that a certain person was invited from the Council of Europe but did not reply to our invitation to give evidence to our committee. That was covered, but I shall not go into details. I would also like to say how much we all regard the Council of Europe as what I might call the threshold for entry into the European Community as a whole. It plays an important role in instilling the principles of human rights throughout Europe, particularly among new members of the Council of Europe.
I believe that we have all accepted the great importance of respect for human rights. Those who came to that conclusion in the report still hold that if one is going to be seen as respecting human rights one must provide facilities for the redress of grievances where there have been violations of human rights; otherwise, it is a sham and symbolic, serving no practical purpose. Until member states show the political will and the financial intention to improve the circumstances in Strasbourg, I remain firmly committed to the findings of our report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hereditary Peerages Bill [H.L.]
7.31 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am very grateful for the great interest shown by your Lordships in the Bill. A number of noble Lords have put down their names to speak. In particular, we are to be honoured by a maiden speech to which I am greatly looking forward. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I consider it a very great courtesy on his part that he should have found it possible to attend our debate and participate in it.
First, I should like to explain what this short, one-clause Bill does; secondly, what it does not do; thirdly, what it might do if the House so desired; and, finally, why it is high time that it was enacted. The Bill provides an option for all those hereditary Peers who do not wish to continue the present practice under which, on their death, an elder daughter will be wholly disregarded in favour of a younger son—not because she is less able or less willing to carry out the duties of a Peer, but simply because she is a woman. All that Peer has to do is to petition Her Majesty who is given power under the Bill to amend the letters patent so that the peerage will in future pass to the eldest child, whether male or female. However, if the hereditary Peer wants the present practice to continue, or at all events to continue for the time being, then he will do nothing and everything will go on as before or until some future holder of the title decides that change should be made.
That is the only alteration in the law which the Bill seeks in its present form. It merely raises the issue of sex discrimination. It does not touch on succession to the Throne, nor on life peerage, nor on property rights.
As to what the Bill might do, if your Lordships so desired, perhaps I may explain that the Long Title has

1119
been deliberately drawn in order to permit of the widest possible discussion. For example, some of the many Peers who have approached me have expressed an anxiety about disappointing long-held expectations. They recognise the great injustice being done to the eldest daughter but are anxious not to create a new injustice by preventing the title passing, for example, to a brother, who has long been regarded as the heir. I understand that anxiety although it should not be overstated; for irrespective of this Bill, the late arrival of a son will always upset such expectations.
The simple answer is that a hereditary Peer need do nothing. His heir could let it be known that, on his succession to the title, he would be making the change envisaged by the Bill, thus avoiding the build-up of fresh expectations. But if a Peer feels that even the decision to do nothing might cause him some domestic embarrassment, and that he would therefore prefer not to have any freedom of choice, then he could put forward a new clause for discussion at Committee stage. The new clause might provide that where the option to make the change had not been exercised, then, automatically after the next succession, the title would in every case descend to the eldest child whether male or female. The net effect of all this would be that those hereditary Peers who wished to make the change during their lifetime could do so. In all other circumstances the change would necessarily apply to their heir's heir.
I would hope that all such matters could be discussed at Committee stage in the expectation of reaching a consensus as to the best way forward. Of course, if the amendment on the Order Paper were carried (an unusual proceeding in your Lordships' House) there would be no opportunity for any such discussion. It is clear that anyone who exercised his undoubted right to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill would be denying the opportunity of his fellow Peers to put forward their ideas in the form of amendments for discussion at Committee stage. I should have thought that noble Lords might prefer to see how the Bill finally emerged and, if still opposed to it, vote against it then.
Before putting forward the reasons for enacting this short Bill perhaps I may define my terms. I am told that Peeresses are the wives of Peers and that the correct description of the female holder of a peerage is quite simply "a woman Peer". I propose to do as I am told, even though Mr. Gladstone referred to them as "Peeresses" when he said that women in the Upper House would,
"be disastrous: the majority of Peers would die of shock and the Peeresses would die of boredom".
Clearly, women are playing an ever-increasing role both outside and inside Parliament. No one would dispute the immense ability of women Prime Ministers both here and in other countries or the increasing contribution made by women in public life, industry, the arts and in the professions. More women than men are now entering universities: more women than men are qualifying as solicitors. We should remember that when we speak of women we are referring to the majority of the population and, incidentally, nearly
1120
half the workforce. Within Parliament we have a Madam Speaker; we had a woman Prime Minister; a woman Leader in the Lords; women party leaders; women Ministers of the Crown—the list is endless. In your Lordships' House the statistics show that women on average attend not merely more than men, but twice as much. The case I am putting forward is quite overwhelming.
We really can no longer justify a situation in which 97.5 per cent. of hereditary Peers are male and a mere 2.5 per cent. female. Why then do we continue this hugely discriminatory practice which had its origins in the days when a baron's duty was to lead a large body of armed men to aid his Monarch whenever the need arose, he himself no doubt arrayed in shining armour? It is certainly not because the House approves of sex discrimination. We have played a full part in passing anti-discriminatory laws. Nor can one point a finger at a government who themselves introduced the legislation and signed the international convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, in company with nearly 100 other nations.
The Prime Minister himself launched Opportunity 2000 saying,
"I want to see all women having the same opportunities as men".
The Government have made their views clear in this place on many occasions. For example, as Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in December 1990 when replying to an intervention from me, said that,
"it is part of the Government's programme to see that there is real equality of opportunity".—[0fficial Report, 13/12/90; col. 579.]
As recently as 26th February this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, when replying to a debate on opportunities for women, said:
"On this side of the House"—
which phrase includes the Conservative Party as well as the Government—
"we believe in, and have worked for, a world that is as open to women as it is to men".—[Official Report, 26/2/92; col. 308.]
The phrase,
"as open to women as it is to men"
is a fine phrase to which I humbly subscribe.
So, I cannot understand why we have accepted this sex discrimination in our own affairs for so long. I suppose that it has been partly a determination to keep a tradition alive long after its cause had died, and partly because for so long this place was a very agreeable men's club and, as with other men's clubs, the members were averse to change. As we all know, it was not until 1958 that women were admitted at all, and it was not until 1963—less than 30 years ago—that women Peers in their own right were allowed a voice in our affairs. For 40 years they had successfully been kept out of the Chamber by reliance on the familiar argument that one should wait for an overall reform of the Lords rather than deal with one aspect only. The best has ever been the enemy of the good, and I trust that no one will try to resurrect that argument against this Bill.

1121
To summarise the position, I cannot do better than quote the late Lord St. Davids in February 1987 during Question Time when I raised this very issue. He said that,
"in view of the mistake made by my 11th great-grandfather 500 years ago in changing the system from heirs general to heirs male, and in view of the very different ideas of today, is his act not an excellent precedent for putting the matter right now and allowing the ladies to have what they should have?" —[Official Report, 5/2/87; col. 327.]
That is all that I seek.
Noble Lords have been very patient while I have argued against the negative aspect of sex discrimination. If they are willing to consider the positive side and, by opening more doors to women, to share in enriching life in the whole of our society and in widening the experience and the understanding of the membership of this House, they will give this Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Diamond.)
7.44 p.m.
Lord Denham Lord Denham rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end to insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I must declare an interest, in that I am the present holder of an hereditary peerage and have four children, a daughter and three sons born in that order. Perhaps I should also declare a more personal interest, in that I also have an elder sister and, had the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, carried his Bill some 45 years ago, I myself might never have reached this House at all.
I think that I also owe the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, an apology. He is making a sincere attempt to revitalise hereditary peerages and in some cases save them from extinction and it seems, to say the least, ungrateful that it should be an hereditary Peer who is opposing him in this.
But the real objection to this Bill is that in seeking to remedy, or make it possible to remedy, what the noble Lord sees as injustice (the eldest child if a girl being unable to inherit her father's peerage), he is doing so at the expense of imposing what I believe to be a far greater injustice—depriving the present heir male of a right that, perhaps even from birth, he has had every reason to expect.
It does not stop there. The Bill would enable one holder of a peerage, in perhaps a long line of such holders, to decide that the succession should at that particular point go down one particular female line, for example, his daughter, possibly at the expense of a son or, if he himself has no children, his younger sister at the expense of their mutual younger brother. But what if the Peer also had an elder sister who had already been by-passed because this Bill had not then been in operation, why not her? Why not his father's elder sister, why not his grandfather's elder sister and their respective lines?
But is the noble Lord absolutely certain that his Bill, as at present drafted, does not take account of them? It operates by amending retrospectively the
1122
original letters patent, which may date from decades, even centuries ago, and it is far from certain as to what the effect of this would be. It would be an ironic Gilbertian twist if the noble Earl, Lord Blankshire, who was the undoubted holder of that title at the time that he petitioned Her Majesty, were to find that he has thereby disfranchised for all time not only his son but his daughter too and even himself and that it is now his great-aunt Jemima who has instantly replaced him as countess in her own right.
But supposing the Bill were to have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, intends, there are still to my mind overwhelming objections. One of the privileges conferred on the original recipient of an hereditary peerage by the sovereign of the day is the satisfaction of knowing that future heads of his family, or of his branch of the family, will in perpetuity hold the title that he has earned. This Bill would enable any of his descendants to take that away from him because, with the marriage of the daughter who succeeds to it, the title would pass out of the family that bears his name.
There could, on occasion, be an element of spite. The existing holder of a peerage may invoke this Bill not so much because he thinks that his daughter should succeed him as because, perhaps unjustly, he disapproves of, or has quarrelled with, his son or other heir male.
There may be undue influence. Many elderly widowers are, in the nature of things, cared for far more often by a daughter than by a son, and this has been known to have an effect on the bequeathing of money or property. But if undue influence is suspected, leading to the changing of a will, it can be challenged in the courts and I would ask my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack: in similar circumstances, could the courts be brought into it in this case?
There may, however, be cases in which there has in fact been no undue influence by the daughter; the present Peer having made up his own mind to invoke the provisions of the Bill for highly respectable reasons, but where the heir male may mistakenly suspect otherwise—and there is no end to the family rows and heartache to which this may lead.
A Peer who has no sons of his own would be more than likely to invoke this Bill in favour of his daughter at the expense of his sometimes far more distant heir male. But is it right or fair that he, who must be prejudiced in favour of his own child, should be the one to make the decision in such a case?
But what worries me perhaps more than anything else is that the existing Peer himself may be put in a quite intolerable position, often at a time when his own death is imminent. Should he deny his daughter something that by Act of Parliament he is now specifically enabled to pass on to her, or should he deprive his son, his younger brother or his nephew of something that he himself in his heart of hearts believes should still be theirs by right? That is a decision that I personally believe I should not be called upon to make. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end to insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Denham.)
7.50 p.m
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for introducing this Bill to amend the law relating to hereditary peerages. I think there is certainly room for legislation to enable women to succeed to future peerages by letters patent, and to broaden this section of our peerage law.
I had the privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House when it was an all-male and all-hereditary assembly. I have therefore seen many changes, all of them for the better. I am well aware of the great contribution that the women Peers—both the life Peers and the women Peers by succession—have made, and continue to make, to our debates and committees, since the 1958 and 1963 Acts. I yield to no one therefore in my admiration for the role of women in our public life. Indeed, I should like to see a much wider Bill than the present one, as I shall explain.
This Bill, for example, does not deal with baronies by writ, but only with peerages by letters patent. Baronies by writ, which are mostly those dating from mediaeval times, already allow a daughter to succeed when there is no son. But if there is more than one daughter, the peerage falls into abeyance between them, for the reason that all are deemed to be co-heiresses with an equal claim. The peerage remains in abeyance unless a petition is made to the Sovereign for its termination in favour of one or other of the co-heiresses, or a descendant of the remaining line. Such petitions are usually referred to the Select Committee for Privileges by the Crown, after advice from the Attorney-General.
The Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House, of which I have the honour to be a member, has the task of establishing the facts of the case. If the facts are established by the committee, and accepted by the House, the matter goes to the Sovereign. The decision whether to terminate the abeyance, or not to terminate it, and in favour of which co-heir, lies at Her Majesty's discretion. Such petitions take time, and can result in considerable expense.
There is, I suggest, a strong case for our peerage law to be changed, to allow the eldest daughter to succeed automatically, and of right, when there is no son, to all baronies by writ. This is already the case with some of the older peerages of Scotland, and indeed there are Scottish Ladies, who have succeeded in this way, sitting in the House. I should perhaps declare an interest here, as I am the holder of a barony by writ which fell into abeyance between daughters and which was in abeyance for a very long time between co-heirs until it was terminated in favour of my grandfather, after a lengthy peerage case at the beginning of this century.
Letters patent can make special provision already for a daughter to succeed. This happened with the Mountbatten and Portal peerages, where in each case
1124
neither of those distinguished war heroes had a male heir. If hereditary peerages continue to be created in future, this is surely a provision that could also be adopted.
I regret that the Bill before us makes no attempt to make such changes to our peerage law. Where the Bill does not go far enough therefore in one direction, it goes too far in another! I think that Clause 1, allowing the son to be passed over, if he is not the eldest child, will give rise to many problems within the family, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said. There is the question of retrospection, for example. At what point is this switch to be made? It could happen that an elderly Peer towards the end of his life decides—perhaps he has been got at—that he prefers his daughter to succeed him rather than her younger brother. The male heir might be the bearer of a courtesy title, by which he has been known from an early age. Now he could be told that he and his children are to be passed over in favour of his sister, at the whim of his father. I can envisage many disputes, opportunities for family intrigue and much bitterness once we embark on such a course.
The Bill would give too much power to the holder of the title. Why should he have the right to decide —and to petition the Sovereign—who is to succeed him? A hereditary peerage is not the sole possession of the holder to do what he likes with; it belongs to the whole family, even distant relatives, and to all heirs, including heirs as yet unborn!
I remember that when the Bill that became the Peerage Act 1963 allowing a Peer to relinquish his peerage, and to put it into abeyance for his lifetime, was being considered in Committee in both Houses of Parliament, amendments were proposed to allow the Peer to put the title into extinction for all time. It was argued against this proposal that no Peer had the right to deny his title to his heirs, which he might well want to do for malicious reasons, to spite his heir, or if he did not believe in hereditary peerages any way! The House took the view that a hereditary peerage was not the sole property of the holder, and the amendments were defeated by large majorities in both Houses.
As I have tried to outline, I think that there are ways by which peerage law could be amended to take account of modern requirements; but I submit, with respect, that the present Bill is not the right way to do it. The Bill is well meaning, but it would result in many problems and anomalies. If it comes to a vote, I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
7.57 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I joined these Benches some eight years ago. It seems like only yesterday. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was my chief. Those were the heady days when the Social Democrats and the Liberals formed an alliance which held a quite considerable percentage of the votes. I have a healthy respect both for the noble Lord's sincerity —I absolutely take the Bill as he proposed it at face value—and for his remarks on

