Sitting of 27 October 1992

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

  FIFE CHILD CARE INQUIRY
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before the House a Return of the Report of the Inquiry by Sheriff Kearney (together with extracts from that Report), set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Children Act 1975, into the child care policies in Fife. —[M.r. Lang.]

  FIFE CHILD CARE INQUIRY

    ORKNEY INQUIRY
    Ordered,
    That there be laid before the House a Return of the Report of the Inquiry by Lord Clyde (together with extracts from that Report), set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Children Act 1975 and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, into the removal of children from Orkney to a place of safety in February 1991.—[Mr. Lang.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made over the evaluation of the European fighter aircraft.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on developments in the post-prototype additional studies for the revised EFA project.
    Dr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European fighter aircraft project.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): In August the four Governments concerned commissioned studies into ways of reducing the costs of the EFA programme; we also agreed to review the operational requirement in the light of recent changes in the international security situation. The first of these studies has now reported. I am pleased to say that it shows that the production costs can be reduced by up to 20 per cent. while still meeting the military requirement in full; that further savings, up to 30 per cent., shows also possible; and that the EFA offers better value for money than the seven alternative designs which were considered.
    Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that encouraging reply. As important as the European fighter aircraft is, does he agree that it is even more important that the United Kingdom retains its design and build capacity for not only the EFA but EFAs of the
    848
    future, unless this country wants to be reliant upon foreign supply—probably a monopoly—with all the price and cost implications that that would mean?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. If we were to purchase our fighter requirements from overseas rather than continue with the British design and British manufacture, that would make it difficult and complicate the possibility at any future date of fighter aircraft being designed and manufactured in this country.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which was extremely considered and careful. Will he confirm that what he said in his main and supplementary answers confirms conclusively that this vital and indispensable high-technology defence project must go ahead on the basis of the revised figures and that it will be possible to continue the project without our partners?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much hope that it will be possible to continue with all four countries participating in the programme. Both the Italian and Spanish Defence Ministers have indicated that they are impressed by the. savings that have been identified by the report. I recall that Mr. Volker Rũhe, the German Defence Minister, said on 21 September that the new fighter aircraft should cost not more than DM90 million. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that the work that has now been done identifies that that target can be achieved. I hope that, on that basis, Germany also should feel able to agree to continue with the project.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that almost all the developing technologies that will feature in tomorrow's aerospace business, both military and civil, are part and parcel of the EFA development programme? Although many of us would like to see the companies that are involved in the EFA programme diversify more into civil products, is he aware that the short-term reality is that the continuation of the EFA programme is crucial to the future of our aerospace industry, which is of world class and second only to the United States in turnover?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is the case. The arguments for the EFA programme must depend primarily on the United Kingdom's defence requirements, but the industrial implications are also significant. At the height of production about 28,000 jobs in the United Kingdom would be related to the EFA project and about 60,000 throughout Europe.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my support to the Secretary of State and congratulations on the way in which he has dealt with this issue, especially in the past two or three days when the provocations must have seemed nothing if not extreme? Can he confirm that in the event of' the project's proceeding in such a way that individual countries could, as it were, choose their own form of EFA programme, he is satisfied that the United Kingdom would acquire an aircraft adequate to meet all exigencies and provide a proper basis for any operations in which the Royal Air Force might find itself engaged?
    Mr. Rifkind: Most of the work that has been done so far has involved the Rolls-Royce engines and the airframe. The technical study that has now been completed has identified that, even on the basis of current strategic requirements, savings of up to 20 per cent. could be

    849
    achieved with the EFA programme. If we wish to go beyond that and reduce our requirement in terms of the components of the EFA programme—for example, in-flight refuelling or other specific qualities—savings of up to 30 per cent. could be made.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend examines the EFA programme, will he never lose sight of the fact that the RAF and its pilots of the future must never be committed to battlefield conditions without at least enjoying parity in terms of the aircraft that are likely to oppose them? With Soviet air force equipment finding its way around the world, there is every likelihood that RAF pilots may come up against some of the most sophisticated of former Soviet aircraft.
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am conscious of the fact that twice in the past 10 years, unlike some European countries, our pilots have been called upon to use their fighter aircraft in actual combat—in the Falklands and the Gulf. We must be certain therefore that the aircraft available to our pilots are at least as good as those of any potential aggressor. We must also be conscious of the fact that Russia not only possesses sophisticated aircraft but has made it clear that it is willing to export them—including to unstable regimes in the middle east and elsewhere.
    Dr. David Clark: When does the Secretary of State expect to receive the review by the four national chiefs of staff of the EFA's military requirements? When will the four Governments concerned subsequently be able to announce that the EFA programme will go ahead—which we on these Benches believe is essential for Britain's military and industrial requirements?
    Mr. Rifkind: We expect to receive the chiefs of staff report in three or four weeks. It is likely that a meeting of the four Defence Ministers will be held early in December, but it is not possible to say now whether they will reach a conclusion. I remind the House that the original timetable did not envisage production decisions until the spring of 1993. Matters were brought forward because of the German budgetary problems that were raised in the German Parliament earlier this year. There is still time available, without interfering with the fundamental programme.

    Defence Research Establishments
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the defence research establishments.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): As part of our continuing drive for improved value for money, the Defence Research Agency has made a series of proposals to rationalise its operations and reduce costs. They were set out in a consultative document published last month and we expect to reach decisions later this year.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his diligence and courtesy in taking so much trouble to listen to my constituents' point of view. Does he acknowledge that the DRA's bridge-building facility at Christchurch is unique? The breadth of assumptions in the document to which he referred raise grave doubts—which I share—that any savings will be made by moving the
    850
    expensive and irreplaceable capital equipment at Christchurch elsewhere? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the consultation will be genuine, and that my constituents will be given a further opportunity to make their views known to him?
    Mr. Aitken: I was glad to visit the Christchurch site with my hon. Friend earlier this year, and I pay tribute to the excellence of the professional skills that its staff have consistently shown. Unfortunately, the site is under-utilised and over-large, and considerable savings have been identified by the DRA's chief executive. I confirm that the consultation exercise is genuine and that I will be pleased to learn the views of my hon. Friend and of his constituents when they see me on 4 November.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that the defence research establishment at Aberporth in Dyfed has been used to test fire the Chilean Government's Rayo multiple-launch rocket system? Chile has made it clear that it is willing to sell that weapon to any country in the world that can afford it. Does that not make a nonsense of non-proliferation and of our attempts to prevent deadly weapons falling into the hands of third world and unstable Governments?
    Mr. Aitken: It is the British Defence Research Agency, not the Chilean Defence Research Agency, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comments are correct.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for also seeing a delegation of my constituents about DRA jobs. Can my hon. Friend say what capital repayment terms or payback period he would expect from moving people around? He will know from his days in private industry that it looks for a two to three-year payback. The Treasury seems to look for something like a 20-year payback, and many of the agency's proposals envisage something like a 10-year payback.
    Mr. Aitken: The payback arrangements are governed by the normal Treasury rules, which may provide for a period of up to 25 years. When my hon. Friend visits me with his delegation, I shall certainly listen to the points about repayment that I understand that he wishes to make.

    Diversification
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on the establishment of an arms diversification programme.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the establishment of a defence diversification agency.
    Mr. Aitken: We exchange views with industry on a wide range of matters, and we participate in the Department of Trade and Industry's regional seminars to help companies to adapt to changing market conditions. However, we have no plans to establish a defence diversification agency.
    Mr. Banks: It would have been rather more courteous of the Minister to advise his questioners of the linking of questions 3 and 4.
    That was a stunningly complacent reply, even from this politically paralysed Government. Why should defence workers have to pay the price of the peace dividend with their jobs? Does not the Minister recognise that arms

    851
    conversion schemes are vital to both eastern and western Europe? They are vital to eastern Europe if we are to stop it from sliding into political and economic chaos; they are vital to the west—especially this country—if we are not to put defence workers on the dole. When will the Minister stop fighting the battles of yesterday, and start looking for the opportunities presented by tomorrow?
    Mr. Aitken: It is the hon. Gentleman who is fighting the battles of yesterday, and they are battles that have always been lost. If he recollects the days of quangos such as the National Enterprise Board, he will realise that Government attempts to second-guess the elements to which industry should give priority—in connection with any sort of conversion or new policy—usually end with the Government helping to pick losers rather than winners.
    Mr. Bill Michie: May I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)? If the Government cannot at least have the competence and courtesy to inform us when two questions are linked, there is not much hope of their running the country properly.
    If the Government can act so swiftly to destroy 30,000 mining jobs, why can they not act equally swiftly to ensure that jobs are created in the engineering and defence industries to prevent further unemployment?
    Mr. Aitken: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) did not receive prior notification of the linking of the two questions—although I hardly think that it is an error of quite the magnitude that they have suggested.
    The Government are spending £9 billion a year on the equipment programme. By any standards, that figure makes the Ministry of Defence British industry's biggest customer. Ours is a strong and credible industrial strategy, and—despite hard times—many companies are still managing to make good products and good profits
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that the last thing that successful defence contractors want is to be told by the Government how to run their businesses? What they need is good information about the nature of the Government's long-term plans, and plenty of time in which to make any adjustments that may prove essential to the planning of their businesses. Will my hon. Friend commit himself and the Government to the maintaining of good communications with the defence contractors, to help them to make long-term plans?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend has made a good point. We are renewing our efforts to establish a strong and open dialogue with industry. In recent weeks, conferences such as the chief of defence procurement's suppliers' conference and the Seafacts '92 conference have provided excellent information about advance intentions in regard to defence spending, and about the current trends. All the industrialists whom I have met have been very satisfied with the amount of information that is now being provided. It has enabled them to make new plans in connection with diversification and other subjects.
    Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past few months, there have been substantial job losses at the GEC—Marconi companies in Chelmsford, which rely heavily on defence contracts? May I have an assurance
    852
    that, where it is feasible, the British Government will place their contracts with British companies to protect British jobs?
    Mr. Aitken: I can already tell my hon. Friend that more than 90 per cent. of Britain's £9 billion equipment budget is spent with British companies. That is a good record. If we were to seek deliberately to exclude foreign companies from business, we should in turn be excluded from the foreign export markets in which we are so remarkably successful. A balance must be struck, but I share entirely the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Foulkes: All the Minister has done is to repeat what was said in June. Have the Government not learnt from the debacle over coal that market forces are not very good at determining an industrial strategy? If the peace dividend is to result in new jobs and new wealth for this country instead of more and more unemployment, the Government need to involve the unions and industry in devising an industrial strategy to replace defence jobs. The best way to do that is to set up a defence diversification agency.
    Mr. Aitken: All that the hon. Gentleman is doing is to repeat the same old themes that his party produced at the time of the groundnut scheme and of the National Enterprise Board. If he thinks that politicians can do a good job by telling companies such as GEC how to diversify, he needs to think again.

    Defence Equipment
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs in the United Kingdom are dependent on defence equipment expenditure.
    Mr. Aitken: We estimate that about 350,000 jobs in the United Kingdom are dependent on defence equipment expenditure, including those dependent on defence sales overseas.
    Mr. Martin: I know that my hon. Friend does not need to be reminded yet again by me of the importance of defence expenditure to Portsmouth, so can he assure me that he will continue to remind the public as well as the defence industry that any alternative policy is one of swingeing cuts in defence expenditure, such as was proposed and passed yet again at the Labour party conference this year, that the Liberals are little better and that that policy is very much against the defence interests of this country?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right, as he represents a Portsmouth constituency, to remind us of the extraordinary resolutions passed at this year's Labour party conference. If those resolutions, which call for devastating defence cuts, were ever to be translated into political reality, they would mean the disappearance of at least a quarter of our armed forces and the redundancy of at least 100,000 workers in defence industries. Only this Government have a strong and credible policy for Britain's defences.
    Ms. Rachel Squire: Is the Minister aware that the largest industrial complex in Scotland is Rosyth royal dockyard? Is he in particular aware that 4,200 direct jobs and many hundreds more indirect jobs depend upon the assurances that the Government and their Ministers have

    853
    given since 1985? In particular, will he remind the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he said in 1985: that the Government's commitment to Rosyth was clear from the massive investment that they were making in the dockyard to carry out the Trident refit? Will the Minister therefore give Rosyth the assurance of a future and its work force the assurance of jobs for all of them?
    Mr. Aitken: I am well aware of the concerns that the hon. Lady expresses. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have visited Rosyth and Devonport in recent weeks. No decision has yet been taken. Any press speculation and reports that have appeared are wrong. We are considering the matter carefully and we shall reach and announce a decision in due course.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that the German Defence Minister came to this country not many weeks ago to discuss the future of the EFA programme. In the light of the startlingly good progress that has been made in reducing the cost of this worthwhile aircraft, can my hon. Friend tell us what the reaction of the German Defence Minister has been to that progress?
    Mr. Aitken: I should be unwise to second guess the reactions of the German Defence Minister, but I have no doubt that he has carefully and thoughtfully noted the fact that the new cost estimates are exactly in line with the requests that he made for a 30 per cent. reduction in the cost of the aircraft. I take considerable encouragement from the results that have been produced.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the expenditure to which he referred, which will generate 350,000 jobs and £9,000 million worth of expenditure, will have a considerable economic effect? Is he aware that more than 50 per cent. of that expenditure will be made in south-east England, but less than 2 per cent. in Wales? Is not that a hidden regional policy working against areas outside the south-east?
    Mr. Aitken: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's breakdown of the figures. My impression, without being able to check the figures, is that a much more substantial percentage of British defence spending goes to key aircraft factories, particularly in the north-west of England. I do not think that the imbalance is anything like as bad as he suggests. There is no regional policy in defence spending. We place our contracts on the basis of value for money and obtaining the best products at the best prices.
    Mr. Streeter: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the all-important contract for maintenance work on the Trident boat, to which he has referred, will be placed on the basis of what is best for national security, cost effectiveness and value for money, and that, accordingly, it will be awarded to Devonport Management Ltd., on whose future many thousands of jobs in Plymouth depend?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is a forceful advocate of Devonport, just as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire) is a forceful advocate of Rosyth. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I are ensuring that we take a fair and even-handed approach to the problem, which I hope will result in a fair and just decision.
    Dr. David Clark: On jobs and defence, does the Minister appreciate that Labour believes that there are overwhelming strategic demands for the retention of the naval dockyards at both Rosyth and Devonport? Will he assure the House that no decision will be made to close either of the yards on narrow, short-term financial and ideological calculations?
    Mr. Aitken: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall take the broadest strategic view, although value for money is a strong and important consideration. I assure him that the decision will be a fair and carefully considered one.

    National Employers Liaison Committee
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the establishment of regional branches of the National Employers Liaison Committee; and what roles he perceives these as playing in the enhancement of the reserve forces.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Contact at local level between employers and the reserve forces is via the 14 regional, territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations, each of which has its own committee to deal with employer support.
    Those regional and local contacts provide valuable opportunities for employers to learn more about the reserve forces by attending briefings and by visiting reserve forces training and for their executives to take part in special weekend exercises known as executive stretch.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the NELC on the remarkable job that it has done, on a relatively small budget, in attracting employers' support for the reserve forces? Does he agree that there is considerable scope for the NELC to keep alive the interest of the business community in defence issues in these difficult and dangerous times?
    Mr. Hamilton: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's comments. We value our links with the NELC highly, and it is currently involved in discussions on the mix of the regular-reserve forces. I certainly support that, and agree that, as we may become more dependent on reserves, links with the NELC are very valuable indeed.

    Army Manning and Record Offices
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to conduct a comparison of the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the services provided by the Army's manning and record offices and regimental pay offices in York, and of other Army manning and record offices and regimental pay offices, before he decides about the siting of any integrated Army personnel centre outside London.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: A study is currently examining the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of establishing an integrated Army personnel centre outside London. That would involve the collocation of the adjutant general and military secretary's headquarters and their staff, with all the manning and record offices and regimental pay offices. The study is looking at the operation as a whole and does not entail a comparison of the relative efficiency of existing offices.
    Mr. Bayley: When the Minister takes his decision, will he give due weight to the fact that already this year it has been announced that 1,200 Ministry of Defence civilian jobs in Harrogate will go, while 250 civilian jobs at the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers' workshop at Strensall have also gone? The losses come on top of a reduction from 9,500 to 5,500 in the number of Ministry of Defence civilian jobs in Yorkshire in the past decade.
    Does the Minister accept that a decision to lose further civilian jobs at York will be met by anger and disbelief in a city with a proud military tradition and in a county that has contributed so much to the military over the centuries?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are studying proposals to collocate all the offices in one place. We are thinking in terms of about 1,500 employees in 200,000 sq. ft. of office space. We are considering a number of locations, including York. We have the advantage that if we locate the new office in a place where we already have an office, we shall have a core of workers who will help to establish the new, much bigger collocated offices. No decisions have yet been taken and we shall consider all locations around the country.
    Mr. John Greenway: The closures of the Harrogate and Strensall Ministry of Defence facilities have been greeted with dismay. Many people who have served the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces well over many years are pinning their hopes on the relocation of the integrated personnel centre to the York area. If York is good enough as a centre for the Department for Education, for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and for many other commercial firms, it should be good enough for the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Hamilton: I hope that I have already made it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no prejudice against York. We are considering a number of other locations as well, as is only fair.
    Mr. Loyden: What criteria does the Minister use when he makes such decisions? Does he take into account the level of unemployment in the area and does he give the necessary information to enable the trade unions to make an objective judgment about whether the Ministry is right or wrong?
    Mr. Hamilton: The basic criterion we adopt is that of value for money. Of course, we taken into account the local conditions of unemployment, because that improves our chances of recruiting people locally to man the offices. There are many different considerations in the process. Once we come to a proposal, we put it to the trade unions. There is always a consultation period during which the trade unions can put forward their ideas about how they see us going forward.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on progress made by United Kingdom forces in the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia.
    Mr. Rifkind: As part of the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, the United Kingdom has provided 38 military observers, 13 mine clearance training experts and 70 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel to act as
    856
    naval monitors. They are making a significant and high-quality contribution, in difficult and demanding circumstances, towards the success of the United Nations operation in Cambodia.
    Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a further and very welcome example of the commitment of the United Nations throughout the world to achieving a major peacekeeping role?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. In 1991, there were only 11,500 United Nations troops deployed in peacekeeping operations. Today, there are more than 51,000. The United Kingdom and many other countries are performing a far more enhanced role in contributing towards helping to deal with countries with significant problems of instability or internal strife.

    Ex-Service Men (Housing)
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding housing needs for redundant service men.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations regarding the housing needs of redundant service personnel.
    Mr. Paice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities, including South Cambridgeshire district council, do not believe that having been resident in married quarters in a district is sufficient contact with the area for the people concerned to be accepted on to the housing waiting list? As a result, when service men are being made redundant from bases in my constituency, they find themselves with nowhere to go. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the housing position, especially bearing in mind the fact that many of the bases have many vacant quarters on them, and find a way forward so we can ensure that service men who are being made redundant, many of whom have served in the Gulf, are not left homeless without anywhere to go?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, although I hope that the situation is not as bad as my hon. Friend suggests. We are doing all that we can to make available such married quarters as we have to service men who are due to be made redundant, bearing in mind the fact that we always try to organise matters so that service men who are to be made redundant spend their last six months in the United Kingdom. We are using our married quarters for that purpose.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, compared with the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole, a very large proportion of the Scottish population is involved in the armed forces, and that the problem of demobbed service men is therefore a serious one? My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and I had a meeting with representatives of the CO Scottish Command at Glencorse barracks in my constituency, who proposed the formation of an organisation that could be funded by the Government to buy houses and take over Ministry of defence properties to provide rented accommodation for service men which they could eventually purchase. That could be a way forward. As those representatives said to us, the present demand for houses is only the tip of the iceberg.
    Mr. Hamilton: We already make married quarters available for service men to buy at discounted prices. We are also making it possible for service men to part-purchase private properties and pay rent on the remainder. We are also reaching deals with housing associations, and are negotiating the transfer to housing associations of some 1,100 married quarters. We would keep a number of the allocations of those premises for ex-service men or service men who were about to leave. We have addressed the problem, and a lot of effort is being put into it.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he could solve the problem at a stroke if he would do the decent thing as regards the Staffordshire regiment, and have regard to the needs of the infantry? If he would think again about reprieving the Staffordshires and the Cheshires, we would not have so many redundant service men.
    Mr. Hamilton: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's logic when he says that if we did not amalgamate the Staffordshire and Cheshire regiments, we would have no redundancy problems. The fact is that we have made decisions about the amalgamations and there is no reason to believe that they will not go ahead.
    Mr. Martlew: On 28 April the Minister gave the House an assurance that ex-personnel returning from Germany would be given accommodation for themselves and their families. Does that promise still stand, and is the Minister aware that many ex-service men will be unable to buy their own homes because they will come straight out of the armed forces on to the dole queue? What is needed is low-cost rental housing. What does the Minister propose to do to tackle that problem?
    Mr. Hamilton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the occasion of his first contribution on defence matters from the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that we shall be hearing from him in the future.
    Let me go back over what I have said. It is not true that service men cannot purchase their own houses. Many can do so, because the serious amounts of redundancy money that they receive can go some way towards enabling them to purchase their own homes. In addition, the deals that we are doing with housing associations will make it possible for people to rent premises through those associations when they leave the services. We will keep a number of the allocations available.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of solving the problem of housing redundant soldiers is to make fewer soldiers redundant, and that, given that the forces of reaction are gathering pace in Russia and that southern and south-eastern Europe are reverting to tribalism, this is not the time to pursue "Options for Change" with the vigour with which it has been pursued so far?
    Mr. Hamilton: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that one reason for our having large forces was that we were opposed by the massed forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, both of which have now disintegrated. Given that the main strength opposing us had to some degree disappeared and had certainly been ameliorated, it was only right that we should look again at the level of defence expenditure that we were incurring.

    Nuclear Weapons (Russia)
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with President Yeltsin regarding the dismantling of nuclear weapons in Russia and neighbouring states.
    Mr. Rifkind: Following discussions between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin in January, we are proceeding with our plans to provide 20 nuclear weapons transport vehicles and 250 nuclear weapon containers to allow the Russian Government safely and securely to accelerate their dismantling of surplus nuclear warheads. Progress on this assistance will be reviewed during President Yeltsin's visit to the United Kingdom in November.
    Mr. McFall: With Russia sliding into chaos, the need to control the 10,000 ballistic missiles on its soil is even more urgent. Given that the present rate of dismantling Russian weapons means that that will take 15 years, how many of the promised nuclear warhead containers have been constructed and how many have been delivered? Does the Secretary of State agree that unless we provide generous financial and technical assistance, we will undermine President Yeltsin in the same way that we undermined President Gorbachev? Is not a Marshall plan preferable to martial law?
    Mr. Rifkind: All the containers are under construction and delivery will take place as soon as that is physically possible. The programme that we have already initiated is worth £30 million in that one area alone. That shows the seriousness with which we are seeking to assist President Yeltsin in the very important work that he is doing.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: The Government's assistance to President Yeltsin in the dismantling of nuclear weapons must be welcomed and encouraged. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is considerable anxiety nearer home about the future of nuclear submarines which are unused and in moth balls? Can he give the House any assurance about what will happen to those nuclear plants in the near future?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have made an assessment of the number of conventional and nuclear submarines that the country requires. Obviously, some decisions still have to be taken with regard to the decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the longer term. That is also dependent on wider decisions which the Government are addressing at the moment.
    Dr. Reid: Can the Secretary of State explain in what way he thinks that he is helping Russia's nuclear de-escalation or the political position of Boris Yeltsin when Britain is escalating its nuclear capacity in strategic ballistic missiles by 250 per cent. and at the same time absolutely refusing to respond to Boris Yeltsin's offer of a nuclear moratorium? Does he not realise that that undermines the process of nuclear de-escalation inside Russia and that it strengthens the forces of reaction in that country? Does he not also realise that unless he is prepared to show sufficient support and goodwill to the reform process in Russia, the sands of time for democracy in that country will run out all the more quickly?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman shows a total inability to understand the nuclear question. He is

    859
    obviously not aware that even in 10 years' time, when Russia will have completed the process of reducing its strategic nuclear warheads, it will still possess more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads and that will be six times as many as the United Kingdom will have when Trident is deployed.
    Mr. Robert Banks: My right hon. and learned Friend will know the difficulties with dismantling nuclear weapons. Is he aware of the discussions that took place between members of the Russian Government and members of the—[interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Ministers cannot hear questions being put to them for all the noise in the House. Will the House come to order?
    Mr. Banks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the discussions that took place between members of the North Atlantic Assembly and representatives of the Russian Government and other eastern European Governments when it was suggested that a dismantling plant should be set up in Russia to be run and administered jointly between Russia, the United States and possibly ourselves? Will he look into that suggestion?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is totally desirable to do what we can to assist Russia and its neighbours further in the process that they have implemented. It is encouraging that already all tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the other Republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States into Russia. We will certainly look constructively at any proposals dealing with the dismantling of existing nuclear weapons.

    Air-to-Surface Missile
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the tactical air-to-surface missile.
    Mr. Rifkind: The position remains unchanged: we are continuing to consider a range of options for Britain's future sub-strategic nuclear capability.
    Mr. Bennett: Given that the tactical air-to-surface missile could cost more than £3 billion, given the very welcome American moratorium on nuclear tests which will make development of the warhead difficult, and given that the Germans are unlikely to allow it on their soil, would not it be better to abandon the programme now, use some of the money to make sure that we have sufficient conventional troops to meet the Government's increasing commitments and some of the money on the diversifica-stion of the defence industry?
    Mr. Rifkind: The TASM is only one of the options that we are considering in order to continue with Britain's sub-strategic nuclear capability. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, in terms of our national interests and our commitment to the NATO alliance, the doctrine of flexible response requires there to be a sub-strategic capability if deterrence is to achieve its full responsibility.
    Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the experience of Tornado aircraft in the Gulf, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if that aircraft is to remain viable into the new century it will need a stand-off weapon, or it will be obsolete?
    Mr. Rifkind: There are certainly plans to consider the upgrading of Tornado. The precise question whether TASM is the answer to that requirement is being actively considered at the moment. There are a number of ways in which the United Kingdom's sub-strategic requirements can be met. It is desirable to deal with those in a full and comprehensive manner. We would expect to come to a decision some time early in the new year.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Watson: As the Prime Minister bobbles about helplessly in a sea of chaos, has he noticed the latest damning evidence of economic decline in today's Confederation of British Industry review, yet one of last week's U-turns—just one of them—promised economic growth? Before he finally slips beneath the surface, will the Prime Minister tell us what, if anything, he will do to prevent recession from turning into slump?
    The Prime Minister: In the time that he spent preparing that question, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read all of the CBI quarterly survey. If he had done, he would have seen output expectations up on September, export optimism up on July, the domestic prices balance at an all-time low and, for the first time ever, the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually being reduced. As to improving economic circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should note what has been done. Interest rates have been cut 11 times in two years. They are the lowest interest rates in Europe, and British firms also face the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe.
    Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the declaration of the London summit on the conference on Yugoslavia was in relation to the war crimes that are taking place in Yugoslavia and also the subsequent action taking place at the United Nations. Unfortunately, of course, there is no permanent machinery for trying war crimes, although the General Assembly of the United Nations has been discussing such permanent machinery. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to take a more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was a matter that was raised at the London summit on Yugoslavia some time ago, and as a result of that, the whole matter is being examined in the United Nations.
    Mr. John Smith: Could the Prime Minister explain how he takes comfort from a CBI survey which predicts that jobs will be down, output will be down, orders will be down, investment will be down and confidence will be

    861
    down? Will he answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)? What action will he take to stop a slump?
    The Prime Minister: For the second successive Question Time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to listen to an answer already given. If he had listened more carefully he would have heard what I said about output expectations, export optimism, the domestic prices balance and the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually falling. He would also know that manufacturing output has risen in each of the first two quarters, that car production was up sharply in September, and that retail sales have been up in both the second and third quarters.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that the complacency of that answer will shock the public? Does he not realise that the British public are now sick and tired of failed economic policies as well as bogus economic promises of recovery which are never ever fulfilled?
    The Prime Minister: Throughout the last three years the economic policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the same as ours, but 1 per cent. less off interest rates. Exactly the same. His commitment to the central part of our economic policy was total and frequently stated. He always wanted lower interest rates. Will he now bear it in mind that we have the lowest interest rates in the European Economic Community—lower than we have had for a long time—and that there is no economic policy whatever from the Opposition?
    Sir James Kilfedder: May I, as one who voted against the Government in the crucial Division last week on the pit closures and was opposed by a Tory candidate in the general election, from my critical position of independence congratulate the Prime Minister on the brave determination that he has shown—history will commend him for it —to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe? Will he take the opportunity as often as possible to spell out in simple terms to the people of this country the consequences, particularly for jobs, if Britain is left on the sidelines of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. Let me say this on the European Community and the Government's policy. I believe that we have had three historic mistakes over the last 30 years in European policy. [Interruption.] The first was when we failed to join the Community at the outset. The second was when twice other countries refused to accept Britain into the European Community. They were mistakes of great damage, to not just this country but the whole of the European Community. Today, with the possibility of enlargement through the changing policies in Europe, we have more of a chance than ever we have had before of building a European Community in the image that we in this country wish to see. It would be folly at this stage to throw that away by isolating ourselves in the Community and by ending our influence. That is the way that the sort of Community we do not wish to see—not the sort of Community that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been fighting for for some years—comes about.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister not realise that the terrible damage done to his credibility and that of his Government by his foolish manoeuvrings over the last
    862
    week have undermined the case for Europe, for which there is a majority in the House, as well as delaying the chance of recovery, for which there is such desperate need in the nation?
    The Prime Minister: What undermines the case for Europe is the manoeuvrings of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as well as the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to strengthen the law against the curse of new-age travellers?
    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some competition for legislation to be introduced in the House. We are examining the particular difficulties created by new-age travellers, and I hope that at the end of that examination we will be able to produce legislation to protect those who suffer from their activities.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: The Prime Minister will recall that last Wednesday members of his Government said that there would be a meaningful, genuine, statutory 90-day review of the 10 collieries earmarked for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no such thing as a statutory 90-day review, and that most of those collieries are now closed, does the Prime Minister accept that the House was apparently misled?
    The Prime Minister: I shall reiterate to the hon. Gentleman what I said myself on the subject of the 10 pits. I made it perfectly clear then that the 10 pits that have no economic future will go through the full statutory review procedure. I made it equally clear that the Government would co-operate with the inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and that the President of the Board of Trade will give evidence if that is required.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will never allow the EC to impose on us by the back door the social chapter that the Labour party would impose on us by the front door? Will he also confirm that he will fight for British interests and jobs in Euope, as he has always done?
    The Prime Minister: I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Before I went to the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty I indicated to the House that I would not come back having accepted a single currency being imposed on this House, and equally, that I would not accept the social chapter. I honoured both of those commitments and I propose to keep to them.
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barnes: A sales manager of British Coal, Alan Aitken, has told customers that supplies will be supplemented by imports during the period of the pit closures. This is a disgrace. How much will be added to

    863
    these imports by the agreement that the Prime Minister made with the Colombian authorities about the importation from that country of coal that is produced with the help of child labour?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading the wrong articles, for what he has had to say is rubbish. I made no offer to stop British Coal's anti-dumping complaint. Nor did I in any way reach the sort of agreement that the hon. Gentleman suggests with the Colombian authorities—not at any stage. Since I spend a lot of my time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seeking an agreement on GATT, it is hardly likely that I would support dumping.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not even the French farmers would benefit from a world trade war? Will he confirm that he will continue to pursue an early conclusion of the GATT round, which will be good for developing countries, good for Britain—including companies in my constituency of Erewash—and even good for France?
    The Prime Minister: I can most certainly confirm that. The reality is that everybody would lose out from a trade war, including France and everybody who lives in France. In the last few days I have been in touch with the Americans and with leaders throughout the European Community to urge an early resumption of talks between the Community and the United States, both on a GATT agreement and on ending the dispute about oil seeds. I am glad to say that the two sides are in touch again and the United States is holding off from taking trade retaliation. We must seek an agreement both to end the dispute over oil seeds and a comprehensive agreement on the Uruguay round as speedily as possible. On the substantive point of my hon. Friend's question about benefits, it would produce £120 billion worth of extra world output were we to have a successful GATT outcome.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he may be out next week on 90 clays' notice, without statutory review? Will he bear with me while I relate to him the humiliating experience, which is causing great distress, that miners at Parkside colliery suffered on Friday? They were told to report to the pit every day for 90 days but that they were forbidden to go down the mine. Will the Prime Minister condemn this unspeakable behaviour and have words about it with the chairman of British Coal?
    The Prime Minister: I shall examine the case that the hon. Gentleman sets out and I shall see for myself what the facts are.
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend— [Interruption.]—to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should not behave in that way.
    Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mortgage interest rates for first-time buyers are now at their lowest level for 25 years? Does he agree that that will have the effect of putting more money in people's pockets so that they can spend it on goods in the high street and thereby help our economic recovery? Does he further agree that that is very good news for home buyers throughout the country and particularly for my constituents in Basildon?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has the most famous constituents in the western world and I can confirm that the very substantial reductions in mortgage rates will help them a great deal. It will also make a significant difference to the amount of money available for high street purchases, though of course the central point is that each 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £1 billion a year to industry, and that is vital for investment, for future prosperity and for jobs.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Can the Prime Minister confirm that doubts about the future of the hugely important A1 Yamamah defence deal, which the British Government have signed with the Saudis, increase day by day and parallel the decline in the influence of his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher? Will he confirm that interest in that deal increases as it looks as though his predecessor may be making a comeback, along with that grease-palming son of hers [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] We want a question from the hon. Member.
    Dr. Howells: That was my question, Madam Speaker.
    The Prime Minister: I refute the hon. Gentleman's distasteful remarks about my noble Friend. As for the A1 Yamamah contract, there is no doubt that the Saudi commitment to A1 Yamamah remains as strong as it has been for many years. That has been stressed to the Secretary of State for Defence and directly to me by the king.