1125
television last night explaining that he sees discrimination. I respect that view but I regret that I cannot support the Bill as he has presented it to your Lordships today.
I thought until last night that I had well rehearsed my arguments. My wife seemed satisfied with those arguments until she heard the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She then said, "I'm sorry, I agree with what Lady Mallalieu says". The noble Baroness supports the noble Lord entirely. I lost that one but I hope that I shall do better this evening.
I accept that it is necessary for more women to be given the chance to be heard in your Lordships' House. However, as the holder of a hereditary peerage, albeit a slightly odd one in that I think mine is the only English family that has a Scottish peerage, I am a little concerned about the Bill. Indeed, the first holder of my title was certainly the first Scottish Peer to sit in the House of Commons. He then quickly became naturalised as a Scotsman some four years later. Whether the English wanted to get rid of him entirely or whether there were other reasons, I do not know. My peerage is by letters patent and, unlike other Scottish peerages, does not go down through heirs general but through the male line like English peerages.
I feel no particular status in being a Peer. I feel it a great privilege to be in your Lordships' House and I know that other hereditary Peers think likewise. In a way I feel somewhat like the tenant rather than the freeholder. I believe that I am holding for the time being—I hope that it will be for a little time to come this right so that eventually my heirs—in this case one of my sons—will be able to follow me in that privilege.
What worries me about the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, can be found in its first five words. That has already been eloquently said, but perhaps I may add to it. To allow the holder of a peerage to petition opens up all kinds of undesirable possibilities. One must be realistic about hereditary Peers. In the 17th century I had an ancestor whose abilities and general character were eulogised extravagantly after his death. Within 150 years I had another ancestor of whom it was written in a well-known publication:
"To be the bully of a brothel, the hector of a tavern or the keeper of a faro table is the highest pitch to which the ambition of this noble Peer soars".
The later ancestor, being a Scottish Peer, had to be elected to come to your Lordships' House as one of the 16 elected Peers. He would probably never have got near the ballot box. He did not sit as a representative Peer. If he had lost all his money at the faro table and had a daughter married to an ambitious man, and, for whatever reasons, would have liked his daughter to succeed to the title for his own purposes —perhaps commercial or social—it would have been only too easy for him to have been pressured to make a change for a financial consideration.
I agree with other noble Lords that it is putting too much of a responsibility upon the holder of a title for him to have to decide to make that change. With hereditary Peers —this may not be the same for life Peers, who may not feel the same as hereditary Peers
1126
—there is a unique link between the family name and the title. I shall not explain the mechanics of it, but it is clear that if there is a change to the female line the distance between the title and the family name will become ever greater. On future creations, I am with the noble Lord. What he suggests is desirable.
I do not know how we shall reach the position the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, sketched for us on television, of having young women in the House, something of which I am greatly in favour. Even with the suggested changes, I do not see how we would have young and attractive women in the House, perhaps on the Government Front Bench, but perhaps she will be able to explain that when she speaks.
There is a desire for equality these days, as we all realise. I do not see that there is discrimination within the peerage. When the arrangement was made—this does not usually cover peerages by writ but only peerages by letters patent—it was between the monarch and he who was to be honoured. To a great extent, the letters patent were tailored to the particular needs of that period. To interfere with that arrangement, and to say that by its very nature the peerage is discriminatory, is not being realistic. The duties which attached to the peerage in the early days were onerous by virtue of the travel and other matters which brought the holder to Parliament to answer his writ of summons.
I am one with the noble Lord on discrimination. Ideally, I should like to see equal numbers of women and men in your Lordships' House. That may be difficult to achieve, even over a period of time in the way that he proposes. The House of Lords has been under steady pressure to eliminate its hereditary element for many years. We do a good job with the hereditary element included. We do it impartially, quietly and efficiently, although our role is that of a revising Chamber only. But a revising Chamber requires the independence which comes largely from the hereditary element. I find difficult to see how that could be replaced were the hereditary element to be eliminated.
Perhaps I may indulge myself by suggesting a way, dealing with the hereditary element in the House should the prospect of abolishing it get close. I shall also deal with the question of women. We might well follow the procedure which used to prevail in the case of Scottish Peers. Hereditary Peers might be able to vote among themselves for a number—100 or 200 or whatever—to sit and vote in the House provided that they did not take the party Whip and sat as independents. They could of course take the party Whip and perform the functions which hereditary Peers do so well on the Government Front Bench, but without being able to vote.
In the event of there being Peers who were unsuitable for election, females in the family might be able to make themselves available and qualified for election, with the aim of bringing half of that 200, let us say, as women into the House. That is a suggestion for consideration should the abolition of the hereditary element become a reality. In the meantime, we are here. Our families are—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in his eloquent speech—

1127
without any particular domestic embarrassments over the succession. I have never sensed in my family that my daughters look upon my son with anything but family affection. I hope that that continues. If the Bill became law and I was able to petition, I would not do so. Nor do I believe that my son would do so. If it becomes law, I hope that the scenario that I have described of the wrong people succeeding to the peerage for the wrong reasons will not occur to cause much more than domestic embarrassment. There may be domestic strife and worse.
8.8 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that I consider it an honour and privilege to be a hereditary Peer in your Lordships' House. I also declare, so to speak, several interests. I happen to be a Duke of Norfolk. That title has switched sideways three times for lack of male heirs. If that had not happened your Lordships might have had my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton as the Duke of Norfolk which would possibly be better.
I am not talking about the various impeachments and beheadings that we have had in the dukedom. We have had many interruptions since 1483. I have several other peerages behind me including a barony by writ. I first sat in your Lordships' House as Lord Beaumont, through my mother, when I was senior to my father Lord Howard of Glossop. I hold that barony too.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wishes to see more women in the House; he has a good point and I suggest that the method of achieving that is to have more women elected as life Peers. I am not short of women Peers; I am happily sandwiched between two at the moment. I am sure that making them life Peers is the quickest and simplest way of getting more women Peers.
However, the complicated suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the Bill is to my mind totally wrong. It would be changing the original intention of the reigning monarch who created the peerage by letters patent. When the monarch created the peerage of, say, the dukedom of Norfolk, or Lord Maltravers, or something, it was that monarch's intention that it would descend by the male line. Who are we to change that now centuries later? It is interfering with history and I do not like it. History has guided us well. We should respect it in our humble little world of hereditary peerages.
I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has thought out the consequences of his Bill. At the moment, the Norfolk dukedom will descend to my eldest son or, if he is killed, to my second son, or a nephew. Thank heavens, we Howards are not an extinct species at the moment. Does the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, really intend me to avail myself of the privilege and the opportunity to petition Her Majesty to enable one of my other peerages such as Arundel or Surrey to descend to my eldest daughter, letting the dukedom go to my eldest son? It becomes complicated when we multiply the peerages that are held. Most hereditary Peers hold one, two, three or even four
1128
peerages. I believe that I hold 16. Am I to release those to my eldest daughter? I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has thought about that at all.
I am glad that he has not included baronies by writ. As we all know, a barony by writ is roughly what the monarchy has. A barony by writ goes to the son, if he is there, or the next son. If there is no son, it then goes to the eldest daughter or the monarchy decides to which daughter it should go. I am glad that the noble Lord has not included that. The subject would be endless. But the system of baronies works happily; it goes through daughters.
If the Bill makes progress, I think that it will need an immense amount of amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has not thought about it deeply. I shall have no hesitation in voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, it is a great privilege to address this House, even if it has taken me eight years to rise to the occasion. In fact, the only reason I am standing here is that my great-uncle only had two daughters and we have the law of primogeniture. If this Bill had been on the statute book, the title would have passed in direct line from his eldest daughter to his grandson which would, I believe, have been the best thing to have happened.
The result of primogeniture has been that in our family the title and the family house and estate have become permanently separated, which for me is a cause for great regret. I sometimes feel that an hereditary Peer without his estate is like a mediaeval knight without his horse—both are slightly spare. Clearly, however, how the existing law has affected one particular family is pretty insignificant. What is of importance is how it has affected the composition of this House. That is important because of the changes in our society.
This century has been a period of unprecedented social change, greatly accelerated by two world wars. Nothing has altered more than the status of women. Their position has been transformed. To see all this in perspective, it is worth glancing back at the Great Britain of 1900. The country was then run by men; they dominated every aspect of society. Women had a very important role as wives and mothers, based on their homes, but often not much else. Even there, the man was head of the house and held the purse strings and because few women had any proper education they were not in a position to argue. The conventional wisdom was that outside this domestic role, women were non-starters.
This century has seen the overturning of that conventional wisdom. Major landmarks have been women getting the vote in 1918 followed by the great expansion of higher education. As has been mentioned, more than 50 per cent. of those in higher education now are women. That had a crucial effect. It gave women the tools and the motivation to challenge the domination of men.
If added to that is the idea of choice for the individual so that women can not only choose to be at home but also to have a full-time career, together with

1129
the concept of equality of opportunity, which has been mentioned, it is not surprising that all the traditional male bastions have crumbled and been infiltrated by women.
I believe that in voting for the Bill we place ourselves firmly on the side of the angels. It is well worth remembering that they make up half the population.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, on his maiden speech today. We are honoured that it has happened in this debate. It is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate someone who shares my alma mater on the shores of the Cam, an excellent preparation for life in this House. I hope that we shall hear the noble Earl on many occasions in the future and not have to wait another eight years before we hear him again.
This House is steeped in tradition going down through the centuries, hallowed by time. It is therefore difficult for a Bill such as the one before us today to obtain universal approval. There are those who wish to abolish the hereditary system and those who wish to go all the way to inheritance of peerages by the eldest child, irrespective of sex. Then there are those who cling tenaciously to the male line.
I should like eventually to see inheritance by the eldest child, but feel that it must take some time before it could be enacted. There are too many justifiable expectations at present of heirs groomed from birth to inherit. Also, this is a simple Bill and in order to make good law it will almost certainly need amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, accepted. Nevertheless, the spirit of the Bill is a good one and it is a step on the road in the right direction. I shall vote for it, in the hope that the principle will then be found worthy of further serious consideration by the Government. I welcome the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in favour of justice for women, which I shall not repeat.
I came into your Lordships' House over 10 years ago as a life Peer with a great deal to learn. I am still learning. A noble Lord once said to me, "Always listen carefully to other noble Lords' speeches, however boring they sound and you will learn a great deal". I have found that very true and of course there have been many excellent and interesting speeches from which to learn. I have certainly never been in danger of dying from boredom.
Life Peers have spent their lives in specialised fields, and that experience in depth is of very great value to the House both during the passage of Bills and in its specialist committees. However, it means that life Peers are nearly always created during the latter half of their lives when their hair, like mine, is grey. The House needs young people and the contribution of our young male hereditary Peers is therefore to me of great value, as they represent a different viewpoint which is very necessary during the passage of Bills. They look forward to the future, which will be very different from what we older Peers have experienced in the past. We need that perspective. Their parents have prepared
1130
them well for inheritance and have educated them to exceptional responsibility when they grow older. Sometimes by the accident of fate that responsibility falls on their shoulders earlier than expected and they serve our House well.
I feel that we need young women of the same calibre, and where a Peer has only daughters—that does happen—it would be excellent if early on in their lives he could designate the eldest daughter as his heir. She would then be educated and prepared for responsibility from an early age. I am sure she would be just as valuable a Member of this House as her cousin or more remote kinsman. It would also mean that the peerage was inherited in the direct line within the family, which seems to me to be far more desirable than that it passes to a remote descendant who may have had no preparation for that inheritance. That is why I like the idea of option that is central to this Bill.
It is important that Peers should not be able to exercise the option capriciously. It needs to be thought out carefully years before the inheritance is likely to happen so that the whole family know where they stand. It could also of course enable a father to make that kind of petition in favour of his eldest daughter where there is only an educationally sub-normal son, or one with some other major unfortunate characteristic making him unsuitable for inheritance, or indeed in the tragic case where the only son dies before his father, and of course in the special case where it is likely that otherwise a peerage might become extinct. The Peer himself, of course, cannot decide this matter —only the Queen can do that. I am sure that Her Majesty would take many considerations into account, and particularly the reasonableness of the request.
The Scots have always been far more enlightened in this matter than we have in England. We benefit very much from Scottish women hereditary Peers and would miss them deeply if they were not here. Hereditary peerages are seldom created these days but I hope, as other noble Lords have said, that any new peerages could be created to allow the eldest child to inherit. That would lead the way to progress in the future. I am heartened that the Prime Minister has stated his firm intention that there should be more women in public life. The spirit of this Bill echoes that wish.
I should also like to make reference to the inheritance of the Crown in our country. We have been fortunate in having great Queens such as Elizabeth I, Victoria and now Elizabeth II. Her Majesty's magnificent lifelong devoted service to her country is a shining example of how fortunate our country is in that the Crown can be inherited within the female line. I believe that would also be the case if this Bill were to pass and women were able to inherit peerages.
I shall support this Bill and not the amendment, as I hope will many other noble Lords, accepting that it may need amendment as it passes through its various stages. The spirit of the Bill to allow the option of the father to settle who is his most suitable heir is a reasonable one in the kind of situations I have mentioned. He cannot decide on his own and that is

1131
right. He must then petition the Queen and I would suggest that Her Majesty's decision might be assisted by a recommendation from either the Privy Council or the Committee of Privileges on the basis of carefully drafted regulations and on the merits of the case. That would ensure that it would not either be entered into or allowed lightly and, once determined, would produce a stable expectation within the family. I believe it would constitute a step on the road towards justice for women and also be of benefit to your Lordships' House.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, I first join with the noble Baroness who has just spoken in congratulating the noble Earl on his maiden speech. I hope very much that we shall hear him speak again and much sooner than eight years. The general concept of altering the destination of a peerage will not be alien to those Members of your Lordships' House who hold Scottish peerages, nor indeed to a Scottish lawyer such as myself. Scottish peerages were always given on much more flexible and broader grants than were English peerages. I use the word "always" but that is perhaps an overstatement. That was generally the case.
It may interest your Lordships to know that the late Sir Iain Moncreiffe, Albany Herald, and a notable genealogical and heraldic lawyer, analysed the pre-Union Scots peerages. He found that out of some 362, 110 were granted on special destinations, 93 admitted descent to females, 86 were to heirs male whomsoever, 73 only were to heirs male of the body, of whom 14 were Royal cadets, 12 were brothers of existing Peers, seven were generals and eight were Englishmen. Noble Lords will appreciate that far from a mandatory male descent, that was the exception rather than the rule.
The flexibility in Scottish peerages related not only to the original grant but also to the ability of a Peer to resign his peerage and obtain from the Sovereign a regrant. I shall give an example of a special destination. In the case of the barony of Ruthven of Freeland, which is now held by the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, the destination was to the son of the grantee and that son's heirs of tailian provision. The effect being that the son could determine who his heirs were going to be.
I do not seek at this stage of the Bill either to support or oppose the concept of the Bill, but it seems to me that there are certain serious difficulties in the Bill as it is presently drafted. I shall divide my brief remarks into two parts. First, I shall deal with the immediate effect of Clause 1. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has already pointed out, it does not apply to baronies by writ. Perhaps in this context I should mention that certainly in Scotland a destination to heirs general would not admit to the succession the eldest daughter of a Peer where there was in life a younger son. The son would be considered to be the heir.
It is not absolutely clear from the Bill whether that would apply to a Scottish charter of peerage, certainly
1132
not to charters which were lost such as the Ruthven of Freeland peerage was. It would—as the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has mentioned—or could lead to a proliferation of peerages; that is to say, a Peer petitioning to have one of the peerages he held descend to an elder daughter. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is for your Lordships to decide. I merely point that out as a possible result. Perhaps a more difficult concept is the use of the words "eldest child". If that child died during the petitioner's lifetime that would be the end of the matter. It would obviously have to be a surviving child.
That is not a quibble, because as I understand it, up to now, certainly in Scotland and I suspect in England, peerages have been destined to heirs. Every man and every woman who has any descendants of the blood has an heir, but the heir can only be ascertained at one's death. An heir can sometimes be ascertained for succession purposes under a will at a later date, but one cannot ascertain an heir before death. But an eldest child is ascertained as soon as it is born. It by no means follows that an eldest child will survive its parent. That is a further difficulty in the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has already pointed out the problem of an elder son using a courtesy title, perhaps for many years, suddenly finding himself demoted in favour of his sister.
The Bill provides no guidance as to what criterion is to be followed in giving advice to Her Majesty. Presumably on a petition Her Majesty would seek the advice of Ministers. By what criteria are they to decide what advice should be given?
It may be that these matters could all be cured by extensive amendment and rewriting of the Bill. However, what concerns me particularly is the subsequent effect of the Bill. As I have already said, in Scotland there were three principal ways in which the devolution of a peerage could be altered. The first was by a resignation in favorem in which the Peer resigned his peerage into the hands of the sovereign and sought a re-grant on a new line of heirs which he nominated. If the resignation was not accepted by the sovereign the existing devolution continued. The circumstances in which a re-grant was usually confirmed by the sovereign were: there was an unsuitable heir—perhaps an idiot son or a traitor son; to prevent the conjunction of two peerages in one person; or to prevent an existing peerage dying out.
Another method was the same resignation but with a re-grant enabling the resigner or a named son to resettle the peerage in accordance with an entail—a tailzie. That was usually done in connection with the devolution of land. The third method was the confirmation of an entail made by the settling Peer.
Perhaps I may give just one example as I do not want to weary your Lordships' with a number of examples. In the case of Loudon, where the line was about to die out, the Peer obtained a resettlement on John Campbell, who was to marry his granddaughter. That was one method of keeping the peerage going, to use a colloquialism, after his death as it would otherwise have died out. There are other examples —Lord Sempill and the Earl of Erroll.

1133
The problem with the Bill is that it lacks any indication as to what is to happen after the death of the eldest daughter. One could illustrate the problem by giving an example. The Bill simply says that the peerage should be permitted to descend to the eldest child of the body. That presumably means the eldest child of the body of the petitioner. Let us assume the grant of a peerage made in 1806 with a destination to heirs male of the body. It is reasonable to assume that in 1992 there would be a number of male descendants of the original grantee descended through the male line and who would therefore be eligible to take the peerage as heirs male of the body.
The present Peer—let us call him Lord X—has two children—an elder daughter, Mary, and a younger son, John. When Mary survives Lord X what happens on her death? Does the peerage go to heirs male of her body? Does it go to her eldest surviving child and its surviving child, and so on? As I have said, the destination to eldest children is quite unknown in the law of Scotland and, I suspect, probably in the law of England. Does it go to the heir male of the body of the original grantee—in other words, back into the order of succession—in which case the only person cut out would be Mary's brother John? Or does it go to the heir male of the body of Lord X? Again, that would cut out all collaterals of Lord X descended through males from the original grantee. If it were to go to Mary's eldest surviving child then serious problems could arise. The result could be that one of Mary's descendants, an eldest child, died, leaving other descendants of Mary descended through a younger child of Mary. What is intended should happen here? Are there to be destinations over, or is the whole peerage simply to die out?
It seems to me that very complicated matters of devolution are involved, certainly in Scotland, and I suspect in relation to earlier English peerages. I respectfully submit that the matters involved are far too complex to be dealt with in a single clause Bill. Complete rewriting would be the only possibility. If there is to be a Bill of this type I submit that it must be very carefully drawn and all possible contingencies catered for. This Bill does not do so. For that reason I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
8.37 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, first, I join with other noble Lords, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, on an excellent maiden speech. I sincerely hope that we shall see a great deal of him in the future. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on promoting his Bill tonight. He has brought to your Lordships' attention, with noble intentions, a major subject which could well have far-reaching consequences for your Lordships' House.
I would not normally have taken part in this debate, especially having seen the length of the list of speakers, but, as the premier of my rank, I felt that it was my duty to protect what looks increasingly like a future endangered species. I am most concerned about the issue.
1134
I have no difficulty in principle with the idea that my eldest child, whether male or female, should inherit my family's title. But as to my making a choice between my children as to who should inherit, I am not clear about that at all. Such a decision would not only be extremely difficult to make but might perhaps be ill-judged, perhaps unfair and perhaps clouded by family matters which were at issue at a particular time. The present system is proven. I believe that it is adequate.
I should like to describe my own case very briefly, purely to portray the problems as I see them. The Bill appears simple at first glance, but it raises some interesting and extremely complex difficulties which might not be apparent at first sight.
My title was created in 1442—unfortunately for knocking seven bells out of the Welsh. I hope that there are no Welsh Peers here tonight. It was created in tail male. In 1446 we were created Earls of Waterford, which is the premier of the rank in Ireland. It is an Irish title, also in tail male. My son has the courtesy title of Viscount Ingestre. I am also the hereditary High Steward and Great Seneschal of Ireland—these titles granted by letters patent in 1446, to be inherited, according to the letters patent, by only the male heirs of the body of the first Earl, John Talbot. That is great history. But what if I fell out with my eldest son? My daughter is older than he is and under the Bill being debated I should be able to say to my eldest boy "James, you and I have great differences and you are not going to be my successor in title. Your sister is going to be the chosen one". That is a major decision to make, perhaps in difficult circumstances and involving a certain amount of favouritism—and perhaps also under the most ridiculous of circumstances. I might be a complete idiot at that stage—not that I may not be now.
If this particular scenario materialised, many other problems would be flagged up, apart from the appalling private family antagonism which would undoubtedly emerge. For example, my daughter, on my death, would be the Countess of Shrewsbury with a seat in your Lordships' House. My son would still have the courtesy title of Viscount Ingestre. But by that stage my daughter would perhaps be married with a son of her own who would be her heir. He could not be Lord Ingestre because his uncle would already have that title by courtesy of his father.
Will the noble Lord's Bill cover the peerage of Ireland? If not, a further anomaly will have been created. Noble Lords will recall that I said earlier that I hold the title of the Earl of Waterford, an Irish title which is, as I mentioned, in tail male by letters patent, and it gives me the right and great privilege to act on behalf of all Irish Earls at a coronation. I do not for one moment believe that my daughter, having inherited the Earldom of Shrewsbury, would be permitted to fulfil this particular function without a change in law with regard to the Irish peerage. Neither could she be the Lord High Steward and Great Seneschal of Ireland. She probably would not want to be.
What about those Peers like myself who have family trusts agreed by Act of Parliament again in tail