Child Care Inquiries (Orkney and Fife)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang)rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly so that we may get on with an important statement?—
Mr. Lang: With permission, I shall make a statement about child care in Scotland. I have today published—
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is about to tell me that he cannot hear the Minister. I have already appealed for order. We can debate only within the framework of good order. I appeal for that.
Mr. Lang: I have today published as a Return to an Address of the House the report which Lord Clyde prepared of the inquiry that I asked him to undertake into the removal of nine children from South Ronaldsay to a place of safety on 27 February 1991. I have also published as a Return to an Address of the House Sheriff Brian Kearney's report on child care policies in Fife following the inquiry which my predecessor asked him to undertake. I am also placing in the Library later today letters that I am sending today to the chief executives of the two authorities concerned and also letters to the chief executives of all regional and islands councils about the action to be taken on the two reports.
These are two important reports which have major implications for child protection and for the management of child care policies.
Dealing first with the Orkney inquiry, I am grateful to Lord Clyde for completing such a full and clear report into circumstances which were both difficult and complicated. He has not only set out very clearly the facts of the handling of a difficult episode but has drawn helpful conclusions and made positive recommendations which have major implications for child care law and practice. I am also grateful to the expert assessors who supported Lord Clyde in carrying out his task, Miss Anne Black and Dr. Hugh Morton.
The report identified significant failings on the part of Orkney islands council social work department, the Northern Constabulary and the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, not only in the way in which the decision to remove the children was reached but also how it was implemented and how the interviews were carried out with the children. The House should be in no doubt that the report is justifiably critical of the way in which the affair was handled.
Lord Clyde goes beyond immediate criticisms, however, to make positive recommendations designed to prevent situations of the kind arising again in the future. At the same time, he recognises the way in which agencies —and, in particular, social workers—have to face very difficult decisions in carrying out their duty to protect children. In this case, in particular, he notes that all those involved acted in good faith.
I have examined the 194 recommendations of the report with care. Action is needed and I am anxious to see early progress. Some recommendations can be implemented
866
without undue delay, while others require primary legislation or further consideration and consultation. A number fall directly to the Scottish Office for action, but others affect other agencies: local authorities, the police and the health service. I am minded to accept the great majority of the recommendations and to take them forward in consultation with the agencies involved as a matter of priority. Some recommendations will require further consideration, and my officials will be contacting the organisations concerned to follow those up.
I have it in mind to make changes broadly along the lines that Lord Clyde has recommended on emergency protection of children and their removal to a place of safety. Those would be implemented principally by primary legislation and I will include my detailed proposals for change in a White Paper on child care policy and law which I shall publish early next year. I am also minded to accept certain changes proposed for regulations, and revised regulations will be issued for consultation in the usual way. Those changes will be designed to increase the safeguards for children and parents involved in child protection investigations and procedures.
A considerable number of the changes recommended relate to central guidance. We are committed to revise the central Scottish Office guidance on "Effective Intervention", and this will be done in the light of Lord Clyde's recommendations. At the same time, we have established with the Association of Directors of Social Work a working party which will produce new practice guidance for social workers engaged in child protection. I shall ask the working party to embody Lord Clyde's recommendations in that guidance. One recommendation that I would particularly highlight, and which I endorse, is Lord Clyde's recommendation that removal of a child should be recognised as a course to be considered only where no alternative exists and the urgency of the risk requires it, and that caution must be exercised.
I have also established, with the Lord Advocate, a working party to draw up guidance on joint working and the interviewing of children. That involves the police, the Crown Office, social work and other expert interests. I shall direct them to Lord Clyde's recommendations as the basis for their work. I intend all that work to be carried out as a matter of urgency.
Training for child protection is identified as an area of major importance. This has already been recognised by the significant commitment to various initiatives, notably support of the development of courses at Dundee university and the introduction in 1992–93 of the new specific grant to help local authorities develop social work training. I propose immediately to increase substantially the amount available for specialist training for social workers in the islands this year and to give close attention to the need to improve training in the current public expenditure round.
The report provides an invaluable basis for moving ahead to improve child care. It not only analyses events within Orkney but draws conclusions and makes recommendations that should improve the way in which we afford protection to children in future. I also support what Lord Clyde says at the conclusion of his report that, at the end of the day, the welfare of the nine children involved should not be overlooked and every opportunity should be taken to overcome any effects of the inquiry and the incidents which prompted it. I am sure that the House would want to endorse those sentiments. I also endorse his

867
plea for action to re-establish relationships between the Orkney islands council social work department and the local community. There will be an inspection next year in Orkney by the social work services inspectorate which I established earlier this year.
On the report of Sheriff Kearney's inquiry on child care policies in Fife, the inquiry was established because of issues which were brought to the attention of my predecessor about the child care policies pursued by Fife regional council. As a result of his inquiry, Sheriff Kearney has reached the conclusion that
"very serious cause for concern exists as to the implementation of the Regional Council's Social Work Department's child care policy".
I accept that view. Sheriff Kearney makes a number of recommendations directed to Fife regional council to rectify those matters.
I also accept his view that the implementation of the recommendations of the report will not remove the deficiencies described by Sheriff Kearney until and unless the region and the director of social work are prepared to accept that those deficiencies exist. I have today written to the council asking it to let me have a report within eight weeks on how it proposes to implement the recommendations specifically addressed to it and what action it proposes to take on the issues of concern highlighted in the conclusions of the report. In particular, I have asked what action they are taking to improve working relationships within the child care system in Fife. My officials will meet regional council officials to discuss implementation and there will also be an inspection next year in Fife by the social work services inspectorate.
With regard to the general recommendations, I am minded to accept the great majority of the recommendations, subject in some cases to consultation, and I am writing today to a wide range of interests to draw some recommendations to their attention for immediate action. Other recommendations will be incorporated in guidance to be issued by me or in primary legislation in due course.
I am grateful to Sheriff Kearney and his social work assessor, Professor Mapstone, for the care that they have given to this complex remit.
I am very conscious of the difficult nature of the important task which confronts social workers, the police and other agencies in the whole area of child care—the dilemma that they face in deciding whether, when and how to intervene is often acute—but I am also conscious of the importance of public confidence in this work, which has such a major impact on the lives and wellbeing of children and their families. Above all there is the overriding obligation to ensure that in every action by the many bodies with responsibilities in this field, decisions are taken with care and the best interests and welfare of the children remain paramount at all times.
These detailed and substantial reports address very serious issues to which all concerned must respond. The action that I have announced today will be carried forward urgently by the Scottish Office in consultation with all the relevant agencies. It is my firm intention that it will result in improvements in procedures and in the quality of practice for the future.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I join the Secretary of State in expressing the gratitude of the House to Lord Clyde, whose professionalism, as well as that of his team, is enormously respected. We also express our gratitude to Sheriff Brian Kearney, who has produced a
868
report that we shall consider carefully. Whatever view we may take of the recommendations, the reports clearly convey the anguish of the many people—children, parents, social workers, the police, and others—who have lived through these traumatic times.
All this inevitably invites the question: why did the inquiries take so long, and were they the best way to approach matters of such extreme sensitivity? The Fife inquiry was launched by the Scottish Office in March 1989 and was expected to take three months, but it was not delivered until June this year, by which time Fife regional council took the view that it had done everything possible to review its procedures in the interests of all concerned. Given the Secretary of State's comments, it is only fair that the House should hear the response of Fife regional council before we embark on an informed debate.
The Orkney inquiry was the second longest in Scotland's history. It was expensive, it was adversarial, it took 135 days, and it is said to have cost about £6 million. For reasons which are given by Lord Clyde, its remit was restricted to such an extent that even today we have no means of knowing the full facts. We know, however, that there was enormous heartache for children, parents, social workers, reporters, members of the children's panel, and others. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that the reports invite more thorough debate than will be possible in the next half hour, and more detailed thought than is possible in newspaper headlines?
The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the two reports sometimes veer in different directions. For the sake of the children's safety and welfare, which must be the paramount consideration for us all, we need to examine carefully the circumstances in which children should be removed from their homes, when they should not be, and what are the best ways to cause the least possible stress to children who need our protection.
The Opposition welcome Lord Clyde's recommendations on emergency provision for children which would clarify an important aspect of the law as it stands. We also welcome his views in relation to removal of the child only when no alternative exists. The Secretary of State can expect our support for his recommendations on the need for primary and secondary legislation, if only because current legislation as summarised in the Scottish Office document "Effective Intervention" is clearly less than adequate. A study of Lord Clyde's report will reveal a genuine attempt to strike a balance between the need to ensure that the right of every child is paramount and the problem of having to take decisions on matters of such extreme delicacy.
The best way to show recognition of both reports is to consider the recommendations seriously. I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that there is a need for improved training and that this is of the utmost importance. It is clear that these matters cannot be dealt with in the absence of proper resources and that the Secretary of State's response today on the specific issue of training falls short even of the recommendations contained in the report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. Perhaps that is a reflection of the discussions already taking place on public expenditure in Scotland.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is equally clear that we need a system which properly protects children, properly guards parents' rights and properly provides guidelines which are clearly understood by professionals in this work in Orkney and elsewhere in the rest of Scotland?

869
When precisely may we expect the Secretary of State's review of child care legislation? When does he expect to re-examine the important role of children's hearings, and what thought has he given to the problems of voluntary organisations, and even individuals, who have exhausted their resources to give evidence to this type of inquiry?
There have been criticisms of some in the report, even though it is said that they acted in good faith. However, there can be little point in looking for scapegoats when clearly so much is at stake. Criticisms surely lie with us all, if only because we failed to recognise the deficiencies of the system in coping with these horrendous events. We failed to listen to children at their own pace. We failed to accept sufficiently that social workers and others are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We failed in the past; in the interests of our children, that is all the more reason for getting things right in future.
Mr. Lang: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for what he said about the work of Lord Clyde and of Sheriff Kearney. These are two good reports which inform in an authoritative and detailed way our future consideration of this extremely important issue.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling about the time taken, especially in producing the Fife report. I think that he will acknowledge that an immensely detailed report of almost 800 pages is one which needed careful consideration. It comes from a sheriff with a distinguished and authoritative record and it will repay the closest scrutiny.
The 135 comments and criticisms and 194 recommendations set out in the Orkney report summarise a report of 360 pages, which was compiled and delivered within one year. I think that Lord Clyde is to be congratulated on the efficient way in which he brought together all the strands of the immensely complex subject that he had to consider.
I agree that it is important to hear Fife regional council's response to criticisms of its social work department, and that it would be wrong to rush to judgment. I address those words to the press and other media in particular. Complex matters are involved, and it would be wrong to go on any kind of witch hunt or to over-simplify complicated, interrelated issues.
The hon. Gentleman gave a figure of £6 million as the cost of the Orkney inquiry. The cost to the Scottish Office so far is £2.25 million, though further expenses may yet have to be met. The taxpayer's contribution was confined to reasonable costs incurred by participants in the inquiry.
The removal of children from home is an aspect of great importance, and I urge the House to reflect carefully on Lord Clyde's comments and recommendations:
"The timing of the removals was beyond serious criticism … Removal of a child must be recognised as a course to be considered when no alternative exists and the urgency of the risk requires it … The time for the removal of a child must depend on the whole circumstances of each particular case but the prime consideration must be the welfare of the child."
That aspect must be further carefully considered.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for legislation, new guidance and the initiatives that we are preparing. He rightly emphasised the importance of training. There is a considerable commitment to training in terms of both effort and resources. In 1992, we introduced a specific grant for social work training to support £4 million of
870
training expenditure by local authorities. That is additional to the £5 million that I spend directly, at my own hand, on social work training. Scottish Office grant was provided to enable the establishment of post-qualifying studies in child protection at Dundee university and it continues to provide financial support. In 1991 and 1992–93, an additional grant was made to Dundee to provide child protection training to islands authorities, and a further £40,000 is to be provided for islands child protection training this year. That important aspect deserves our continuing attention.
As to reviewing child care legislation—in that context, the hon. Gentleman mentioned children's hearings and the work of voluntary organisations—the White Paper that we plan to publish next spring will bring together a whole range of issues affecting child care, and will provide the basis on which there can be consultation, leading to subsequent legislation at an early opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of where criticism should be directed and where failure lay. Lord Clyde identified a large number of specific areas in which he discerned failure. It behoves the individuals and bodies in question to study his comments carefully and to give their considered reaction—I emphasise the word "considered" —so that the House and the country can go forward on an informed basis.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I seek the co-operation of the House. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that the exchanges between Members on the Front Benches took longer than 20 minutes. I want to call as many Back Benchers as possible, but I ask for direct questions, and for the Secretary of State's co-operation in giving short answers.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the considerable concern felt in Scotland when these matters came into the public domain. It was right for the Government to commission a thorough investigation, although there may be some criticism of the vehicles used. However, there can be no dispute that we now have the facts and that the Government are introducing the necessary measures to right the wrongs. That should have the support of the whole House.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. We must never lose sight of the importance which attaches to the circumstances of the child. There is always a danger of getting so caught up in procedures, regulations and guidance that we forget the overriding importance of protecting the interests of any affected child or children.
Mr. James Wallace: I hope that the House will allow me some indulgence, as the events concerned happened in my constituency. I shall restrict my comments to the Orkney inquiry; I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, so that he can say something about Sheriff Kearney's report.
I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in congratulating Lord Clyde on his report. At first sight it strikes me as thorough, and it certainly pulls no punches. I also congratulate him on the relative speed with which the report was produced, following the conclusion of the inquiry. For some time, a

871
cloud of uncertainty and suspicion has hung over my constituency, and implementation of Lord Clyde's final recommendation—that we now start to improve the quality of relationships—cannot begin a moment too soon. We are very grateful to him.
I also thank the Secretary of State for the balanced terms of his statement. He has reminded us of the importance of remembering the social workers do a job on behalf of us all, and all of us—not least parliamentarians —have a duty to them to provide clear guidelines to enable them to continue that task. We should also remember that, ultimately, the interests of the children are paramount, not least those of the nine children involved in the Orkney case.
Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of which recommendations he intends to accept and which he is still considering? Although his announcement about the training of social workers in the islands is welcome, Lord Clyde's recommendations extend well beyond the position in Orkney. Training throughout Scotland is essential.
Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us what he said in his letter to the chief executive of Orkney islands council? Does he recognise that the report does not clear anyone's name? Indeed, that was never part of its initial remit. I do not blame Lord Clyde, but Lord Clyde himself expressed concern about that point in the report. Will the Secretary of State consider, with the Law Officers, whether steps can now be taken to remove suspicion for good, and to clear the air?
It seems that, if Lord Clyde's recommendations had been followed, nine of my young constituents would not have suffered the trauma that they experienced in the spring of last year. In calling on the statutory and voluntary agencies to pay proper heed to the criticisms levelled against them, will the Secretary of State endorse my view that such criticisms should be viewed in the context of Lord Clyde's comments in paragraph 14.110 of the report? Lord Clyde states:
"The purpose of this Inquiry has not been to find guilt or innocence or to distribute praise or blame but rather in recognising that things may have gone wrong, to endeavour to learn from past mistakes and to make suggestions as to how such mistakes may not be repeated in the future."
Perhaps, at the end of the day, some positive developments will emerge from what has been a very sorry episode.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, and I agree with all the sentiments that he has expressed.
The hon. Gentleman asked me which of Lord Clyde's 194 recommendations we were minded to accept. I will try to help him, as I recognise his close constituency interest. We are minded to accept some 148 of the recommendations without qualification, and to accept a further 26 or so subject to consultation. We are willing to consider a further 20, but we make no commitment at this stage. It would be difficult to group the recommendations in a way that would make any clear sense to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall be happy to pursue the matter with him if he wishes. I should also be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter to Orkney islands council. I think that he would find that helpful. It is, however, difficult to characterise such a long and detailed letter.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of clearing the air, but he also recognised that that was no part of the remit of Lord Clyde's inquiry. Any question of guilt or innocence should be decided in a court of law. Lord Clyde uses the phrase
872
"presumption of innocence", and I feel that we should found our approach on that phrase. The Crown investigations are not currently continuing.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I, too, congratulate Lord Clyde on producing such a short synopsis of an eight-month inquiry into matters ranging from the relevant but fatuous to the relevant and important.
The Secretary of State should examine the implications of the inquiry very carefully. It took eight months and cost 6 million quid; innumerable lawyers attended it, for the most spurious reasons, and evidence was called which was entirely irrelevant. The one thing that the inquiry was not entitled to decide was whether any, some or none of the children concerned were rightly or wrongly removed from the care of their parents. To have an inquiry at that cost, at that length, and with that number of lawyers, when the one question that the inquiry was about was not allowed to be discussed is absurd.
Mr. Lang: I am interested in what my hon. and learned Friend says. Since it comes from him, as a distinguished advocate, I have no doubt that his fellow members of the legal profession will note with interest what he has said. The form of the inquiry was a matter for Lord Clyde to decide in the case of Orkney, and for Sheriff Kearney in the case of Fife. It was important that they should have that discretion so as not to inhibit their search for the truth. I feel, however, that there must be a better way of conducting these affairs. It is a matter to which I am giving close attention, with a view to considering whether there may be a better, shorter and more effective way of proceeding with such matters, should the need arise in the future.
Mr. Henry McLeish: I warmly welcome the fact that a working party is to be established as the forerunner of a White Paper. If I may refer to the Fife inquiry, the Secretary of State knows that his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), said that the inquiry would take three months, but it has taken three years and seven months. There is huge disquiet among social workers, Fife regional council and others about the time taken to undertake the review.
May I also ask the Secretary of State about the costs involved in the inquiry and whether Fife regional council will have to pay part of the sum, which is estimated to be possibly £4 million? Finally, why was there no summary of the 800-page report, which was published today and which local Members were given the opportunity to see it only an hour before the statement was made? As the inquiry lasted for three years and seven months, one is also entitled to ask why there was no interim report and why no discussions were held between Fife regional council and the Scottish Office—if the Secretary of State is so concerned about the outcome of Sheriff Kearney's report.
Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the length of time taken. The inquiry took longer than I would have wished, and I suspect that it took longer than everyone on both sides of the House, and in Fife, would have wished. As I explained in answer to the last question, the conduct of an inquiry, once it is established, is a matter for the individual conducting the inquiry. A number of undertakings were given as to the final delivery

873
date, but they were not entirely met. The Fife report runs to nearly 800 pages. It is a detailed report which requires close study and I feel sure that it will inform the very important subject of child care considerations for some considerable time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to costs and who would be liable for them. I am still considering the position regarding costs. I estimate that the cost to the Scottish Office may be in excess of £800,000.
As for the publication of the report, it was published under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which requires some constraint. That is normal in the case of all Government statements, since to make available advance copies would be regarded as a discourtesy to the House. That underlines the importance of considering the report carefully before rushing to judgment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage those with whom he has discussions on these matters to take that attitude.
Mr. George Kynoch: I am sure that the whole House welcomes my right hon. Friend's announcement that he is to issue a White Paper in the new year. Will it involve a wide-ranging examination into child care law in its entirety, and will he therefore take full account of both the reports published today?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The White Paper will cover a broad range of child care issues. It will take account of both reports and also of the Finlayson report into the function of reporters, as well as a number of other working studies and reports that have been carried out in recent months, together with those which may be triggered by the announcement that I have made today.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the report has immense impact and is applicable throughout Scotland? Paragraph 14.3 says that the timing of the removals was beyond serious criticism. Paragraph 14.10 says that medical examinations should have been undertaken before the removals. Paragraphs 15.40 and 15.41 recommend that parents should be told immediately of suspicions and that proper examinations should be made before removals.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a case in my constituency. in which people were arrested in a dawn raid and children removed after a so-called six-month investigation when neither the parents nor the children had been interviewed and no medical examinations had been made? Will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly that such dawn raids, which are clearly fishing expeditions, are to be deprecated and should cease? Does he appreciate that we have all felt revulsion at the allegations, we all believe that the interests of children are paramount, and we all understand the tremendous pressure on social workers, but in considering the paramountcy of children we should also consider the enormous damage that can be done to children by action being taken precipitately where allegations are found to be unproven? If investigations and action are taken too quickly, it could lead social workers later to draw back when they should go forward.
Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points and recognise his close interest and experience in investigating such matters. I understand what he said
874
about dawn raids and the anxiety that exists; indeed, I share it. He will recognise that Lord Clyde suggests that a child should be removed only when no alternative exists. It is most important to try to find alternatives, but implicit in the outcome of the report is the fact that there could be occasions of high risk or great emergency when it might be necessary for immediate action to be taken. For that reason, it would be dangerous to curtail or in any way to increase the constraints on the actions that are possible.
The then Minister of the State, Scottish Office, looked fully into the inquiry into Grampian children, and the present chief inspector of social work examined the facts and reported to my hon. Friend on the lessons that might be learned. Certain points were drawn to the attention of Grampian regional council, and in the light of that it was not considered necessary to hold any form of public inquiry. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was informed of that at the time, but he is right to draw the link between the two because many of the recommendations and findings of the two reports that I have published today will have application for social work departments all over Scotland and beyond.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend take this further opportunity to re-emphasise that, with almost 200 recommendations, the last thing that we require in the House—or, much more importantly, outside—is hasty judgments and quick decisions? What is essential is time for measured and thoughtful reflection on this most emotive and sensitive subject.
Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that I emphasised the urgency of proceeding in some areas. I regard eight weeks as an appropriate time within which to ask Fife regional council social work department to respond to the specific directions which apply to it. Where there is an opportunity to make immediate progress which can improve the operation, guidance and handling of these matters, we must take it. My hon. Friend is right, however —we must look at the broader issues at length and in depth before proceeding.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am tempted to suggest to the Secretary of State that these formidable documents deal with matters so serious that we should have an early debate on them in the Scottish Grand Committee. If the primary concern is the welfare of children caught up in these dreadful events, why is it always the child and not the alleged perpetrator who is removed from the home? I am no lawyer, and Members will wince at the suggestion, but I hope that the working party will examine the alternative of removing the alleged perpetrator rather than the child from the home.
Mr. Lang: I am not sure about the practicality of that suggestion and I should like to reflect further on it. Importance attaches not only to the question of removal, but to taking the child to a place of safety. There are a number of considerations which must be thoroughly investigated, and Lord Clyde makes a number of recommendations in that regard.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be appropriate to have a debate on these matters at some stage. Whether that should be before or after the

875
publication of the White Paper is a matter for consideration. I certainly agree that these matters should be debated.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I welcome the report, which is very useful for child care. Does my right hon. Friend accept that ritual abuse takes place throughout the United Kingdom and that paedophiles have found a way to get total control of a child's mind and body by devil worship and satanism? They put the fear of the devil into children so that they have total command over them. I hope the Secretary of State agrees that the only way—
Madam Speaker: Order. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters, but we are putting questions on a specific report. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would do that.
Mr. Dickens: Does the Secretary of State feel that, to save us from such reports in the future, if a child is interviewed on video the first interview after the allegations are made should be in comfortable surroundings, as the Piggott committee recommended? That might save all the heart searching and anguish for parents and children.
Mr. Lang: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. I venture to suggest that matters are not quite so straightforward as he suggests. I urge him to consider carefully the number of detailed recommendations on interviewing made by Lord Clyde. My hon. Friend is right to identify that as an important area in which shortcomings were clearly found, and I agree that it is an area in which change is necessary.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a matter for considerable regret that application of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which has been internationally regarded as a milestone in the treatment of children and their care, should be the subject of such controversy in its application within Fife region? The degree of divergence between the views of the head of the social work department and chose of Sheriff Kearney is significant and considerable. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State assure us that careful consideration will be given to the question of what lessons are to be drawn from the report?
Having regard to the fact that the public interest must be served and that public confidence in the system must be seen to be established, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he intends to make public the recommendations in Sheriff Kearney's report with which he agrees and those with which he does not agree? His statement is a little oblique on that point, at least at present.
Mr. Lang: I am minded to accept all Sheriff Kearney's recommendations, subject to some further consultation on some of them, with the exception of one—I believe that it is No. 22—which applies to aggressive children and which I believe is too sweeping in its application.
I agree that it is unfortunate that it is thought appropriate to recommend amendments to the 1986 Act. Nevertheless, if amendment of the Act is considered appropriate, we must consider it so as to ensure that the Act as amended continues to fulfil its purpose.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on Sheriff Kearney's comments on Fife and on the need to restore
876
confidence, and I hope that that was implicit in my statement. Two important points from Sheriff Kearney's report focus on those points. First, he says:
"We believe we have demonstrated … that very serious cause for concern exists as to the implementation of the Regional Council's Social Work Department's child care policy."
In paragraph 27 of chapter XVI of part J, he says:
"We do not, however, believe that the implementation of these recommendations will remove the deficiencies which we have detected in the implementation of the Region's Social Work policy by its Social Work Department until and unless the Region and the Director of Social Work are prepared to accept that the deficiencies which we have described exist."
That is the key to the restoration of confidence.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be an affront to the parents and children involved if our subsequent discussion of the report confined itself merely to general systems, training and resources, because gross errors of judgment were made which perpetrated a nightmare for those affected? Does the report help us to solve a mystery which was raised by investigative journalists at the time? They pointed out that, in the United States, there was a sudden interest among social workers in the link between satanic rituals and the abuse of children. Among some social work circles here, that interest seems to have crossed the Atlantic, yet there has subsequently been no proof whatever of any link between so-called satanic worship and child abuse. How do these things happen? [Interruption.] This is relevant to what happened to the children in Scotland—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a debate.
Mr. Butcher: —and it is also relevant to the sort of training that was given in the past.
Mr. Lang: I emphasise that it was not the purpose of the inquiries—in particular, the Orkney inquiry—to establish guilt or innocence. Lord Clyde referred to the presumption of innocence, and that is the basis on which we must proceed.
My hon. Friend referred to a nightmare. Certainly, it would be a nightmare for any of those children if they were subject to abuse of whatever type. There is also a nightmare that can be identified—the way in which their cases were handled during and after their removal from their homes. Those are matters which we can address and which Lord Clyde does, indeed, address. He makes a number of detailed and important recommendations, and there we can and must act as swiftly as is sensible to ensure that that avoidable nightmare does not recur.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State agree that, every hour of the day, social workers throughout Scotland provide great care and show great concern for children in need, and that they are highly professional? It is against that background that the tragic events in Orkney must be seen. Does the Secretary of State further agree that there is a need to improve training to ensure that social workers enjoy the same professional status as other professional staff within local government? Finally, will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that, when social work responsibilities are transferred to the new local authorities, those local authorities have the capacity to ensure that the responsibilities that we have placed on social workers in Scotland can be discharged?
Mr. Lang: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, it is certainly our purpose to ensure that that is the case. I recognise that social workers have a difficult job; I hope that I acknowledged that in my statement, which recognised the dilemma and the anguish that they face in reaching decisions on occasion. As the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises, it is important that they should make their decisions on the basis of the best possible training and that there should be the best possible application of the right principles in judging a case. There should be proper interaction between different agencies. Decisions should be properly reached, formulated and recorded, and all aspects of the matter should be handled in a very professional way. That means more and better training, and that is what we have been seeking to achieve through the initiatives that we have taken in recent years and through the further initiatives that I have announced today.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend referred to the position in Scotland, but said that some of the recommendations would have a wider application. Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues bear in mind the fact that in England and Wales there has been a sea change in emergency protection of children since the Children Act 1989 came into operation last year? It is most important that that should be recognised in considering the recommendations especially as, since the Children Act came into operation, there has been a substantial decrease in the number of children who have been removed under the emergency provisions.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend clearly recognises the importance of this subject as one which crosses frontiers. The formal recommendations in the reports apply to Scotland, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health takes a close interest in these matters, and her officials and mine are in close contact on all aspects. Just as we learned from Cleveland, and took a number of initiatives immediately after the inquiry, I am sure that my ministerial colleagues south of the border will be studying the reports closely.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the reports, which I think will engage the minds not only of hon. Members but of many individuals and agencies outwith the House. I seek an assurance that the Secretary of State will ensure that the recommendations that are to be accepted immediately are not only sent to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) but circulated to all hon. Members and to the regional authorities responsible for social work.
As the Secretary of State knows, I am very interested in training, as I was previously involved in it and was paid by the Scottish Office to do so. I therefore emphasise that while we obviously welcome any addtional funding for the training of social workers, there must be a very careful assessment to ensure that there is practical training and not solely academic training. To ensure that the best principles of practice are engaged in reaching such criteria decisions, time should be given during the training process for as much practical field work as possible for the trainees.
Mr. Lang: On the hon. Lady's first point, about recommendations to be accepted, I will try to find a way of informing the House more widely on progress. The hon.
878
Lady will recognise, however, that we are consulting on some of the recommendations and awaiting a reaction from the councils and social work departments involved. It may therefore be a few weeks before we can publish a clear and coherent list.
I acknowledge the importance of what the hon. Lady has said about training. Knowledge and practice in relation to child care have advanced considerably in recent years and are still advancing. It is very much our purpose to ensure that the quality of training improves and advances to take account of new information and understanding as that becomes apparent.
Dr. John Reid: Can the Secretary of State assure me that a central element in the deliberations arising from the reports will be the question of burden of proof'? I ask that because I believe that the public do not always understand that the burden of proof required in order to act to protect a child is, of necessity, much lower than the burden of proof required to prosecute one or more alleged abusers of children. Because that confusion exists in the public mind, it is often thought that, because the burden of proof required to protect a child is lower it somehow diminishes the necessity to protect children or belittles the social workers who act on that lower proof.
It is essential that we define that difference and ensure that it is propagated as widely as possible so that the public understand the difficulties under which social workers act, and that, when they act to protect children, there may not of necessity be a criminal prosecution against one or more individuals. Unless that is done, I am afraid that social workers will be caught once again between the devil and the deep blue sea and, in the long run, will be unable to win whether or not they take children into protection.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Our purpose in seeking to improve the quality of training and the interaction of the different bodies in their handling of such matters in future is to minimise the risk of a wrong decision being taken and to strengthen the possibility that the decisions taken in future will be well founded and right. That would narrow the difference that the hon. Gentleman discerns.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the very difficult decision for social workers of reconciling the rights of parents with the safety of children is made infinitely more difficult by the sensationalism of certain sections of the media, not just in Orkney but also in Ayrshire, where social workers were harassed by the media at their homes in the early hours of the morning? How does the Secretary of State intend to grasp that nettle?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That was included in the terms of reference for Lord Clyde, and he has made a number of recommendations on that front. He also makes recommendations on the rights of parents, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Very close consideration must be given to those rights to ensure that the minimum is done to cause difficulties in families in cases in which it subsequently transpires that there was total innocence.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In our brief discussion today, we have been dealing with the avoidance of errors which have caused great distress to children and

879
to innocent parents. Will the House send the message today to every child who is suffering abuse that the House is determined to ensure that that terrible crime will not be tolerated and that all the judiciary should understand that there is never any excuse for abusing children?
Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady and I am grateful to her.