1135
male? My daughter could not have the benefit of my parliamentary trusts agreed to by your Lordships in 1954, as they are all written for the benefits of the Earls of Shrewsbury in tail male.
This is an horrendous problem. I am in principle relaxed about whether the title goes to my first-born, male or female. But I have a great problem with the noble Lord's Bill and the injustices which I am absolutely certain it will cause. It will not, I am sure, achieve the noble Lord's targets. I am absolutely certain that it will divide families, and I believe that it is completely unworkable. I shall have to support my noble friend Lord Denham.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I speak as the youngest hereditary Peer in the House, having taken my seat very recently. I believe I can claim that my mind has been very clearly focused on this problem, since I have four elder sisters. We have discussed the issue quite clearly.
The issue did not come up before this Bill. I have always known that I would inherit the title. However, I shall support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, since it relates to the future. There must be a way of changing letters patent if your Lordships put your mind to it. I believe that one of the reasons that this subject has received so much media attention is that descent through the male line is one of the cornerstones of sex discrimination.
I would like to point out that the question of changing who should actually inherit the title has arisen before. The Redesdale Committee which sat between 1816 and 1825 actually disallowed women from inheriting earldoms. I am sure that in the future we shall be able, if we put our minds to it, to allow women, the eldest daughters, actually to inherit the title.
I agree that there are many problems regarding this Bill. Many of them have been expressed far more eloquently than I could express them myself. For the sake of brevity I would like to raise only two of them. I have to admit that one of the problems is the choice that would be given to the incumbent peer.
I come from a large family, as I have already pointed out, and I believe that had the choice been there it would have caused a lot of friction over many years.
The only other problem I would like to put forward is one that has been pointed out to me; namely, that if we change letters patent, would it not be possible to do so retrospectively, since it is a piece of retrospective legislation, going back through the female line? I would almost be tempted to support my noble kinsman's amendment and I must congratulate him on showing no avarice towards my title. My grandfather had an elder sister who was my noble kinsman's mother, and I should not be sitting in this place if the noble Lord's Bill had been enacted a number of years ago.
I shall support the Bill because although there are many complex problems that have been put forward by noble Lords, I believe that they could be overcome.
1136
I believe that the noble Lord's Bill is destined to fail tonight. However, as many noble Lords have put forward their view that this would be a good piece of legislation, I hope that one day it will come back. If it does return, then, given the choice, I would say that it should be the eldest child, regardless of gender, who should inherit the title.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I was fascinated to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and all the more so because he is so close a relative of his noble kinsman Lord Denham, who opposes the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, is very proud of his Mitford mother. I would turn over in my sleep with disturbance were I to think of what his aunt would have thought of Uncle Matthew, thinking about his speech disowning his family.
I turn to more serious matters. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for whom I have enormous respect and affection, may be not only misconceived but even mischievous in the conception of this Bill. The Bill is misconceived because, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords tonight, the noble Lord has not thought about the problems of Peers by writ. He did not mention them at all. They are just as important an element as the others. They are not many but they are important. The noble Lord has not thought possibly that Peers by patent or writ include lots of Peers of Ireland. I do not think he thought about those people.
This matter concerns more than just the House of Lords. The noble Lord seemed to think that sex discrimination in this House would be avoided by his Bill if it were carried. I suggest that this is not a Bill about membership of the House of Lords. At the moment the House of Lords contains many Peers appointed for life as well as hereditary Peers. There are also legal Peers who are life Peers in the law.
This is a mixed House. It has been such a House for many years. Some of our ancestors were appointed. We are a mixed body descending over several hundred years. Around the country we represent mixed views. Hereditary Peers sit among all the parties and I think of the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland and the noble Lord, Lord St. John. When one looks around the House one sees that this is not a one-party House. Peers are all over the place. Those of us who are hereditary Peers are just as much entitled to have our views and intelligence taken for what they are worth as are appointees of Prime Ministers, ex-retired MPs, ex-professors and even young professors as well as young tycoons of industry —all kinds of people who are bright and beautiful when appointed. They all get old as we do. I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who is very beautiful. She comes from a great legal family in her own right. In her husband's right, she is allied to another great legal family I have known, in her father-in-law and her grandfather-in-law.
I have the utmost admiration for all people of either gender who are elected to this House. I have no feeling against women being made Peers. I do not carry that feeling to the bishops. Being a Roman Catholic, I am perhaps biased. Nevertheless I admire all women who

1137
are holy and good. There are many from whom we can take great advice, and far be it from me to disregard that.
However, we are not discussing that issue; we are discussing the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that sex discrimination in this House is part of the Bill. As the noble Lord made that remark, I wish to remind the House that many years ago—I cannot remember whether the noble Lord was then a Member—there was a reform Bill for this House. It was put before us that we should be reformed and we were given various details. I wish to remind the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and any Members who were not here, that most of us who were here—including hereditary peers such as the noble Lords, Lord Denham, Lord Elton, Lord Carrington and myself —voted for the reform of this House of Lords by Parliament. What happened? That other place down there, under the influence of Tony Wedgwood Benn, Michael Foot, Enoch Powell and Hugh Fraser (son-in-law of the noble Earl, Lord Longford), made an unholy alliance for whatever reason not to reform us.
We must remind noble Lords opposite—most of whom are missing tonight—that it was not Members on this side who stopped the reform of this House. It was the House of Commons which did not want to see the House of Lords given more reasonable powers to check whether perchance it had extreme views. Those in the other place preferred us to be thought of as silly old hereditary Peers whom they could run down with silly speeches. We were willing to be reformed; the other place stopped that. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that his suggestion is non-existent.
If I may go on and bore your Lordships I wish to point out that I am not a feminist. I note that in last week's Sunday Telegraph the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for whom I have the utmost affection and respect, stated that he was proud to think that all his descendants would be worthy of his ancestral office. I could not agree more. From what I know of him, his wife and his noble family, all are brilliant, clever, intelligent and attractive. We should be proud to have any one of them in this House. We are not in the business of selecting who should come here. We all agree that we have wonderful children. I hope that we would not be in this business if we did not.
Perhaps I may appeal to your Lordships. As my noble but slightly distant kinsman the Duke of Norfolk said—and I am proud to be his heir general because, had the female lines gone, I should be Duke of Norfolk—and as another noble kinsman, the Earl of Shrewsbury, said, I am kinsman to the barony of Talbot. If the earldom of Shrewsbury had gone to the female line I should also be Earl of Shrewsbury because I am heir general to that family. I am well in the business of heirs general; I know all about it. But it would not do me any good.
We in my family were made peers in the male line. The father of the first Lord Stourton was Speaker of the House of Commons in 1414. Unfortunately, he died a fortnight later and so held the office for the shortest time on record. I do not believe that he was poisoned or assassinated, but he was Speaker for a
1138
fortnight in 1414. In 1448 his son was made Lord Stourton having fought in France and having been Treasurer to the King. That then involved a certain amount of money manipulation as now. Unfortunately, the money did not come to us; I suspect that it went to the King. We have been peers in the male line since 1448.
Since then my family has grown up aware that it is the family of Stourton in the male line. All members of my family know that they are the Stourton family. Who is the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I ask myself, to ask this House to disinherit the House of Stourton, the House of Talbot from the Shrewsburys, the House of Howard from the Norfolks, and the Somersets from the Duke of Beaufort who is a direct descendant of John of Gaunt? The noble Lord wants to destroy the history of England. Families are thought of as in the male line.
I seriously suggest—and without being anti-feminist, which I am not—that when daughters marry they think of themselves as marrying into their husbands' families. The noble Lord presupposes that when they marry they say, "To hell with my husband's family, I am going to be myself." That is a Lady Summerskill idea. There are others like Lady Summerskill whom I respected a great deal. I suggest that nine out of 10 people in this country regard a family line as being in the male line.
I think of Lord Rhodes who used to sit over there on the Labour Party's Privy Council Benches. He was a great Yorkshireman; the first Yorkshireman to be made a Lord Lieutenant of Lancashire. He fought in the First World War and received an Air Force gallantry medal. He was regarded with affection by Members on all sides of the House. He led three delegations to China to trade. Her Majesty the Queen thought the world of him and gave him her personal gift of the Garter. He was the one who used to say, "My Lords, I was born a manufacturer, my son is a manufacturer. We are manufacturers now", which noble Lords opposite would like to repeat today; we all would. But I remember that Lord Rhodes used to say to me, "Do you know, Charles, I can tell you that I am son of Bloggs who was son of Bloggs who was son of Bloggs?". He could go back 16 or 18 generations. When Her Majesty the Queen accepted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, to make him a Peer the then Garter, Sir Anthony Wagner, thought he would check up on that inheritance by rote. And do you know, blow me down, he found every one of them absolutely on the ball and accurate. That was a family in the male line.
As regards Welsh families, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is proud of his Welsh descent, as was the late Lord Elwyn-Jones. They knew the male line descent. People do not really know their mother's lines, they knew their father's lines. Perhaps I may give as an example Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If one wants to have a kind of Polynesian descent of mother to daughter to daughter one goes mother to daughter to daughter to daughter, and ends up with the Queen of Spain. That is the daughter's daughter's daughter's daughter's daughter. There you are! She is highly respectable. But do you think that she is conscious of

1139
the fact that she is part of that family? Her mother was mother to the King of Greece. Another ancestor was married to a Hanoverian, another was married to a Prussian, and so on. If one takes the male line there is the Gloucester family and if one takes the heir general one ends up with Her Majesty the Queen. That is what most of us would agree is about the right thing. That inheritance goes in the male line must not be disregarded. Royal families are exceptional.
Supposing the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, had not existed. I think of his four noble cousins, the four daughters only one of whom has children, and that is probably Lady Jane who married my godson. He is an MP in the other House, and his father is the Marquess of Lothian. How silly would it be for the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl Marshal, to suddenly appear in the title of Kerr, Marquess of Lothian, ranked as an MP who is tending to say that he is not going not to take up the title? The male line is not something to be disregarded.
I have taken far too long, and I apologise, but I feel strongly about the Bill. Male line inheritances ought not to be discarded, especially as I see before me just sitting down the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Can you imagine a Cecil suddenly having a daughter he dislikes who inherits and who marries a Bloggins? It would be appalling. I beg your Lordships please to repel the Bill.
9.1 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I wish to support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I do not think that this Bill has been properly thought out. It gives a Peer the right to petition the Queen to change the destination of his peerage along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has explained. How is the Queen to decide whether or not to grant this petition? Who will be her advisers? These questions have not been addressed.
Another thing that worries me is that surely meddling with the wishes of a previous monarch regarding the succession of a peerage which he created, in many cases hundreds of years ago, is a little like setting aside the wishes of a testator clearly expressed in his will. It should certainly not be done lightly. Then when you have meddled once there is nothing to stop you meddling again. If the wishes of the creator are to be set aside once, why should they not be set aside for a second time to enable, shall we say, adopted children to inherit? I am a little worried.
Then there is the question of the monarchy itself. I have a nasty feeling that any change to the rules governing the destination of hereditary peerages may also affect the destination of the monarch. I must emphasise that I am thinking of situations that might arise in future generations. Incidentally, the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, who, alas, is not in her place now, expressed great admiration for various female sovereigns that England has been lucky enough to have, starting with Queen Elizabeth I. I must take issue with her over that. I cannot share that admiration because she had my Queen beheaded, and I think out of jealousy.
1140
A better recipe for causing quarrels and ill feeling in families would be hard to devise were one to set about trying to do exactly that. Let me put to your Lordships the case of a Peer who does not wish to speak in this debate on account of his own interests. He is in his 70s and has three daughters but no son; he has granddaughters but no grandsons. His heir, also in his 70s, is his younger brother, who has two sons and also grandsons, and who has for many years expected that one day he or his eldest son will succeed.
Should this Bill become law this hapless noble Lord is being confronted with the possibility of having to decide whether or not to petition the Queen on this issue, because he would have to consider on the one hand the interests of his eldest daughter, an extremely competent middle-aged woman who would be justifiably aggrieved if her father did not do anything, and on the other hand he would have to consider the interests of his brother, his nephews and his great-nephews, who would be justifiably aggrieved if he did. There is certainly plenty of scope for family discord here, and, in some other cases where property is entailed with the peerage, for a lawyers' bonanza too.
Incidentally, my eldest daughter and heir views with a jaundiced eye the possibility of being under pressure from her eldest daughter to disinherit her little brother in her favour. It really is no use the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, saying what he said in his letter to the Telegraph. Somerset Herald, in his letter to the Telegraph on 10th November, was quite right about the uncertainty and discord that this Bill would cause in families.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, rightly says that this is not a Bill about the House of Lords. But, as I see it, the only point in being a Peer is to be entitled to a seat in this House. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has taken into consideration that this House depends heavily on quite young hereditary Peers as Ministers and Whips, whose jobs are often too arduous nowadays to be undertaken by a good many older men? They are able to undertake the jobs that they do because most of them have wives to run their homes and look after their children.
If these young Peers had been supplanted by their sisters, it really is ridiculous to suppose that the sisters would be able to do the job equally well. Women have babies. Women nurse babies. Both are time-consuming and exhausting jobs which cannot be done by anyone else and are incompatible with strenuous careers on the Front Bench, or indeed regular attendance and activity on the Back Benches. Even I, an old woman whose children are now on the threshold of middle age, suffer from a degree of conflict of interest between my duty to my husband, home and family and my duties here.
I do not think that men have this problem to the same extent. Incidentally, for that and other reasons, I think that what has been done to the eldest Swedish princess by a lot of woolly-minded do-gooders in making her the heir to the throne over her brother's

1141
head is just sheer cruelty. I am here through an accident of war, but I should not have wished to inherit over the head of a younger brother.
At the end of the day the rule that governs the destination of many Scots peerages—that is, to heirs general—has much to be said for it. There is no going into abeyance: it is cut and dried and the lawyers do not make a penny. An excellent letter in today's Telegraph from Charles Kidd, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, suggests amending the law governing the destination of English and UK peerages to bring it into line with what I have just described. The succession of the monarchy would not be affected, for that is how it devolves. If it were deemed sensible to make any change, that is what I should recommend. However, any change should be the outcome of serious consideration by the Lord Chancellor with those knowledgeable about these matters, and should be the subject of a Government Bill, not a Private Member's Bill. I assume that this Bill is intended to apply to Scots peerages too. If so, it will apply in some cases—those where there are letters patent extant or on record. In many cases—for example, the earldom of Erroll and my own—there are not.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, went in some detail into the rules of inheritance of peerages in Scotland. However, as I understand it, there is one thing that he did not say; namely, that as recently as 1962 or 1963, the Lord Advocate said:
"On the whole matter I am of opinion that the pre-Union procedure has never been abrogated and is still legally competent".
Under that procedure you could resign your peerage to the Crown and petition the Crown for a re-grant so as to alter the destination. If anything is to be done, that would be a sensible way of doing it.
I believe that this is a thoroughly pernicious little Bill and that it is quite unamendable. It is curious how often the smallest Bills seek to do the most harm and I hope that your Lordships will vote against it.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I hesitated before putting my name down to speak in this debate because the more I have looked at the subject, the more complex a matter I have found both it and the history behind it. I am bound to say that everything I have heard this evening has added weight to my anxieties about the complexity of the subject upon which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has embarked.
The Bill as drafted may appear innocuous enough at face value and in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, with every good intention I am sure, has described it, but closer examination of what it says leaves me in no doubt whatever that it is highly undesirable. As others have said, notably my noble friend Lord Denham, and as was so well illustrated by my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Mowbray and Stourton, its effect would be to put some of your Lordships in intolerably invidious positions, although I accept that it might please some others.
On hearing the many arguments that have been put forward this evening, the ramifications of the Bill seem to go much wider than that. The Bill is narrowly
1142
drawn as regards the purpose described by Clause 1, but the Long Title goes much wider than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, himself explained. To that extent, I suppose the Bill is amendable, should it be granted a Second Reading, but if it is granted a Second Reading, how on earth could it sensibly be amended?
I must confess that the scope for amendment to introduce a variety of changes to the principle of hereditary peerages seems very substantial. Any examination of the principle, let alone the scope, of the Bill would have to be thoroughly researched over a considerable period by a body of real experts. To try to tackle the subject piecemeal—and, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I think this is what his Bill invites, even if he does not intend it—would be likely to throw up many more problems than it would solve and certainly many more than can be adequately considered in a debate such as this evening's.
There is one issue which, notwithstanding the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, may be ripe for consideration at some point; namely, the case of titles becoming extinct when there is no male heir. I must immediately say that I do not have an interest to declare in that respect, but perhaps several of your Lordships are faced with that situation.
Because of the wide nature of the Long Title of the Bill, it has been suggested that it may be possible to amend the Bill to give effect to the transmission of a title through the senior heiress so as to avoid the title becoming extinct. This might require the holder of the hereditary peerage, faced with the extinction of the title under the terms of the original patent, to petition the Queen to amend the terms of the letters patent. It might even be possible to include a proviso that thereafter the peerage must descend according to the terms of the original patent.
I am not convinced that such a procedure is either desirable or practicable. I can of course see its attraction for some, but on the other hand peerages have become extinct many times over the centuries, although until comparatively recently hereditary peerages have been fairly commonly created and have replaced to some extent those which have become extinct. It may be that the effect of such a change would be to introduce the concept of heirs general, with all that that might imply: a question which was addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey. I most certainly do not believe that this Bill is a suitable vehicle for such a change, although I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to wind up, may be able to address the validity or otherwise of the point that I have made. For my part, I shall certainly support the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in considering this brief Bill—perhaps too brief—which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has brought before us, I think it is important to rule out those issues which I believe should not influence the view we take. The first of these concerns the whole principle of a chamber of peers dominated numerically by the hereditary

1143
peerage. Some feel that this is wrong for the composition of a second chamber which still has significant legislative powers. The holders of such views tend to want an elected chamber although on a different basis from the House of Commons, possibly through the regions, to produce something much nearer a senate.
If that were to come about, the whole terminology would change. Peers of Parliament would cease to exist and if hereditary peers continued to attempt to preserve their order or their caste it would be as a sideshow, without constitutional significance, whose activities would rightly be relegated from Hansard to Jennifer's Diary. In such circumstances who succeeded to which title would be of little or no public significance and it would be hardly worth legislating about.
However, that is not the situation in which we find ourselves and it would not be proper to use this debate or this Bill to advance that day. We are not talking about root and branch laws reform, down which path the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, perhaps strayed a little. We are talking about a situation in which hereditary peers still come to Parliament, where they exert a significant influence on legislation which affects all sections of the community, male and female alike. That is the role that they may continue to exercise for some time to come; so short of wreck or reform there is a legitimate public interest in the composition of this Chamber, quite apart from the question of sex discrimination, which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seeks to address.
If it is generally accepted that this is something worth debating and legislating on, I can see that a cynic might advance a further objection. He might object to the tidying up or the modernisation, if you like, of peerage law in that it would reverse or slow down the already very slow process whereby the hereditary peerage withers on the vine through extinctions. If women were able to inherit United Kingdom peerages, as they can inherit Scottish peerages, some extinctions would clearly be avoided. I would consider the argument of withering on the vine a disreputable approach but, with or without some extra women peers, that process could take centuries and the only honest way ahead in this regard would be a conscious decision by Parliament to disestablish the hereditary element by excluding it from Parliament. There may be arguments for and against that, but it would be the only proper way ahead. So natural wastage is not a viable option, and therefore not a good reason for debarring a certain number of additional women.
Traditionalists may snort that it would be sacrilege to tamper with the status quo, and some have already this evening. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, for whom I have the greatest respect, referred to "interfering with history" and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, who spoke with passion, referred to destroying the history of England. According to this view, the peerage grew up in the mists of antiquity and is an estate on its own, with laws, rules and observances that brook no change. The noble Duke,
1144
the Duke of Norfolk, talked of multiple peerages, as did the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. But these are almost exclusively the preserve of the older aristocracy. In relation to the vast majority of peerages the facts are at odds with the traditionalist position. It is not only the life peerage which is a recent creation, but of the 776 current hereditary peerages approximately 620 have been created since 1831: that was the year of the Reform Bill. Nearly 500 of those were created during or since 1918, the end of the First World War. There were few multiple peerages then.
Of course, it is an adornment and an important reminder of our past that we have Mowbrays, Howards and Talbots in this House. They make an important contribution to its work. But the fact remains that the connection of the vast majority of Peers with the age of chivalry, when being a Peer was a man's work, is extremely tenuous and frequently non-existent.
On all those grounds it is perfectly reasonable and perhaps timely to look at some of the anomalies and inequities of the hereditary system as it exists. As long as it exists in its present form and fulfils a constitutional function, it should do so—I would suggest—in such a way as to conform broadly to the general body of law and custom and to the growing, if still incomplete, tendency towards equal treatment of the sexes in most walks of life.
I turn to the single clause of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on the precise wording of which considerable doubts have been expressed, some of which I share. My noble friend Lord Jauncey, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and even the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—although he said he intended to vote for it—were all concerned that if the election of the heir is to be left to the discretion of the parent to the extent that a male heir under the present system may be passed over in favour of an elder sister, that could give rise to extremely tense family relations and disputes and be almost unworkable on that score.
I have some sympathy with that feeling. It may be better to specify simply the eldest child of the body, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, wanted to do. Some may feel that that also was too radical and prefer simply that United Kingdom peerages are put in the same position as peerages in Scotland, which, after all, has given us the great benefit that we already enjoy of a number of Scottish Peeresses in their own right, among them the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who has just spoken.
Whatever the different views on those matters, the proper place to discuss them is in Committee, and that is why I support the Second Reading of the Bill. It both deserves and requires a Committee stage at which it may be considerably altered or even, as my noble friend Lord Jauncey suggested, rewritten. He did not seem to think that that was a good idea. With respect to him, it is not unknown even with major Public Bills which have received considerable transformations in your Lordships' House.
I have another reason for supporting the Second Reading and securing a Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, addressed the question of sex

1145
discrimination. The Long Title of the Bill is quite sufficiently wide—as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, pointed out—for me to address an additional problem which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not touch on; namely, that of discrimination on the grounds of illegitimacy.
Here I must declare an interest. My own son and only child was born outside wedlock. His mother and I subsequently married when we were in a position to do so and he was thereby legitimated for virtually all purposes other than inheriting a title of honour. As a matter of general principle the Law Commissions, both of England and Wales and Scotland, recommended in various reports the removal of legal discrimination against persons born outside marriage. Those recommendations have been largely adopted by Parliament in subsequent legislation such as the Legitimacy Act 1976, the Family Law Reform Acts of 1969 and 1987 and the Children Act of 1989.
Bromley's Family law, 8th edition 1992, states that the Family Law Reform Acts removed many of the remaining differences between children whose parents were married to each other and those who were not. Children of unmarried parents now have full rights of intestate succession and can succeed, for example, as an heir to an entailed estate. The Legitimacy Act 1976 had already much reinforced the position of subsequently legitimated children particularly in relation to citizenship. To all that there is one outstanding exception. A person legitimated by subsequent matrimony is still unable to inherit a title of honour.
As far as I know the Law Commission has not yet proposed any change in the law in that respect. But the Law Commission for England and Wales, in its Report No. 118 of 1982 on grants of hereditary peerages, states:
"If the form of words currently prescribed were to be changed so as to allow illegitimate persons to qualify, it might be necessary to consider whether this change is consistent with the judicial principle that the Crown cannot give a grant of a Dignity or Honour to a 'quality of Descent unknown to the Law".
But it goes on to say:
"Any power which the Crown lacks in this respect may of course be provided by an Act of Parliament (as with the Life Peerages Act 1958)".
So there seems little doubt that Parliament could act in relation to this and other matters if it saw fit. It has in fact, as far as I can see, already modified the definition of,
"Descent unknown to the Law"
in other respects and could go further if it wanted. If this Bill proceeds to Committee I am therefore minded to look for a form of words, perhaps by adding after the words "lawfully begotten" the further words "or subsequently legitimated" to the principal clause.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have many points to pick up from this debate. He has been asked a number of questions. If he can give some indication of his view on illegitimacy, subsequently rectified by matrimony, as a debarment to inheritance of peerage, that would be much appreciated.
In conclusion, there is nothing God-given or sacrosanct about peerage law. There is no reason why
1146
it should not move with the times. It may not have to move very far. I do not know if we want to go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. There seems to be a general feeling around the House that perhaps we do not. But alternatives can only be tested at Committee stage and for that reason I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask one question of him and the House. If I am right in saying that his direct male ancestor was legitimately the Jacobite Earl of Kilmarnock, was he not a Scottish Peer created before 1707? Was not that title attainted after the '45 rebellion? Has not every Jacobite title attainted since the '45 rebellion been unattainted except his earldom? Therefore, if Her Majesty, advised by the Government, were to advise that he should be unattainted, would he not legitimately be the Earl of Kilmarnock now and—because it was a pre-1707 Scottish peerage title whereby if one married the girl by whom the child was born it legitimated the child, which is Scottish law—his son undoubtedly be the Earl of Kilmarnock in his due time?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, nobody yields to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray Segrave and Stourton, in knowledge of genealogy and peerage law both north and south of the Border. What he is saying is broadly correct, although there is some considerable process which would have to be gone through. I am not sure that he is entirely correct in saying that my son would automatically inherit. That would be a matter for further discussion. I did not wish to bring that up within the context of this Bill. In the last part of my speech I was looking at the question of illegitimacy in general as it applies to the inheritance of peerages in the United Kingdom.
9.29 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, after that intervention I rise with some trepidation to make what I can only describe as my maiden speech Mark Two from the comfort of the Back Benches after six years in the wilderness on the Front Bench. And it makes a change to be able to deliver a speech which I have written myself. I can therefore declare truthfully that I agree with everything that I am about to say.
I must first declare an interest. I have four daughters and no son. I have a younger brother who has a son. Incidentally, I have two older sisters. So it is fair to say that I can look at the problem from most angles.
The title which I bear is of relatively recent origin, my father having come to this House from another place in 1937. There is therefore no strong historical background to influence my feelings about the importance of continuity. On the other hand, I believe strongly in the importance of the hereditary system in this Chamber as a way of continuously bringing in a younger generation of Peers, often with wide interests and experience and knowledge of matters other than party politics.
But every system has to be examined from time to time to see whether it can be improved, and that is why