Pit Closures
4.24 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
British Coal's actions at the Taff Merthyr colliery, which are in breach of the assurances given by the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales to the House on 21 October.
In the debate last Wednesday, two Cabinet Ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister at Question Time today, gave categoric assurances that no action would be taken to prejudice the outcome of the genuine consultations that should take place under the 90-day statutory procedure relating to the 10 pits. Taff Merthyr colliery was one of those pits. But last Friday, British Coal announced that it was stopping all coal production. Indeed, as men were receiving the news, lorryloads of shale started arriving at the colliery site with the sole purpose of filling in the shaft. Such an action makes a mockery of two Cabinet Ministers' assurances to the House.
Over the weekend, the National Union of Mineworkers and the local lodge commissioned a senior mining engineer to produce a report. It was completed yesterday afternoon, and I delivered that report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's office yesterday evening.
The report by that senior mining engineer states that, unless British Coal continues to produce coal, the one face of this pit, the roadways leading to it and the machinery will be speedily and fatally damaged. Thus, British Coal's decision not to produce any more coal again makes nonsense of the Minister's assurances to the House. The report demonstrates also that, if the colliery continued to coal and men continued to have jobs and worked, even during the 90-day period, it could make up to £3 million profit, instead of spending nearly £500,000 a week allowing men to remain idle.
Earlier today, I am glad to say, I received at least modest comfort from a message from the President of the Board of Trade's office that British Coal has now agreed not to send any more lorries of shale. But, as yet, it has not met the other fundamental requirement identified in the mining engineer's report—that we need to continue to produce coal at Taff Merthyr colliery in order that assurances by Ministers are upheld.
The pressure of parliamentary debates last week and the assurances that were obtained during those parliamentary debates led to the commitment to genuine consultation for those 10 pits. I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, at least to allow a further debate so that we can expose British Coal's shabby, indecent. hasty actions to close Taff Merthyr prematurely.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said. I have to give my decision, as he knows, without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.
4.27 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: The specific nature of this request for a debate arises from the virtual obliteration of any jobs for my constituents in what were once three thriving mining villages, Havercroft, Hiendley and Ryhill. I was notified last night by constituents that the management of Grimethorpe are setting up salvage teams to perform work which will essentially destroy the fabric of the pit, rendering resumption of coal mining there impossible. The men are also being told that, unless they take their compulsory voluntary redundancy this Friday, their redundancy pay will be reckoned from the 13th of this month. In other words, they will be paid at a considerably lower rate and will lose considerable sums should redundancies come about.
I have talked to the Minister for Energy about this matter, and he has promised to intervene personally with the management at Grimethorpe. But even so, unless urgent action is taken, the pit will be closed, against the wishes of the House and against the stated intention of the President of the Board of Trade.
On Monday, the salvage team will go down to dismantle machinery. It will be the death of a pit, in spite of the promise by the President of the Board of Trade in the House. Moreover, in spite of what the President said, that pit, in association with Houghton main colliery, made a profit of £223,000 last week. Scarcely any of that profit was made from the electricity supply industry. The factories and plants that receive coal from Grimethorpe have been put in an impossible position. They are compelled to contract to buy foreign coal, which is £1 a tonne dearer. How does that help the balance of payments, or for that matter inflation?
The President of the Board of Trade must come to the House urgently. He must join in debate, and put Grimethrope and the other nine pits back on the list with the 21. Otherwise, we shall know that the consequences for Grimethorpe colliery will be a foregone conclusion.
However, more important than the pit that will close are the three communities that will be devastated and the 500 families who face a bleak future—the 1,500 men, women and children whose Christmas sacks will come not from Father Christmas but from British Coal. I beg you, Madam Speaker, to let Parliament speak up for the three communities which urgently and importantly do not want to see almost half of their men on the dole, but would rather see them toil in dignity.
Madam Speaker: Yet again, I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has said. As he knows, I must give a decision to the House without giving reasons. I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussions under standing order No. 20 and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to ask for your assistance and guidance about a difficulty that has arisen, which involves both a Standing Committee and a Select Committee of the House. The difficulty has arisen inadvertently, but nevertheless it exists.
Tomorrow, European Standing Committee B is to consider a motion from the Government on a European Community document on cultural goods, and the Standing Committee is to be asked to endorse the Government's policy on that matter. Last Thursday, the National Heritage Select Committee decided to conduct a speedy inquiry into the matter. If the Standing Committee makes its decisions tomorrow, the inquiry by the Select Committee will be rendered otiose and the Standing Committee will not have available to it the report of the Select Committee. It is intended that the report will be completed and made available to the House speedily, bearing in mind that the Internal Market Council of the European Community is to consider the matter on 10 November.
There is a further difficulty in connection with the document. There are two European Community documents which, although they have been distributed to some members of the Standing Committee, are not available to all members of the Standing Committee. The documents have not been deposited and are therefore not available to members of the Select Committee or to the House in general. That being so, it seems to me and to several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that advantage will be gained if the Standing Committee can defer its consideration of the document for a few days, to enable the document to be made available to the House and to enable the Select Committee to deliver its report.
Mr. John Gorst: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me guidance. If it is not possible to defer consideration of the document, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggested, and if the meeting takes place, the motion is passed and the Select Committee then makes an adverse report, perhaps even producing new information, would it be in order under Standing Order No. 20 for such a matter to be raised to enable a Select Committee report to be considered? I do not ask you to rule about the merits of the argument, but would it be procedurally possible to ask, under Standing Order No. 20, for a debate to take place in the light of the decision that has been made, but clearly should not have been?
Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?
Dr. Godman: Yes, it is on the same matter. Speaking as a member of European Standing Committee B, I feel that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has raised a valid objection to the meeting of my Committee going ahead tomorrow. We have in the past complained about the late circulation of documents to hon. Members. In this case, I am one of those who received

883
his documents timeously, but nevertheless, I would not disagree with the request that the Committee be adjourned until next week or the week after.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have had enough points of order on this matter to enable me to deal with it. I understand the objections raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but he knows as well as anyone in the House that Standing Committees have considerable autonomy. It is for the Chairman to decide to determine the business of the Committee and how it should be conducted, and when the Committee should issue reports.
Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me finish.
It is not for the Speaker to interfere in the work of Standing Committees, and there would be a great deal of objection if any Speaker did so. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) gave me a lot of supposition and hypotheses on which I cannot at this stage rule. I do not enter into what may happen if some eventuality takes place: the hon. Gentleman and the House would not expect me to do that.
Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am in no way challenging your ruling about the two Standing Order No. 20 applications, but will you consider a further aspect of the matter?
On Friday, the information that I received from the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers led me to telephone the office of the Minister for Energy to draw attention to the failure of British Coal to ensure that the assurances given in this House, and in the other place by the noble Lord Wakeham, were implemented. I was told that those in the office would come back to me, and I am still waiting.
I know that you will have looked, Madam Speaker, at the assurances given to right hon. and hon. Members of this House, but the assurances given by the noble Lord in the other place were rather more generous and helpful than those given here.
In view of that, if you have a further application for a debate of this type, will you take into account the inaction of the Department of Energy in providing the information that I was entitled to seek? Secondly, will you ensure that the assurances given by the noble Lord in the other place are properly taken into account in your decision on these matters?
Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you had to refuse the individual applications from my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) but if you put the two together, will you be able to consider that as a separate matter? If that strengthens the argument for a debate, I would be able to explain that the 4,500 mining jobs in my constituency that were lost in the 1980s have still not been replaced and that we have the highest level of unemployment in the country.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members are not challenging my ruling. I look carefully at these matters before I come to the Chair.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of this point of order, particularly as I am a member of the Chairmen's Panel. Could you tell me and the House whether you might consider, under the procedure for a breach of parliamentary privilege, a letter sent out by a senior management executive of British Coal to staff of British Coal, which said—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member, and I will advise him carefully. I cannot consider any privilege questions across the Floor of the House. I am aware of what the hon. Member is saying. If he will write to me about it, I will consider the matter and deal with it right away.
Mr. Winterton: I am happy to accept, and thank you for, that ruling, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I call on you, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers and as the final arbiter on the admissability of parliamentary questions, to rule on a point?
Yesterday, during question time, I received an answer from the Solicitor-General that had no connection with the question that I had asked. That was not unusual. Unique about it was the fact that the Solicitor-General said that there was no connection, and in reply to a supplementary question from me, he said:
"That is the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked".—[Official Report, 26 October 1992; Vol. 212, col. 770.]
That is an indication of the arrogance and petulance of Ministers. They are now determining the questions we should ask. That seems to represent an extension of the powers of the executive and a denial of the rights and privileges of Back Benchers.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a persistent Back Bencher, will pursue that matter effectively.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to your remarks responding to the requests concerning the two collieries in Wales and Yorkshire. I appreciate that you are not expected to reveal the reasons behind your rulings. Indeed, I have listened for the past 22 years to other occupants of the Chair saying precisely that. I do not suppose that we shall resolve that mystery today.
I fear that we are reaching a sorry pass when some of my hon. Friends are continually referring to the fact that various Ministers have made categoric statements about those 10 pits and we have reason to doubt the accuracy of those statements. We are not supposed to call Ministers liars or to say that they are deliberately misleading the House. Despite that, we are drawn to the conclusion that events are a lot like that.
I am glad to tell you, Madam Speaker, that there is a way out of the problem. The Government have scheduled for next Wednesday a debate on Maastricht, although they are as yet uncertain about the type of motion to table. My proposed solution would solve not only your difficulty but that of the Government, who should withdraw the

885
Maastricht debate and agree to our debating those 10 pits. That might enable us to save those pits and put the Ministers concerned on the line. They would then have to answer for what they have said in recent days. We might at the same time save several thousand miners' jobs.
I urge that negotiations take place immediately through the usual channels. The Government have got themselves into a big hole. The whole problem could be resolved in the way I have described.
Madam Speaker: I am always glad to have the understanding and help of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I wish that he could solve all my problems so easily.

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

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 8) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2623) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
DANGEROUS DRUGS
That the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
ARMS AND AMMUNITION
That the draft Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Hungary) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Poland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Question agreed to.

Obscene Publications (Amendment) Bill
4.44 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
I raise a subject of considerable concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House and to millions of people throughout the country. The unprecedented national concern is vividly illustrated by a petition signed by over 350,000 people which I shall be formally presenting to the House later today on behalf of the National Viewers and Listeners Association.
The current obscenity laws are not working properly. The Secretary of State called them "unsatisfactory" and the Minister of State described them as "inadequate." The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and many others have called for action now to remove deficiencies in the law. I shall show why the Government must take that action. My Bill will set that process in train, requiring areas for reform to be identified.
The law in the United Kingdom on obscenity and pornography is a patchwork quilt of provisions. We have different statutes dealing, for example, with broadcasting, videos, films, the theatre, sex shops and child pornography. This patchwork quilt of provisions is overlaid with a blanket called the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which started life as a ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the then Roy Jenkins.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Our Woy?
Dr. Spink: Yes, Woy the Wadical.
That measure is designed as a catch-all, defining the content of material which can be held to be obscene. The police use the 1959 Act to control the most severe kinds of material such as videos, child pornography and films. For some of those, other statutes are already in place. But for other kinds of material, the 1959 Act is the only statute that can be used. For example, it is the only restriction on the sale of books and magazines.
So it is clear that the 1959 Act is the keystone in the legislative arch of our obscenity and pornography law. The problem is that not only is the arch shaky and incomplete, but as a keystone, it is fundamentally loose. The source of that weakness lies essentially with the discredited "tendency to deprave and corrupt" test. That test is fast becoming impossible to prove and the authorities are reluctant to prosecute cases involving even the most extreme material, such as de Sade's "Juliette." The Government readily acknowledge the problem, so it is not tenable for them not to take action. It is the job of a caring Government, however difficult the task, to protect society and set sound standards. It is not the job of a private Member.
Hon. Members may recall the evil and vicious murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon common, and I am glad to see in his place supporting me the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). The psychologists employed by the police investigating that murder believe that the man who carried out that brutal killing was addicted to reading pornography. It is clear that the Government must act.
Only this month we have seen the sad spectacle of Madonna, a confused and perverted woman, making millions by linking sex with violence in a way which

887
normalises that link and so puts decent women at risk. Ten years ago that could not have happened, but society's standards are slipping year by year as familiarity with pornography erodes our contempt of it.
Valerie Howarth of the now sadly impoverished Childline, which receives thousands of calls, reports:
"Many distressed children say they are shown pornography and are asked to perform similar acts."
It is fortuitious that I should be moving my Bill so soon after the statement on child abuse that was made to the House earlier. Tim Harding, director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, says:
"Pornography is used to entice other youngsters into child sex abuse."
That is irrefutable evidence of the link between child pornography and the sex abuse of children. Superintendent Hames, head of New Scotland Yard's obscene publications squad, has called for tougher laws to enable him to fight what he calls
"a rising tide of child pornography."
He goes on:
"The vast majority of murderers, serial rapists and child molesters indulge in pornography."
I want their oxygen of depraved violent pornography cut off, and I make no apology for the imagery that I use.
If more evidence is needed, we can examine the situation in Oklahoma city, which clamped down on pornography in 1984. Since then, the crime of rape against women has fallen by over 20 per cent., whereas in the rest of the state, the pornography laws having remained unchanged, the incidence of rape increased by 20 per cent. We must fight to protect society from evil monsters who purvey pornography for profit. We must join my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) in denouncing sick people who claim that the mutilation, torture and murder of children and women for sexual gratification can somehow be acceptable as art or literature. That is not freedom of expression. It is rubbish.
For those who think that I am faint hearted, may I quote my gallant and hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who said:
"I spent about 15 years in the Army. I may have seen more pornography in barrack rooms than most hon. Members, and I can promise my hon. Friend that I have never seen anything in my life so depraved, disgusting and repulsive as this book." —[Official Report,. 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 1068.]
The book was de Sade's "Juliette", which remains legal in our shops today. The Director of Public Prosecutions said that he could not proceed against that book. I want hon. Members to join me today to give the DPP the tools to do the job. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) told us of her "revulsion and horror" at the book which, disgracefully, is even available in prison libraries as recreational reading for perverts and convicted sex offenders. How daft and irresponsible can we get? The Home Office must act on that now.
888
Scotland Yard called for action because the law is unworkable. Let us be clear about the fact that policemen and women were not saying, "The police don't want to enforce this law—it's in a muddle so get rid of it." On the contrary, the policy must see and deal with the victims of sexual attacks that are depicted and described in pornography. Those police officers are saying, "Please, please give us a law that works. We want to tackle the problem and get rid of that evil."
The Bill would require the Government formally to review the operation of all the legislation in that area and would bring forward provisions for the Government to change the law. It is, therefore, a paving Bill—quite fashionable these days. It encourages the Government to suggest alternative routes for reform, perhaps in a Criminal Justice Bill, with a free vote for the House. I am sure that all parties would co-operate closely and scrutinise such legislation.
The forefeiture of pornographic items, which dropped from more than 1 million in the early 1980s to 800,000 in 1987, was down to only 5,000 in the first six months of 1992. That is a drop to only 1 per cent. of previous forfeiture achievements in just one decade. Standards are slipping. The Bill would reveal such statistics and enable the House to monitor the police's ability to enforce the law. It would allow the House to consider new types of pornography such as so-called "education sex videos", European Community satellite broadcasts like "Red Hot Dutch" and new computer-based pornography.
Mr. Skinner: Is that the Common Market?
Dr. Spink: Yes, it is the Common Market.
By granting permission to introduce the Bill, the House will be demonstrating our demand for a properly conducted review of the law. We shall be saying that the Government should give clear leadership on that issue of deep public concern, listen carefully to the views of relevant parties, and regulate, monitor and report on the operation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill order to be brought in by Dr. Robert Spink, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Michael Stephen, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Mark Wolfson, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Dame Peggy Fenner, Mr. Win Griffiths, Ms. Liz Lynne, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT)
Dr. Robert Spink accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 December and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
Orders of the Day

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill (Allocation of Time)
  4.55 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill:—

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.
  (2) The proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.
  (3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  (4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply.

  Dilatory Motions
  2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Order of proceedings
  3.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government.
  (2) The question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question that such of the amendments 14, 31, 55, 66 and 64 as remain be made to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, he brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be
  890
  required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.

  Recommittal
  7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
  I shall speak briefly, for one reason which the House will guess at if it studies closely the content of the timetable motion, and because the House will want to get on quickly with the discussion on the Bill, for which the motion provides.
  It would be fair to say that the House has had a full opportunity to make itself familiar with the issues involved. The original Private Bill had its Second Reading in the other place as long ago as 23 February 1989. The Lord's Select Committee considered it for 13 sitting days as well as visiting Cardiff. Their Lordships gave the Bill a Third Reading on 12 July 1989. In the Commons, that Bill received a total of twenty-five and a half hours of debate. It was carried over at the end of the 1988–89 Session and given a Second Reading on 19 December 1989. It was carried over again at the end of the 1989–90 Session and, as opposed private business, was considered for sixteen and a half hours, including an all-night sitting. In addition, the Select Committee of this House considered the Bill for 27 sitting days, including three days of evidence-taking in Cardiff.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made clear the Government's view that the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme will bring immense benefits to the local economy, and it is well known that it enjoys considerable support in Wales. Accordingly, when consideration of the Bill was adjourned, the Government brought forward the hybrid Bill that is presently before the House.
  This Bill, which is the same for all practical purposes as the earlier Private Bill, has now had 14 days consideration by the Select Committee, including three days in Cardiff. In the House, it has had a total of twenty-one and a half hours debate. Committee stage took twelve and a half hours. Report stage was adjourned a week ago after five hours 20 minutes, when only the second group of amendments had been reached.
  I set out all that in detail so that no one—in this House, in Cardiff or anywhere else—can be in any doubt that issues raised by the Bill have received the most thorough and detailed consideration. In the Government's view, the time has come to enable the House to reach a conclusion in an orderly way.
  The timetable motion before the House therefore provides in paragraph 1 that the remaining stages of the Bill—Report and Third Reading—shall all be completed today, and that that will be achieved by bringing Report stage to an end at 9 pm, followed by Third Reading at 10 Pm.
  In paragraph 4, the motion contains the usual provisions for questions to be put when those time limits are reached at 9 pm and 10 pm. I draw attention to

  891
  paragraph 4(c), which specifically ensures that amendments 14, 31, 55, 66 and 64—all of which the Government have made it clear they will accept—can he put as a single question at 9 pm if they have not already been decided by then.
  I believe that, against the background of the lengthy consideration which the Bill and its predecessor have received, the arrangements in this timetable motion should be very much for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House come to a different viewpoint? As my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies clearly believe that more time should be given to the Bill—I take their word that it is essential that that should be done—why do not the Government get themselves out of their difficulties by having a continued debate on the Bill next Wednesday? The Government would no doubt be united, however misplaced that unity would be. Bearing in mind how the Government are in total disarray and crisis over what will happen on 4 November, why not use that day to continue the debate on the Bill?
  Mr. Newton: I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you might take it amiss if I were drawn into the discussion that the hon. Gentleman has initiated—
  Mr. Winnick: I was only trying to be helpful.
  Mr. Newton: I have observed the hon. Gentleman for many years in my various capacities, and I have learnt to take with some caution any claims from him of being helpful to the Government. I see no reason to abandon my caution today.
  In my judgment, no one can pretend that the issues in and arising from the Bill have not been fully aired. The Bill and its predecessor have now had 62 hum of consideration on the Floor of the House and have been the subject of more than 40 sitting days of examination and evidence taking by the Select Committee. It is now right to make it possible for the House to complete these discussions and to make decisions. I commend the motion to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must point out that we are debating the merits or otherwise of the timetable motion, and I hope that Members will not be drawn down the broad path to destruction by seeking to discuss the merits of the Bill itself.
  5 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Despite the words of the Leader of the House, the House is rightly wary—indeed, downright suspicious—of Governments bearing guillotine motions. Today we are being asked to guillotine the rest of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, to curtail further debate and to enforce a timetable on the remaining stages.
  It always worries me when I hear that the Government have such intentions. A certain cynicism born of experience does creep in. The Government have, after all, employed the same device more than 50 times since coming to office in 1979. It would be fair to say that the device has most often been employed on matters of considerable national importance. A glance at the record suggests that
  892
  the Government have guillotined through at least one crucial and often complicated piece of legislation almost every year since 1979.
  In 1980, the Government guillotined a housing Bill, in 1981 a transport measure, in 1982 an employment Bill, in 1983 a telecommunications measure, in 1984 a Bill on the rates, in 1985 a local government measure, in 1986 a social security measure, in 1988 the poll tax, in 1989 water privatisation, in 1990 a Bill on community care and in 1991 a local government finance measure—not to mention several Bills last year as the tidying up for the election took place.
  Even the most cursory glance at this list of measures that the Government have chosen to guillotine shows that curtailing parliamentary debate is not necessarily conducive to good government. Many of the issues on which debate was so summarily drawn to a close are precisely those on which, because they were not properly thrashed out or properly discussed, the policies have fallen apart, often with devastating consequences for the economy and the people of this country.
  The list also exhibits a further worrying tendency. The reasons for which the Government have sought a guillotine have gradually and more blatantly evolved. There is a famous quotation by a constituency predecessor of mine, Sir William Harcourt, who claimed that he feared great constitutional measures would
  "be pushed through in a fortnight",
  and who said:
  "all our safeguards are swept away".
  Perhaps his fears are even more justified today than when he expressed them.
  Many of the Bills which have been guillotined were of considerable importance, but the reason for their being guillotined has often given rise to much concern. The Leader of the House will recall as vividly as I do the guillotining of the Social Security Bill in 1986, when he and I were opposite numbers. The Bill was guillotined not because of undue delay or improper scrutiny—a properly timed and worked out programme for its scutiny was actually well under way. It was guillotined simply so that the Government could introduce extra chunks of the Bill —large sections of legislation of a highly controversial nature: the introduction of statutory maternity pay, for which little evidence or justification was offered, and of the industrial injuries scheme, with its devastating impact. Those measures were introduced after the guillotine had fallen; they had not been notified when the Bill had its Second Reading; they had not been open for debate; and by the operation of the guillotine, discussion of these issues in Committee was also circumscribed.
  In this case, therefore, as in many of the other examples that I have adduced, the guillotine was introduced not to facilitate or to timetable parliamentary debate but to avoid the consequences of proper parliamentary scrutiny. Such avoidance has often had damaging results. One thinks of the poll tax Bill, with its net cost to the taxpayer of about £14 billion—it was guillotined through the House. If proper debate had been allowed, perhaps less damage would have been done to local government and the country's revenues, and perhaps fewer problems would have been created for the British people.
  The Government failed to learn the lesson of the poll tax debacle. They even guillotined through the legislation that forms the basis of "son of poll tax", the council tax; and just as with its predecessor, problems with the council

  893
  tax are beginning to emerge. There are problems with the valuation that was drawn up, based as it was not only on a somewhat cursory examination but on a cursory examination based in turn on house prices in 1991—since when, as we all know, those prices have fallen in many parts of the country.
  The number of guillotines and the pattern of their use make it clear that they are being used less and less to avoid filibustering and more and more for the convenience of the Government. Other issues highlight the fact that this may be the problem. A look at the parliamentary reference book shows that the expectation used to be that, once a guillotine had been brought in, a business committee would discuss the precise timing and manner of the business of the House. The assumption was that that would be the subject of discussion and agreement across the House. There seems to be an increasing tendency to avoid the necessity of consultation by the simple device of including in the guillotine motion the timing of the debates which would then ensue. It is clear that that timing is resulting in less and less chance to explore the issues in debate.
  There is also an increasing tendency not only for the timing of the curtailment to be included in the motion—so there is no business committee or chance to discuss matters —but to take out of the overall time for debate the time spent discussing the guillotine motion itself. Overall, the freedom of manoeuvre that used to surround the guillotine system is being curtailed more and more sweepingly by the Government.
  Today's guillotine is particularly unusual because of its timing, its relative abruptness and its circumstances, which are sufficiently odd for it to behove the House to be wary of the possible precedent being set. We are discussing a motion to guillotine a Bill that started life as a private Bill and, as the Lord President said, in that form was never brought to fruition in debate—primarily, as far as I can see, because the issues raised by the Bill were and remain issues of great local contention.
  This is to some extent a matter for the people of Cardiff, but the implications go wider. Apparently unable to secure the passage of the Bill as a piece of private legislation, the Government chose to reintroduce it as a public Bill, part of their own programme. Now, as the Lord President said, because it affects private rights and interests, it has been defined as a hybrid Bill.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that a commitment to the barrage was not included in the Conservative party's manifesto on which it fought the last election in Wales? On previous occasions, the Government have claimed that manifesto commitments now have a mandate and are therefore appropriate subjects of guillotines. I can assure the Secretary of State for Wales, who is advising the Leader of the House at this moment, that there was no mention of a barrage in the manifesto put to the people of Wales. Does not that invalidate the legitimacy of the guillotine motion?
  Mrs. Beckett: That is an interesting point. It is yet another example of the arrogance of this Government. The election is still very recent. yet already, on a number of issues, including this one, steps have been taken that were not foreshadowed in the manifesto. The privatisation of
  894
  Scottish water is another good example, and the closure of the coalfields was not mentioned by Conservative Members in their campaign or manifesto. This is just another example of how the Government keep their programmes secret when an election campaign heaves into view.
  It is extraordinary and more than a little incompetent on the Government's part that, having failed to see a Bill through the House when it was a private measure, when they had a majority of 100, they apparently feel now that, even with a majority of 20, they cannot see the measure through as a public Bill and part of their programme without introducing a guillotine motion.
  It is not even as if we were late in the Session, with the Government's legislative programme under serious pressure or in disarray. That is one of the most worrying aspects of what is being done today. We are not even at the end of October. In a normal parliamentary year, we would not even have had the state opening of Parliament by now. We have far more than a full parliamentary year ahead of us, yet at this stage, for the Government's convenience, they seek to introduce a guillotine motion. Surely the case cannot be sustained that it would be impossible to resolve the issues that surround the Bill if debate were to continue without a guillotine motion.
  It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government are tired of the Bill, that they are tired of all the agonised debate about whether its economic effects would be as its proponents hope or as its opponents fear. There has been debate about how damaging the Bill's environmental effects could be. The Government have set a significant precedent with the first extinction, as I understand it, of an entire site identified as one of special scientific interest.
  The Government have tabled a guillotine motion not because that is the only way out for them but because they cannot be bothered with full parliamentary procedures even when there is plenty of time for them to be followed. They are showing a dangerous arrogance of which Parliament should be aware. That arrogance is not of theoretical significance only. This guillotine might set a direct precedent. I understand that it is estimated that 48 of the 130 estuaries in the United Kingdom are subject to some form of development plan. Some of the plans include proposals for marinas and others include barrages. No doubt each in their time will be, or would be, the subject of considerable local debate, as has the Bill. Such debate could be curtailed in future.
  Moreover, the Lord President, when referring to the debates that have taken place on the Bill, talked primarily about its consideration when it was a private measure. We should today be regarding it solely as a public Bill. That is what should concern the House, and it is in its present form that the Government claim that there is a need for a guillotine.
  A further precedent seems to be being set in terms of the time allowed for debate in Committee. On average, a Bill is considered in Committee for 80 to 100 hours before it is thought necessary to impose a guillotine. I understand that, as a public Bill, this measure has been considered in Committee for only twelve and a half hours. That, for a start, will considerably reduce the average time that a Bill is considered in Committee.
  I understand that some of the matters raised in debates are unresolved as yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred to some of these

  895
  issues in the House only last week. There is the call for independent assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal and the legal implications of insufficient scrutiny. Technical studies of how to deal with the groundwater problem—a source of anxiety from the start —are not yet complete or available. There was the late delivery of an updated economic assessment of the impact of the scheme. All these matters have given my hon. Friends cause for concern. The economic arguments and the economic case for the scheme caused great anguish, given the background against which the state of the local economy must be judged.
  Britain is in its third year of' recession, the longest recession that we have had. Officially, unemployment is nearly 3 million. It is acknowledged even by the Department of Employment that the true level is over 4 million if those not receiving benefit though looking for work and those on Government schemes rather than in work are included. Our trade balance is deteriorating, and business failures and home repossessions are at record levels.
  The picture is the same in Wales. In Wales alone, almost 4,500 actions for mortgage default were begun in the first half of the year. Over 1,800 businesses failed in the first nine months of the year, more than a third more than the failures last year, and almost 130,000 people are out of work, more than twice as many as in 1979 when the Government came to power. There is all that before the devastation that coalfield closures and others will bring. Small wonder that fear of unemployment is rife in many areas. Against that background, it is natural that anxiety that there should be proper scrutiny and secure development should run high.
  What is certain is that the Bill has from the start been the subject of great local contention. It has aroused strong differences of view. It is equally clear that the danger of setting damaging precedents cannot be overlooked, especially when we are faced with a Government who are so blinkered and short-sighted in the policies that they devise and so arrogantly and casually incompetent in their execution. I fear that the Leader of the House has not convinced us, the Opposition, that we would be wise to risk the precedent that he invites us to set. That is why I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate. Its brevity will be entirely consistent with your strictures when it started, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I respect some of the opinions that have been expressed strongly by Labour Members, although it is right to say that they do not all agree about the barrage. Indeed, why should they necessarily agree on the issue, which in essence should not be a party political one? Within my party, there are disagreements in Wales on whether the barrage is overall a good thing or a bad thing. Many of us, such as myself, strongly support the activities and aspirations of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other organisations.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlile: No. I wish to be brief.
  896
  We support the society and other organisations that are concerned with the environment. On the other hand, some of us believe that it is foolish to spit in the eye of important economic progress.
  I have in mind an old adage—it is one of the first things that anyone who joins my part of the legal profession is told. They are the wise words of one of the great advocates of the past, who said to a pupil, "You are paid not for your doubts but for your opinions."
  It is my view that guillotines are entirely inappropriate in many of the situations to which the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), referred. We have been given several examples of politically contentious legislation that the Government drove through the House by introducing guillotine motions. In that way they sought to avoid important political debate, and that is illegitimate.
  No one could sensibly say—it defies common sense to make the suggestion—that every issue relating to the Bill has not been fully debated. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that I believe every snail, slug and newt in Cardiff bay feels that it has been fairly represented by one, if not more than one, of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who represent seats in the Cardiff area. As a matter of principle, once an issue has been fully debated, as the barrage has over several years, we should come to a decision. It is common sense to decide upon it, and it is time to decide upon it. I shall be advising my colleagues to support the motion in the unusual circumstances of tonight's debate.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I cannot regard the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) as a helpful one, but it told us something about the Liberal party.
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of the barrage.
  Mr. Michael: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will contain himself.
  As I have said, his speech told us more about the Liberal party than about the Bill or the motion. There was disagreement between Liberals when there was more than one Welsh Liberal Member in the House. What we heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman sounded to me rather like the one remaining Welsh Liberal Member disagreeing with himself about the value of the Bill.
  We can be clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is just about 50 per cent. against the guillotine motion— well, perhaps he is 51 per cent. for it and 49 per cent. against it. We know that the Liberals will drive on to either side of the political road, or both sides, if they perceive an advantage to be gained in so doing. The hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution to the debate is typical because, in the Cardiff area—in Grangetown—local Liberals tried to capitalise by opposing the barrage. As a result, they were hammered in the local elections, as they deserved to be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I have argued in the interests of our constituents and the people of Cardiff—not of the slugs that apparently prompted the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to take his principled stand and to lead his tattered army through the Lobby tonight.
  Dr. Kim Howells: I am concerned about the reference to newts because I do not believe that there are any in Cardiff bay. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not referring to ladies and gentlemen of an alcoholic persuasion who stop to rest at the pier head.
  Mr. Michael: I am sure that the hon. and Learned Gentleman's concern for endangered species is merely fellow feeling on his part. The Liberals are pretty much an endangered species.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. One endangered species are hon. Members who do not stick to the point.
  Mr. Michael: I stand abashed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret being led down that path by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
  My opposition to the guillotine motion is partly prompted by my regret at missing the opportunities that would otherwise exist for Welsh Members of Parliament to gather to debate the Bill late into the night on many occasions. It has aroused great interest also among right hon. and hon. Members representing seats in other parts of the country.
  The Government are not proposing a guillotine for the health of right hon. and hon. Members, or to protect my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Cardiff, West from the threat of laryngitis, or because they want to give the Bill proper but speedy consideration.
  The development area falls within my constituency, but the Bill's effects go wider. The Minister was right to say that the barrage enjoys considerable support across a wide area of Cardiff and south Wales, and has enjoyed support in the House from hon. Friends representing constituencies in Newport, Swansea, and other areas. Support for the Bill has also been demonstrated in elections. However, that is no reason to introduce a guillotine and to rush consideration of reasoned amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Allowing the axe to fall at 9 o'clock will not allow proper consideration of important amendments and must be resisted.
  The Government's earlier mishandling of the Bill created an element of rush at this late stage. It was originally introduced as a private Bill, and I pay tribute to South Glamorgan county councillors for that. In the second stage, the Bill was introduced jointly by South Glamorgan county council and the development corporation. The action of South Glamorgan councillors in the first stage of investment—in putting money where their mouths were by building the new county hall at Atlantic wharf—demonstrated great bravery and a willingness to work through the processes of the House to achieve the desired end of a barrage Bill.
  South Glamorgan had to produce a private Bill because of Welsh Office decisions, and many of the problems leading to tonight's guillotine were a consequence of that original mistake by the Welsh Office. The weaknesses of the private Bill system have been totally exposed. I hope that that will prove terminal for the procedure—at least in respect of contentious measures rather than any enjoying widespread agreement. The private Bill procedure is as unfair to the Bill's supporters as it is to its opponents.
  The free discussion and lack of direction on both sides of the House at the private Bill stage engendered many problems, which haunted the hybrid Bill when it came before the House as a public measure.
  898
  Conservative Members have also failed to progress the Bill before now. The Leader of the House mentioned the series of occasions on which it has been debated, as if that were a failing on the part of the Opposition. The failure is that of the Government's business managers, who let down Welsh Office Ministers when they sought to battle on with the Bill. They must take a large share of the blame, rather than argue blatantly for a guillotine motion tonight.
  The public Bill has been cursed by problems engendered by the private Bill. I am as keen as anyone to see the Bill on the statute book. The barrage will improve the environment, increase employment, and enhance the economy in an area that extends beyond my constituency. It will provide housing—particularly social housing— which will be of benefit to people and to communities in my constituency and beyond. Instead of expressing fury at our initiative in taking the debate to such lengths, Conservative Members should compliment us on the comradely fashion in which we have discussed the measure.
  Among the positive amendments that should be properly debated tonight is amendment No. 13:
  "At least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of any works, the Development Corporation shall consult South Glamorgan County Council on the proposed pattern of traffic movements during the construction period, including the hours of operation. At least 6 weeks prior to the commencement of works the Development Corporation shall publish proposals, amended in the light of those consultations, for a 2 week period of public consultation."
  There will be an element of disruption during the construction. We have seen that with the building of the new road in south Cardiff, which considerably inconvenienced my constituents in Butetown and Grangetown. The guillotine motion does not discriminate as to the time that can be spent on debating each group of amendments. That amendment should be seriously considered by Ministers and receive a proper response.
  Another amendment, which the Government accept, will allow for local authority representation on the advisory committee and another provides for the development corporation to report properly on its actions to the advisory committee. Those limited but important issues should not go undebated because of the Government's desperation to go home early tonight. Even if a guillotine is needed—and I do not accept that—the motion goes over the top in so severely truncating debate. Another failing of the motion is that it gives no fixed time for debate on each group of amendments.
  As we all know, unless the terms of a guillotine motion are careful and measured, ensuring at least some time for debate on each group of amendments, things become extremely messy. Moreover, an excessively truncated debate may lead to the Government's intentions being overlooked. Let me place on record my opposition to this ill-thought-out motion: the Leader of the House has let down his Ministers as well as the House.
  5.30 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). He knows a great deal about this subject, and I share his concerns.
  I agree, for instance, that there should be affordable housing in an area that contains the greatest concentration of deprived wards in Wales and, possibly, in the United Kingdom as a whole. Cardiff badly needs the proposed

  899
  developments. I also feel that we need further time in which to debate whether the £150 million which is to be spent on the construction of the barrage will deliver value for money in terms of jobs.
  Following the events of the past 10 days or so, that time is more valuable than ever. The urgency of the position is clear to those of us who live in the hinterland of Cardiff —the coalfield area. A shadow lies across the question of whether we shall receive value for the money that the Welsh Office is allocating to quangos. I have searched the text of the motion in vain for some indication of the value for money that has been provided by the sums spent so far on creating jobs in Wales. Given the nature of the motion, I fear that we are unlikely to extract a figure from the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary.
  We need to know, for example, whether a figure is attached to the creation and protection of jobs in Wales over the past three or four years. The minutes of evidence provided by the Public Accounts Committee for a report entitled "Creating and safeguarding jobs in Wales" suggests that the cost of creating or safeguarding a job is about £1,700. That is a very small amount. According to a Welsh Office report entitled "The Government's expenditure plans 1992–93 to 1994–95", the figure is about £3,500. We should bear that sum in mind when considering whether to allocate £150 million to a single large civil construction project.
  I am not opposed to the allocation of such sums to projects like this, and I do not for a moment denounce the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House to push for a scheme that could create many jobs. I am simply arguing that this may not be the best way of spending a shrinking public-expenditure resource. I shall be interested to learn whether the Secretary of State has any news for us yet about whether the £150 million will be taken from the overall cake of public expenditure on Wales.
  Mr. David Hanson: The proposals affect the economy of north Wales as well as that of south Wales. In the past 10 days, a moratorium and potential closure have been announced for the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency: 500 mining jobs may be lost, as well as many more jobs connected with mining. Does not the guillotine motion deprive many of us of an opportunity to explore the possibility of unemployment in north Wales? The colliery closure will hit my constituents especially badly.
  Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for that invaluable intervention. We have been given the excuse many times that the barrage will bring jobs to our constituents—for example, to my constituents in Taff-Ely and Pontypridd, from which many people travel to work in Cardiff. We have been told that we should be grateful for this development. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, however, would be hard pressed to argue that it will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents by creating jobs. If we are serious—as I believe the Secretary of State has been on many occasions—in saying that we in Wales should be allowed more independence in deciding how sums allocated to us are spent, we must address ourselves to my hon. Friend's question.
  Perhaps even more important is the involvement of a constitutional issue. In such a short debate, we may not be able to discuss how it can be decided whether a quango —in this instance, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which the Welsh Office has appointed
  900
  without consulting those likely to be affected, in the valley constituencies as well as in and around Cardiff—is doing a good job, and will spend its money well. How can we come back at the corporation and question its decisions? That is an important question, and the construction of the barrage lies at the heart of it.
  Some of us are keen for the development to take place in our constituencies, but we do not want decisions to be made as they are in Cardiff. Often, it seems to be a case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" in the old boy network and what in Welsh we call the crachach. Such people appear to be members of almost every quango in Wales, and almost all of them live in castles around Usk and have double-barrelled names—although Lieutenant Colonel Inkin, a dynamic individual in many ways, is an exception to that last rule.
  Many of us feel strongly that an issue of constitutional importance cannot be dealt with properly in the short time allocated to a guillotine motion. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary can tell us whether we are to see the institutional changes that so many of us have demanded. Such changes would allow the people of Cardiff, and the people of Wales in general, to debate these matters much more coherently and comprehensively.
  The quango that we are discussing has access to £33 million of public money this year alone. That is an enormous sum. I have talked to my constituents about what could be done with £33 million. We could, for example, revive the town centre of Pontypridd, which now contains 15 or 16 empty shops. Pontypridd is a market town, which has traditionally drawn people from the Rhondda, Cynon and Merthyr valleys to its famous market. Now it is dying on its feet for lack of vital investment.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues do not describe this demeaningly as the politics of envy. The people in my constituency will be very glad to see the developments. I hope that we shall benefit from them. However, when they cannot obtain £5 million to complete a road system that would get rid of the congestion that is such a black spot in Pontypridd, they then see that £150 million is granted for the building of a dam across a filthy river—filthy because no investment can be obtained to clean up the sewage works that lie upstream from Pontypridd. These are constitutional as well as financial issues which I hope will be discussed within the terms of the guillotine motion.
  Many infrastructure jobs are desperately required in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, as well as in the valleys of south Wales. We—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that he is now dealing with other matters. We should be considering the merits or otherwise of the guillotine motion that is before us.
  Dr. Howells: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I am trying to point out that in terms of the guillotine motion there will not be sufficient time to discuss its important ramifications for all those interested in the scheme who live outside the barrage area. If the guillotine motion has any relevance, it is relevant to my constituency. It is a neighbouring constituency to Cardiff, through which the two rivers run that are to be, both literally and metaphorically, dammed.