1147
the House, I am sure, is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the subject. My criticism of the Bill lies in the fact that it gives an hereditary Peer the power to choose his successor. This, to my mind, would only lead to endless arguments and family rows. I shall not enlarge on that as the point has been fully covered by my noble friend Lord Denham, by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in what I thought was an excellent speech, and by other noble Lords. However, in spite of that, I shall vote for the Bill on Second Reading as a step towards further discussion. What I would support wholeheartedly is an amendment to remove the element of choice, stating simply that, where there is no son, a daughter (the eldest if there is more than one) should be able to succeed to the title.
As we are talking about heredity, perhaps I may introduce a personal note before I sit down. The reason I am here is that Stanley Baldwin introduced my father to my mother. After an active political career, my father came to this House with Stanley Baldwin on his resignation as Prime Minister in 1937. My mother took over from my father as Member of Parliament for Hemel Hempstead at the by-election, a seat which she held until she retired in 1959. Incidentally, she was made a life Baroness in 1963 and, after my father died, she and I sat together on these Benches for 15 years until she died seven years ago. I could expand on that, but I shall not tonight.
Her father, my maternal grandfather, Mr. Dickinson, later Sir Willoughby Dickinson, was a Liberal, who had been Member of Parliament for North St. Pancras from 1906 to 1918. He was a leading advocate of women's suffrage and introduced a Bill for women's suffrage in another place as early as 1907. On 10th January 1918 he wrote in his diary:
"The House of Lords has passed the Women's Suffrage clauses by 134 to 69. So this job of mine is finished".
In 1930 Ramsay MacDonald offered him a peerage. His introduction to the House of Lords was performed by Archbishop Davidson (no relative, although he had christened me the year before), and my grandfather took the Labour Whip.
I apologise for introducing this potted personal history, but it seemed to illustrate the dilemma which I feel I am in. How would my father, my mother, my maternal grandfather —all sometime Members of this House—have voted tonight? My grandfather would, I am sure, have voted for the Bill. My father, who always expressed pride that he was descended directly from John Knox, who wrote a pamphlet entitled, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, would, I guess, have voted against the Bill, and my mother would have just told me to make up my own mind.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we have heard a great deal about history and about equal rights in relation to this Bill. As has been pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the main problem with the Bill is that it provides an element of choice. That is something with which everybody has some difficulty. All the
1148
hereditary Peers in this place have arrived here by accident. No choice has been exercised over whether we arrive here or not. We are all the beneficiaries of some biological lottery. Thus, if the element of choice is provided in the Bill, we have a problem because, even if it happens in only one generation, somebody will have to decide who will succeed to the title. Before deciding how I shall vote tonight I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, when he comes to speak again, what kind of amendment he would be prepared to introduce to try to overcome this difficulty.
I can see no reason why we should not have a system whereby the eldest child inherits the title. That would have removed me from the Chamber as I have an elder sister; indeed my father had an elder sister. But it is very easy to be generous once one has arrived, and I feel no moral problem about saying that henceforth the title should go down through the female line.
To counter the point that has been made about history, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, and to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, that, although we may have a historical past, we also have a political present. We affect the decisions that are taken now and we will affect decisions that are taken in the future. If we intend to use this position of privilege, we must be prepared to change. Unless we are prepared so to do, we cannot effectively carry on being part of the political system of the country.
It does not really matter if we have a great political past or that we have a great tradition of family. I am no expert on the subject but, when I was doing my A-levels and later when I was at university, I remember reading speeches made in the House of Commons about the Great Reform Bill. There were many marvellous speeches about family ties to a rotten borough. They were family property, quite literally. There was family control over county seats. One can justify more or less anything if one takes a historical precedent.
In addition, the reasons why we have arrived in this Chamber might not in today's parlance be all that acceptable. In my own situation, I think it would be a case of the nouveau riche of the 19th century acquiring land, political power and status and thus being rewarded by a place in your Lordships' House. Was that actually a very beneficial process? One can go back further. Should the descendants of people who were leading groups of the mediaeval equivalent of the heavy battle tank in military triumph and behaving to their tenants like the equivalent of Hell's Angels on horseback be in the position of exercising political power? Those are the questions we should ask ourselves when we decide how we should vote.
I agree that there are certain problems with the Bill. However, before we make a decision, we should listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is prepared to accept and what changes he would suggest. We are not just a political past. We are a political present and future. If we lose sight of that we make our own position totally untenable.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I must declare an interest in the Bill as I inherited my English title from my mother and she in her turn from her mother. We have, therefore, as a family, a little experience of what life would be like if a Bill of this kind were passed.
I can reassure your Lordships that we have retained all the sense of family and history that is associated with male succession despite swapping surnames every other generation and leaving a trail of extinguished male only titles behind us. The association of the concept of family with the male family name is not a necessary one. We seem at last to be entering a world, or at least a part of one, where the qualities associated with women are recognised by men as being the equal of their own. Our constitution is one that evolves, that survives and gains strength through change. Whether or not the hereditary peerage remains part of this House, but certainly while it does, we should give most serious consideration to making changes to reflect this fundamental and permanent change in our society. Every other element of the House is now committed to the principle of equality, and we have some catching up to do.
This is a simple Bill that raises many thorny and complicated issues, but ones that it is important that we should address. If, at the end of the debate, we find ourselves with no better alternative forum, we should allow the Bill to go forward to Committee at an early date. The anxieties reasonably expressed by my noble friend Lord Denham and others should surely be debated at length rather than being a reason to close debate now.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships as an avowed feminist and an avowed admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. Nevertheless, I am afraid that I cannot possibly support his Bill for two reasons.
First, the Bill has fatal and fundamental flaws which are not susceptible of improvement in Committee. Secondly, the issues that it raises are part of a wider issue; namely, the composition and responsibilities of your Lordships' House—those two being interconnected are part of a wide spectrum of constitutional issues which are now clamant for consideration by a Royal Commission. I shall run through them: there is the referendum which seems to have come upon the Government unexpectedly so that we are all unprepared to consider in what circumstances a referendum is justified and who frames the questions; then there is the question of devolution. I refer not to the break-up of the United Kingdom which was fairly before the electorate at the general election, but to the much more modest and moderate case that was urged, for example, by my noble friend Lord Perth and which obviously demands consideration.
If there is to be devolution—I am sure that we shall be faced with it within this Parliament or at the next general election—how is it to be financed? What effect will it have upon representation at Westminster, as to
1150
the residual powers of the United Kingdom Parliament and as to specifically English issues which are similar to those which are devolved? What will be the Scottish representation in those cases? That is the second big issue.
There is also the question of what is to happen in a hung Parliament, a question which has barely been considered and which is liable to be extremely embarrassing to the monarch and to all who value her independence and prerogative. Finally, as I said, there is the question of the composition and the powers of your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that the Government hope that by shutting their eyes many of those problems will simply disappear. I do not believe that for a moment. They seem sometimes to think that by sticking their heads deep into the sand the wind will not ruffle their tail feathers. That is hopeless. Those problems, together with the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has posed to us, have to be considered and considered at a high level.
I turn from those issues to the flaws in the Bill. They arise from the fact that an option is given which seems to be considered in two ways. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and some of the other Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in support of the Bill seem to think that the option carries the day, that the Queen, the monarch, is bound to accept the choice of the holder of the title. But that is not what the Bill says. It says that there is a discretion. Whether it is a binding convention that the monarch has to accept the option of the holder of the title or whether there is a discretion, either course is equally objectionable.
Let us take first the binding force of the option exercised by the holder of the title. At the moment, the monarch is the fount of all honour and the succession to a peerage is governed by law and not by discretion. But what is proposed, if there is a binding option, is that an individual Member of your Lordships' House can control the membership of the House. That is surely quite unacceptable.
If there is a discretion, who is to exercise it? The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, seemed to suggest that it would be exercised by the Queen herself, but it is surely quite impossible to bring her into the family squabbles which a disputed decision presupposes. What normally happens in a dispute as to who is entitled to be called to your Lordships' House is that the law officers advise the monarch and identify any issue of fact, although that is rare. It may arise, for example, on a paternity issue and also on the issues of law.
The monarch refers the question on the basis of that advice to your Lordships' House and your Lordships refer it to the Committee for Privileges. Half the committee members are lawyers and half are lay Peers. It is quite impossible for them to sort out, as a matter of discretion, whether the option shall be implemented. It would be one thing to enact that unisex primogeniture—in other words the succession of the eldest child, whether male or female—should replace male primogeniture, but that is not what the Bill does. That would be logical and sensible to a feminist but it is not what the Bill does. In any case,

1151
it would require to be carefully considered in relation, for example, to succession to the Crown and also in relation to property.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was not quite right when he said that the Bill does not affect property rights. Although entail has largely but not wholly disappeared from our law, there are several estates which devolve with the title. That was the case, I recollect, in the Fitzwilliam peerage case fairly soon after the war when very large sums passed with the title. Either way of operating the option is deeply flawed and is quite unsusceptible of being put right in Committee. As I have said, this is not a Bill to substitute unisex primogeniture for male primogeniture.
However, we are in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for having raised this issue. If my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would indicate that consideration would be given to having the issues raised by this Bill, and all the other issues which I have mentioned, investigated by a Royal Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would have once again performed a valuable service to your Lordships' House.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will not mind if I slightly disagree with him because, rightly or wrongly, I accept the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is introducing this Bill for daughters to inherit peerages as a part of the ongoing process of achieving equal opportunities for women. Before going any further, I must congratulate the noble Lord upon giving us so much notice of this Bill. He let us know his intention to introduce this Bill last summer. One is rarely given such warning of a Bill. We had plenty of notice.
The main object of this Bill is to entitle daughters to inherit titles. Therefore I shall start by discussing the history of women gaining opportunities as it is the expression "equal opportunities"—that is a far nicer expression than "sexual discrimination"—which is on offer. That history must surely begin with the Married Women's Property Act 1882. There had been nibbles at the injustice in question going back to 1874, but I am sure my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would agree that that Act was the most important one, as I believe it applied to Scotland. I have discovered in the Library that the Act passed in 1962 resolved that situation. However, the important date is that of the Act of 1882.
Again it is that Act rather than the vote that women gained in 1919 that was the turning point. It was surely utterly iniquitous for the husband to have control of the wife's finances. I hope your Lordships will bear with me as I explain this. The argument about that had continued for a century or two before then. As a genealogist I have read many wills where fathers have left money to their daughters. Those fathers have stated that their money or property should be left for
1152
their daughters' sole use and not for the use of their daughters' husbands. I am sure that was done with good reason.
Following that Act the vote for women under 28 was established in 1919 and the rest is history. I must add that women played an important role in commerce long before those two statutory events. Usually those women were widows but sometimes they were spinsters. They had to employ a runner in their commercial activities. There have been many situations since where women's paths have been cleared though that has usually not been easy. Since then women have held responsible positions in life. Walls have ceased to exist and barriers have been broken down. Hurdles have been flattened and the path is now fairly dry.
I now turn to the Bill itself. I have given great thought to it since I met the noble Lord on the stairs and I believe firmly that the holder of a title is totally unsuited to deciding which heir to choose. That personal choice could be invidious, creating bitterness and unhappiness. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we do not want that to enter into the argument.
Where wealth is involved it does not matter whether the amount involved is £50 or £500,000 to the beneficiaries. It must be made clear. There is so much gerrymandering. People are kept on a string. We do not want it to be possible for a Peer to say, "You are not going to get my title". We cannot allow any individual Peer to decide the issue. Even if it was extended to the family that could be distorted.
We will all be familiar with instances where it has not been decided who will get grandfather's half-hunter watch. It will probably go to Cousin Edgar, who, at the first opportunity, will take it to the market. There might be Aunt Lucy's brooch of amethysts and garnets, surrounded by pearls. It is an heirloom, but it has not been decided who will receive it. Everything must be clear cut. I say to your Lordships that we must make this issue clear cut.
My noble friend Lord Denham made a remarkable speech on 19th November 1968 (reported in cols. 699 to 706 of Hansard of that date) in relation to the proposed reform of your Lordships' House. I felt that his argument today was rather thin in comparison to his argument on that occasion, when his was a striking speech. We are not contesting hereditary peerages this evening.
I cannot accept the Bill as it stands, but I am sure that it is worthy of amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, could give a clear undertaking that he would be prepared to accept an amendment that would allow daughters to receive a peerage as of right through primogeniture. I am sure that that would enrich the hereditary principle. In my humble submission, I believe that we should agree to a Second Reading and go through the processes. There are several stages which would follow, and I believe that we should consider this very important Bill.
9.57 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Strafford on his maiden speech. I hope that he will make many more contributions in the future.
When I put my name down to speak on the Bill I did so with the sole intention of expressing my support for greater representation of women Peers in your Lordships' House. While I remain resolute on that stand I must admit that having spoken to many noble Lords before the debate today and having listened to the excellent, cogent and in many cases complex speeches I am all the more confused. I had intended initially to support the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but I shall certainly look for more assurances when he closes the debate before deciding which way to vote in a Division.
I have heard some noble Lords describe the Bill as an attempt to start the ball rolling and ultimately to abolish hereditary peerages. I do not agree with that approach. Without speaking my own book, I believe that hereditary Peers have a valuable and constructive role to play in your Lordships' House, both through their contributions to debates, through Select Committees and in the many other roles which they play. I took exception to the recent Channel 4 programme, which in my opinion gave a biased, inaccurate and skewed overview of the functionings of your Lordships' House.
As the twentieth speaker in this Second Reading debate it is difficult to come up with novel arguments that have not already been raised. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, mentioned, the Bill relates to the subject of sex discrimination and the power of Her Majesty to amend the letters patent of hereditary peerages. I shall not dwell on my argument for the retention of the role of hereditary peers. I am the 21st St. John of Bletso, a title which was created in 1559. I have not yet had the good fortune of getting married and setting up a family. But I do have a male heir who is a fairly distant relation. Should I become a father only of girls, I personally would wish that my eldest surviving daughter should inherit my title.
However, having said that, I do not support the wording of the Bill before us. I agree with the criticisms expressed and the concerns of many noble Lords; namely, that giving the holder of an hereditary title the option of applying to Her Majesty to amend the letters patent so as to pass on the title to the eldest child, being a female, rather than to a younger or more distant male, could lead to massive abuse. It could certainly lead to dashed expectations and even to serious family feuds. While I am sympathetic to the call for the eldest child to inherit the title irrespective of sex, I accept the strong feelings and arguments of those noble Lords who feel that it would undermine the inheritance system.
Peerages are described by many as a particular kind of inheritance which should be passed only through the male line. But I feel that there is scope for a re-think of this policy should there be no male in line.
As several noble Lords have mentioned, the House of Lords was originally a feudal assembly required to do military or knightly service for the sovereign. It was
1154
never intended that females should lead their soldiers into battle. Thankfully, contemporary thinking and policies have changed and there is no denying the invaluable role that women Peers play in your Lordships' House.
I am particularly in favour of allowances being made to hereditary Peers whose titles are destined to become extinct as they have no male heirs but have daughters. I would welcome the concession being granted in those cases to petition Her Majesty to amend the letters patent, thus allowing the eldest daughter to take on the title. I would also recommend that more special remainders be granted—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—in the event of more hereditary titles being created in the future.
In conclusion, though I am not in favour of the wording of the Bill, I strongly support the objective to increase the balance of women Peers in your Lordships' House. It may be that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle mentioned, the Bill should be scrapped and totally redrafted from scratch. If, however, the Bill can be amended at Committee stage to provide a compromise for the concerns and desires expressed by many noble Lords today, I believe that it deserves a Second Reading.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, we have heard many arguments for and against the Bill. What I might have been able to say is pure repetition, so I shall not say very much more. My interest in the Bill is purely personal. Unless the present constitution is altered, the Gainford peerage is safe because I have two younger brothers who have between them five sons. I myself have no sons but I have two daughters. I should love it if my eldest daughter could follow me into your Lordships' House. That is my personal wish. I know that my judgment is prejudiced but I believe that she would make a cracking good Member of this House.
I support the Bill and, like other noble Lords, would like to see it go forward to Committee and Report stages. There are always experts available in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords' expertise is well famed and admired throughout the whole world. If the Bill becomes law I have promised that I will make the choice available to me only with the full consent, understanding and, in particular, the good will of my younger brothers and their families. I could not do so otherwise. Having spoken previously about the Bill to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and in the hope that it will go on to further stages, I give it my full support.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I declare an interest and the fact that I hold a recent peerage. I inherited it from my father, who was the first to hold it. In his early days he sat on the Benches opposite. Clement Attlee gave my father the peerage for services in the colonial service. He left those Benches at the time of the nationalisation of steel.
I too have no sons; I have two daughters. Both are as able and capable as I have been perhaps in a small