  901
  Very many jobs need to be done in the capital city of Wales, as well as in our various constituencies. They include the repair and renewal of some of the worst housing stock throughout Europe. Many of my hon. Friends will want to draw attention to that fact. Many of us believe that if we are to benefit from the Cardiff bay barrage, if and when it is built, we must have a proper road and rail infrastructure to enable our constituents to travel to Cardiff to work. The A470 is an extremely dangerous road because of traffic congestion.
  The rail network is in extreme danger because of the closure notices that have been served on the collieries. The rail network serves Cardiff bay directly. My constituents would think it remiss of me if I did not raise that issue and if I did not say that the guillotine means that there will not be sufficient time for my colleagues and me to express our great concern about whether we shall be able to enjoy whatever advantages may arise from the Cardiff bay barrage.
  Mr. Michael: I support my hon. Friend's point. There is also the question of communications within the city of Cardiff and communications between the centre of Cardiff and the Cardiff bay barrage area. My hon. Friend made a telling point, not least because the present state of the railways, such as the Penarth to Cardiff railway link, is appalling. None of us can depend upon it when we wish to travel around the area.
  Dr. Howells: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what I am talking about in terms of the guillotine motion. Without discussion of that issue, we shall discuss this great civil engineering project in the abstract. We are not placing it in context. Furthermore, we are not explaining to people why hon. Members are so angry about the fact that a quango that is answerable to nobody is allowed to allocate such huge sums of money to this project while the rest of us have to settle for the crumbs that fall off the edge of the resource table.
  The question of what we do about cleaning up the two rivers that flow into the lake which is to be created by the barrage is of great importance in terms of the guillotine motion. It is impossible to discuss it in the short period of time available. We need answers from the Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State to the question of what they intend to do about forcing Welsh Water to get on with the job of cleaning up the sewage sites further upstream. I live right on the edge of one river. I am sick of seeing the filth that flows down it. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State have not provided a good answer in any of our debates to the question of how they intend to clean up those rivers, which would enable us to turn our town centres round again to face the rivers.
  If we were given a fraction of the £150 million that has been allocated to the barrage scheme, the valleys could begin to do that. I know that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State feel strongly about the issue, but I should like them to say what action they intend to take that would allow us to start doing that in the valleys.
  Another question that is at the heart of the guillotine motion is, what is to happen when, and if, work on the project begins? That question must be discussed now; we shall be able to discuss it at no other time. My hon. Friend
  902
  the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth drew attention to amendment No. 13. He knows as well as I do that we have not had a straight answer to the question of where the materials for this great project are to come from. Will they come from the limestone rim at the southern end of the coalfield that occupies such a large part of my constituency? That would lead to the expansion of quarrying in the area, coupled with dangerous lorry movements. It is not simply a question, as the amendment says, of discussing and negotiating with South Glamorgan county council. There must be negotiations with Mid Glamorgan county council.
  The Conservative Benches are empty. Conservative Members are throbbing with indifference. Since they are always proclaiming their love for Wales, I should have loved to see some of our nationalist colleagues present, but not one of them is here. Apart from the occupants of the Treasury Bench, no Conservative Members and no nationalist Members are here. We never see our nationalist colleagues in these debates. They usually stay away from controversial issues. I have not even heard them talk lately about the nuclear power stations issue.
  I oppose the motion. I know that many of my colleagues agree with me. I only wish that some of those who sit on the Conservative Benches would do the same.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I support what was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
  Many of those who have spoken have already made the point that those who arrange the business of the House seem to have developed the expectation that during any 12-month period at least one day will be devoted to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It has almost become a fixed part of the parliamentary calendar. There is Budget day; there is the autumn statement; there is the Loyal Address and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill at one of its stages—Second Reading, Report, or Third Reading—either as a private Bill or as a public Bill. Whatever else happens, there must be the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in any parliamentary Session.
  People may think that it is all going to come to an end tonight and that this is the last that we shall see of the Bill, but, despite the timetable motion which guillotines proceedings on the Bill, I hope that the Minister replying the debate will not be prevented from making clear whether that is so or whether the Bill will be back again next year. I understand from some of the local authorities concerned that there is a strong possibility that the Bill will be in a different form when it is introduced in another place as the Government accept that the Bill is already defective due to the effluxion of time.
  Another reason why timetable motions should be opposed is when the Government accept, as I understand is the case in this instance, that the Bill in question is defective. They will therefore have to alter it in another place and we shall have to consider Lords amendments some time next year. The Government owe us an explanation as to why they are timetabling a Bill which they know will have to be altered for various technical reasons. I may be wrong, but that is what I understand

  903
  from one of the two local authorities involved. Timetabling a Bill that the Government know to be defective is a dubious procedure.
  Are there any precedents for timetabling or, to use the common parlance, guillotining a hybrid Bill? I understand that this is the first time that it has been done, although there is nothing to prevent it: if the Government want to ram through legislation willy-nilly, they can do so. It behoves us, however, to stop and think about whether a hybrid Bill should be guillotined. The rights to petition Parliament on a hybrid Bill are protected, but nobody to whom I have spoken is aware of any previous hybrid Bill having been guillotined.
  I freely inform the Government, in case they do not know, that a hybridised Bill—the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Amendment) Bill —was indeed guillotined, but that Bill was declared hybrid by Examiners three quarters of the way through its parliamentary consideration, whereas the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has been hybrid from the outset. I understand that today's motion sets a precedent; we should consider whether it is a healthy precedent.
  I hope that Ministers will say whether they are aware of other hybrid bills being guillotined. We believe that the motion is a thoroughly unhealthy development because individual citizens will lose their rights. Earlier, I asked the Minister to say whether the Bill will be changed when it is presented in another place, because if it is, it will create a new class of petitioners against it.
  "Petitioners" sounds a rather cold term, but they are ordinary individuals who do not have the resources to pay accountants, lawyers and parliamentary agents to advise them. They can be small business people, householders or anyone whose way of life is directly affected by a Bill. Will their rights be curtailed if we accept the precedent of guillotining a hybrid Bill? We must think carefully about that before agreeing to it, and I hope that Ministers are taking careful notes to enable them to respond properly.
  The Leader of the House—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—in making a raw arithmetical calculation said that the justification for the motion was simply that, in its different forms, the Bill had been debated for many hours. The 1988 Bill was first presented in another place, considered here and then dropped and converted into a Government Bill. That simple, raw arithmetical calculation implies that the Bill is exactly the same now as when it was introduced in another place in November 1988, but we know that, as people have come to learn more about it and its consequences, it has altered enormously. The design of the barrage and our knowledge of its side effects have altered, and legal judgments in the European Court of Justice directly affecting the status of the site of special scientific interest have been made since the original debates.
  The mathematical justification for the guillotine advanced by the Leader of the House is irrelevant. It means nothing because new material is continually emerging, and hon. Members whose constituencies are directly affected by the barrage must have time to do their jobs as parliamentary representatives properly. I will give just three examples of recent completely new information —some of it emerged as late as last Friday—which is material to our consideration of the Bill but which is in danger of being precluded by the motion.
  Last Friday, the Treasury minute in Cmnd. 2074 was published and made available in the Vote Office as a
  904
  preparatory step towards the Public Accounts Committee's debate tomorrow. It refers to the parliamentary accountability of bodies such as the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The corporation, as has been hinted at already by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), is almost unique as a non-departmental public body or quango. It is the only quango with a large budget but almost no parliamentary accountability.
  In the Treasury minute to the Public Accounts Committee, the Government said that they intended to do something about that. I hope that, before we agree to a motion to confer enormous enhanced spending powers on the Cardiff Bay development corporation, we shall have a clear sign from the Government as to how they intend to strengthen parliamentary control over the way in which the corporation spends its money. It would be wrong for us to pass the motion without the Government coming clean about what they intend to do to fill the corporation's black hole of parliamentary non-accountability.
  Conclusion (xii) of the Treasury minute said:
  "the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to identify control weaknesses of this type and bring them directly to the attention of Parliament as he did in"
  the case of the Development Board for Rural Wales. In response, the Government said that the Comptroller and Auditor General
  "should have rights of access to the body's"—
  in other words, the quango's—
  "papers and records so that he may bring to Parliament's attention, whenever he considers it appropriate, any material departures from the requirements of regularity and propriety."
  He cannot do that with the Cardiff Bay development corporation. It is the only big-spending quango where the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot bring to the attention of the House any departure from the rules of regularity and propriety. The Government further said:
  "These rights are frequently provided by statute".
  Yet for some strange reason the Cardiff Bay development corporation was exempted from the rule. "Sponsor departments"—the Welsh Office—
  "will seek to secure such rights in cases where they do not exist at present."
  We want to know how the Secretary of State for Wales intends to provide, by statute or in an undertaking from the Dispatch Box today, the normal degree of parliamentary accountability for the Cardiff Bay development corporation before the corporation is given the enormously increased powers to spend money and to commit itself to a massive increase in expenditure and powers over the development area with all the side effects which spread into adjoining constituencies such as Cardiff, West. We must know exactly how Parliament will maintain the normal standards of parliamentary accountability over the increased spend. I hope that we can do something about that tonight, as we found out about it only last Friday. That is why the timetable motion is so dangerous.
  In the late stages of the summer recess, we heard that the development corporation had proposed a new method by which to help to keep the groundwater levels down. The water will be pumped out, so if it is 15 ft below the surface now, it can be maintained at that level. That is known as de-watering wells. We know only that, by the time the Bill is in Committee in the other place, the corporation will have carried out field tests in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr.

  905
  Michael). The tests will be carried out using a couple of wells and the corporation will present the results to the Committee in another place next February.
  Is this procedure good enough for the House? We are being asked to pass a timetable motion on a Bill for which a key item of evidence will not be available until next February. As the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, West I do not feel that that is satisfactory and I am extremely unhappy about the timetable motion on that account. There is no hon. Member for Cardiff, West in another place. If the job is not done in this House, it will not be done at all. There are estimable people in the other place and I do not criticise them, but there is no local constituency representation. It therefore falls to us to ensure that we have the right amount of information before we pass the Bill. That information must be explored across the House, which cannot be done if the timetable motion is passed.
  Should the Government try to timetable a hybrid Bill which has specific effects on, for example, 6,000 houses and which has side effects on small business premises? Timetable motions are dangerous. They are unprecedented and doubly dangerous for hybrid Bills and should be opposed. I am glad that we are opposing the motion today. New material has just been presented and we have simply not had the opportunity to discuss it properly. The timetable motion will curtail, if not remove altogether, our ability to discuss that evidence, depending on how much time we have left for amendment and debate.
  What will the impact of waterlogged soils be on health and domestic heating, with the cooling effect of an impounded lake? That question has come up only recently. It was first touched on in evidence to the Committee, but it was not in a validated form. The paper given by Dr. Max Wallis and Mr. Munro at last month's European environment conference in Nottingham raised all manner of questions which we have not yet had a chance to discuss. We may or may not be able to come back to those questions, depending on how draconian are the pressures on later debate. That, too, makes me unhappy.
  As we may have a chance to discuss the matter later, I will touch only briefly on it today. The broad thesis of the two academics is that domestic heating costs will rise in the area adjoining the lake because the lake will cause a drop in temperature of 2 deg C for long periods of the year. They suggest that infant mortality rates will rise and that general morbidity, in terms of people with chest problems, will be exacerbated. Through creating additional fogs and mists, the lake may create additional traffic accident risks.
  The question of whether that thesis is true is material to the Bill. The Minister may shake his head; that is fair enough. He may have a point of view and he may be well briefed. Then again he may not be—I do not know. We may find out, but with a timetable motion it is far more difficult to find out.
  I can only briefly give the House the view of the National Rivers Authority, which was first told of the thesis following the publication of the original document this February. Lord Crickhowell, who will have some responsibility in the other place as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, wrote to Mr. Munro this July saying the NRA had taken the responsible attitude of asking for independent validation of the Wallis-Munro
  906
  report given in evidence to the Committee in February and then published as an occasional paper of the University of Wales in the same month.
  The NRA needed to know whether the two academics were a pair of cranks talking through the top of their heads or whether they were good scientists who had simply come up with a different approach to the side effects of the barrage. I shall read briefly from the letter from Lord Crickhowell to Mr. Monro of 2 July—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the letter refer to the timetable motion? If it does not, it is not in order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point which he wants answered on Report. I hope that he will not pursue it further now and that he will move on to some other points.
  Mr. Morgan: You may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be willing to accept that I have today discussed the timetable motion with Dr. Wallis, one of the scientists. That is how I got a copy of the letter: he supplied me with it through the wonder of the modern fax machine. The NRA said in its letter of 2 July:
  "We employed a well-respected independent consultant, Middlesex University (formerly Polytechnic) Flood Hazard Research Centre earlier this year to consider your results. They concluded that the statistical analysis was sound and the relationship between the factors"—
  that is, the waterlogged soil, and the rises in infant mortality, in morbidity and in traffic accidents—
  "appears to be confirmed."
  That is the basis on which we should not curtail debate by a timetable motion.
  We should be saying that the thesis opens up an area which Parliament must consider without the restriction of a guillotine. It would be wrong for us to say, "Guillotine the discussion because we know everything there is to know about the Bill." Perhaps the Leader of the House, who has just returned to his place, will remind us of the arithmetic. It has been said that there have been plenty of hours of discussion and that nothing new has been discovered, so the guillotine is a fully justified method by which to bring what has become a repetitive debate to a close. That simply is not true in light of the letter which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were good enough to allow me to read out as it was so obviously in order.
  The letter showed that, at least for the NRA, a first look at the results by its independent validation group at Middlesex university seemed to show that there was something in them. We as parliamentarians should say, "The evidence was not fully considered on Second Reading because nobody knew about it; should we now consider it?" The answer is obviously yes.
  The Government now have something to prove. They could say that they accept the broad thrust of the evidence, as the NRA seems to be doing following the validation of the thesis—in which case Parliament needs to consider at length the possibility of extending the right of compensation. We have tabled amendments on that, although they are last-minute amendments because of the lateness with which the information has come to light.
  Should there be a right to compensation for people living in the affected area whose houses will be colder? Should their additional domestic heating costs be paid by the development corporation? We do not want to tell people, "Do this through your solicitor: go to the courts and sue." The whole principle on which we have discussed the Bill for the past four years has been that people should

  907
  not need to go to court for compensation for the damaging side effects on their peaceful occupation of their houses or business properties.
  Compensation must be built into the Bill. We must debate the matter thoroughly on the Floor of the House to ensure than any rights that people should have because they will be adversely affected are covered in the Bill and properly considered so that no one feels that he has had a bad shake from Parliament. People should be able to feel that they had a reasonable opportunity to petition against the Bill and that, if they could not petition, we have done our job as constituency Members in bringing matters to the attention of the House and screwing some reply from the Ministers responsible, however reluctant they may have been to give a reply. We should ensure that any right to compensation which may occur in later years is clearly defined by Parliament so that people know what the price of the barrage will be in terms of side effects and in terms of the compensation for which we must legislate.
  That point is even more important in light of the problems about the Barnett formula. If the Secretary of State for Wales has less access to funds, it is all the more important that we should tie him down, before the Bill leaves the House, to a clear understanding in negotiations with the Treasury. He must understand the true price of the barrage. He must know how much it will cost in terms of civil engineering and construction, and he must understand how much the compensation bill is likely to be.
  Will that need to be extended to cover domestic heating costs and claims from people who say that they have been made more ill by the increased cold and damp or have had a car crash in a November mist caused by evaporation from the impounded lake? These matters must be put on record. We need to know whether the Minister will say, "No, the right will not be extended," or whether he will be willing to find the extra money to extend compensation rights in respect of matters which have come to our attention so late in our consideration of the Bill.
  Will the Minister be covering another difficulty which arises now that the Bill is a public Bill? Certain matters are not covered in debate unless we specifically raise them, and I do not know whether we shall have the opportunity today to cover fully the agreements which were explicit in the private Bill but are implicit in the public Bill. If we allow the timetable motion through, our debate on consideration will be curtailed. I therefore ask what has happened to the explicit agreements in the private Bill which have become side agreements in the public Bill.
  If we accept the guillotine motion, discussion of what has happened to the side agreement between the development corporation and Wiggins Teape, the paper-making company in my constituency at which 220 jobs are to be lost on 27 November, may be squeezed out. That company is in an area which was directly covered by a specific set of clauses in the private Bill but is now covered by side agreements. It is now proposed to remove the last paper-making machine in that plant. I want to be sure that, if the guillotine motion is accepted, we shall have the opportunity to raise that matter later or that the Minister will write to me to cover the point.
  I now have no way of getting access to the information that I require. Under the original agreement, the development corporation would have paid for the company's additional water treatment costs, but as the present agreement is private, I no longer have access to the information. Is it true that the company is being paid
  908
  compensation by the development corporation in respect of the extensive water treatment required if one is to manufacture paper at a paper mill? I find that extremely worrying, because I am to lose the mill, which is the guts of the plant.
  The lake will convert certain industrial plants, including that paper mill—hitherto a coastal plant able to discharge treatment water into a tidal reach—into inland plants and unless the development corporation has a duty to pay additional water treatment costs, that will render its position less sensible than at present. Negotiations under the 90-day requirement laid down in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1975, about which we have heard so much in the past seven days, are currently under way. The period expires on 27 November. I hope that we shall have adequate time to consider this matter, or that the Minister will agree to write to me about it.
  The Government have made some almighty mistakes in trying to rush the Bill through, and we are worried that they are rushing it again today without our having adequate time to discuss all the new material. The Government foolishly sought to ignore the rights of Welsh Members to serve on the Standing Committee. I fear that they are going down the same alley today, saying that the swifter our consideration of the Bill, the better it will be. We know the Government's record of incompetence—and the swifter our consideration of the Bill, the greater will be the Government's mistakes.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I oppose the guillotine motion—indeed, I was amazed that the Government bothered to think of using such a device during a period in which they are not under any pressure to push major Bills through the House.
  The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will go down in history as a Bill whose passage through Parliament has been consistently mismanaged. The Government's only chance of getting the Bill enacted now is to introduce a guillotine motion. On two crucial occasions during the lifetime of the two Bills, the Government have not even been able to count on their own supporters to be in the Lobbies. The present motion represents a last-minute attempt to try to get the Bill out of the way at a time when such action is least easy to justify.
  Let us go back to the fateful night in March when the private Bill had to be withdrawn. The present Bill was then introduced. Since then, the Government have been so worried about the amount of time available to deal with parliamentary business that they gave us a summer recess at least two weeks longer than any recess in the last decade. Let us be generous: we need at least a week to consider the Bill more fully. Could not the Government have seen that in July? Why could not the House have continued to sit for another week then, or returned a week earlier? We should have been quite prepared to come back to debate these fundamental issues.
  In explaining his reasons for reluctantly taking the guillotine to the Bill, the Leader of the House said that it had been fully debated over a long period. In fact, the circumstances in which the Bill has been debated have been shifting like the sands of the Sahara when the Harmattan is blowing. We shall have barely two hours to consider more than 90 amendments. What sort of discussion will we

  909
  be able to have? We shall hardly have time to touch on some important issues that have changed the circumstances surrounding the Bill's introduction.
  Let me give an example: we were presented with the updated report on the number of jobs that would be created by the barrage on the very day of our original debate. Yet now that we have had a chance to look into that new report in a little more detail, the Government have introduced the guillotine to preclude the possibility of a proper debate. To my mind, the authors of that report could do with at least an afternoon's grilling in Committee concerning the circumstances surrounding the updated assessment they have made of the jobs benefit of the barrage.
  The report refers to a mid-October assessment. However, it is not entirely clear whether, on the day before the report was published, the authors made a final conclusion about the jobs benefits or whether that matter had been under consideration over the summer. It is not clear whether any account was taken of black Wednesday —23 September—when Britain ignominiously had to pull out of the ERM. Have all the changing circumstances since mid-September been considered in the updated jobs report? The jobs report refers to property values in the bay area and I believe that those references are highly contentious.
  We will consider 90 amendments in seven groups in this debate. I cannot see how we can examine the detail and question the assumptions in the new report. The assumptions deserve to be examined very carefully as they comprise new material which has been made available to us only on the day of the debate. The Government have let themselves down badly and have not given the House a fair chance to debate the issues.
  I wish that we could rely on the Government to accept that they have presented us with so much new material and that there have been so many changes that the Bill is worthy of at least another two or three days' debate at a time when we are not overwhelmed by parliamentary business. Bearing in mind the Government's difficulties with other legislation, they could quite easily provide time to consider the issues and not whip the Bill through tonight with Conservative Members who, on at least two other occasions, proved that they did not care what happened to the Bill because the Government had to pull up stumps as Conservative Members were not in the Chamber to support them.
  I make a last plea to the Minister to give us a few more days to discuss the issues seriously, because we will not be able to do that in two hours this evening.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: We are living in truly remarkable times. The Government are sitting like a group of rabbits paralysed by a car's headlamps. The Government machine and the economy of the country are collapsing around them. The Government are divided as they have never been divided before, yet they have to come to the House in prime time tonight with a guillotine motion. What is even more astounding than the divisions in the Conservative party is the fact that the Government have managed to unite the Labour party today. All Opposition Members realise how deep the divisions have
  910
  been, but the Minister and his colleagues are so inept that they have contrived a situation today in which all the Welsh Labour Members will vote in the Lobby against the motion. That is a clear sign of the Government's ineptitude.
  Erskine May describes guillotine motions as
  "the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure … it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance … between the claims of business and the rights of debate."
  We heard nothing about the flood of business that is pressing the House when the Leader of the House opened the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred very eloquently to the long recess. The only whipped business before the House this week is the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, and there was virtually no business before the House last week. I understand that the business managers are in such a state that they barely have any business to put before the House this side of Christmas. However, the Government are asserting today that the guillotine must apply and the rights of debate must be set to one side because of the demands of Government business.
  Mr. Hanson: One need only consult yesterday's Official Report to discover that business finished at 8.36 pm. Surely that is not a packed programme.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend has made the case directly.
  Over the past five or six years, we have had plenty of experience of an arrogant Government determined to press their legislation through who then had to repent at the leisure of the people of this country. Even the Government must accept that the poll tax was a very good example of that. We heard all the pleas that it was necessary to curtail debate because the poll tax was a vital piece of legislation. We were told that we could not have further discussion of it. It was driven on to the statute book. What happened? It was driven on to the statute book without proper debate and that resulted in a mess.
  That legislation brought down a Prime Minister and should have brought down the Government. However, the Government have learnt nothing from that experience because they are still demonstrating the same attitude. They believe that the needs of business must take precedence over debate. The Government are incapable of learning from their own mistakes.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Just like the poll tax.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed, the Secretary of State was responsible for that fiasco.
  I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the Liberal party spokesman, is no longer in the Chamber. His comments were breathtaking in their ignorance and arrogance. In a throwaway comment, he said that it did not matter about the slugs, snails and newts in Cardiff bay. From your careful observation of our debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that the case for Cardiff bay is not about slugs, snails or newts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) who is a great expert on the ecology of Cardiff bay knows, there are no slugs or newts in the bay.
  It was typical of the Liberal party that its spokesman should make a few throwaway comments in a patronising and condescending way and completely offend the interests in Wales which have been arguing the

  911
  evironmental case. He set those to one side. We need more debate about the matter so that we can educate the Liberal party on environmental and ecological matters and put to them the fact that the case for Cardiff bay rests on the site of special scientific interest. That case depends on the bird life in the bay.
  When the Leader of the House opened the debate, it was interesting that his Parliamentary Private Secretary was the only Tory Back Bencher in the Chamber. Where are all the Tory Members who regard the Bill as a matter of fundamental importance?
  Mr. Paul Flynn: They are in Strangers Bar.
  Mr. Davies: I can only suggest that my hon. Friend has just come from the Strangers Bar. He might be bringing some news hotfoot. The Government's troops are simply waiting for the green light from the Secretary of State; they will then rush to the Chamber sufficiently lubricated to make passionate and powerful speeches in favour of the guillotine motion.
  The truth is that the Government and the Tory party could not care less about the measure. If Conservative Members supported the barrage, they would have been in the Chamber tonight. They would have been here when the Secretary of State sent out his pathetic little letter last year. The Secretary of State had to write to Cabinet members asking them for support to get the private Member's Bill on the statute book, but the Government could not muster the 100 Members necessary to force the closure at 11.30 pm—so much for the commitment of the Secretary of State and Conservative Members. Their recognition of the vital nature of the debate is demonstrated again by their absence tonight.
  I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Leader of the House, and pointed out that the Government have no mandate for this measure. That makes the guillotining of the debate even more important. The traditional defence of a guillotine is, "We have a mandate for it; it was in the manifesto; the people have voted for it; it is being deliberately obstructed on the Floor of the House; if we wish to put the people's view into practice, we have to guillotine it."
  There is no public mandate for this measure. The only mention of it in the Conservative party manifesto was a very brief sentence which states:
  "Land made derelict by old industries has been reclaimed on a massive scale. The Cardiff Bay development and the Ebbw Vale garden festival are outstanding examples".
  That is hardly a plea for public endorsement or an unequivocal plea to the people of Wales: "You must vote Conservative because, at the heart of our economic policy, we will press the regeneration of south Wales by building a barrage across the mouth of the Taff estuary." It is a bit like the claim that the centrepiece of the Government's economic strategy is the maintenance of the value of the pound within the exchange rate mechanism—and it has about as much weight.
  Mr. Hanson: I need not remind my hon. Friend that, even if that were an endorsement, after the general election on 9 April the Conservative party found itself with six seats in Wales, only one of which is represented in the Chamber this evening. Twenty-seven of us were elected, and we have friends in other parties—four in Plaid Cymru
  912
  and one in the Liberal Democrats. So even if the subject had been in the Conservatives' manifesto, that would hardly be a ringing endorsement as they lost the election in Wales just as they will lose the vote on the motion.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is correct but over-generous. I do not think that six Welsh Tories can claim to support the Bill. The Minister himself is the very Minister who blocked the Bill's predecessor. He has given no explanation of that, so I think that there are five and not six. The Minister has the cheek to say that we should have no further debate, when he is the very individual who blocked the previous legislation. We are at least entitled to an explanation of how the blinding light fell upon him and determined him in this new course of action. In the Conservative party these days one does not need much persuasion. The argument is that one gets carried away by events. The Minister will say, "I was carried away by events; I was swept up by the tide of popular enthusiasm and made a Minister in the Welsh Office."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not respond on the committal motion.
  Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why, on this guillotine motion, it is very inappropriate for the Minister to be here.
  I have to accept that, as a diehard opponent of the Bill, along with my hon. Friends, I have played my part in trying to talk out the legislation. That is no secret—we all know what we have been doing. We filibustered the previous measure and we have filibustered this measure as best we can. The attitude of any responsible Government facing such diehard opposition would have been to say, "We are going to get a guillotine motion; now accept the fact that we are going to push the measure through." Despite all the objections and reservations raised by my hon. Friends, they should have said, "We are going to guillotine the motion, but let us have an appropriate debate on the outstanding matters."
  We know from the selection of amendments that there are vital matters for debate, but the guillotine motion will allow only about two hours' consideration of the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to that point. If we decided to vote on each lead amendment, there would not be sufficient time to vote on the amendments, let alone debate them. If the Minister wanted to ensure that the real concerns of the people of Cardiff were addressed—for example, the problems of groundwater, water quality in the bay, water quality in the lagoon, and the replacement of lost sensitive environments —he should have produced a guillotine motion which at least allowed reasonable time for discussion.
  The guillotine motion is draconian, to say the least. It will not even allow us the opportunity to say yes or no to each group of amendments. It is a particular disappointment that a Minister and a Secretary of State who pride themselves on wanting to develop consensus—at least, that is what they say—should bring forward this guillotine motion instead of saying, "We are going to guillotine the measure, so let us have a motion which allows an appropriate response."
  We know that the Government will win the vote on the motion. The pity is that they will deny reasonable debate. As on many other occasions, they will get their legislation, but other people will have to pay the price. In this case, the priceless natural heritage of Wales will be destroyed and

  913
  the people of Cardiff will pay a much higher personal price for the lethargy, indolence and myopia of the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Welsh Office.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: As always, this is a matter of great interest to us all. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said when he pointed out that the Government's incompetence in handling the Bill has united Labour Members. Only a few Sundays ago, I happened to switch on the television and see a programme about teaching English to foreign students. On that programme my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) argued the merits and demerits of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is amazing that, if the Government are united on anything, it can only be the guillotining of Welsh business.
  The Leader of the House gave us facts and figures relating to the hours that have supposedly been spent debating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but he failed to tell the House that there were separate Bills. In a sense, they dealt with separate issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has told the House how the Bill has considerably altered, as has the nature of the barrage, over the months and years. The Leader of the House also failed to tell the House that the barrage has involved immense controversy. Therefore, it is only right and proper that appropriate time should be given in the House of Commons so that representatives of the people of Wales may discuss these matters.
  We are concerned also about the precedent being set by guillotining a hybrid Bill. Perhaps most significant for Welsh Members of Parliament is the fact that, in a sense, the motion is an English guillotine motion. I say that not in a nationalistic sense, but out of 38 Welsh Members of Parliament only six are Conservatives. With the possible exception of the sole Liberal Democrat for Wales, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the overwhelming majority of Welsh Members require greater scrutiny than has been afforded this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and others referred to the fact that, some months ago, Standing Order No. 86—an 85-year-old parliamentary tradition—had been deliberately overturned by the Government because they did not want all Welsh Members discussing what is to take place in their capital city. The Government are doing that again today. Opportunities for all Welsh Members to discuss the details of the Cardiff bay barrage are limited. If Welsh Members had not served on the Standing Committee, the number of hours in which to discuss these important issues would have been far more restricted than was implied by the Leader of the House.
  Several of my hon. Friends referred to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and said that it was not subject to sufficient scrutiny by the House. If we had not faced a guillotine motion this evening, we could have given much more time to the public scrutiny of that body.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) suggested that admirals ran public bodies in Wales. As far as I know, there may well be an admiral or two running a committee somewhere in Wales; there are certainly colonels, generals, squires, unsuccessful Tory
  914
  candidates and defeated Conservative Members. The irony is that, the more seats the Conservative party loses, the more jobs it gives itself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that many amendments on local accountability had yet to be debated on Report. For example, there is a host of amendments on setting up a Cardiff bay advisory committee. The Leader of the House referred to the House of Lords Select Committee. That Committee said that an advisory committee was a matter for the House of Commons to discuss in some detail. The opportunity did not properly arise in the Standing Committee, and we shall certainly not be given the opportunity on Report because we shall have a limited amount of time.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Caerphilly referred to all the other issues which stand before us and may not be debated. Those issues include the flora and fauna associated with Cardiff bay, the sites of special scientific interest which have been debated outside the House but not sufficiently inside the House, the quality of the water in Cardiff bay, the needs of those who fish, groundwater levels and flooding, which are still matters of grave concern to thousands of people in Cardiff, and the intertwined roles of the National Rivers Authority and the Secretary of State. Those issues will not be discussed today.
  Perhaps the most important issue which will not be completely and properly discussed is the amount of money that will be spent to build the barrage. The most important role of the House is to scrutinise public expenditure. Hundreds of millions of pounds are to be spent on the barrage proposal, much of which is public money. We have been told that at present the Cabinet is examining what we know as the Barnett formula, and will reduce the amount of public expenditure in the Principality. The Standing Committee certainly had evidence of sloppy management of the finances of the Cardiff Bay development corporatiton.
  All the matters that I have mentioned make it vitally important for the House to be allowed to fulfil its traditional role of scrutinising public spending, particularly when such spending is at risk. When the Government had a majority of 100, they used to browbeat and bully the House. As we saw last week, however, the world has changed for the Government—they now have a majority of only 21. The Government have neither the mandate, nor the right or the authority to impose their shaky will on the House or on the people of Wales. I urge the House to vote against the motion.
  6.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad that we have had one of our traditional, good-natured Welsh debates on this important timetable motion.
  The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who should be congratulated on the textbook nature of her contribution. Unlike a few other Opposition Members, the hon. Lady was in no danger of being called to order by the Chair. She produced a traditional litany against timetable motions, with only the slightest reference to this motion. It was ironic that she criticised the Government that for not having passed the subject of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill when it was a

  915
  private Bill. It was not a Government Bill. There was no Government Whip on that Bill. But it was noticeable how few Labour Members bothered to participate in the debate or the divisions on the private Bill.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) reminded us of the benefits that will flow from the redevelopment, which will include the construction of the barrage. Like my right hon. Friend the Lord President, the hon. Gentleman referred to the widespread support in South Wales for the proposal. He was typically generous in describing the speeches from his own Front Bench, which he described as reasoned. That is a comment which only the hon. Gentleman can make about his own Front Bench. Perhaps he was even more honest when he said that Opposition Members had conducted the debate in a comradely fashion. If that is a comradely fashion, they must be wearing bullet-proof vests and every sort of protection from knives in the back.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that amendment No. 13 dealt with an important matter which he wants us to examine this evening. I accept that amendment No. 13 is a constructive proposal. The spirit of that amendment is fully accepted; it is compiled with in the publication of the environmental assessment.
  I hope that I shall have the opportunity later this evening to point out to the hon. Gentleman that most of the materials for the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage will be transported by water or by rail and that the main site access will be through Queen Alexandra dock. I am sure that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman that it will not be necessary for him to press amendment No. 13 to a vote later this evening.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) reminded us of the importance of considering the worth of the moneys that will be spent on the proposal. His desire for action for the valleys is most appropriate. He is absolutely right to put that forward. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, an integral part of the Bill is the substantial benefits that it will bring. They will not be confined to Cardiff, but will be of material advantage to the whole of south Wales.
  I am reminded that the hon. Member for Pontypridd has told me that he is typically one of the yuppies on his side of the House. He lives alongside the water himself, so he is likely to benefit directly from the improvements that will be brought about for Cardiff bay and River Taff by the barrage. I hope that he will benefit, and that his constituents will benefit.
  Dr. Kim Howells: I never knowingly described myself as a yuppie. I should like to know whether the dam will be high enough to make the reservoir stretch as fair as Abercynon. The reservoir needs to stretch that far if it is to affect my constituency. Will the barrage block up the river and swallow up Abercynon and presumably the whole of Cardiff?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows well the improvements that will flow for the River Taff and for south Wales generally, and we must make progress with that.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked whether the Bill was defective and would be changed in another place. He knows full well the answer to that question. He will recall that the Select Committee required the Government to amend the Bill to widen the land
  916
  drainage powers of Cardiff city council. The matter has been discussed and agreed with the city council, and the Government will make an amendment to the Bill as it is presented in another place.
  However, it is erroneous to suggest that the Bill is defective in any way. I can certainly give an assurance that anyone who is directly affected will have the right to petition in another place. The timetable in this House will have no effect whatever on that right.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister must accept the use of the word "defective" to describe a Bill that will be altered after it has left the House, particularly when the only reason why the alteration was not made in this House was that the Bill would have to go back to Second Reading. It will now be hybridised in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is asking the House to pass a Bill on the basis of a promise that it will be put right in another place. To say that it will be put right in another place is to accept that it is defective as it goes through this place. There can be no other meaning of the word.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's pretence that the Bill is defective is yet another wild stretch of his fertile imagination. The Bill is not defective. Everybody knows what is happening, and no one will lose rights as a result of the Bill or the timetable motion.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about financial matters, but those will be much more appropriately discussed when we resume the debate that we adjourned on Tuesday last week. Sadly, we had reached only the second group of amendments by 10 o'clock last Tuesday, and that group dealt with financial elements of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of dewatering. That is an irrelevant argument, because, as he full well knows, no dewatering powers are sought under the Bill. Full protection is already included in the Bill for any changes that might come about to groundwater as a result of the building of the barrage. Dewatering may improve the situation, but I can say no more than "may". It will be exhaustively studied, but it does not affect the groundwater protections provisions in the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to rerun those old claims about the micro-climate of Cardiff Bay. Somehow, the barrage will affect heating costs, traffic accidents and even, in his most sensational claim, infant mortality. My technical advisers suggest that any changes in the micro-climate as a result of barrage construction will be negligible. It is inconceivable that a temperature difference of 2 to 4 deg C would occur in the local atmosphere. The relative size of the bay compared with the Severn estuary is indicative of the magnitude of any change that could occur.
  As the hon. Member said, Dr. Wallis appeared before the Select Committee earlier this year to make those claims. He expanded on his views at length, but the Select Committee was deeply unimpressed. The hon. Gentleman's attempts to resuscitate them now is a typical example of his willingness to use any scare story, no matter how far-fetched, to oppose the barrage.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: Yes, I will give way.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has given way but he will agree that he had to do so because he made a disgraceful slur against my reasoning in using

  917
  that argument. He will recall—he has not touched on this —that I was allowed by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to read out a letter from Lord Crickhowell which referred to the Middlesex polytechnic flood hazard research centre having confirmed the soundness of the statistical procedures used by Dr. Wallis and Mr. Monro. That is not to say that I agree with them, but their views have been confirmed and validated quite independently, and externally, by a body chosen by the National Rivers Authority.
  That is why I was at pains to say that this was not my thesis but that of Dr. Wallis and Mr. Monro. I have not externally validated it—not being a scientist, I could not do so. Instead, the body chosen by the NRA has validated it. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his disgraceful slur.
  Mr. Jones: As I have said, my technical advisers have reassured me that such claims are inconceivable. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is backing off from any suggestion that he is supporting those claims—or is it another attempt by him, in the vernacular that he would use, to slag off health provision in Cardiff and South Glamorgan?
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to another matter, but it would be best if I told him that, if he were brief, to the point and relevant—perhaps I am asking too much of him—we could consider all those points in the time available to us this evening.
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, there are two points of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should prefer one at a time.
  Mr. Davies: I was just trying to save you time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to make my points one at a time. First, throughout the debate you have made it clear that we had to restrict our remarks to the terms of the motion before us. For the past five minutes, the Minister has been wandering everywhere, and he has not referred to the motion. Is it not time that he directed his remarks to the terms of the motion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I allowed the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to quote from the letter to the NRA, and the Minister was responding to that. Therefore, that was not a point of order.
  Mr. Davies: On a second point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister accused my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West of being neither brief nor relevant, and said that he was guilty of being repetitious. Is that not a direct slur on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because if my hon. Friend were guilty of irrelevance and repetition, you would have called him to order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Had the hon. Member for Cardiff, West been unduly repetitious, I would have called him to order. He was not, and I did not hear any criticism to that effect.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked for time to consider the latest economic appraisal. I give him the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
  918
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was at last totally frank on this subject. All he has been engaged in is a filibuster. Equally, he admitted that his case is bankrupt. He cannot succeed by persuasion, and all he can do is resort to filibuster.
  Mr. Davies: Let me make it clear, so that there is no misunderstanding. I told the Minister that I was opposed to the Bill, and that, if necessary, I would resort to filibustering to try to defeat it. It ill becomes a Minister whose Back Benchers have not made one contribution to the proceedings, either tonight or on previous occasions, to talk of the value of persuading other people by the force of debate. He has never had anyone to listen to him.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman need only reflect on the dearth of his colleagues who have turned out in debate and in the Division Lobbies to support him on previous occasions.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made sure that we concluded our proceedings in the good-natured manner that we had maintained throughout. There was a twinkle in his eye when he claimed that the Government had managed to unite his colleagues on this subject. I know that he does not even believe that himself. That is as true as the merriment that there has been among Labour Members since the vote last week on new clause 1. They were united on that vote last week, but that meant that they were united on voting down the only success that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has achieved in all his contributions to our debates.
  As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the House has already had extensive debates on the concept of a barrage across Cardiff bay in the context of the private Bill promoted by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and South Glamorgan county council. The barrage proposal, the operation of the barrage, the management of the inland bay and the outer harbour and the ground water protection scheme were extensively examined on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place. The examination of this Bill, which would achieve the same ends, has been rigorous.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister once again says that the barrage scheme has been well debated, but will he not admit that last week there was a further update on the economic effect of the benefits of the barrage that could not be done justice to even if we spent the whole of the two hours that we have on that issue alone?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has already made that point, and I have already replied to it.
  The opponents' determination to slow up proceedings on the Bill was evident last Tuesday, when the House was discussing new clause 1. Although we were considering a large group of other amendments, most of the three hours spent on them was taken up with attacks on the Government's new clause 1 and related amendments. The Government had tabled those amendments to meet in full—indeed, to extend—amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West in Standing Committee.
  Of the 125 or so amendments tabled in Committee by Opposition Members, well over half had been tabled again. Having heard the same points made on Second Reading and in Committee, it was not unreasonable to expect opponents to come forward with something that we had not heard before. The evidence of last Tuesday was

  919
  that further consideration of the Bill was to be yet another rerun of familiar arguments from some Opposition Members. That is not to dismiss the real issues arising from the Bill: the Government have addressed those by ensuring that adequate safeguards appear in the Bill.
  On Second Reading on 25 November, the Opposition tabled an amendment about the adequacy of the groundwater protection scheme, about public consultation on the Hydrotechnica studies and about water quality in the inland bay. There were ample opportunities in Standing Committee to discuss the ground water protection scheme and the Bill's provisions relating to water quality. Public consultation on the Hydrotechnica studies, a separate issue, was dealt with fully when my right hon. Friend announced his decision on public funding in the light of those studies on 20 January this year.
  The National Rivers Authority has declared itself satisfied with the way in which its responsibilities, including water quality, are dealt with in the Bill. In the circumstances, therefore, the motion is entirely reasonable. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, once a motion has been fully debated—and this subject certainly has been—it is time to make a decision on it. He is right, and I urge the House to support it.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 201.

  Division No. 77]

  [7.01 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Butler, Peter

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amess, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ancram, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ashby, David

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clappison, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

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

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boswell, Tim

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Bowis, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eggar, Tim

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Elletson, Harold

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evennett, David

  920

  Faber, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Moate, Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hague, William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Nicholls, Patrick

  (Epsom-Ewell)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Norris, Steve

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hannam, Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Paice, James

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawkins, Nick

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hendry, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Redwood, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jessel, Toby

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knox, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  921

  Stephen, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Wallace, James

  Streeter, Gary

  Waller, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Ward, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sykes, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thomason, Roy

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tracey, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dafis, Cynog

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Darling, Alistair

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Denham, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry

  Dixon, Don

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobson. Frank

  Battle, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bell. Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Enright, Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Etherington, Bill

  Benton, Joe

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Boyes, Roland

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Fyfe, Maria

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

  Galbraith, Sam

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Henderson, Doug

  Coffey, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook. Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Hutton, John

  922

  Ingram, Adam

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Parry, Robert

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Janner, Greville

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Tessa

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Leighton, Ron

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lewis, Terry

  Rooney, Terry

  Litherland, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mahon, Alice

  Straw, Jack

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Meacher, Michael

  Watson, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Welsh, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Milburn, Alan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Winnick, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wise, Audrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mudie, George

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  O'Hara, Edward

  Mr. Alan Meale.

  Olner, William

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill:—

  Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.
  (2) The proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.
  (3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  (4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply.

  Dilatory Motions
  2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Order of proceedings
  3.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government.
  (2) The question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any

  923
  proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question that such of the amendments 14, 31, 55, 66 and 64 as remain be made to the Bill;

  (d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;

  (e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, he brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.

  Recommittal
  7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [20 October] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Clause 1

  CONSTRUCTION OF BARRAGE ETC. AND OTHER WORKS
  Which amendment was: in page 1, line 7, at the beginning to insert the words—
  `Subject to subsection (8) below'. (Mrs. Ann Clwyd.)
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan:I resume the debate on this group of important amendments in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is in Hong Kong. He was in mid-flight when he was so cruelly cut off by the Government's failure to keep their troops here at 10 o'clock a week ago. That may have been the beginning of the degeneration of the Government's authority over their Back Benchers, of which we have seen so much more evidence in the past seven days—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have complained about the lack of time to debate the amendments. Can we please get on to debating them?
  Mr. Morgan: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about Cardiff, not Maastricht. Were we discussing Maastricht, there would be no guillotine motion because the Government would be unable to impose it. That is the only point that I was trying to make. Maastricht is the Cardiff of Holland—the capital of an area that used to contain coal mines, which have now all closed down. That is what we have been trying to prevent in the past week.
  The amendments to which we should pay further attention tonight concern whether the updated version of the cost-benefit analysis provided to us by KPMG Management Consulting is adequate for us to proceed with, or whether it is a doctored analysis done specifically to assist the client to get permission to spend taxpayers' money on a vast scale but not something that a consultancy firm would feel proud of or want to enter for consultancy study of the year competitions next Christmas. It is probably fair to say that it falls into that category and that the House must therefore provide the element that consultancy studies do not reach—namely, a realistic and objective look at the costs and benefits that need to be applied to the barrage proposal, given its size, implications, side effects and importance in the Welsh public expenditure budget.
  We want to ensure that the House considers whether the cost-benefit analysis that has been done so far meets the terms that it properly should.
  The trouble with cost-benefit analyses of this sort is that they tend to be done to please the client so that the company concerned obtains follow-on business. That is not to say that they are full of porkies, but they tend to be attuned to the client's wishes; sometimes they are even rewritten when the client is not too happy with the first shot. Tonight, we need to discuss whether the cost-benefit analysis has taken full account of the change in the economic climate since the earlier analyses were done.

  925
  They were done without examination of the demand for land and property development of the London docklands type.
  When the scheme was initiated, it was thought that office-led developments were a good thing—they appeared to bring prosperity, and it was thought that they could replicate in Cardiff the sort of prosperity that was being created by the £15 billion-worth of private sector investment in London docklands in 1987 and 1988.
  All this has now gone into reverse. What concerns me is whether the cost-benefit analysis, although officially updated, has really been updated, or whether the consultants still believe that replicating Canary wharf in Cardiff on a smaller scale is still a valid idea. Have they been able to leave behind the mind set of 1987–88 and adopt a mind set suitable for 1992's economic conditions?
  Last week, the blue book issued by KPMG was given us for reading and debate. The problem is that people have assumed that, if the supply is provided, the demand will inevitably follow. We must ask ourselves whether any equation that does not include the demand side is valid at all. My hon. Friends and I are all convinced that the demand side should have been studied much more closely by KPMG for the updated report. That is why amendment No. 91 still calls for an effective cost-benefit analysis. None has yet been done, and it is not possible for the consultants to do one usefully unless they can shake off the feeling that what Cardiff needs is another Canary wharf. Cardiff needs that like a hole in the head.
  We must learn the lessons of what has happened in the east end of London. If we do not, we will build the wrong infrastructure, make the same mistakes and create another white elephant of the same type. I do not believe that KPMG has been able to take a step back and think again about the new conditions of 1992. It has not examined demand in south Cardiff in the light of what has happened in the past five years. The consultants' appraisal still looks far too much at the supply side of land and property at the expense of demand.
  There are 20 million sq ft of surplus office space in central London, not to mention in docklands. The price of this space has collapsed, with the resulting tortuous negotiations in which the Government are engaged to try to save Canary Wharf by working a deal with the Jubilee line and shipping out 2,000 civil servants—who might otherwise have considered moving to Cardiff. We should think about the potential loss of jobs in Cardiff under the Government's office relocation schemes. Their top priority will be to organise relocation from central London and Whitehall to the Canary wharf area, and they will probably spend the next 10 years trying to fill that great white elephant.
  The 2,000 civil servants from the Department of the Environment in Marsham street—the Government are toying with the idea of moving them to Canary wharf— might have been candidates for Cardiff, but they will not come for the next few years while the huge surplus of space remains in London. The KPMG report gives the flavour of none of this. It refers to the changed climate, but it does not really scrutinise the problems of supply. There is also the problem of price. The price of office space in London docklands has collapsed from £30 a square foot four years
  926
  ago to £10 today—or even as low as £5 if the office in question is not new. Canary wharf is available at £14 or £15 a square foot.
  Welsh Office Ministers sought to deny us certain information last week, but the news is nevertheless astonishing. It concerns the rental being paid by the Welsh Office-sponsored quango, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the first pre-let tenant of the Grosvenor Waterside development. The information comes to us in an updated press release from Grosvenor Waterside; it was initially issued only to the technical press. At any rate, the rental to be paid by the authority for its new 150,000 sq ft of office space, a relocation from central Cardiff to Cardiff docklands inner-harbour area, will be £14.50 a square foot—50 per cent. higher than the rentals on offer in London docklands.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Does my hon. Friend recall how we were told in Committee by the Minister that this information, now apparently in a press release, was commercially confidential? Has the Welsh Office withheld information on this as on many other issues?
  Mr. Morgan: I apologise; I said that the Minister refused us the information last week—it was actually in Committee that he did so. As my hon. Friend said, he refused it on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
  The Grosvenor Waterside press release described the lease for the first five years as at £14.50 per square foot. That is to be compared with the rent offered by Canary wharf's receivers for the relocation from Marsham street. The circumstances are similar, although the distances are greater in London, but the distance from Marsham street to Canary wharf is comparable with that between Newport road, where the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is, and Cardiff docklands.
  The rationale in London is the considerable savings to be made from leaving central London, but the move to Cardiff docklands was a one-off letting organised under heavy pressure just before the election in an attempt by the Government to help Associated British Ports to move to Grosvenor Waterside inner harbour development. And the rental for that bears little resemblance to the collapsing rents of central London.
  It is amazing what can be organised in a pre-election splurge of public expenditure to get some development going, with taxpayers' money, around the inner harbour. That needs close examination; it may get it from the Public Accounts Committee at some stage. In any case, such a move would not appeal to the private sector. We cannot rely entirely on public sector jobs moving at public sector-organised rentals which may have been arranged at a higher rate at least in part to stop the Government getting egg on their face.
  If the private sector is to move to Cardiff bay, it will want rents well below those prevailing in London docklands. No one will move from London to Cardiff when there are cheaper rents to be had in London.
  Mr. Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting again, but the full impact of the information now available is creating growing resentment. I begged the Minister three times to give us an illustration of the rents for the services authority. I was told repeatedly in Committee that they were commercially confidential. Unless the Minister interrupts my hon. Friend to say that the press release

  927
  from a private property company is wrong, surely we can conclude that the Minister should have readily provided us with the information when we pressed him in Committee.
  Mr. Morgan: I am obviously grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones)rose—
  Mr. Morgan: I am glad to see that the Minister wishes to intervene. I give way to him.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful. I hope that it will be helpful if I try to respond to both the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
  They are right to say that, when they raised the matter in Committee, I told them that the details were commercially confidential. The terms of the lease prevented the details being released without the prior consent of both parties. However, the figures have been released by the developer, and I can confirm that the average rent for the first five years will be 14.50 per sq ft. That is consistent with the range of £14 to £15 that is used in calculating initial land values for the barrage scheme in the latest economic appraisal.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has provided. We face a difficulty, because there is no date on the press release of Grosvenor Waterside. We may be able to obtain the date from the technical press, to which the press release was sent. That may help to clarify the situation at the time when the Minister was saying that the information was still commercially confidential. That is what he told us in Committee. Was the relevant information being given to the technical press at the time but he was not willing to disclose it to the Committee to avoid embarrassment, or whatever the reason may have been? We shall not know what the situation was without the date of the press release.
  Mr. Rowlands: The Minister's intervention was even more pathetic than the contributions that we have come to expect from him. I understand that the press release appeared in October 1991. That was long before we discussed these matters in Committee.
  Mr. Morgan: If that is the position, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the Minister will wish to intervene again. If the press release appeared a year ago, that is a material fact to set against the Minister's refusal to disclose details in Committee. I am trying to recall the month when we discussed these matters in Committee.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I cannot help, because I do not have the precise date. I have set out the advice which I was given. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, having been in my position at the Welsh Office, may understand that the terms of the lease kept the details confidential, subject to disclosure by both parties. As I have said, they were made clear in a press release that was put out by the developer. On becoming aware of that, I intended to confirm the information that was put out. I am happy, however, to take the opportunity now.
  Mr. Morgan: We look forward to a further explanation when the Minister replies to the debate.
  The critical issue is how we are to measure demand in Cardiff over the next 20-odd years. We are talking primarily of office relocations, on which the viability of the barrage proposals depend in terms of betterment value, which will not exist if the present manufacturing and docks domination continues. It will be possible to pay for the barrage only if there are enormous increases in land values. Land values will have to be increased to much higher capital-based land values, by the construction of offices, five-star hotels, an opera house, high-class residential properties and some retail developments, for example. That will be a move away from the traditional manufacturing and docks domination in the area.
  If it is not possible to move into a Canary Wharf-type development, it will be extremely difficult to meet the civil engineering cost of the barrage and its running costs and maintain water quality in the man-made lake, for example, into the future.
  It is necessary to consider whether the recession is a temporary blip or whether we are seeing a fundamental change within our economy. It has been going on for rather longer than something that could be described as a temporary blip, so we must consider whether it is a sea change that will have an effect on demand within the economy for offices on the one hand and for leisure, housing and manufacturing developments on the other. It is a difficult area but it must be considered in the context of the KPMG cost-benefit analysis, which is sadly lacking in any realistic assessment.
  Having read the KPMG attempt at producing an updated cost-benefit analysis, we take the view that it is inadequate. It considers the supply of land and assumes that there will be demand for whatever use is contemplated. The critical factor is whether there is demand. That is why so many Opposition Members think that the barrage proposal, with its dependence on trying to get firms to move from London to Cardiff when prices are so low in London that it is likely that they will remain there for the next 10 or 20 years until the surplus office space is soaked up, is ill-founded. It seems that the Government are trying to impose a Welsh Canary Wharf on Cardiff. They are bringing forward what I think it is fair to describe as 1987 answers to the problems of 1992.
  Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morgan: I have finished my speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Is he giving way to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards)?
  Mr. Morgan: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have finished.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: First, I apologise to the House for missing the debates which took place last week. The reason for my absence was tonsillitis. This afternoon I read the Hansard reports and noted especially the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
  Amendments Nos. 80 and 88 turn on the public spending involved. They are designed to impose a cap on that spending, which has increased in the form of estimates over the years. Amendment No. 91 is, in effect, a request for an updated cost-benefit analysis of the scale of public

  929
  investment proposed. Like everything else, costs increase over the years. The latest figure that I have is contained in a letter that the Minister wrote on 30 June to those of us who served on the Standing Committee.
  The public sector contribution is assessed at £405 million. It is estimated that the total cost of construction and the associated infrastructure will be £662 million. Expenditure of £405 million of public money on the one project is on a scale far greater than that for any other projects in Wales. I wonder whether that money would not be much better spent on a series of other projects to improve our infrastructure. It is proposed to spend £405 million of public money on one project at a time when we are talking of public spending cuts or constraints. It seems extravagant to invest such a sum in one major project.
  There will be a multiplier effect, and it is one that is calculated to attract private sector investment. We in the Labour party are interventionists: if we can use public money to prime private sector investment, that is fine. I question, however, how much private sector money will be attracted to the project, especially at a time of recession. In the documents issued over the past couple of years, it has been estimated that the multiplier will be a factor of seven. In other words, every £1 of public money will attract £7 from the private sector. That will amount to about £2 billion and the creation of 23,000 to 25,000 jobs. That is the scale of the estimates made by the Government and the development corporation.
  In an article which appeared in the Western Mail last Saturday, the Minister is quoted as saying that the private sector investment that will be attracted will be more than £1 billion, or slightly more than £1 billion. I do not know whether that is the result of the recession or whether an error has been made. The Minister still believes that the scheme will create 23,000 jobs. In that same article, he described those who oppose the barrage as Luddites. That is incredible, coming from a Government who have brought the loss of 2 million or 3 million manufacturing jobs. Only last week we saw the debacle over pit closures, which affected Taff Merthyr and the Betws pit in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the inappropriateness of his comments.
  We have witnessed the serious problems encountered at Canary wharf over the past year. An economic boom may be the moment to realise prestige projects, but at a time of recession—when schools, roads, housing, and hospitals are underfunded—it is incredible that the Government should be pursuing this Bill.
  There is an overwhelming need to reinvest in Britain's manufacturing base. The Library research notes suggest that the barrage scheme will create jobs—other than those in construction—in respect of shopping centres, commercial offices, schools and hospitals, industrial and high technology estates, tourism, cultural attractions, leisure amenities and 5,000 housing units. The emphasis is on service industries, which are suffering particularly badly in the recession. The project does not address the economic problems of the past two or three years.
  Having attended every debate on the barrage in the past five years, I have reached the conclusion that the £400 million public money involved would be better spent in other ways. It is Welsh Office money and should be
  930
  distributed throughout Wales. I accept that jobs are desperately needed in the Cardiff area, because three out of the four Cardiff constituencies figure in the top five suffering the worst unemployment. Cardiff is seen as a wealthy capital city, but in truth it suffers high unemployment. However, my own constituency, which is 60 miles from Cardiff, will not benefit to any extent—and that is true of the whole of north and west Wales.
  The trickle-down theory has it that investing a lot of money in Cardiff will benefit the valleys and the rest of Wales, but it will not. It would be wiser to invest the money across the whole principality.
  Public expenditure on the barrage should be capped, and a detailed cost benefit analysis made this year and next year to see whether jobs really will be created and whether there are not far better ways of using that public money.
  7.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has been suffering from tonsillitis and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from bronchitis—which occasions his much-changed appearance before us this evening. I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will soon fully recover.
  Most of last Tuesday's debate took the form of a sermon by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). That was appropriate at the time, because two days previously the hon. Gentleman and I had an opportunity to be in a state of grace—having attended a St. Luke's day service at St. David's church, Merthyr Tydfil, at which our mutual friend Canon Bill Morgan officiated.
  Last Tuesday, I found myself listening to a self-confessed deja-vu-ist, when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a sweeping condemnation of the economic appraisal. He does not like it, but he fails to produce any grounds for the claims that he makes. He casts the most unfair aspersions against reputable and professional firms. It was not KPMG alone who produced the appraisal but Chesterton, Conran Roche Planning, and Cooke and Arkwright. The good name and reputation of such firms is their most precious asset, and they would not lightly put their names to any appraisal—
  Mr. Rowlands: In the valleys communities, Cooke and Arkwright is known as the hardest ground landlord of all. The Minister does not improve his case by reminding us that Cooke and Arkwright is involved in the concoction.
  Mr. Jones: All four of the professional firms involved worked long and hard to produce the economical appraisal. If they were to attach their good names to a false appraisal, they would risk the reputations which are their best hope of future business.
  The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Carmarthen referred to barrage-related costs of £662 million. That figure is correctly described as the total cost of a development strategy including a barrage. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) pointed out, those costs are not strictly barrage-related. None the less, I confirm that the figure of £497 million in the updated economic appraisal is equivalent to the £662 million given in my letter of 30 June.

  931
  If Opposition Members compare the table on page 12 of the appraisal with the equivalent table in the January 1990 appraisal. they will see where the differences lie. As to the reduced costs of the peripheral distributor road, it is standard procedure in any economic appraisal to exclude money already spent when calculating net present value. The sums spent were excluded from both the with and without barrage scenarios, so both were treated equally.
  The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Neath (Mr. Hain) asked about the public sector contribution. Table A8 of the appraisal shows the public sector investment to be £349 million, which is equivalent to the £405 million given in my letter of 30 June.
  Mr. Rowlands: Is the ratio of public to private expenditure higher or lower in the revised figures than it was in the original?
  Mr. Jones: I shall come to that in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked whether there had been any further change in the estimated cost of barrage construction since the revision of the figures. There has been no further change since the figures that I gave him in Committee. Echoing the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the job estimate had been based purely on estimates of office space. The answer is no—the estimate of office space is based on detailed estimates of the commercial demand for such space. That is reinforced by, for example, the success of developments around the existing water edge in the Tarmac development.
  The hon. Gentleman misquoted Chesterton as saying that nothing had changed in the property world. Chesterton has made modest adjustments to the growth rate, but significant cuts in the base values from which it started.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister is being terribly unrealistic if he is asking us to accept that there is anything in common between the Tarmac development at the top edge of Atlantic wharf—which is really the southern tip of the present commercial centre of Cardiff—and any developments near the pier head. Many of us know Tarmac's Atlantic 2000 development well, because members of our families are working on it. It is within easy walking distance of the city centre: that is one of its attractions. Other areas are very different, and cannot be considered extensions of the city centre.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is not being consistent. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot make that point while claiming, as he did in an earlier debate, that the dockside area alongside the Tarmac development is in need of management. Similarly, he related all his claims about the inland bay to that dockside area.
  The hon. Member for Neath asked which utilities were covered by the reference on page 12 of the appraisal. The description is the same as in earlier appraisals, and covers gas, electricity and water. The £34 million figure represents the total cost of enhanced infrastructure, the bulk of which will be met by service companies. The development corporation will contribute, but its contribution will be refundable as the demand for services builds up.
  The hon. Member for Neath also asked whether the cost figure assumed constant price inflation. The £152 million figure represents the cost at current prices. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)
  932
  asked how the leverage ratio had been calculated. That is set out on page 19 of the appraisal. The calculation was made on the same basis as that in the January 1990 economic appraisal.
  The hon. Gentleman claimed that Tarmac had said that the barrage was not important to it. Tarmac actually said that, while its South crescent development was not dependent on the barrage, it firmly believed that the development of the whole of south Cardiff, including the waterfront, could not be successfully undertaken without the barrage. Tarmac also welcomes the Government's decision to introduce the barrage Bill as a catalyst for quality investment.
  Opposition Members have not dwelt on the figures in the economic appraisal, and it may be helpful if I mention them. The same answer keeps coming back. According to the appraisal, there will be 23,200 permanent jobs with the barrage and 13,000 without it. There will be 8,800 construction man year without the barrage; with the barrage, there will be 7,700 more. The net present value without the barrage is minus £153 million, while constructing the barrage will provide an advantage of £272 million.
  As for leverage, £3.9 per £1 of taxpayers' money would be achieved without the barrage. With the barrage, that is virtually doubled, to £7.50 of private sector investment for every £1 from the taxpayer. However we look at the question, on the best analysis—and the appraisal certainly provides the best analysis—we repeatedly see the gain to be achieved by building the barrage.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister said earlier that the 7.5 multiplier came from a document produced in January 1990. We had then been in recession for only one quarter. Now that we have had three years of recession, and many believe that we are moving rapidly towards a slump, should not the cost-benefit multiplier be recalculated?
  Mr. Jones: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Exactly that happened with the KPMG report, which was published this month and to which the other three consultants also contributed. Page 3 states:
  "The leverage ratio of the barrage scenario is estimated to be 7.5, Whilst the leverage ratio of the without barrage scenario is 3.9. Therefore, the barrage scenario has an advantage of 3.6 over the without barrage scenario in terms of its leverage ratio."
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to study the latest economic appraisal, which confirms the repeated claim in the earlier appraisals that we commissioned—that the barrage scenario is robust, and that not building the barrage would be the worst possible way to proceed.
  The barrage is not just for Cardiff, as the hon. Member for Neath suggested. He was answered very solidly by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones), who pointed out that in attempting to gain new inward investment Cardiff is repeatedly shown to have the edge over other cities because of the redevelopment and the barrage proposal, which are generating enthusiasm.
  What the appraisal does not include is any attempt to calculate the level of job creation outside Cardiff bay, let alone in the rest of Cardiff and south Wales as a whole. With such a massive investment in the south Wales economy, further benefits will clearly result—beyond what has been estimated so well in the economic appraisal. I hope that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs.