1155
way and as capable as my younger brother or older sister. My daughters would be capable because they represent the younger generation of women who have as many gifts, capabilities and virtues as any of us men. More women Members will bless this House by their presence.
I hope that if the Bill is passed I can persuade my family that it is only right, natural and proper that my daughter shall succeed. Some noble Lords have implied that only good and excellent virtues can be taken from the male line. I do not believe that families will be broken up if the daughters inherit. If the family is real and true it will not break up. Therefore, that argument is not good. After all, good qualities descend from women too. Those of us who begat daughters hope that our daughters will carry on those good qualities. I am sure that many daughters have carried on the wonderful and decent characters of their fathers.
I know that there are difficulties but I believe that the introduction of the Bill is good. If we delay or dismiss the Bill we shall not be doing women, ourselves, the country or anyone any good. I acknowledge that many of its provisions need tidying up. But surely this House has the ability to do that. For instance, it would not be right or fair for a Peer with an older daughter and a younger son to have to decide after talking with them who should inherit the title. That sort of thing, as has been said already, needs to be put right. It should basically be the eldest who succeeds. If the eldest is a daughter, let it be the daughter. Therefore, I support the Bill.
I do not think it would be at all helpful to delay the Bill. We ought to take courage, accept it, and then believe, even though there may be many things to tidy up and put right, that we can do that in Committee. I hope that that is what will happen. We owe the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, thanks for having the courage to introduce this Bill, because it needed courage to do this.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in thanking my noble friend Lord Diamond for introducing this Bill. Even those who are most strongly opposed to the Bill and its purpose would concede that he has provoked a most fascinating debate in your Lordships' House. We all listened entranced to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and to the possibility that he might simultaneously also have been the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury. For my part I was totally fascinated to discover that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, for whom we all have great respect, actually holds 16 peerages. If in fact the Bill were to pass into law in its present form, which I am bound to say seems rather doubtful, I should think that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, might be able to make quite a notable difference to the composition of this House.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I have just worked it out. It is only nine.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, even nine Peeresses in their own right as part of the noble Duke's contribution to this House would be of great interest to us.
As a mere life Peer I do not have the same family interest in the merits and effects of this Bill as do the Members of your Lordships' House who are hereditary Peers. Those are highly personal issues involving, as has come out poignantly throughout the debate, great family pride and pride in tradition and the role that the family has played in this House, sometimes over many generations. It is not surprising that many different views have been expressed. Indeed not even my colleagues on these Benches have totally agreed with each other about what they wish to say about the Bill.
After some of the absorbing speeches we have heard I am afraid that my duty from this Bench is the rather dull one of seeking to state my party's approach to the issues raised by the Bill. So far as some future reform of the Upper House is concerned, we on these Benches do not believe in the hereditary principle as a modern basis for selecting legislators. On the other hand we believe in your Lordships' House as it is presently constituted, in the principle of equal rights for women to succeed to peerages and to play the part in the work of the House that so many of them already do so notably.
It is not a radical suggestion that lies behind my noble friend's Bill. He is simply seeking to bring the system of hereditary peerages in this House into line with modern ideas about the role and place of women. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said in an extremely interesting way, this House has gone through a continual process of modernisation. Apart from the ancient aristocratic peerages, whose history we listened to with great interest, a large part of the composition of this House is of fairly recent appointment.
In saying that I do not wish to reflect in any way on the contribution that hereditary Peers make to the work of this House. Some of my best friends are hereditary Peers. How could it be otherwise when I find myself, towards the end of my political life, in a party in which life Peers outnumber only narrowly —by 31 to 28—their hereditary colleagues? As regards the hereditary Peers on the Conservative Benches, where normally heredity flourishes—we shall wait to see what happens tonight—and one can always be summoned from the shires to produce a majority, I endorse what has been said by other noble Lords in this debate as regards those who serve on the Front Bench. Many of us admire the way in which the hereditary Members of the ministerial Bench, overworked and underpaid, carry out their duties with zeal and dedication. All things are relative in your Lordships' House and these people add a relatively rejuvenating atmosphere to the work of the House. In the absence of hereditary Peers, the Conservative Government would find it more difficult to provide a working Front Bench than would a Labour Administration.
However, enough of that. This debate has revealed how long the battle has continued to allow women to

1157
sit as hereditary Peers in their own right in your Lordships' House and how resistant the House has been to each change until perhaps it has finally been considered. Having listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I am not sure whether that attitude has totally changed even today. I regard the noble Lord, whose presence on the Front Bench we all miss, as a kind of latter-day Lord Birkenhead, who in the 1920s fought a vigorous campaign to prevent Lady Rhondda taking her place here in the House and who opposed vigorously the efforts made by the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to produce Bills that would have dealt with the disqualification of women. As has been said, it was not until the Peerage Act of 1963 that the small number of women possessing hereditary Peerages were given the right to sit and to vote.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to speak, I hope that perhaps he will agree with me that they order these things better in Scotland, where, from the 12th century onwards, the tradition of heirs general has ruled. Today your Lordships' House benefits from the presence of a number of noble Baronesses who come from that Scottish tradition. I personally was a little saddened that, adorning that tradition as she does, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, seemed so very strongly opposed to spreading the benefits that she has enjoyed to other people coming from south of the Border.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I was not entirely opposed to spreading the benefits that the noble Lord says I enjoy. I said that, if it is done, I thought it should be done by remainder to heirs general, not by the means that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggests.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for that clarification. She certainly sounded pretty opposed to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Diamond.
However, I am bound to say that the whole tenor of the debate, even among those of us who strongly support the objectives of the Bill, has expressed concern about the practical problems of the formula that my noble friend proposes. For my part, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would have been wiser to have adopted the straightforward Scottish principle of descent to heirs general. As has been said, the noble Lord gives hereditary Peers the extremely agonising discretion to decide whether the eldest daughter should succeed to the title or whether it should continue to pass to a younger son.
I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to meet his critics half way—at least I assume that that is why he has put the proposal into the Bill—but it seems to me to be an unsatisfactory compromise. Either there is a consistent principle that the daughters in a Peer's family should be treated on the same basis as the sons, or there is not. It has been argued that this eldest child principle would destroy unacceptably the legitimate expectations on the part of a male heir. I understand the human problem that might very well be involved in that, but it is not a unique human problem confined to the sons of
1158
hereditary peers. In life as it is lived today in this country, there are a very large number of people of all kinds who find that their legitimate expectations are not likely to be fulfilled during their lifetime.
The fact is that much legislative change, like much economic change, is continually destroying the expectations of those who would prefer, like so many of us, an undisturbed status quo. I do not myself think that that is an insuperable objection. However, I agree with those who feel that at the Committee stage of this Bill—and I personally hope that there will be a Committee stage—there will be much to examine and amend, in terms of making progress.
The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, in what I thought was a delightful speech, put forward a modest compromise of his own. I prefer what I have proposed, but his proposal, as I understand it, was that if there was no son the eldest daughter should be entitled to the peerage. That is something worth exploring, as are other ideas that have come up in the debate.
On these Benches, we strongly share the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seeks to achieve with this Bill. We for our part hope that it will be given a Second Reading and that during Committee stage it may be amended in whatever way your Lordships think wisest in order to make it as effective as possible.
10.22 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, like earlier speakers, I should like from these Benches to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, on his maiden speech. He was commendably brief and I agreed with virtually every word that he said. I hope that we shall be hearing from him frequently in this House in the future.
As a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, I am, perhaps naively, still surprised at how little it takes to summon up the forces of reaction or to stir up the seemingly bottomless currents of resistance to the 20th century, or to any change. In your Lordships' House those forces sometimes come clothed in the disguise of reason, like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, or the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur; sometimes such forces come naked and unashamed in the guise of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, whose encyclopaedic knowledge of the breeding of almost everyone in this House leaves me breathless with admiration, even if his views do not.
I had thought that the principles that a woman should be treated by law and in fact as not in any way intrinsically inferior to a man, that a woman should have the same right to play a part in the government of her country as a man does and that discrimination on the grounds of sex is inherently unjust were principles which had found universal favour in our land. I also thought that they had been endorsed by your Lordships' House both in the anti-discrimination legislation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred and in the way in which this House treats those who are presently here as women Peers and who play a full and equal part in its work. But I was wrong.
This modest little Bill, which does no more than to whisper in the ear of noble hereditary Lords that they might, but only if they see fit, care to start to apply

1159
these principles in their own lives and within their own families, has been met with a storm of protest from some of your Lordships, which could scarcely have been louder if the proposed legislation had been intended to close down the College of Arms and make redundancy payments to Garter and the Heralds.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, goes nowhere near as far as we on these Benches, and I sense others too throughout this House, would wish. In our view on these Benches the hereditary principle, while it may serve some quaint, archaic function and be of use perhaps to the tourist trade or on ceremonial occasions, has no place whatever in government. If the Upper Chamber is to survive —and speaking for myself I feel that this House performs a role which is both unique and valuable and without which the government of this nation would be the poorer—full-scale reform will almost certainly be required. But —and now I speak in a personal capacity because there is no Whip on this issue from these Benches—until that time, which may not be that far away, the hereditary principle will continue to play a part, and an important part, in the composition of this House. It is surely therefore desirable that the system should be improved as much as possible during that period.
This House suffers from an acute shortage of women—77 out of 1,217 if my figures are correct. There is no woman as yet on the Bishops Benches, although it is perhaps a little early to expect that; but no women as yet among the Law Lords is inexcusable. While there are young men in this House, some of whom—and I entirely accept and endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, said—represent an age group and points of view which would have no other means of expression in this Chamber, what is noticeable to anyone coming into your Lordships' House is the total absence of young women. My attention was graphically drawn to that shortly after I came into this House by a young hereditary Peer on the other side of the House who is not in the Chamber at present but who, having cast his eye around the occupants of the Library one soporific afternoon, turned to me and said, "The real trouble with this place is that there is absolutely no opportunity for adultery".
While the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not choose to advance that argument in support of his Bill, women who have to deal personally with the difficulties of a home, a young family and a job as well and who constitute a substantial and important part of the population, are virtually totally unrepresented in your Lordships' House today. I confess that I was shocked to hear the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, say that they should remain in that position as they were too busy feeding children. That was a view which I thought had faded into the mists of history and I venture to suggest that no man in your Lordships' House would have dared to advance it in 1992.
For my money the Bill is far too modest in its aims. I should have preferred to be supporting a Bill which, for so long as hereditary peerages continued, required the title to descend automatically to the eldest child
1160
regardless of sex. I understand the noble Lord's reason for taking his present course. He has chosen to present a Bill which seeks to meet the objections of some of those who either want to continue to live in the past when boys were considered preferable to girls, or who choose to perpetuate an injustice in the name of history and tradition and also, to be fair, those who feel that promises and expectations have been made within their families which they wish to honour. The Bill would allow them all to do as they please. Accordingly, I find it difficult to understand many of the objections that are still raised in those respects.
I have great sympathy for those who, under the Bill, would face a hard choice between an eldest daughter and a youngest son. But the picture that certain noble Lords painted and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, of dying Peers with gambling debts possibly being bribed, threatened or blackmailed by their children on their death beds, paints a worrying and disturbing picture of family life among the hereditary aristocracy of which I, as a mere life Peer, was wholly unaware.
A difficult decision for an individual Peer is surely preferable to the automatic insult to the eldest daughter which is currently enshrined and given respectability in the law and which, by its very nature, is an insult not just to the oldest children of hereditary Peers who happen to be girls, but to all women.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, seeks, in effect, to wreck this modest Bill with his amendment. He has done so with great cleverness and without showing his hand at all. Will he tell us whether he thinks it is better that some other reform of the hereditary system of this House takes place or none at all? If, as I suspect, his answer would be, if pressed, that he wishes to keep the status quo, then I hope that his amendment will not attract the support of those who, like me, would ideally have preferred sterner stuff.
For all its shortcomings, defects and faults, this Bill is a step along the right path. The underlying principle is right and whatever its imperfections they should be addressed at a later stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will therefore have my support and also my thanks for prompting, through the introduction of this Bill, an excellent debate which has been an education to all of us who have sat through it in this House. But he also deserves our gratitude for raising this matter at all; the gratitude not simply of women Peers or of potential women Peers, but of all who care about equality and fairness.
10.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I would like to begin by adding my congratulations to those already offered to the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, on his very eloquent and interesting maiden speech. I share also the hope that we shall hear him more often as time goes on.
As has been made clear, this Bill makes provision for Her Majesty to have the power, on a petition from the holder of an hereditary peerage to amend the letters patent creating that peerage so that it may descend to the Peer's eldest legitimate heir whether male or female. I am sure that I have the support of the