  933
  Clwyd) will agree with me. I recall that she said at the outset that she wanted growth and expansion in south Wales, and this is the way to achieve it.
  What emerges most clearly from the debate is that Opposition Members revel in gloom and doom. If they want to bring that about, they should indeed oppose the building of the barrage.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister has again failed to address some fundamental questions on the subject of cost. The Government's argument in support of the Bill is that the development would involve a huge injection of capital and public-sector investment, which ought to be greeted with uncritical enthusiasm. The Minister made that point again tonight. He has still to persuade us that concentrating investment on a particular area will not be at the expense of investment elsewhere.
  The Government are on record as reaffirming that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the Cardifff Bay development corporation to complete its task —whatever the final price, I assume. That causes us several difficulties. We all know that the Government are now making crucial decisions on public expenditure priorities. The Minister must tell us whether he can justify the public expenditure costs involved in the barrage itself, and in other barrage-related projects, against the needs of Wales as a whole.

  I find it difficult to take seriously what the Minister says about jobs. The Secretary of State seemed to experience some difficulty in listing the jobs that he claims to have created in Wales. Last week, he told us that 10,000 jobs had been created following the establishment of the Deeside industrial park. The true figure is nearer 5,000. There is a considerable difference between the two. On the same day, the Minister also asserted that there had been 8,000 job losses at Shotton steelworks. In fact, 10,000 jobs have been lost. Far from creating 20 per cent. more jobs than were lost, the Government have created 50 per cent. fewer. Whenever the Minister makes job promises, he falls well below the standards of statistical accuracy that we expect from the Welsh Office.
  The Minister also seeks to persuade us that there will be new jobs for the valleys. Past promises of new jobs for the valleys have not materialised. The main economic aim of the valleys initiative, created in 1988, was to bring between 25,000 and 30,000 new jobs to the valleys. When the programme was created in 1988, male unemployment in the valleys was 18.9 per cent. In April of this year—we are waiting for the new figures—it was 18.7 per cent. The new figures for which we are waiting will undoubtedly show a further rise in unemployment. Therefore, the valleys initiative failed in its major aim.
  8 pm
  My hon. Friends know that the jobless figures are increasing all the time. With the closure of the pits, more job losses are on the way. The question addressed by the amendments, which is a major concern for us, arises from the blank cheque that seems to be available for the Cardiff bay development and from the no cheque at all for the urgent needs of other parts of Wales, particularly the valleys.
  The rest of Wales cannot fail to feel anxious. In particular, the valleys cannot fail to feel anxious. They so
  934
  desperately need investment to compensate for the acute deprivation in those areas. There can be few regions in Europe that have had to accept as much economic restructuring since the war as the valleys of south Wales. Social and economic deprivation of the kind found in the valleys is not easily eradicated. It is dishonest of the Government to suggest otherwise.
  Bearing in mind the Government's stranglehold on local authorities in Wales in both revenue and capital spending, I am certain that none of them would be allowed to spend anything like the amount that is to be spent by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The Government's intention to scrap the Barnett formula for public expenditure makes the amendments even more critical.
  Mr. Rowlands: By the nature of the guillotine and the fact that the Government intend to push the Bill through at speed, it appears that capital expenditure on this scheme is immune from any public expenditure cuts. Has my hon. Friend heard whether equal immunity applies to vital capital expenditure programmes of the kind that we need in our communities?
  Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We require that assurance tonight from the Minister. I have not heard that important capital projects that are needed in Wales will be immune from the public expenditure cuts. We should welcome such an assurance from the Minister. Can he tell us whether these capital expenditure projects will be immune?
  As the Government have curtailed consideration of the Bill, we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. Nevertheless, we should like the Minister to tell us how he intends to balance spending on this one project within spending on other important projects. We recognise that the project is important to south Cardiff. It is important for the regeneration of the Cardiff docks area. We want to know, however, how the Government intend to balance spending on the barrage project against other urgent and pressing projects in Wales.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have heard the hon. Lady twice refer to the Barnett formula. As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I was concerned to hear her declare for the second time that the Barnett formula is to be scrapped. Perhaps she will refer me to the announcement that has been made concerning the scrapping of the formula.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friends to assure him that the Barnett formula is not to be scrapped. The Secretary of State for Wales was unable to give me that assurance. Until he gives it to me, we shall presume that the Barnett formula is to be scrapped. I see that the Under-Secretary of State does not wish to give us that assurance tonight. On that basis, I say again that the Opposition's arguments on costs and the questions that we have asked the Secretary of State for Wales have not been answered, which we consider to be extremely unsatisfactory.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
  'Subject to subsection (9) below'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will he convenient to take the following amendments: No. 84, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
  'Subject to subsection (10) below'.
  No. 85, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'associated' and insert
  'consequential environmental and coastal protection.'.
  No. 12, in page 2, line 24, at end insert
  '(7) The Development Corporation shall not commence the works referred to in subsection (1) above, until it has made and published in full an agreement with Associated British Ports in relation to the control of water abstraction rights at the Blackweir Dock Feeder.'.
  No. 13, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
  '(8) At least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of any works, the Development Corporation shall consult South Glamorgan County Council on the proposed pattern of traffic movements during the construction period, including the hours of operation. At least 6 weeks prior to the commencement of works the Development Corporation shall publish proposals, amended in the light of those consultations, for a 2 week period of public consultation.'
  No. 89, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
  '(9) No structure or structures shall be constructed until after the completion of an environmental impact assessment statement as laid down in Annexe I of the Environmental Impact Assessments Directive of the European Community.'.
  No. 90, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
  '(I0) The Corporation shall not commence the works specified in Schedule Ito this Act until sewer diversion works ensuring full compliance with the European Community Municipal Wastewater Treatment Directive for Water, entering the impoundment shall have been completed.'.
  No. 92, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
  '(15) The Development Corporation shall consult the angling interests on the rivers Twey, Taff and Ely in respect of the design and execution of the works relating to fish passes in Work No. I of Schedule 1 to this Act.'.
  No. 24, in page 3, line 12, clause 2, at end add—
  `(7) before executing any of the works authorised by section 1 above, the Development Corporation shall publish proposals in cooperation with the National Rivers Authority showing how it will comply with the European Community Municipal Wastewater Directive'.
  (8) Before executing any of the works authorised by Section I above, the Development Corporation shall publish proposals for a low flow water budget specifying the sources of water to meet the demands of the fish passes, sluices, lock gates and Dock Feeder and the water sources of water to match those requirements under such low flow conditions.'.
  No. 95, in page 3, line 21, clause 4, at beginning insert 'subject to subsection (6) below'.
  No. 97, in page 3, line 42, clause 4, at end add—
  '(6) In executing any of the powers authorised by subsections (1) to (3) above, the Development Corporation shall not discriminate between different classes of landowner or occupier.'.
  No. 29, in page 4, line 16, clause 7, at end insert
  'and the residential areas affected by its creation'.
  No. 99, in page 4, line 16, clause 7, at end insert
  'and shall be exercised so as to give priority to the flow of water in the fish passes at periods of low flow'.
  No. 101, in page 4, line 25, clause 8, at beginning insert
  'Subject to subsection (7) below'.
  No. 32, in page 4, line 26, clause 8, leave out 'reasonable'.
  No. 33, in page 4, line 28, clause 8, after 'protect' add 'or improve'.
  No. 35, in page 4, line 38, clause 8, leave out 'reasonably'
  No. 36, in page 4, line 40, clause 8, after 'current', insert 'and prospective'.
  No. 37, in page 5, line 6, clause 8, leave out 'reasonable'.
  936
  No. 38, in page 5, line 10, clause 8, after 'Corporation', insert
  'in co-operation with, and on the advice of the Environmental Health Officers of the Cardiff City councils and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council.'
  No. 39, in page 5, line 24, clause 8, leave out subsection (6).
  No. 40, in page 5, line 28, clause 8, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert
  'a committee of arbitration of three persons to be nominated by the Secretary of State, the Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers.'.
  No. 41, in page 5, line 29, clause 8, at end add
  '(7) The Development Corporation shall publish an annual report on all such disputes.'.
  No. 104, in page 5, line 46, clause 9, at end insert—
  '(d) the maintenance and enjoyment of residential amenities on land adjacent to the inland bay.'.
  No. 53, in page 6, line 4, clause 9, at end insert—
  '(4) The Development Corporation shall have regard when operating the barrage, to the need to minimise damage to property, both residential and industrial and increases in industrial costs for businesses on or near the inland bay.'.
  No. 57, in page 7, line 1, clause 12, leave out 'reasonable'.
  No. 58, in page 7, line 18, clause 12, at end insert—
  '(5) Nothing in this section shall interfere with the right of the Development Corporation to challenge in the courts the reasonableness of any direction given under subsection (1)(b) above.'.
  No. 59, in page 7, line 19, clause 12, leave out subsection (5).
  No. 60, in page 7, line 21, clause 12, leave out from 'to' to end and add
  'an arbitration panel comprising three persons nominated by respectively the Secretary of State, the Cardiff City Council and Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers'.
  Mr. Murphy: Although we may now be in a slightly calmer mood than we were when we discussed the guillotine motion, there is one matter of principle, as this group of amendments is far-reaching, to which the Minister ought to refer. Why is it that, during all the months of consideration of the Bill—we were told by the Leader of the House this afternoon how many hours we had spent upon it—we found that amendments tabled not just by my hon. Friends who oppose the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme, but also those tabled on behalf of its supporters—including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), Cardiff city council, of which the Minister used to be a member, and other responsible bodies—have not been accepted, apart from a few anodyne ones.
  When the Government had a huge majority, they thought that they could do anything they liked and steamroller whatever legislation they wished through the House. If the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister are serious about there being consensus in local government and about how Wales is run, some of the amendments that have been tabled in the past few months, and certainly those tabled today and last week, were worthy of something more than summary dismissal. This group of amendments is far reaching and varied.
  Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85 relate to environmental and coastal protection. They were tabled because of the need to tighten up the responsibility of both the Cardiff

  937
  Bay development corporation and the Welsh Office. The drafting of the Bill is both sloppy and poor. The amendments would improve its drafting.
  Amendment No. 12 refers to Associated British Ports and to co-operation between that body and the development corporation. Amendment No. 13 is of considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, as this is his constituency. The amendment refers to traffic movements while the bay is being constructed and to the need to consult local authorities, particularly South Glamorgan county council and local residents, about the nature of the construction work and to ensure that any disruption is minimised.
  Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24 concern European Community regulations regarding the environmental impact assessment and the diversion of sewer works. The Minister did not provide a satisfactory answer when we discussed the matter in Committee, so we are keen to ask him why it is that the Government have decided to choose a different annex of the environmental impact assessment directive of the European Community. For some reason, the Government have decided to choose the weaker of the two. That means that they do not have to take account of, or to publish the views of, regulatory agencies; they are required to publish only the views of consultants.
  Amendments Nos. 92 and 99 relate to consultation with anglers over fish passes and other associated matters. There is bound to be an increase in angling for salmon in the rivers Taff and Ely. There should be more substantial consultation with and representation for the angling community in Wales.
  Amendments Nos. 35 to 41 and 57 to 60 deal with the National Rivers Authority and the so-called reasonable nature of the directive that it gives the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
  The last matter covered by the amendments is of much importance, and the Minister should pay close attention to it. The National Rivers Authority has identified a number of important matters such as surface water flooding, ground water flooding, sea defence, polluted rivers and fishing. Given its statutory duty to protect the environment and the residents of Cardiff, the NRA is in a different position from the development corporation, which was set up to develop Cardiff.
  The Bill's provisions on arbitration are unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State should not be the person to resolve any differences between the National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, for the simple reason that members of Cardiff Bay development corporation are appointed by the Secretary of State and are responsible only to him. How can he be a fair and proper judge of conflicts between the statutory National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation? We argued and debated that in Committee, but we believe that it is so important that it should be debated on the Floor of the House.
  There are many different amendments and the Minister will have to spend some time on them. We believe them to be of great significance and we are disappointed that we have not had longer to discuss them.
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am grateful for the helpful way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) moved the
  938
  amendments. As he rightly said, a number of them are constructive and helpful. They seek clarity on the involvement of local authorities.
  It is clear that the decisions of the development corporation have been assisted by the involvement of local authorities. The Government's mechanisms have often gone wrong when they have not sought to consult local authorities, which have the benefit of years of experience. That is particularly apposite to the advice of environmental health officers, which one of the amendments seeks to include in the Bill. That need not be written into the Bill, but the requirements of the Bill help to ensure that there is confidence on all sides and that relevant factors are taken into consideration.
  The situation of anglers is important. From being worried at an early stage, I have been impressed by the amount of consultation to ensure that the design of the barrage will allow the passage of fish and therefore will offer improvements to anglers in the bay area and further up the river. The amendments seek to underline and underwrite the guarantees that have been given on those issues.
  8.15 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen rightly foresaw that I would want to speak specifically to amendment No. 13, to which I referred briefly in the debate on the guillotine motion. The Minister responded in a way that I can only describe as not wholly negative. May I press him a little further, however? I think that he was suggesting that, because much of the material for the construction of the barrage can come from the seaward side or through the docks area, there will not necessarily have to be many movements through the streets of my constituency. I am certain that he is right, and I accept his comments in the constructive sense in which he made them, but things change over time, as we have found all too often.
  There have been major changes, for example, in the way in which work on the primary distributor road has been undertaken through Butetown, and whereas the end result will be greatly to the benefit of my constituents, as "cut and cover" means that the community will not be split in two, it is certain that the extent of the engineering works has been greatly increased. Thus, in the short term, it has had a quite devastating effect on Mount Stuart primary school and on the people who live in the area. Some of the damage to the immediate environment in the construction period was not sufficiently appreciated in advance of the work starting. Most of those involved would now agree with that in the light of experience.
  I am seeking a requirement for consultation in advance so that traffic movements can be taken fully into account and so that those who are making the arrangements will listen to two voices—that of the county council, with its elected representatives and technical expertise to assess the likely impact of traffic movements and, secondly, that of the local community. The amendment does not seek to cause delay or problems because the Bill provides for consultation rather than requirements that would be difficult for any organisation to meet.
  To the extent that traffic movements can be confined to the seaward end or through Alexandra docks, as the Minister suggested, amendment No.13 places no burden on the development corporation or on those involved in

  939
  the construction. It becomes relevant, therefore, only if there is a problem involving traffic movements through domestic streets.
  In that event, the safeguard of the amendment would enable local people to know that the county council would have a chance of commenting constructively, as I am sure it would, on proposed traffic movements and would offer those local people the opportunity of commenting before work began. Had that been so in relation to the primary distributor road, bearing in mind the changes that had to be made at late stages, I am certain that some of the problems could have been avoided and overcome. Instead, amendments to the arrangements had to be made on the hoof, and things that should have been anticipated were dealt with almost in retrospect.
  I ask the Minister to recognise the constructive nature of many of the amendments and the fact that, if taken with the helpful way in which he has sought to respond to how traffic movements will be managed, amendment No.13 would be constructive, would be seen as a form of reassurance to my constituents and would not place any difficulties in the way of the development corporation or the construction industry in getting on with the job of building the barrage.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I should like to make a few comments in support of amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24.
  Amendment No. 89 seeks an environmental impact assessment according to the European directive. The other two amendments refer to the sewer diversion works and the European Community's directive municipal waste water treatment.
  There are real and serious environmental problems in setting up a barrage on the Taff and the Ely. That is the case for any estuary barrage. In view of the condition of the water in the Taff and the Ely, I have no doubt that the wisest thing to do is to let it flow out to sea as quickly as possible. About 500,000 people live upstream from the Taff and the Ely, so the water has a high nutrient load. Either sewage or digested sewage gives nitrates and phosphates, so the water is nutrient-rich.
  The map in the National Rivers Authority's survey of rivers, canals and estuaries in England and Wales in 1990 shows that the Taff and the Ely are the most polluted rivers in Wales. Fortunately, Wales is mainly rural and most of our rivers are good in terms of sewage and nutrients. However, the Ely is poor along most of its length and is in the bottom tenth in terms of quality of water. The Taff, with its tributaries the Cynon and Rhondda, especially around Cardiff, is of only fair quality. It is in the bottom quarter of rivers in terms of quality.
  The Severn estuary, around the Taff and the Ely, around Cardiff and around Bristol, is the most heavily polluted and the poorest in quality around the Welsh coast. Simply on environmental and pollution grounds, the Taff and the Ely are the last rivers that we should think of damming or blocking with a barrage purely in terms of the environment. The impounded water will be polluted.
  During the winter when there is heavy rain, there will be quite a good outflow of the impounded water and the retention time in the barrage will be only three, four or five days. In the summer, especially in dry summers, the square mile of water held back will have an average retention time of up to 50 days. I have been told that the water will be concentrated in terms of nitrates and phosphates. In hot
  940
  summers, there will be problems of eutrophication. That is clearly admitted by the proponents of the scheme and in all comments on the scheme.
  How does one deal with the environmental problems as they arise? There will be eutrophication and algal blooms. There are two solutions to the problem of algal blooms. One is to skim off the algae that have proliferated and the second is to pump oxygen into the water. Both will have to be applied.
  I am glad that there is a requirement in the Bill that there should be not less than 5 mg dissolved oxygen per litre at all times. The water should at all times be at least 50 per cent. saturated in terms of oxygen content. The question then is what one does when the water is low in oxygen. The answer in the Bill is to pump in oxygen.
  Unfortunately, pumping in oxygen is an unproven technology. The River Towy in my constituency has problems downstream from Carmarthen because of the sewage load entering the river there. In hot summers it has a low oxygen content. We have oxygen injection equipment in Carmarthen to resuscitate the river, but it does not work.
  In the Select Committee, I was anxious to find out whether there had been detailed research into the problem. I refer to the proceedings of the Select Committee and I will quote a brief extract from the evidence given by the NRA on 13 February 1992. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) asked Dr. Charles Pattinson, the NRA's expert on the condition of water, various questions about oxygenation equipment. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest said:
  "Perhaps I could explore some aspects of the technology with you. First of all, the vitox machines. How old are they? How long have they been in use in various parts of the world?"
  The answer was:
  "I am afraid I do not know."
  That is the expert on oxygen injection. Dr. Pattinson then said:
  "A number of years; but I am afraid that I am not aware of the exact length of time; but bearing in mind we were discussing these things with the Corporation in 1988 or 1987 they were proven pieces of equipment available on the market at that time; so they have been around for a number of years."
  The next question was:
  "Have you had any personal experience with them?"
  The answer was, "Not myself." The next question was, "Have you seen one?" The reply was:
  "I have seen videos of them. I did not actually participate personally in the original programme, but I have seen videos of them."
  It strikes me that, in building the barrage, we know that there will frequently be problems of low oxygen in hot summers. We seem to be depending on oxygenating water. However, the expert from the NRA said that he had no experience of the machines involved, but that he had only seen videos of them.
  The Library has prepared neutrally for us an excellent research note on the barrage. The note says of oxygen and the resuscitation equipment:
  "field trials have not been able to demonstrate unequivocally that injected oxygen is effectively dissolved, dispersed and retained."
  It is an unproven technology.
  I have serious doubts which have not been allayed in Committee or by what I have read of the NRA's evidence to us. We could create a major environmental problem. We will be damming the two most polluted rivers in Wales. Some 500,000 people live along their length. The water is

  941
  nutrient-rich, especially at times of low water flow. In hot summers, there will be algal blooms and problems of low oxygen. My serious concern is that we shall not be able to solve those problems.
  If amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24 were accepted, we should require a 1992 environmental impact assessment to European standards. The sewer diversions which will need to be carried out around Cardiff must conform to the highest standard in accordance with the EC municipal waste water treatment objective. I ask the Minister and the Government seriously to consider accepting the amendment.
  Mr. Morgan: I will reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on the low flow budget with which amendments Nos. 12 and 99 deal. Will the Government allow the day to pass without telling us a little more about whether they have managed to strike an agreement with Associated British Ports about the amount of water for which it has an abstraction licence? Will it take water out of the Taff during summer droughts which could mean that little new water comes down the river to top up the water behind the barrage?
  8.30 pm
  That is a serious problem, because Associated British Ports is a major player in this game and the company's view will be important in deciding how or whether the barrage will work. ABP has abstraction rights at Blackweir that are greater than the total flow of the Taff during drought periods such as that which occurred during August 1991. ABP does not exercise those rights fully now because of the decline of the steel industry, for which the feeder was originally intended, and the decline of the docks, but nevertheless it has the right to abstract 4 cu m per second. We need to know whether ABP has agreed to give up some of its abstraction rights, which date back to the building of Cardiff docks in the 1840s and the construction of the feeder to top up the level of the docks, without which the export of coal from south Wales could not have taken place. That historic right gives ABP complete control over the jugular vein as regards the water quality of the lake.
  The amendments are about water quality in general and amendments Nos. 12 and 99 are particularly related to the question whether the Government as yet have a written undertaking from ABP that it will give up its right to abstract 4 cu m per second at Blackweir. If they do not, it is irresponsible of them to attempt to persuade the House to pass the Bill.
  At first I thought that, among the copious documents with which the Government were good enough to provide us last week, was a set of legal undertakings between the National Rivers Authority, the development corporation and the City of Cardiff in relation to the problem of ABP's abstraction rights. Not being a lawyer, I am never completely sure what I have just read, but as far as I am aware, the documents do not cover that problem. We still do not know, therefore, whether the Government have an operable low flow budget. It will not be operable unless ABP gives up its rights at Blackweir. We raised this problem in Committee in July. We were not given an
  942
  answer then, and we should not allow tonight's proceedings to end without getting an understanding on that from the Government.
  Many people believed that the pretty favourable terms on which the Government agreed to rent the new office block built by ABP's property subsidiary, Grosvenor Waterside, had something to do with this matter. That property was pre-let to the Government quango, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, just before the last election and we thought that the handsome rent may have been agreed upon in return for an undertaking by ABP not to torpedo the Bill by saying, "If you want to make a lake you must buy our abstraction rights at Blackweir. If you do not, the lake will be an algae-infested swamp"—as it will be in periods of low flow such as those that occurred in 1986 and 1991, when the problems of nutrient-rich water referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen will arise.
  If the Minister does not come clean with us tonight, the water will not come clean into Cardiff bay. Without the salt water flushing effect provided by the tide water, we shall have to depend heavily on the quality of the water flowing into the lake. About a third of the flow of the Taff and half the flow of the Ely consists of treated sewage, so we need to know what controls there will be. If an ABP takes water off to top up the docks or provide cooling water for the Allied Steel and Wire finishing mills around the edge of the Bute east dock, the water quality system will not be operable.
  The Minister has been good enough to say, albeit late in the day, that he will be accepting five amendments tabled by the Opposition, and the spirit of a sixth, amendment No. 13. It is good that he has suddenly been overtaken by the belief that some of the Opposition's ideas are better than the Government's—as they have been on so many things recently. However, as happened during the pit closures debate last week, the Government seem to have come only half way towards meeting our concerns and have stopped short of significant concessions.
  The Minister has accepted that it would be a good idea if the two riparian local authorities were represented on the advisory committee. That is fair enough, but the same should also apply to our proposal that an arbitration panel should have the last word on matters relating to water quality in the event of a dispute developing between the development corporation and the NRA. That panel should include representatives of the local authorities, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers and the Secretary of State.
  Why does not the Minister accept amendment No. 60 in the spirit in which he has accepted amendments Nos. 66 and 64 which deal with the advisory committee? That would remove much of the worry that the Secretary of State would fix any decisions in favour of the quango for which he is responsible and against the NRA, for which he is not responsible because it is a Department of the Environment quango. Having accepted the principle of local authority involvement, it would not be difficult for the Minister to come the other 50 per cent. of the way and so avoid the suggestion that matters can be fixed by the Secretary of State and his mates on the development corporation.
  Let us get away from the idea of the Secretary of State and his mates. Let us bring in the local authorities and give them a voice. Why not have a proper, neutral, objective arbitration panel and give it the last word on water quality,

  943
  so that those of us who represent areas around the lake and care about what it looks like in summer and whether or not it is an amenity, some guarantee that independent and objective advice will be available and that the panel will have the last word in the event of a dispute.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to the spirit of reasonableness in which I had agreed to accept amendments. But that is exactly the spirit in which I started off last Tuesday, in introducing new clause 1 and moving related amendments. What did the hon. Gentleman do? Was he reasonable? No. He went into the Lobby seeking to vote down proposals made in response to requests from him made in Committee. I continue to try to be as reasonable as possible and to accept whatever amendments I can. I hope that my reply will be full reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
  I have been doubly struck by a feeling of déjà vu. After the speech by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), I found what he said echoed clearly at columns 119 and 120 of the Committee Hansard of 2 July. On that occasion, too, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke directly after him and said that he was rising to reinforce some of the comments made by his hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) was critical of what he called sloppiness. I take it that he means to be helpful and to remove vagueness from the wording, but I would point out to him that clause 1 specifically confers authority to execute only those works specified in schedule 1. The barrage and the outer harbour are listed in clause 1(1)(a). It follows, therefore, that the associated structures of the Penarth head promenade and the breasting dolphins are included. The breasting dolphins are neither environmental nor for coastal protection but for the protection of shipping. There is nothing vague about that.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to annexe 2 to the Council directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private sector projects on the environment. That merely lists classes of project for which an environmental assessment must be required in accordance with measures adopted by member states. In contrast, annexe 2 lists classes of projects which are to be made subject to assessments where member states consider that their characteristics so require. However, there is no difference in the type of environmental statements produced under annexe 1 or annexe 2.
  Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister accept that, under annexe 2, the design of the environmental impact assessment is entirely different from the EIA under annexe 1? Under annexe 1, it is compulsory to consult the regulatory bodies such as the NRA and the environmental health officer of Cardiff city council in this case. That was not done because the easy annexe 1 EIA was used, not the more difficult type under annexe 2.
  Mr. Jones: That is not a new point. I have carried out research, and I am assured that there is no difference. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Standing Order 27(A) for private business introduces a requirement for EIAs to be submitted in relation to certain classes of project for authorisation by means of private legislation of this kind. An EIA statement has been submitted in accordance with the Standing Order in respect of the Bill. The assessment of the environmental impact project, to which the directive
  944
  applies, is carried out as part of the consent procedure. In relation to projects proposed to be authorised by Act of Parliament, the assessment is carried out by Parliament in its consideration of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) again referred to amendment No. 13. The barrage is a major construction project, and clearly, people who live in the area have legitimate concerns about how the impact of construction traffic can be kept to a minimum. I appreciate that, and it was very telling when the hon. Gentleman referred to the impact of the present construction on Mount Stuart primary school.
  The issue has been fully considered in the EIA. Page 100 of the statement outlines the main impact of construction traffic for the barrage. It makes the point that the majority of the materials are likely to be brought to the site by water or by rail thus reducing significantly the project's traffic impact.
  The proposed traffic measures are set out in page 137 of the environmental statement. The main site access will be through Queen Alexandra dock. The road access through the Penarth marina at the southern end of the barrage will be severely restricted and limited to personnel access and special abnormal loads on a very limited basis. Personnel access will be by bus from adjoining parking areas, possibly on the Ferry road site as the most likely and convenient location.
  I understand why the amendments have been tabled. However, I contend that their spirit has already been complied with by the publication of the environmental assessment which covers those points, but I look forward to what is in the environmental assessment working to satisfy the local community through the offices of the highway authority.
  Mr. Michael: I appreciate the constructive way in which the Minister is approaching the discussion. As he clearly will not accept the amendment, does he expect the development corporation to undertake the kind of consultations, in general terms, that are outlined in the amendment without that being a legal requirement? If he could confirm that, I am sure that that would give us some confidence in accepting the way forward that he has suggested.
  Mr. Jones: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Yes, that would be my expectation. I would regard it as normal and proper that there would be appropriate consultations and that there would be the greatest regard for the local community.
  Amendment No. 24 deals with the urban waste water directive and the water budget. I oppose the first part of the amendment. The NRA has not asked for the development corporation's proposals for complying with the urban waste water directive to be published. As for publishing details of the water budget, I agree the principle involved. Paragraph 4(c) of schedule 3 requires that,
  "before the commencement of construction of the barrage",
  the corporation must submit to the NRA for approval proposals of how the minimum flow of water through the fish pass should be maintained.
  I explained in Standing Committee that work was in progress on such an agreement. In particular, it will be necessary to agree with Associated British Ports a limitation of the flow down the Taff feeder. Negotiations between ABP and the corporation on that issue have

  945
  progressed well since Standing Committee. The discussions between the corporation and ABP have been carried out in a very constructive manner, and I understand that the parties consider that agreement on the quantity of the water that ABP requires is very close. I am happy to give an undertaking that the information submitted to the NRA in compliance with paragraph 4(c) of schedule 3 will be published before construction begins.
  8.45 pm
  Amendment No. 12 deals with a related point. I cannot accept the wording of the amendment as drafted, but I am happy to publish details of the water budget—subject, of course, to the agreement of Associated British Ports. Amendments Nos. 32, 35, 37 to 40 and 57 to 60 are similar in principle to amendments tabled in Standing Committee. I have to resist them now, for the same reasons that I had to resist their predecessors: they would weaken the NRA's powers of control over the barrage and inland bay.
  The Government do not envisage many, if any, references to the Secretary of State on the basis that directions by the NRA are unreasonable. However, without the test of reasonableness, there would be no basis on which a potential dispute between the NRA and the development corporation could be considered by my right hon. Friend or by the arbitration committee proposed by the amendments. The test of reasonableness is therefore familiar in law. We do not wish to see the Secretary of State take over the N RA's functions, as it has statutory responsibility for those matters. Still less do we wish to see an arbitration committee of the type proposed usurp functions in which the NRA has a national role.
  The appropriate and well precedented way of determining such disputes between two statutory bodies is reference to the Secretary of State. The ultimate guarantee of his objectivity is the fact that his decision would be potentially subject to judicial review. We do not wish to see two statutory bodies resorting to the courts in the way envisaged in the amendments.
  Mr. Murphy: Will the Minister quote the precedents to which he has just referred?
  Mr. Jones: I do not think that I can quote the precedents off the top of my head. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
  The environmental health functions of the district council are already covered appropriately in the regulations that will be made to protect the interests of the city council and in clause 15(4)(c) and (d), which require consultation with the council on byelaws in the area including those regulating water sports. The additional reference proposed in the amendments is therefore superfluous.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) moved an identical amendment in Committee to amendment No. 92. He appeared to accept that there was no need for further consultation with angling interests and he withdrew the amendment. I know that he had hoped to secure a place on the Cardiff bay advisory committee for the angling interests on the Taff and Ely in return for withdrawing his amendment. However, I was unable to respond positively, for reasons that I explained at the time.
  946
  There is fully adequate control over the design of the fish pass. That has been the subject of extensive consultations with the NRA which has now agreed a design which is much more complex than the design that was first proposed. The NRA is the appropriate statutory body with responsibility for the protection of fisheries. In addition, clause 7(1)(c) requires the corporation to operate the barrage in accordance with any reasonable direction of the NRA to protect fish in the inland bay or allow the passage of migratory fish to or from the bay.
  The design of the fish pass also requires the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That relates to schedule 3, paragraph 4(1)(d). I am not aware of any remaining problems on the issue which would justify reopening the design of the fish pass. Indeed, none of the angling interests petitioned against the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

  WORKS: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 37, after 'use', insert 'and that sluices are operational'.
  I understand that the Government accept this amendment.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: The Government have no difficulty in accepting this amendment, but the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) may wish to reflect on whether it is necessary. Clearly, the sluices must be operational before the Rivers Taff and Ely are totally obstructed. The proposed method of construction requires that locks and sluices be completed and operational before work commences on in-filling the last 250 m gap between the embankment and the structures at the Penarth end of the barrage. Schedule 3. paragraph 2(1)(ii) requires that works or operations shall not be commenced until details have been approved by the National Rivers Authority. I can assure hon. Members that the NRA would insist that the sluices were operational before the rivers were finally obstructed. Nonetheless, I am happy to accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment. No. 15, in page 2, line 39, after 'agree', insert
  ', for reasons of better flood protection and for no other reason,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 98, in clause 7, page 4, line 16, at end insert
  'and the residential, commercial and recreational land and property affected by the impoundment and the associated rise in groundwater.'.
  No. 100, in clause 7, page 4, line 19, leave out 'or alleviate'.
  No. 30, in clause 7, page 4, line 19, after 'flooding', insert
  'including flooding by impregnation of the soil'.
  No. 34, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, after 'flooding', insert
  ', including flooding by impregnation of the soil'.
  No. 102, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, after 'flooding', insert
  including by saturation of the ground through rising ground water'.

  947
  No. 103, in clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end acid—
  '(7) The Development Corporation shall operate the barrage in accordance with directions from the Cardiff City Council in order
  (a) to alleviate flooding arising from rising ground water levels; and'.
  No. 42, in clause 9, page 5, line 34, leave out 'between' and insert 'of.
  No. 43, in clause 9, page 5, line 34, leave out 'and four and a half.
  No. 44, in clause 9, page 5, line 34, leave out 'or thereabouts'.
  No. 75, in clause 20, page 12, line 13, after 'repairing', insert 'and compensating financially for.'
  No. 115, in clause 20, page 12, line 13, after 'property', insert
  `including the making of financial compensation for such damage'.
  No. 136, in clause 20, page 12, line 13 after 'property', insert health and amenity'.
  No. 76, in clause 20, page 12, line 17, at end insert
  provided that no such regulation shall affect the entitlement of any persons to groundwater damage protection'.
  No. 77, in clause 20, page 12, line 17, at end insert
  '; but no regulations shall be made which will reduce the rights, powers and duties under Schedule 7.'.
  No. 78, in clause 20, page 12, line 17 at end insert—
  '(2A) Before making any regulation under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall consult any persons or bodies whose entitlement to groundwater damage protection may be affected by the regulation.'.
  No. 79, in clause 20, page 12, line 17 at end insert—
  '(3) No amendment shall be made under (2) above which shall in any way abridge reduce or limit the rights to protection by way of works, financial compensation or access to information of those occupying or owning property so affected.'.
  No. 116, in clause 20, page 12, line 20 at end add—
  '(4) The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament every three years from the date of impoundement on the operation of the groundwater damage protection provisions enacted under subsection (1) above.'.
  No. 117, in clause 20, page 12, line 20 at end add—
  '(5) The Secretary of State shall review the extent of the protected property area specified in Schedule 6 to this Act and may extend its coverage after each triannual review.'.
  No. 137, in schedule 7, page 31, line 14 at end insert,
  'in relation to persons, means a survey based on epdemiological or individual health measurement principles acceptable to the Medical Research Council and the General Medical Council, and in relation to amenity means a survey of domestic heating. comfort, micro-climate and other relevant indices of social well-being'.
  No. 138, in schedule 7, page 33, line 27, at end insert—
  (8) The Development Corporation shall carry out and publish a survey before impoundment shall commence of the health and well-being of the residential areas within the Protected Property Line, paying particular regard to the infant mortality rate, general morbidity and mortality rate domestic heating costs, micro-climate, incidence of fog and mist, hours of sunshine and levels of traffic accidents.
  (9) The Development Corporation shall carry out repeat surveys at its own expense at the written request of and with reasonable notice from the advisory committee at intervals of net less than three years.'.
  No. 126, in schedule 7, page 33, line 33, leave out '£40' and insert '£25'.
  No. 139, in schedule 7, page 34, line 41, at end insert—
  '(e) Carry out any investigation into cost of ambient temperature and microclimate within the residential areas falling within the Protected Property line and of allied changes in health, domestic heating costs, and traffic management requirements as is appropriate'.
  948
  No. 127, in schedule 7, page 35, line 24, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
  No. 128, in schedule 7, page 35, line 26, at end add—
  '(1A) Within the protected property area, the Development Corporation may not contest such a requirement except where it can prove that such property damage is attributable to other causes than groundwater damage arising from the impoundment.'.
  No. 129, in schedule 7, page 35, line 37, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
  No. 130, in schedule 7, page 37, line 23, at end insert
  'or the property blight arising in the area in general where groundwater damage has occurred.'.
  No. 131, in schedule 7, page 38, line 32, leave out
  'a garden belonging to a relevant building'
  and insert
  'land except to the extent it is or forms part of a building'.
  No. 132, in schedule 7, page 38, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  No. 133, in schedule 7, page 38, line 44, at end insert—
  '(3) A person has a relevant interest in land if—

  (a) he is entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the land or any part of it (whether in possession or reversion);

  (b) he holds, or is entitled to the rents and profits of, the land or any part of it under a lease or agreement granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than three years remain unexpired; or

  (c) he is a person entitled under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of the land or any part of it and has, on or before the relevant day, given notice under that Act to the landlord of his desire to have the freehold or an extended base; unless he is mortgagee not in possession.'.

  No. 134, in schedule 7, page 38, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
  No. 135, in schedule 7, page 39, line 39, leave out 'a garden' and insert 'land'.
  No. 140, in schedule 7, page 39, line 47, at end insert—
  '18A. If any person or group of persons resident within the Protected Property Line have or their legal guardians suffers damage to health or amenity, or incurs increased domestic heating costs, as a consequence of a rise in groundwater levels, compensation shall be payable by the Development Corporation.'.
  Mr. Murphy: The House will know that one of the most significant problems that people have identified with the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage refers to groundwater levels and the possibility of flooding in other parts of our capital city. Because of the lack of time and because of the importance of this matter to the local press, I move the amendment and allow my hon. Friends to speak in whatever time is left.
  Mr. Morgan: We are having to go at a speed, for obvious reasons, after the timetable motion. There is a large number of amendments to which we must refer briefly before the 9 o'clock deadline. Some of the amendments relate to the matter of dispute in Select Committee as it finished its consideration in February. The Cardiff Bay development corporation still took the view that it did not require any additional powers to be conferred on the Cardiff city council to deal with the problem of impregnation flooding as distinct from overground flooding by spillage of water from the rivers Taff and Ely into adjoining residential areas—classic flooding. It took the view that, if the Select Committee accepted the evidence that had been given by Dr. Miles and Professor Rushton that there could be another form of

  949
  flooding—flooding by impregnation—one could handle that in the same way that one would deal with over-the-bank flooding.
  At the very minute that the Select Committee finished, the Queen's counsel representing the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was still maintaining that there were precedents for dealing with impregnation flooding as well. He subsequently had to accept that he was wrong and that the Cardiff city council's view that it would require additional powers was right. As a result, the Government had to climb down, as on so many other matters recently, and accept that the Bill would now have to be changed, but in another place. We would much rather do that job in this place, which is why we have included amendments to grant powers to Cardiff city council to deal with impregnation flooding.
  Obviously, the fears that exist in some residential areas, particularly those west of the River Taff relate to what is known as the urban swamp thesis. That matter was substantially discussed in Committee. Nobody wants to live in an urban swamp. If we are to have one, we will have to drain the swamp to enable people to enjoy the residential amenities that they deserve. That is why we had a very strong reaction by the Select Committee, and why we want to incorporate it in the amendments. At page 62.3 of his evidence, Professor Rushton said:
  "Thirdly, there is a serious risk that the construction of a barrage would lead to dangerously high water levels in several
  locations in Cardiff."
  People would not say that for nothing if they have reputations such as the Professor's as world experts on how to drain areas. He is a civil engineer, and he made the point very forcibly that, in his professional view, that was going to be one of the problems. We want to see tonight, rather than by way of a promise from the Government, some sign of what the Government will do when the matter goes to another place, which in turn means that it will come back to this place next year in order to reconcile the two versions. That is why we have mentioned impregnation flooding.
  We have also mentioned the question raised by the Wallis and Munro studies which have been independently validated as statistically worth looking at—namely, whether the health and amenity of people in areas with high water tables will be adversely affected. The Minister earlier tried to rubbish that and say that his independent experts—we do not know who they are, where they have studied, what they have done, or how they have studied the proposals—say that it is a load of rubbish and that there is no possibility of any adverse effect on health and amenity from the consequences of a high water table and waterlogging creating cooler conditions, mists and fogs and adverse effects on health.
  Perhaps the Minister is right, perhaps he is wrong—we do not know. If he is right, it will not cost a penny to accept the amendments. If there is no effect on health and amenity, one does not have a right to compensation, because one will not be able to get a penny out of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. If the Minister accepts the amendment, we can all go home happy. The right exists, but it will not cost the Minister anything. Why is he unwilling to accept the amendment in the circumstances?
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendment No. 15 deals with the barrage design. The corporation has agreed with the NRA that the barrage will be constructed so that it can be drained between tides to a level of 1.25 m below ordnance datum. That provision is included in clause 2 (2). The purpose of that provision is to enable the pollution from any accidental discharge either into the bay or into the rivers upstream of the bay to be cleared rapidly once it has reached the barrage. The requirements have been included in the Bill at the NRA's request. Although the clause permits a change of design with the NRA's agreement, it is extremely unlikely that that body would seek to reduce a level of protection that it has negotiated with the development corporation.
  The amendment seeks to permit the change in ability to drain the bay only for the reason of better flood protection. Logic dictates that any change in design that reduces the ability to drain the bay cannot have a beneficial effect on flood protection. Although the impact on flood protection of draining the bay between tides is very marginal, I cannot envisage a situation in which the NRA would agree to such a reduction for the purpose of improving flood protection. Equally, the NRA accepts that greater ability to drain the bay than already included in the Bill is not required. The amendment therefore is unnecessary, since the corporation has already designed the barrage so that it can be drained to the specified level between one high tide and the next.
  Amendments No. 100, 30, 101, 34, 102 and 103 would add the alleviation of flooding by the raising of groundwater to the purposes for which the development corporation may operate the barrage under clauses 7 and 8. They would also require the corporation to operate the barrage under directions from the Cardiff city council and the NRA to prevent or alleviate flooding from groundwater.
  The amendments are inappropriate for two reasons. First, they confuse surface flooding with raised groundwater levels. Surface flooding is the overflowing of rivers at times of high river flow by overtopping of the river banks.
  Impregnation of the ground is the result of raised groundwater levels. The only way in which the powers in clauses 7 and 8, which deal with the operation of the barrage, could be exercised to alleviate groundwater rise is by alteration of the impoundment level below the level of 4 to 4.5 m above ordnance datum specified in clause 9. Neither the National Rivers Authority nor Cardiff city council has requested the powers that the amendments propose for them. Indeed, to give the National Rivers Authority responsibility for groundwater would provide it with responsibility for a subject on which it has no legal powers. The point was made clear in the NRA statement of December 1991.
  The city council argued before the Select Committee that its powers to deal with flooding under the Land Drainage Act 1991 did not extend to groundwater. As I already explained this evening, the Government will table an amendment in another place to include the saturation of ground within the definition of flooding under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
  We have no doubt about the importance of the matters covered by the amendments, but their purpose has already been achieved by other means. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West withdrew the amendments in Committee, and I hope that he will feel able to do so now.
  Amendment negatived.
  It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on amendments.

Clause 7
  POWER TO OPERATE BARRAGE
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 4, line 20, after first 'the', insert 'safest and'.—[Mrs. Clwyd.]
Clause 9

  OPERATION: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendment made, No 55, in page 6, line 10, at end insert—
  '(c) sailing and motor boat clubs operating in the inland bay and outer harbour.'. —[Mrs. Clwyd.]

Clause 19

  THE CARDIFF BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  Amendments made: No. 66, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—
  '(2A) The following bodies shall be represented on the Committee: Cardiff City Council, South Glamorgan County Council and Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council.'.
  No. 64, in page 11, line 28, after 'may', insert
  '.after consultation with the Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council,'.—[Mrs. Clwyd.]

Schedule 4

  COMPULSORY LAND ACQUISITION: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 27, line 38, after `deposited' insert
  'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.
  No. 7, in page 27, line 39, after 'it' insert 'shall be so deposited'.
  No. 8, in page 27, line 45, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a copy shall also be given as soon as is reasonably practicable to each person who is an owner or occupier of the land in question.
  (3A) Where a copy of the certificate is deposited under sub-paragraph (3) above, it shall be kept with the documents to which it relates.
  (3B) The'.
  No. 9, in page 28, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (4). —[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  9 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I hope to respond to any particular points made in the debate if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if time permits.
  This thoroughly debated and well examined Bill is important not only for Cardiff but for the wider south Wales economy. I cannot emphasise too strongly the tremendous importance that the barrage scheme set out in the Bill has for our capital city of Cardiff.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House are in full agreement about the need to regenerate the former docklands area of Cardiff. The Government supported the objectives of the private Bill which preceded the one that we are debating tonight. Several Opposition Members
  952
  who were closely involved in that Bill have given valuable support to the Government Bill. That cross-party support, together with the active participation of local government and the public and private sectors, is also a measure of the Bill's importance.
  The Government firmly believe that the type of high-quality, high-density development that our capital city needs will happen only with a barrage. It is the barrage which will create the right conditions for attracting the scale and quality of developments to Cardiff. Other options—including the industrially based strategy favoured by other hon. Members—are quite simply not credible.
  I know that some hon. Members will say that development is already taking place in Cardiff without the barrage. Of course I very much welcome those developments. We have never claimed that no development would take place without the barrage, although there is widespread support for that view among developers already in the bay. It is certainly true that there is already considerable confidence in the future of Cardiff bay, but that is largely because of confidence that the barrage will be built. Without the barrage, developments could not be of the same value, they would not create so many jobs or houses, and less private sector investment would be attracted.
  Already, reference has been made to the latest economic appraisal, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. It confirms the robust case in favour of the barrage project. On previous occasions, I have made it clear that the economic appraisal of January 1990 was sufficiently robust not to require an updated version to be prepared, even in the changed economic circumstances. Nevertheless, we have acceded to requests for a new one to be commissioned.
  I am glad to tell the House that the findings of the new appraisal confirm our view that the case for the barrage remains very strong indeed, and continues to be superior in all respects to redevelopment without the barrage. The updated appraisal suggests that the barrage project will bring about 23,200 permanent jobs—that is 10,000 more jobs than an alternative development without a barrage. Construction employment is nearly twice what it would be without a barrage. Nearly 4,400 new houses will be built —1,700 more than without a barrage. The total private sector investment which will be attracted by the barrage is well over £1,000 million.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hunt: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once in my speech, but I will leave that pleasure for a little later.
  Finally, we come to the net present value, which even in the current property market remains strongly positive. The net present value of the barrage scenario is £119 million at mid-1992 prices. The equivalent figure for a development without a barrage is minus £153 million. The Government have consistently stated that the barrage project represents by far the best option for redeveloping Cardiff bay in terms of jobs, new houses, private sector investment and value for money. All the economic appraisals have shown that to be the case. This latest appraisal confirms that the Government have been fully justified in their continued support for the barrage scheme.
  Hon. Members should not think that the benefits arising from the barrage scheme will be confined to

  953
  Cardiff. We believe that the wider south Wales economy will gain from the redevelopment of Cardiff bay. Surveys of major employers in Cardiff carried out by South Glamorgan county council show that nearly 40 per cent. of their employees come from outside the county. Very many of these come from valley communities represented by Labour Members, some of whom have opposed the barrage proposal. I believe that their opposition is mistaken. I accept that they do not oppose the redevelopment of south Cardiff, but they must realise too that, as the opportunities offered by the Cardiff bay barrage scheme come to fruition, the employment prospects for many of their constituents will be greatly enhanced.
  We have already achieved a great deal in the valleys. More than 2.5 million sq ft of new industrial floorspace has been created since Lord Walker launched the programme for the valleys in 1988. Private sector investment promises to safeguard or create about 24,000 jobs. More than 300 new factory units have been built under the urban programme up to 1991–92, with a further 40 units planned for the current year. These are just a few examples of what has already been achieved. The regeneration of Cardiff bay will complement and add to the opportunities opening up in the valleys.
  Mr. Morgan: I thank the Secretary of State for his exceptional generosity in giving way to me once during his speech, although he may lose his place in the brief that he has in front of him. I understand the difficulty that he has in being precise when he promises new jobs. Last Wednesday, he spoke about 10,000 when he should have said 5,000. Today he has spoken of how the scheme will "bring about" 23,000 jobs. The KPMG Peat, Marwick, McLintock study to which he has referred does not say "bring about" in the sense of creating 23,000 jobs. It says that the project will support 23,000 jobs. I interpret that to mean "accommodate". That is, if all the offices are built and takers are found for all of them, the result would be 23,000 jobs. The report does not say that takers will be found for all the offices. That is why the right hon. Gentleman should rethink the words "bring about".
  Mr. Hunt: I have no reason to change any of the words that I used. I did not want to have a sequence of giving way to the hon. Gentleman in my opening speech because he will no doubt have the opportunity to speak later if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I am able to do the same thing at the conclusion of the debate, I shall reply to his points.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The whole tenor of the Secretary of State's speech implies that this scheme is immune to any form of public expenditure cut in years to come. Is that true? If so, will he give us the assurance that vital capital expenditure schemes for the valleys will also be immune?
  Mr. Hunt: There is no such thing as immunity. As the hon. Gentleman will recall from his time as a Minister, discussions take place at this time of the year about resources for next year. Those discussions have not yet been concluded. Provided that the House agrees to the Bill reaching the statute book, the Government are determined to ensure that the barrage becomes a reality.
  954
  A further point about the valleys is that there is already a growing awareness of the need to improve the existing public transport links between the valley communities, the city and the bay. Hon. Members may be aware that the local authorities are to examine the possibilities for improving and expanding rail links. We must await the outcome of those studies, but I am sure that hon. Members will welcome them as a further indication that the valleys stand to gain from the regeneration of Cardiff bay.
  An aspect of the barrage scheme which has been of particular interest to several hon. Members is the possible effects on wading birds which use the mudflats as feeding grounds. The Government carefully considered the expert studies into the implications for those birds in coming to a view on the original private Bill. Our conclusion was that the arguments weighed heavily in favour of proceeding with the barrage.
  Nevertheless, we are committed to providing some form of mitigation for the loss of the feeding grounds, which is why the proposal to build a tidal lagoon was carried over from the private Bill into this Bill. The Select Committee, after hearing detailed evidence, removed those provisions because of doubts about the lagoon's effectiveness as a mitigation measure and because of the effect on the landowners at Wentloog.
  The Government remain committed to the provision of some form of mitigation. The Welsh Office, together with Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, considered possible alternatives, and we announced during the Standing Committee that a feasibility study had been commissioned to assess the suitability of sites on the Gwent levels as a bird reserve.
  The Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB are closely involved in the proposal to create an area of wetland, which should be a more effective mitigation measure than the original lagoon proposal. The feasibility study, which is being carried out by consultants with a well established reputation—including Mason Pittendrigh and David Bellamy Associates—is expected to be completed by the end of the year. If the results of the study are favourable and a decision is taken to proceed with the creation of a bird reserve, we shall not be seeking power under this Bill because the necessary authority is available to the development corporation and the land authority under existing legislation.
  The House should be told of the Government's intentions. I can also repeat the assurance that we gave to the Standing Committee—that it is the Government's intention to keep the costs of the proposed bird reserve within the £5.7 million originally earmarked for the Wentloog lagoon.
  The possible effects on property of changes to groundwater levels is another issue in which hon. Members have taken an interest. As the House is aware, schedule 7 contains a detailed, comprehensive and generous scheme of protection for householders. The Select Committee heard a great deal of technical evidence and made several changes to the schedule. The main changes were the extension of protection to the gardens of residential buildings within the protected property area, the right of householders to nominate a contractor of their own choice to undertake remedial works if the development corporation has not arranged to start work

  955
  within six months and the appointment of an independent complaints administrator. All those measures have now been written into the Bill.
  The House will recall that, when it last had the opportunity to debate the Bill, I had not taken any decision on public funding for the barrage in the light of the further groundwater studies undertaken by Hydrotechnica. I announced my decision to the House on 20 January. Hon. Members may recall that I also announced that the development corporation had been asked to carry out a feasibility study into the possibility of controlling rises in groundwater levels by means of dewatering wells. The results of that study were published on 20 August. I have arranged for copies of the report to be available in the Vote Office.
  That report concluded that dewatering wells could make a significant difference to groundwater rise should the "extreme case" of groundwater rise occur. It recommended that there should be a well-pumping pilot study. The results should be available early in the new year. If that confirms the report's findings, the need to carry out remedial works will be significantly reduced or removed altogether. That would, of course, mean little or no disruption for householders.
  Clearly, we cannot decide whether to proceed with dewatering wells until we have the results of the pumping tests. If a decision to proceed is taken, the Government will not seek powers under the Bill to do so, because that can be done under existing legislation.
  I want to assure the House, however, that the Government have no intention of removing any of the protection that the Bill now offers to householders. If we do not proceed with dewatering, the protection of schedule 7 will still be available. If we implement the dewatering solution, I see no reason to remove the safety net of protection from the Bill. Even if dewatering does not prove effective in practice, householders will still have the security afforded by the scheme of protection. If damage occurs as a result of groundwater changes attributable to the barrage, the development corporation must remedy it.
  We have now dealt with all the main issues raised. I want to give the Government's full support for the biggest ever capital project in Cardiff—a £153 million barrage scheme which will bring more than 23,000 jobs to the capital city of Wales, lead to the construction of 4,400 homes of which a quarter will be for social housing, and trigger more than £1,000 million-worth of private sector investment.
  The barrage project represents by far the best option for redeveloping Cardiff bay and the appraisal to which I referred demonstrates that the Government have been fully justified in their continued support for the barrage scheme. I hope that both sides of the House will support the Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Mrs. Clwyd: I stress from the beginning that our criticisms of the Bill have not been about the need for economic regeneration, which is essential for Cardiff docklands. I have lived in Cardiff most of my adult life and I want to see that regeneration. However, we feel that questions remain unanswered and that there is much unfinished business. It is proper that those who care about the environment should voice their concerns about the conservation implications of the barraging of the Taff and
  956
  Ely estuary in Cardiff bay, the entire destruction of a site of special scientific interest, and the removal of an integral part of the Severn estuary special protection area.
  People are also worried about the cost of the barrage —£153 million, as the Secretary of State confirmed. They are asking whether the extra value that the barrage will add to the whole scheme justifies its cost. Does the economic appraisal make unrealistic, rosy assumptions about the effect, for example, on local land values? If land around the bay is likely to increase in value at the rate assumed by the corporation's study, the corporation may make a fortune by hanging on to that land rather than selling it now. The fall in property prices in Cardiff, although less than in the south-east of England, has significantly reduced the potential value of the barrage —so does the cost outweigh the benefits?
  The Secretary of State made great play about the value of the Cardiff bay development for other parts of Wales, particularly the valley areas. Those of us who represent those areas would like to believe what he said about the creation of more jobs for the valleys and the potential of enjoying what he believes will be new-found prosperity in the Cardiff area. People in the valleys have already seen the effects of the Government's policies since 1979, a point that was well made by Kevin Morgan in his study on the Government's regional policy.
  It is clear that the Government's philosophy of market forces regenerating British industry by themselves has not been borne out in the valleys of south Wales or in Wales generally. Government policies have meant that regional economic activity has become even more concentrated in the south-east of England. That at any rate was the story of the early 1980s, partly because the Government did not care much for regional planning and partly because their commitment to regional policy was so seriously devalued. Expenditure on regional policy declined by a staggering 62.7 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. In Wales it declined by 58.3 per cent. in that time.
  The valleys programme was started in 1988 by Lord Walker, when unemployment among males in the valleys was running at 18.9 per cent. In April this year, it was 18.7 per cent., since when there have been many more job losses. Unfortunately, the Government do not publish figures for the valleys as a matter of course; we are still awaiting a reply to a question to learn what October's figure was. I suspect that it was very much higher.
  Since the Secretary of State has been responsible for Welsh policy, unemployment has risen by 46,500 in Wales and the valley areas. The valleys programme, designed to stem the rising tide of employment, has not done so very effectively. It has done nothing to temper the decline in regional policy expenditure, which fell by 50 per cent. in the valleys programme area between 1989 and 1991. The programme has done nothing to prevent the reduction in Government support for training and enterprise councils, as shown by the fact that Mid-Glamorgan TEC had its budget cut by 20 per cent. last year and by a further 15 per cent. this year.
  The programme has done nothing to alleviate the chronic financial weakness of local government in the valleys. Most local authorities there are in a weaker position now than when the programme began.
  Many of these shortcomings stem from a national economic policy which sets a low premium on regional regeneration and industrial renewal. New priorities are needed at a United Kingdom level. It is equally imperative

  957
  that we establish new development priorities in south Wales. We are not convinced by the Secretary of State's promises of jobs, because he has failed to deliver jobs in the valleys areas and because, when speaking of the establishment of Deeside industrial park, he said last week that 10,000 jobs had been created, whereupon it was pointed out that the true figure was nearer 5,000.
  I only hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman promises a certain number of jobs as a spin-off from the Cardiff bay development, he will be prepared to stand by his words when the development is complete.
  The barrage is the responsibility of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, a quango with no proper accountability to Parliament. It is extraordinary that such a quango should be financed by public funds to the tune of £33 million a year—it is the only large quango in this category. Many quangos are privately audited, but at least the National Audit Office has reserve powers to look at their books. In the case of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the NAO does not even have that reserve power. The people of Wales are fed up with all these quangos and believe that they should be replaced with a democratically elected Welsh assembly. That would enable us to bring the quangos under proper democratic control. It would subject the functions and actions of the Welsh Office to proper public scrutiny and co-ordinate and promote economic development and regeneration. We say that the Secretary of State's proposals for reforming government in Wales should start from the point of a Welsh assembly, which would facilitate the reorganisation of local government based on unitary authorities by taking overall responsibility for a limited number of strategic and specialised functions.
  The people of Wales want and need a decentralised system of government. At the general election 70 per cent. of them voted for parties which supported the creation of a democratically elected Welsh tier of government. It is undeniable that the creation of an assembly would give Wales a strategic direction, which the Secretary of State's current plans are sadly lacking. We shall continue to call for the establishment of a Welsh assembly which will bring the quango-like development corporation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is nearing the end of her speech, but she is straying from the terms of the debate on Third Reading.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am drawing my speech to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by saying that it is essential, however we feel about the development of Cardiff bay and our support for regeneration, that the scheme is not administered by a quango which is non-accountable, non-elected and not responsible to the people of Wales.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. I am grateful also that we have reached Third Reading. It is clear from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that she recognises the massive need for economic regeneration in the south of Cardiff. It was that recognition of urgent need which led local councillors to support the building of the barrage. They appreciated how the scourge of unemployment has devastated south Cardiff communities.
  958
  I welcome the progress which will now take place in Cardiff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones) will recognise, unemployment in his constituency and mine, and in Cardiff, West, is a devastating burden for communities to bear. We need major development to lift the entire city out of that situation, especially after the way in which unemployment has borne down over the past 13 years.
  Anyone who has seen Bute East dock—it has water of the same quality as that which will be in the impounded lake—can have no doubt about the sort of environment that will result from the building of the barrage. The results will be positive and they will be bound to attract employers as well as those who wish to live in such an environment.
  We have been through a long process before arriving at Third Reading. I have found it depressing, as I said when we experienced difficulties with earlier Bills, that our debates have not been more constructive. Many of them have concentrated on the problems of groundwater, but there has not been a great division between my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself in terms of our starting point on that issue. Our conclusions, however, have been quite different. At the beginning, my hon. Friend said that he could not support the Bill unless he was satisfied about groundwater while I said that I could not oppose the Bill unless I felt that the threat of groundwater was considerable.
  It is right that doubts should be aired during debate, and it is important that people can be confident that all the relevant research has been undertaken and that safeguards have been built into the Bill. If the dynamic system of de-watering is introduced, it must not take away one iota from the local community.
  We must now look to the future. There have been times when we were wondering whether there was life after the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but that day is about to dawn. I am sure that the Bill will rapidly complete its remaining stages in another place.
  The south Cardiff area, which will immediately be affected by redevelopment, comprises both old established communities and one or two new communities. It is important that they should be treated with respect. They have a life and vigour of their own, but many have also experienced difficulty. For many years, Butetown has been an island in a sea of industry, and Splott suffered the devastating impact of the closure of East Moors steel works. Unemployment is high throughout those communities; yet they retain a positive attitude and have much to offer those who live in them. I hope that the development corporation, in partnership with local authorities, will at every stage respect the nature of those communities—and I shall feel obliged to remind them of that if it becomes necessary.
  The Secretary of State spoke of the housing to be included in south Cardiff's redevelopment. We have been given an assurance that at least 25 per cent. of new housing in the development corporation area will be social housing for rent at affordable levels. That minimum should be achieved at every stage. A contribution is already being made by housing associations. Rent levels should make it possible for local people to remain in their communities, and for those who once moved to the city outskirts now to return from Llanrumney, Llanedeyrn or St. Mellons and live close to their families. I say that because difficulties have arisen.

  959
  To be fair, the development corporation, in allocating land, met that request by local councillors, but problems have arisen in the financial calculations which result in rent decisions. It is most important that the new social housing is a positive element, enabling people to return to their old communities. That is one way of ensuring that the scheme will be viewed positively by local communities.
  I am satisfied about the standard of the impounded water, but I hope that consideration will be given at every stage to developing the environment to the benefit of those who live there. It is important to attract tourism and business, but it is vital that local people are considered when streets, traffic schemes, commercial and other arrangements are being finalised.
  That is also true of jobs. Without employment and the dignity that comes with having a place in society, the communities in question will continue to be devastated. Everything possible must be done to exploit the barrage to the full in creating the maximum number of high quality jobs.
  I ask, above all, for an emphasis on partnership. Local government has contributed active participation and support—critical at times, questioning at times, but positive. Such partnership is most important for the future. I played a small part in the redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff, as indeed did the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). That was a cross-party partnership, and a partnership with the private sector, although I should add that no development corporation was involved. If the development of south Cardiff is to be as successful as that of the city centre, and if it is to achieve the same national recognition, we must recreate a partnership that has been damaged to some extent by the processes that have delayed the Bill's passage.
  The discrediting of the private Bill procedure has affected confidence, and we must now rebuild that confidence. Those who, for whatever reason, have opposed or questioned the Bill in the past should be part of the new partnership. There is no doubt that all of us want Cardiff to be developed and to move into the first division. That will now be possible.
  Many of us, in our different ways, have tried to improve the Bill during its passage. Some of our debates have been unhelpful; others have been helpful and positive. It is sad that many of the discussions involving supporters of the Bill, and many of the improvements that have been made in the past couple of years, have not received the same publicity as the crude conflict that has developed at times.
  I ask for respect to be shown to local authorities and elected representatives, and to the local community. There are signs that that is now happening in the development corporation. I hope that, over the next year or so, my optimism about the corporation's sensitivity will not prove mistaken, for I expect it to be the cornerstone on which success can be built.
  We now need to show some confidence. We need to take a positive line in regard to our communities. Unemployment can be tackled; the dereliction of the past can be ended; deprivation need not continue in years to come. I entirely share the aspirations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, who said that the problems of the valleys should also be tackled. Indeed, every part of Wales is now experiencing immense problems.
  We must express confidence in Cardiff as a city. It is a great city—a warm and human city. It is Europe's
  960
  youngest capital. People who visit it ask, "Why do you keep it secret?" The supporters of the barrage must form a partnership with those who have questioned the development, to safeguard the interests of citizens at every stage and to make the best of every aspect. Cardiff—along with the rest of south Wales and, indeed, the whole country—needs, as a backdrop, a Government economic policy for reconstruction. We need policies to create jobs and to revive the economy. Only with such a positive development in the economy—a proper national strategy for recovery—can Cardiff and, indeed, Wales take their deserved place in the sun. Only in that way can jobs be created—only in that way can people feel confident in their future, and the future of their city.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for allowing me some time between his speech and those of the Front-Bench spokesmen. I want to explain, as clearly as I can, why I—along with the vast bulk of my constituents —have resolutely opposed the construction of the barrage, to the bewilderment of some people.
  There are two simple reasons. First, my constituents are concerned about the effect of rising groundwater on their homes and, in some cases, their businesses. Secondly, they do not believe the job forecasts. Their fears have not gone away. On job forecasts, there was another example only last Wednesday. When this Secretary of State for Wales makes a job forecast we should count the silverware. Last week he referred to the Deeside industrial park having 10,000 jobs, but his Department had to correct him and state that the figure was 5,000. My constituents' worries, therefore, do not go away when 23,000 jobs associated with the barrage are forecast.
  Even tonight the Minister failed to use the word that his consultants had used. KPMG does not say that 23,000 jobs will be "created" by the construction of the barrage. It uses the word "supported"—a classic weasel word. We still do not know what it means. I take it to mean that that number of jobs would be accommodated, but that does not mean that 23,000 jobs would be created. If KPMG had meant that 23,000 jobs would be created, I am pretty sure that it would have said so.
  The Secretary of State used weasel words when he said "bring about". That is not what the consultants say. I wish that the Secretary of State would be as careful as we all should be when job promises connected with such a development are made. If we are not careful, people outside become extremely cynical. We do not want them to be cynical about politicians' promises. The situation is bad enough already. The Secretary of State should provide a genuine opinion as to the possible damage from groundwater and the number of jobs to be created.
  My constituents, who are extremely worried about damage from groundwater, are looking carefully at job forecasts. If they do not believe the job forecasts, they will say that the damage to their homes as a result of the rise in the groundwater is not worth the candle. They say that if they could be sure of the jobs the risk might he worth taking, but if job forecasts are a pig in a poke the risk is not worth taking. They believe that the Secretary of State is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. As they say in New