1161
whole of your Lordships' House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for drawing the House's attention to this important topic. I am sure that I also speak for the whole House in saying that we have had a most interesting debate and one which has illuminated some interesting corners of the peerage system, with an intimate knowledge displayed on these matters by a number of your Lordships.
The Government are fully in support of equal opportunities for the sexes and understand therefore the principle underlying the Bill. I do not myself think it likely that, in promoting the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was wishing to meet the aspiration of the gentleman whom, apparently, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, met in the Library.
I believe that the Government's record in relation to equal opportunities for the sexes bears out what I have said. I wish to highlight two matters. The first is the Government's full support for the aims of Opportunity 2000, a national campaign to increase the quality and quantity of women's participation at work. As part of this campaign, government departments are producing action plans for improving the position of women in their various areas of responsibility. The second is the Prime Minister's initiative, launched last year, to improve the number of public appointments held by women and members of the ethnic minorities. As a result of that initiative the overall percentage of women holding public appointments has risen from 23 per cent. in 1991 to 26 per cent. at 1st September 1992. The noble Baroness expressed disappointment that there was not yet a woman among the Law Lords. Well who knows what may happen in that connection?
I am sure that I also reflect the views of all of your Lordships in paying tribute to the valuable and hard work done by the female Members of this House. Our debates are much enriched by their contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, pointed out, statistics reveal that female Members have a much better attendance record per head than their male counterparts. I am sure that that is not an accident. In that connection, it is right that I should also warmly support what my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said about our gracious sovereign and the devoted service that she has given to this nation, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the world during her reign. I am sure that we are all anxious that every blessing will attend herself and her family in the years to come.
I should like to say a word or two about the legal background to the Bill. Under English law, the letters patent creating an hereditary peerage must specify, among other matters, the descent of that peerage to future heirs. Any such descent must be of a kind known to the law and it is well established that the Crown cannot grant a peerage which is limited to descend in a form unknown to the law. The rule and practice in modern times are that it must be a limitation to heirs male of the body with an occasional addition of special remainders to bring in the daughters and their issue, brothers, nephews and collaterals, but ultimately the descent is fixed in an heir male line.
1162
My noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle has already indicated the rather different position in relation to Scottish peerages. He referred especially to those created before the Union. Perhaps it would not be advisable for me, speaking from this position, to associate myself too closely with the remarks on this subject of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
The situation is, of course, special in relation to life peerages because of the obvious qualification involved. Consequently, the form of descent proposed in the Bill is one which is unknown to the law and which, without the statutory sanction the Bill would confer, would not be valid.
So far as the object of seeking equal opportunity for the sexes is concerned, I have nothing further to say. However, the Government see several considerable difficulties with the Bill as it is presently drafted, and I wish to speak about it on that basis. First, as most of the speeches have borne out, there is a strong feeling on all sides of the House that the holder of an hereditary peerage holds his peerage in trust, as it were —a tenant, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, rather than a freeholder—for his descendants so that he should not be able to influence the line of succession at his choice. To allow him to do so would both disappoint the legitimate expectations of the male heirs of the Peers in question and also operate retrospectively in the sense that it might remove the vested, albeit contingent, rights of those heirs.
As has been said, it is true that people's expectations are often disappointed, but it is a question of whether it is right to alter these by retrospective legislation—retrospective in the sense that it would affect letters patent granted long before the Bill came into effect. A strong view could certainly be taken that it would be unfair to such heirs and a recipe for unhappy dissension in those families where it is sought to alter the descent of the peerage.
A second difficulty is that to alter peerage law in the way proposed could also create practical problems for those Peers where arrangements have been made for their property to descend, through trusts, to their male heirs. The Government understand the concerns of those who foresee such difficulties arising from the separation of property from title in these circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, referred to this matter.
I construe the Bill as first of all requiring action on the part of the current holder of the title in application to Her Majesty. My noble friend Lord Denham asked me whether, if that had been tainted by undue influence, the court could have a place. The details of the arrangements proposed are not sufficiently specific to enable me to give a confident answer to that question because it is linked with the next matter.
A third and significant difficulty with the Bill, as it is presently drafted, is the uncertainty it would create in relation to the role of Her Majesty the Queen in the matter. No machinery is provided for dealing with any request for the succession to be changed. It leaves the decision to Her Majesty without any rules or guidance as to how such a request should be dealt with. It is not difficult to imagine such a request being opposed by

1163
the prospective male heir to a title, thereby involving the Crown in determining between the claims of the existing heir and an eldest daughter. The Government consider it inappropriate that the Crown should be involved in this way in what could be unseemly family arguments.
This is the fundamental approach of the Bill. The Bill is not a general one of the kind described, for example, by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. The thrust of the Bill is to initiate the change by reference to the application of the current holder of the title. That is part of the fundamental structure of the Bill, although the Bill itself has a very wide Long Title.
My noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle drew attention in his speech to difficult questions about the nature of the further devolution if this change were to be initiated and the application granted by Her Majesty. A number of noble Lords have spoken about more general questions. I think it right to confine myself to the subject matter of the Bill as presently proposed. Questions regarding the proper effect of legitimation by subsequent marriage in relation to titles and also questions about whether or not a general destination to heirs general would be preferable in these titles have been raised but I think it wise for me simply to give the view of the Government on the Bill. What I have been doing is to draw your Lordships' attention to defects in the Bill as drafted which seem to me to be important. Others have been mentioned but I have selected those as the principal ones. But whether or not the Bill should receive a Second Reading is pre-eminently a matter for your Lordships on a free vote.
I merely wish to conclude on a note of gratitude to all those who have taken part in what has been a most lively and interesting debate. As I said at the beginning, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for his action in initiating the debate.
10.44 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, no one could be more grateful than I am, not just to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he said, or to the maiden speaker who spoke with such clarity and helpfulness on a matter which he found sufficiently important to devote his maiden speech to it, which is a great honour to anyone introducing a Private Member's Bill, but generally to Members of your Lordships' House for appearing in such large numbers and contributing so fully to the discussion. I cannot possibly, nor does the time permit, answer every detailed point, but I shall deal with one or two of the themes which have come up time and time again.
First, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Bill has nothing to do with the total reform of your Lordships' House. Anyone who was in government the last time an attempt was made will not easily make another attempt. There has to be a Speaker's Conference, agreement between the parties and an enormous amount of free time available in the Chambers of both House to enable almost endless discussion to take place, because, of course, on a constitutional issue such as this one cannot limit the
1164
length of speeches. All that has to happen before a government—not a private individual—can attempt to bring forward a major reform of your Lordships' House. That is out of consideration.
It seemed to me that we could do something which would improve the work of the House, improve the standing of the House in public esteem, and enable a gross disfigurement of our activities to be removed; namely, the exclusion of women from an equal share in the opportunities which the Government want and I want them to have. That is what I had in mind in bringing forward the Bill. It is one that has been in my mind, as must be obvious to the House from the number of times I have raised the subject at Question Time, for over eight years. It is no sudden inspiration. It is something which has been steaming up inside me until I could control it no longer. That is why I introduced the Bill at this time. I had in mind also that it is a long Session and there is therefore ample time for discussion here and in another place if one were fortunate enough to achieve a Second Reading.
Clearly I made a major mistake. I am not by nature a person to compel other people to do what they do not want to do. Therefore, I thought that I was right to start with a small, one-clause Bill. I am deeply grateful to the House authorities who have enabled me to bring forward the idea couched in just a few lines and in one clause. I thought it far better to start with a Bill which left it to noble Lords to decide what they wanted. If we could reach a Committee stage we could put forward amendment after amendment and have a thorough discussion. One cannot discuss on Second Reading; one can make speeches on Second Reading. I even have the good fortune to be able to make a second speech. We cannot exchange views on detailed points on Second Reading, we can only do that in Committee. I had hoped that in Committee Members would come forward with any ideas that occur to them, including, in particular, the remedy to a difficulty to which many Peers have referred—namely, that they do not want the responsibility and embarrassment of making the choice themselves. I referred to that issue in my opening comments and I mentioned a way of overcoming that difficulty.
I apologise for my misjudgment. I must say that I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, surprise at the extent to which a number of hereditary Peers felt themselves incapable of making choices. It must be my fault. I spent six years as Chief Secretary to the Treasury making several choices per day. It was not all that difficult because every choice was "no"; nevertheless, I was a little surprised, but that is for your Lordships to decide. That is why I wanted merely to bring the matter forward and let your Lordships decide at Committee stage what was the best way to proceed.
I am grateful to all who expressed the view that we should do our best to remove the blatant discrimination against women. That is my main purpose. I hope that those noble Lords will also share the view that this matter is of great interest outside your Lordships' House. The media have picked it up. I have done seven television broadcasts. People in Canada and in the United States were interested.

1165
Clearly, the outside world is looking at what we do. I hope that the message going from this House will not be that we are so unwilling to consider change that we are not even prepared to give the Bill an opportunity to be considered at Committee stage. Your Lordships may come to the conclusion at the end of the Committee stage, or any further stage, that there is no future for the Bill, no possibility of getting a consensus. I hope that we can. but your Lordships may reach that conclusion. Very well, then is the time to vote against the Bill, but not now. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will be good enough to allow the Bill to go on to its Committee stage.
10.51 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after that speech in such moderate terms by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I feel particularly bad about having to proceed with my amendment. I hope that no one will get the idea that any Peer who votes against the Bill is against women and is some kind of reactionary chauvinist. I wish to assure the House that certainly I and, I suspect, anyone who happens to come into the Division Lobby will be only too pleased to see as many young women as possible in the House, and not only for the reasons hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu's friend.
My sticking point over the Bill is that I do not think that it is right. However right it is to have hereditary Peeresses in the House, I do not think that it is right to deprive the existing heirs male of something that they always had a right to expect. That is my sticking point with the Bill.
I also feel slightly that in parliamentary terms it is not proper to give a Second Reading to a Bill whose Long Title is so widely drawn and whose single clause is, I think, admitted in its main contention to leave the choice of successor to the existing Peer. Through the course of the debate that clause has been held by the majority of people to be flawed. I am afraid that I must therefore press my amendment.
10.53 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 33.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cranborne, V.

Ackner, L

Cumberlege, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Bessborough, E.

Donegall, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dudley, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Elton, L.

Cadman, L.

Falkland, V.

Caldecote, V.

Geddes, L.

Camoys, L.

Glenarthur, L.

1166

Goschen, V.

Norfolk, D.

Halsbury, E.

Palmer, L.

Harrowby, E.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Romney, E.

Hesketh, L.

St. Davids, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stockton, E.

Long, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mills, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Terrington, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Monson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wakcham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L

Mallalieu, B.

Attlee, E.

Milverton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ogmore, L.

Birdwood, L.

Parkinson, L.

Byron, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Rea, L.

Craigavon, V.

Redesdale, L.

Davidson, V.

Richard, L.

Diamond, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strafford, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Teviot, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L [Teller.]

Kitchener, E.

Lucas, L.

Wharton, B.

McNair, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill now London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No. 2) Bill now London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  UN: MEMBER STATES' CONTRIBUTIONS
  UN: MEMBER STATES' CONTRIBUTIONS
  IRAQ AND IRAN: PRISONERS OF WAR
  IRAQ AND IRAN: PRISONERS OF WAR
  COMMONWEALTH AND ACP CITIZENS: RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
  COMMONWEALTH AND ACP CITIZENS: RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
  NGOs: GRANTS FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT WORK
  NGOs: GRANTS FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT WORK
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 23rd NOVEMBER
  FISHERIES COUNCIL, 23rd NOVEMBER
  INDONESIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL IN TRAINING IN THE UK
  INDONESIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL IN TRAINING IN THE UK
  JOB SEARCH BEHAVIOUR
  JOB SEARCH BEHAVIOUR
  RESETTLEMENT UNITS: REPLACEMENT
  RESETTLEMENT UNITS: REPLACEMENT