  961
  Zealand, even the wool that the Secretary of State is trying to pull over the eyes of the people of Wales is 50 per cent. terylene.
  In his Third Reading speech, the Secretary of State said that the barrage would cost £153 million. My constituents believe that the correct figure is £167 million. Where is the missing £9 million? The Secretary of State referred earlier this year to the missing £9 million. He said that he intended to approve public expenditure, arising from the Stoner report, for the additional groundwater protection that was needed to cover the predictions made by his consultant. But he has not got that money from the Treasury. The additional £9 million for groundwater protection is not to be found in the £153 million to which the Secretary of State referred.
  The figure ought to be £162 million, at 1992 prices. That is not the outturn cost. If we were realistic, the outturn cost would be about £180 million. For those purposes, one has to accept that £162 million is the proper figure for building the barrage, plus the associated works. That is another reason why my constituents are still worried about the barrage proposal.
  The Secretary of State referred to the prospect of dewatering wells, thus solving the problem of rising groundwater. We do not have time to go in detail into exactly how the dewatering wells strategy is to be applied between now and the Committee stage of the Bill when it reaches another place. I understand that field tests will be carried out between now and next February. That is fair enough; after the desk study one should carry out the field study.
  The problem, however, is that the dewatering wells are another example of the Government's incompetence when trying to put the fears of my constituents at rest. The dewatering wells study that the Government refer to carrying out between now and February 1993 was ordered by the Select Committee that considered the private Bill and reported to the House in May 1991. It was in the terms of reference given to Hydrotechnica—the development corporation's consultants—to be carried out, on the instruction of the House in May 1991, between August 1991 and July 1992, but it was not done.
  The study is late, yet my constituents are being asked to accept that this wonderful dewatering well scheme will solve the problems of rising groundwater and prevent the associated property damage that could result. It should have been done 12 months ago, and if it had been we could have considered it tonight. Some way or another, the ball slipped from the grasp of Cardiff Bay development corporation, in the classic manner of unaccountable, irresponsible quangos of mates of the Secretary of State. The corporation does not care, because it is unaccountable to Parliament. We are always asked to accept what it does, even though it has a record of incompetence, which always makes us want to redouble our efforts to scrutinise what it is doing.
  In 1988, I decided to oppose the barrage. I did not like the idea but knew why people such as Lord Crickhowell, whose idea it was, adopted it. They thought, "Given what it will do for London docklands, perhaps it is a good idea for south Wales." Nobody would advance that argument now. The docklands scheme has proved to be misconceived. If Canary Wharf is not doing much for the
  962
  economy or image of London, we do not want a budgie wharf in Cardiff to try to do the same job on a smaller scale.
  The philosophy of office and property-led development has passed its sell-by date. I did not like it in 1988—I preferred manufacturing-led redevelopment and regeneration—but now 10 times as many people can see the point that I was making, and following the Government's recent economic difficulty it is even more true now than it was four years ago. Many people can now see that the warnings given by opponents of the barrage four years ago have become true for London. Therefore, the idea of copying the way in which regeneration was pursued in London docklands holds no attraction for my constituents.
  The Secretary of State referred to the Bill being changed in the other place. He said that I have not been willing to accept the Government's publicity of that change. However, the Government will not only change the Bill but will create a new class of petitioners. Those who petitioned against the Bill in the past have a different reason for doing so now—the unprecedented right that the Government have conferred on Cardiff city council to dig public soakaways on private property. It has never been tried before in a densely populated area of terrace housing. In order to get rid of surface water, the city council will be able to enter people's back gardens and dig under their back walls, goldfish ponds, bike sheds and tool sheds and across their herbaceous borders. That will create an entirely new class of petitioners. When the Bill returns from the other place, will the same petitioners have the right to petition in this House against the additional power to enter private property for public purposes, which Cardiff city council has now agreed with the Secretary of State?
  We have also dealt with the fact that we do not like quango-style government. We believe that it results in fixes, and we are not happy about the fixes being made between insiders and the Welsh Office. They are undemocratic and unaccountable, and they lead to too many little private, cosy arrangements being made.
  We have also referred to the appalling incident when the Secretary of State decided to choose Councillor Jeff Sainsbury over Councillor Geoff Munton, the nominee of Cardiff city council after Labour had won the election democratically in May 1991. The Government took no notice of that and chose one of the masonic lodge mates of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) because Councillor Sainsbury wanted to be on the Cardiff Bay development corporation. That is appalling.
  If there is one thing that one can say about the barrage, it is that it is a large piece of masonry, but it will certainly not be free. The taxpayers and the city of Cardiff will pay for it for decades to come.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Murphy: We have limited time. It was appropriate that the previous two speakers were my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who represent the city of Cardiff together with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who is present, because the Bill is a matter of great concern to the capital city of Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friends

  963
  on the way in which, in their different ways, they hold sincere views and beliefs about the way in which Cardiff should be developed.
  Everyone in the House joins in the hope that Cardiff will be redeveloped and rejuvenated by whatever happens in the south of Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I represent valley constituencies. and we are very much aware of the problems of unemployment, recession and housing deprivation which hit not only the valleys, but places such as Splott, Adamstown, Grangetown and other parts of Cardiff which will be affected by the barrage.
  I still believe that points have been left unanswered. As a result of the problems of the guillotine, we did not get to the difficulties of the Cardiff bay advisory committee and its composition. We firmly believe that, by law, there should be representatives on it of the new unitary authority in Cardiff. The Secretary of State will announce fairly soon the local government structure in Wales, and the House will have to decide on that. Assuming that there is a unitary authority for Cardiff, it is the obvious body which must have representation on such an advisory committee.
  My hon. Friends have referred to the problems of quangos or appointed bodies in Wales. There is great unease in the Principality about those bodies and about their membership. I hope that, in years to come, while the Government are still in power, they will look at that matter differently from the way in which they have looked at it in the past.
  There is genuine unease in Cardiff about the problems of groundwater levels, about flooding, about the quality of the water and about the site of special scientific interest. All those are matters of great concern. The matter that still dominates all those is the problem of cost.
  We know that the hundreds of millions of pounds that the project will cost were thought of originally when the economy was in a very different position. That economy was based very much on property development, on supermarkets, and on retail parks and the rest. Those days have gone. I hope that, when the autumn statement is delivered, and when the Secretary of State talks about the revenue support grant for local authorities in Wales, he will take a careful look at the priorities in public expenditure, and that he will ensure that the money is shared among all the communities in Wales which vitally need it.
  The other place will consider the Bill in the months to come. It has plenty of work to do. However, we assure the Secretary of State that, when the Lords amendments come to the House, we will give them proper scrutiny, which is our job as the Opposition.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Hunt: I thank the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for their speeches. It is a good reflection of the spirit of partnership that we have in Wales that people representing valley communities are still prepared to contemplate a development in Cardiff and are prepared to give that development not only their Front-Bench support but their own personal support, in the belief that it will benefit the people of the valleys and south Wales, as well as being enormously important to Cardiff and its people.
  964
  Towards the end of what must be more than 60 days of discussion on the Bill in its various forms, I detect that we may be nearer to agreeing than we have been in previous debates. I recognise that the project is enormously important to the people of Cardiff. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the spirit of partnership. I hope that we may rekindle that spirit as we say goodbye to the Bill—albeit temporarily, I am afraid, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) explained—as it moves to the other place.
  I see that virtually all the political parties are represented in the Chamber at the moment. I strongly believe that the project is of vital importance to Wales, but that it will secure the benefits that we all seek only if it has the wholehearted support of everyone. Perhaps some hon. Members intend to vote against Third Reading. We shall not know until the vote is called.
  I appeal to all hon. Members to believe that the best way to get the project up and running on the best possible basis would be for the Bill's Third Reading to receive the unanimous support of the House. That will enable us to build for the future. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth who said, "Now let us look to the future."
  We have had some good speeches on Third Reading and in previous debates. I must correct the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who said that the barrage was not mentioned in the manifesto. It was certainly mentioned in the Conservative manifesto, although, strangely, it was omitted from the Labour manifesto.
  I have now secured for myself a copy of the Conservative manifesto for Wales, which is entitled "The Best Future for Wales" and which includes a special section entitled "Cardiff Bay". It says:
  "We shall remain fully committed, as an early priority, to securing Parliamentary approval for the project to build a Barrage in Cardiff in order to transform its seafront. The whole revitalisation of South Cardiff depends upon that Barrage. This project will bring £2,000 million of investment to South Wales, and thousands of new homes and jobs. It will rejuvenate and transform our Capital city."
  I am delighted to have the opportunity to implement that manifesto pledge. I want the project to succeed.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West raised a number of detailed points, and, if I may, I shall write to him on those to which I do not respond tonight. On jobs, I do not believe that there is any difference or distinction between the wording used in the economic appraisal and the words that I used. The important thing is that the barrage will bring much-needed jobs and homes to Cardiff. It will make Cardiff one of the great capital cities of the world. The potential for redeveloping the sea front and river front at Cardiff fills one with excitement for the future.
  I do not accept for one moment the criticisms that hon. Members have made of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Its chairman is one of our outstanding public citizens in Wales, and its new chief executive, Michael Boyce, formerly chief executive of South Glamorgan county council, is one of our most important and prestigious public servants. Under their leadership, I am certain that the barrage will transform Cardiff's future prospects.
  I welcome the fact that we have had the support of hon. Members of all parties tonight. As we watch the evolution of the project, I hope that we shall see a capital city rising to the challenge of our times.

  965
  The capital city of Cardiff, of which we are justly proud, has a very exciting future. Of course it would have an exciting future without the barrage, and I recognise that those who have opposed the barrage do not do so to denigrate the potential of Cardiff: they oppose it because their view differs from the view of the majority. However, I believe that the majority are right. The barrage will transform the prospects of Cardiff.
  I have visited other cities in the world which have discovered that, by lifting the nature of the waterfront, they can stimulate the most remarkable development. We will see that in Cardiff. It is truly one of the greatest projects of our time. I pay tribute to my predecessors, Lord Crickhowell, who thought up and implemented the project at an early stage, and Lord Walker, who brought it to fruition. I strongly urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
  It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Environmental Action Programme
  10 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 6132/92, relating to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme; endorses the Government's welcome of the general shape of the Programme; supports the Programme's emphasis on the integration of environmental concerns into other areas of policy, subsidiarity and the need to set priorities and assess costs; and endorses the Government's intention to ensure that these elements and the outcome of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development are adequately reflected in the Resolution of the Programme which the Council is to adopt.
  Following the Rio conference, it is timely that we should now be looking at the shape of the European Community's environmental policy until the end of the century. The Commission has previously produced four action programmes on the environment. The latest programme, entitled "Towards Sustainability", sets out the framework for the Community's policies and strategies on the environment until the year 2000.
  The strategic approach looks to give a long-term orientation of all the Community's policies. We have made, and will continue to make, every effort to ensure that during our Presidency the programme is given the consideration that it deserves.
  Discussion of the programme has made good progress in the environment working group in Brussels. At the Environment Council on 20 October, Ministers noted this progress and looked forward to their meeting in December when they plan to adopt the resolution which will give the Council's blessing to the programme. By that time, we should also have the benefit of the European Parliament's opinion. The programme will begin to be implemented at the start of 1993 when its predecessor expires.
  I should point out that the programme is not itself a legislative document. We would not expect the objectives and guidelines that it proposes to be agreed line by line: attempts to seek agreement on each sentence of the programme could take us until the end of the century. Nor do we expect the programme itself to be rewritten. The programme's aim is to set the background against which the Commission will bring forward specific proposals for Community action over the next eight years. As it does so, we shall have to consider the details in specific areas.
  As the House will appreciate, the programme covers a wide range of topics. But we can draw out key themes: the programme's objective of the promotion of sustainable growth respecting the environment; the principle of shared responsibility as the bedrock of the programme, meaning action by a wide variety of people and organisations in various sectors and at various levels; and the integration of environmental concerns into all areas of policy. The Government welcome the broad shape of the programme. There are many elements of the programme which fit in with our own priorities.
  The first is UNCED or the Rio follow-up. The Earth Summit was an important step in our attempts to tackle the enormous environmental problems which face us all. In Rio, we signed up to many commitments which we are now putting into practice. As we seek to do so, it is right that the Community should play its part. At the Lisbon European Council, the Community agreed to an

  967
  eight-point plan of action, sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which aims to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development world wide. Much of the necessary action will be for member states individually or acting in concert. But where there is a clear Community role, proposals flowing from the fifth action programme must take account of Rio follow-up as a major priority and contribute to the early fulfilment of the objectives to which we have committed ourselves.
  The second is integration. We welcome the programme's emphasis on the need to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into other policy areas. There are no fewer than 11 policy areas outside the environment where work with an environmental aspect is being taken forward during our presidency. But while the programme describes the aim of greater integration, it does not set out the mechanisms as to how this is to be achieved. That is why we took the issue of integration as a major issue for discussion at the informal Environment Council in September.
  Ministers recognised the need to devise practical proposals for giving effect to the principle of integration, and identified a number of measures which should be considered by the Commission, the Council and the member states. We hope that from the highest levels the Commission will demonstrate its commitment to ensuring that proper weight is given to the environment in the formulation of all the Community's policies.
  Thirdly, one of the themes of the programme is that environmental policies and objectives should be pursued at a variety of levels according to where it is most appropriate to act. I wish to make it clear, however, that—come what may—we shall not lower our environmental objectives. We shall simply be considering the extent to which those objectives are best achieved at Community level or at member state level, or perhaps through co-operation between member states rather than through Community legislation. Of course there are areas where it is right for the Community to act: pollution, as we know, is no respecter of national boundaries.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will be aware that the question of subsidiarity and environmental policy is controversial. Will he explain a matter to which he has alluded but not expanded on? The motion states that it welcomes
  "the general shape of the Programme",
  but there is a change between the document signed by Lord Strathclyde, which is the explanatory memorandum, and what is in the Government's "This Common Inheritance" second year report. The latter refers to the Lisbon European Council and states that the programme's emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity led to work being commissioned at Lisbon
  "on the means of giving subsidiarity practical effect."
  Will the Minister make it clear that there will be no devolution of matters currently within the environmental competence of the Commission to national states as a result of the change in emphasis at Lisbon?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands some of the processes that the Commission is currently taking forward on subsidiarity. The environment is not exempt from the studies that the Commission is doing on subsidiarity, nor would one expect it to be. However, as I have made clear, I do not regard the environment as the sole candidate for some aspects of subsidiarity to apply.
  968
  The fifth environmental action programme recognises that there are some things that the Community should do and must do because pollution is no respecter of national boundaries. There might be other things which should be left to nation states to do, but there is no inconsistency.
  The fourth matter that I want to discuss is where the Commission could learn from British experience, and that is our process of regular review and monitoring of environmental policy and our efforts to record publicly through the annual White Paper the progress that we have made in meeting our targets. The programme suggests a formal review in 1995. We have argued that there should be a more regular process of monitoring and review. The Community should also consider what mechanisms might be introduced to ensure reviews of the functioning of existing legislation to establish where it is not working either because it is impracticable to implement it, according to the text, or because practice has revealed ambiguities.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: There is one aspect in which the Community might not benefit from our experience. That is a worrying section in chapter 6.2 of the White Paper, which states:
  "It is particularly important to the nuclear energy sector that public confidence in it be maintained and even enhanced."
  Knowing the experience of the past 20 years' publicity from British Nuclear Fuels plc, in which it constantly understated the risk from nuclear power and the costs of nuclear power, is it not worrying that what might be in this document is a continuation not of objective information but of propaganda?
  Mr. Maclean: With respect, the hon. Gentleman should not try to use the fifth environmental action programme —the general thrust of which all parties subscribe to—to try to support any arguments that he may have about aspects of nuclear policy. He will have difficulty pointing to any country which publishes as much information about its nuclear policy or allows its nuclear reactors and industry to be subject to as much scrutiny as this country does. We are proud of the amount of the information that we publish. We accept that, when such information is published, it is often used against us in attempts to discredit us, but we shall continue to publish information in the future with the same alacrity as in the past.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Minister not aware that, before the Government decided to privatise the electricity industry, no one in Britain was officially informed of the enormous losses that had accrued to Britain's nuclear activity for a period of 30 years? Throughout the 1970s and until 1988, Members of Parliament were continually told that nuclear power was cheaper and was the way forward. It was not until the City of London refused to have anything to do with nuclear power that the Government decided to privatise electricity that the nation was formally told of the enormous cost that nuclear power incurred. All electricity consumers in Britain pay 11 per cent. on their electricity bills to bail the nuclear industry out.
  Mr. Maclean: Far be it from me to wander down an avenue that is irrelevant to the fifth environmental action programme and become embroiled in other discussions. When I replied to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) I referred specifically to nuclear safety. I did

  969
  not refer to the costs and financing of the industry. However, I entirely subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view that only privatisation reveals the true cost of an industry. The House has much to be grateful to the Government for in that regard. Privatisation has revealed the cost of the nuclear industry, in the same way as it reveals the true cost of any industry. However, let us not go too far down that route tonight. Others will undoubtedly wish to explore it in the next few months.
  My fifth point is that there is a need properly to assess the costs and benefits of environmental policies. The fifth environmental action programme suggests that all Community environmental policies and other policies which have an environmental dimension should be costed comprehensively. That should be vigorously pursued to ensure that our environmental policies are as cost-effective as possible.
  As the debate about the Community's future has developed, greater emphasis has been given to openness in the Community's activities. The programme proposes the establishment of a new consultative forum with wide-ranging membership. That could well be a step in the right direction, although it will be essential to decide on its membership and draw up its terms of reference and procedures in order to prevent it from becoming merely a talking shop. It should play a positive and effective role in the formulation of Community environmental policy. The Commission should also develop further its use of "green papers" to canvass opinions on new ideas, and ensure the widest possible consultation when it draws up new proposals.
  There are several other areas to which the United Kingdom, as President, will attach importance as we consider the fifth environmental action programme. It is most regrettable that, more than two years after its establishment was agreed, the European Environment Agency has not yet been set up because of disagreements over the siting of other EC institutions. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to force the issue to a conclusion at the Environment Council on 20 October, but we shall continue to use our presidency to attempt to find a solution that will make possible the early establishment of the agency.
  We also attach great importance to implementation and enforcement. At our request, the Commission has agreed to report on those issues formally at the next environment council and then on a regular basis in future. The improvement of enforcement will also be covered at the first ever meeting of representatives from the pollution inspectorates of the 12 member states, which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will host next week and which we hope will lead to the establishment of a permanent network of enforcement agencies.
  The fifth action programme covers an enormous range of ideas and objectives. The resolution to be adopted by the Environment Council must give guidance to the Commission about our priorities and the way in which we wish to see work flow from the programme pursued. That will be the Government's aim as we take forward discussions on the programme and resolution in Brussels. I commend the Government's approach to the House.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: The Opposition give a broad welcome to the fifth action programme. We have our quarrels with the Government's motion which, as usual, tends to self-congratulation. The programme sets out aims and principles rather than specifics. As the rapporteur for the European Parliament has said of it:
  "It is essentially a declaration of intent rather than a precise proposal for practical alternatives."
  That is fair enough, because it is a programme that, over the coming years, can be used to shape national environmental programmes.
  One of the key themes of the programme, which the Minister rightly highlighted, is shared responsibility. That means a number of different things because responsibility can be shared between different levels of public authority within a member state, between public organisations, the private sectors and non-governmental organisations and between different Departments of State. The Labour party warmly supports all such sharings. It would be good if the Government practised some of this sharing of responsibility within the United Kingdom.
  Let us take one simple example—the sharing of responsibility between central Government and local authorities. The Government have told local authorities that, within the next few years, they must ensure that they recycle 25 per cent. of their wastes. We fully support that admirable and laudable objective. However, the Government have given local authorities no extra resources or assistance to carry out that objective. Local authorities are telling the Government that it will be difficult for them to meet those targets unless the Government take some share of that responsibility. Therefore, while we welcome the doctrine of shared responsibility, we question whether the Government will put it into practice here in Britain.
  A number of specific points arise out of the fifth action programme. The first is the importance of getting right the mechanisms by which we can achieve the targets set out in the programme. Back in July, the Government commissioned a rather interesting report from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. That report made a number of suggestions, one of which was that each directorate within the European Commission should have an environmental unit examining how, within that directorate—even if it were not entirely concerned with the environment—green policies and the objectives of the action programme were being carried out.
  The institute also proposed that each directorate should be required to produce an annual report of its activities in relation to the environment. As the Minister chairs the European Council of Ministers on the Environment, I can ask him what progress, if any, has been made in achieving those wise proposals on the environmental purposes of each European directorate. It would be good to hear an answer on that.
  My second query involves ozone depletion and climate change. On page 42 of the programme, there is a commitment to limit the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the 1990 level of chlorofluorocarbons by the year 2000. This is not as arcane as it may seem, because, while CFCs are a major contributing factor to the damage to the ozone layer,

  971
  HCFCs are less immediately damaging, although they are not entirely innocent. The widespread use of HCFCs is likely to cause damage.
  Why, if there was such a tough target in the fifth action programme, was there a recent decision at a preparatory meeting of Ministers for the Montreal protocol, to allow the use of HCFCs to continue for at least a 27-year period? That does not strike me as an attempt to meet the target date of 2000 for such a tough restriction as is rightly included in the fifth action programme for the use of HCFCs.
  It would also be good to be told by the Government whether, as widely expected, HCFCs will be the principal component of the air conditioning systems installed in the Channel tunnel and, if so, what quantity of HCFCs will be used and what will be the anticipated damage to the ozone layer from that use? The Minister could usefully explain how that squares with the provisions of the fifth action programme.
  There is a brief mention in the fifth action programme of the need for energy efficiency. The Government must realise that better performance on energy efficiency, energy conservation and energy insulation work is the key to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in this country. Why, then, is there no sign of any national programme from the British Government to improve energy efficiency?
  Indeed, why have the Government themselves not performed particularly well in relation to their own expenditure? The Association for the Conservation of Energy has kindly provided me with some interesting figures about the performance of Government Departments in relation to energy efficiency. The most interesting relate to the Department of Trade and Industry. The President of the Board of Trade has in the last couple of weeks referred to the importance of environmental considerations in relation to energy policy. He might start by looking at his own Department. Expenditure in the Department of Trade and Industry between 1990–91 and 1991–92 on energy efficiency work went down by 74 per cent.
  Other Departments appear to have performed even worse. For example, Department of Health expenditure on energy efficiency went down by 96 per cent. Although the Department of Education and Science spent a little more on energy efficiency, its energy expenditure—even though it was moving to a new building which, in theory, should have been more energy efficient than the old building it was leaving—went up by 48 per cent. If the Government are serious about the environmental impact of energy policy, they might start by looking at the performance of their own Departments.
  The fifth action programme refers to the habitats directive. The Government must recognise the crucial importance of that directive in achieving nature conservation goals. During the period of the fourth action programme, over 1,200 sites of special scientific interest were destroyed or damaged, a record of which no Government should be proud. It is clear that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is urgently in need of strengthening. The MacSharry reforms to the common agricultural policy still do not provide enough for the enfolding of conservation values into our agriculture policy. Will the Government make a commitment to introduce legislation to implement the habitats directive soon, to strengthen the existing protection which is inadequate for wildlife habitats in this country?
  972
  Fifthly, the fifth environmental action programme says that we must begin to use new economic indicators, set alongside indicators such as gross domestic product. On page 67 and in the table on page 72 the programme is specific on that point. It sets target dates and says that we must achieve some progress on that by 1995 and on other elements by 1999. How much progress have the Government made in redefining how we measure economic progress? Have they done anything to set new indicators beside our current projections of GDP, which take no account of resource depletion, the creation of waste, pollution, or some of the long-term environmental consequences of economic activity? If they have done nothing to move the debate along on that issue, why not? It is in the fifth environmental action programme. They say that they welcome the programme, so it would be useful to know what they are doing to implement it.
  Sixthly, the Government have already mentioned, in the course of the debate and in the motion before the House, the principle of subsidiarity. The Minister was remarkably frank on the subject: he told us that the environment would not be exempt from the search for items for subsidiarity. He said that the environment knows no national boundaries and he knows that the sea that washes the shores of Britain also washes the shores of the rest of Europe, and that sulphur dioxide produced in Britain falls in Norway, Sweden and Germany. He must know that that immediately imposes international environmental obligations on any country in relation to what it does to the atmosphere or the waters around its coast. He must also know that there is an urgent need to ensure that we keep Europe-wide standards of environmental protection in Britain, and that we keep those standards high and consistent.
  This week, the bulldozers are likely to move in to start digging up Twyford down. It is only because the European Commissioner has stood up to protect Oxleas wood that the same fate has not befallen that precious ecological site yet. The Government must not yield up the environment and proper environmental protection as a hostage to appease those who believe that bringing power back to Whitehall somehow solves a political problem about Europe in the Tory party. The environment must not be used as a tool in an internal argument within the Conservative party. Environmental protection on a Europe wide basis is too important and precious for that to happen.
  Finally, one of the important issues that comes out of the action programme is what is called "the use of economic instruments". The Secretary of State is becoming rather fond of the use of economic instruments. He gave a lecture at the Royal Society of Arts about three months ago on the subject and included copious references to economic instruments in his speech to the Conservative party conference. In the second anniversary report on our common inheritance, he talks about economic instruments. I am not sure whether he has in mind the same economic instruments as the fifth environmental action programme mentions, because those are rather interesting.
  There are four kinds of economic instruments in this programme. There are charges and levies; there are fiscal incentives. There is state aid. That would be a novel idea for this Government. There is also environmental auditing. Those are all extremely useful tools for protecting the environment. They all have their place. Indeed, for several years, the Opposition have been

  973
  arguing for green taxation proposals—ignored by the Chancellor in every Budget over the past three or four years. We have argued for a levy on landfill sites. We have argued for a switch in the use of the nuclear levy to energy conservation, to cleaning up emissions from fossil fuel power stations and to research into renewable sources of energy. That would represent a better use of the levy than the one to which it is currently put. We have also argued for a proper system of environmental auditing. These are all worthy ideas about which the Government ought to be doing far more.
  What I suspect the Secretary of State means by economic instruments is simply the use of market forces. He will ensure that market forces, not the proper role of regulation, will be the tool on which he will rely to protect our environment. That is just not good enough. Regulation must remain the linchpin of environmental protection policy.
  By all means let us look at taxation incentives, auditing, levies and the various proposals in the fifth directive action programme, but let us not at the same time downgrade the place of regulation as the core of a proper environmental protection policy.
  The last but one Secretary of State for the Environment understood all this extremely well. When he published "This Common Inheritance" the first time around, he included an extremely apposite quotation from John Stuart Mill. It is printed at the very beginning of that White Paper:
  "What rights, and under what conditions, a person shall be allowed to exercise over any portion of this common inheritance"—
  the earth—
  "cannot be left undecided. No function of Government is less optional than the regulation of these things."
  The Opposition strongly endorse that clear principle. Regulation must be used to ensure that the earth we live in is not damaged. We recognise that market forces can help, but that they will never resolve the issues that face our shared environment. I only hope that the Government and the present Secretary of State will learn that lesson too.
  10.33 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), rather unusually, quoted John Stuart Mill. I should like to quote one of the lovely songs that my daughter plays to me frequently in the car. It is by Bob Marley, and it goes:
  "Don't you worry about anything
  Because everything's going to be all right."
  This document is a load of rubbish. It places no obligations on anyone. It may cheer up the Community and all the people who go to those expensive conferences, but it will achieve nothing. It may even cheer up the Opposition spokesman, who revels in this sort of nonsense. But I hope that the Minister will have the guts to admit that this is costly nonsense which commits no one to anything, which will not stand up in a court of law and which in any event is a load of old rubbish.
  974
  I draw the Minister's attention to the seventh paragraph, which sets out these wonderful environmental designs for the future. We are told that the
  "farmer is the guardian of the soil and of the countryside",
  and I am sure that that is true. It is said:
  "Improvements in farming efficiency, increased mechanisation levels, improved transport and marketing arrangements and increased international trade in … feedstuffs have all contributed to the fulfilment of the original Treaty objectives of assuring the availability of food supplies at reasonable prices, the stabilization of markets and a fair standard of living for the agricultural community."
  Does the Minister believe that we have achieved, and will continue to achieve, the stabilisation of markets? My understanding is that markets have never been less stable and never more distorted. Have we ensured the availability of foodstuffs at reasonable prices? In fact, we have grotesquely high prices. In addition, £500 million is spent each week on dumping and destroying food. Colleagues who talk of the need for expenditure in various areas should realise that, every week, £500 million is wasted. How can the Government put their name, and that of their country, on this load of absolute rubbish, which is distorting the truth and common sense in every possible way?
  Secondly, the document sets out some of the needs that have to be examined. It refers to the desperate need for additional skills and training in a number of areas, one of which is integrated pest control. I ask the Government sharply and clearly to explain why there is such a desperate need, and why we all have to jump to attention to attend to it. The Minister will know that I am referring to section 7.6, which is headed "Professional Education and Training".
  Thirdly, the Government will be well aware that there is not a cohesion fund, and probably never will be. Even if such a fund is established in law, there will be no money to operate it. On page 71, however, the principles of such fund are set out. It is hoped that they will be established under a Maastricht agreement. There are two particular principles which seem to be illogical, unnecessary and contrary to all the principles that involve common sense in economics.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister briefly and in conclusion whether it would make any difference to anyone, whether in the House, outside it or in any other European country, if the documents that are before us had never been produced, if there had never been any silly seminars and discussions to frame them and if we have not spent a fortune producing a load of rubbish that will mean no legal commitment by anyone. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that, if it had some form of moral commitment, it could be blatantly disregarded—openly, clearly and daily—by members of the European Community.
  If the Minister cannot answer my questions about pest control and agriculture, will he tell me what difference it would make to anyone if this costly and expensive documentation had never been produced and all the costly meetings and journeys of civil servants to Brussels and other places in Europe to discuss the documents had never taken place? Does he agree that it is a costly load of rubbish and that we are wasting our time discussing it?
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know whether the Minister will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), but I shall. In a short speech, he repeated himself three times. It is clear that he ignores the recent history of Europe in relation to environmental policy. If he is to be so blind to the facts, it is no wonder that he and those who think like him—those who oppose closer European integration—have to make up for their lack of sustainable argument with a lot of noise with no substance.
  I respect the views of the hon. Member for Southend, East on animal welfare, but he should understand that some of the progress that we have made in that significant area as in others has been in no small measure due to pressure on us from elsewhere in Europe and not from within the United Kingdom.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that.
  Mr. Hughes: I have not given way yet. I shall continue with what I have to say.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is shocking.
  Mr. Hughes: It is certainly not shocking. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. However strongly the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) feels, he must contain himself.
  Mr. Hughes: I will answer the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Animal welfare.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not expect to have to call the hon. Member for Southend, East to order again. He has been in this House long enough to know that sedentary interventions of that kind are wholly unacceptable.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman accused the Government, in endorsing and commending the fifth action programme, of supporting a load of rubbish. I will put him right and explain why the programme is not just a load of rubbish but an important measure.
  The European Community— thank goodness, some of us say—has always had some level of commitment to environmental issues. It sets out its environmental programmes in documents that are not legally binding but which provide the policy platform from which legislation is drawn. From the time of the Single European Act, to which the House agreed when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, environmental objectives have also been incorporated in Community treaties. The Maastricht treaty proposes their further extension.
  There have so far been over 300 pieces of European legislation on environmental protection, and more than 50 more have been published as draft proposals. Some of them have been enormously welcomed in this country— such as the legislation to improve drinking and bathing water quality, to hasten the reduction of lead in petrol, and to provide environmental impact assessments. Those initiatives all originated in the Community, not the United Kingdom.
  We have a corpus of European environmental legislation because the Commission had the foresight to think through issues coming down the track and to
  976
  compile the four programmes we have already endorsed and the fifth one which we are debating tonight. It is impossible intelligently to legislate without a strategy. Indeed, Opposition Members often criticise the Government for legislating in substantial policy areas such as energy in the absence of a strategy. The Government's supporters know the kind of trouble that causes. Only someone who imagines that legislation can successfully be passed in the absence of a policy context would argue that a programme that sets out the general policy is a load of rubbish.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman, as someone who fights for animal welfare, agree that many of the improvements that he and I would like are prevented by European directives from being legislated for in this Chamber? What can the House do about the vile treatment to which transported animals are subjected, or about battery hens? What can be done about any aspect of animal welfare, which matters hugely?
  Mr. Hughes: I told the House that, on animal welfare, the hon. Gentleman and I are in accord, and I do not doubt his sincerity. It is sometimes entirely possible, and compatible with European law, for individual member states to impose regulations tougher than the European regulations. The problem arises in the context of the law requiring free movement, and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right: in these issues we must take the lead. Sometimes Britain must seek to ensure that the standards of other member states are as high as ours. Farm animals welfare is one example. But there is nothing to stop this country surpassing the European standard in many areas, although this is an issue best debated separately elsewhere.
  Tonight's motion may be fine as far as it goes, but it begs a few questions. The Government welcome the general shape of the programme, but we are told that they will make drafting amendments, although we do not know what form they will take. As I said when I intervened on the Minister, severe risks are involved in the Government's plans for delivering subsidiarity in environmental policy —a point that was also raised earlier by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
  I welcome the work done by the Commission on documents such as this during the leadership of Carlo Ripa di Meana. We in Britain should pay tribute to what was achieved by Commissioner di Meana before his return to Italy, and should also welcome his successor, Karel van Miert.
  This document gives us an opportunity to see a way ahead. Of course it is not perfect; unfortunately, it is more imperfect than it might have been, because our Government have watered it down. One of the problems affecting both this document and the Maastricht treaty is the fact that, in regard to environmental issues, the British Government have sought to make them weaker rather than stronger.
  The Maastricht treaty, for instance, would have contained an energy chapter committing the European Community to tougher energy conservation policy, along with a commitment to the use of less polluting forms of energy. Why are those provisions not included? Because the British Government objected, and accordingly they went out of the window. There would also have been far fewer exceptions to the majority voting proposals in the

  977
  treaty. Why are there so many? Why will so many issues still have to be decided unanimously in Europe? Because the British Government, among others, objected.
  It is no good for the Minister to pretend to the House that the Government are greatly committed to the highest standards of enforcement of environmental policy. That is not the truth, and there is clear evidence of what happened during the negotiations leading to the Maastricht treaty and earlier this year.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to his new Front-Bench responsibilities—along with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who will no doubt perform in a strongly supportive role—and he was right to raise subsidiarity as a key issue. The Government may well persuade the Commission—it looks as though they have tried—to suggest that one of the matters "downgraded" to national decision should be a series of environmental subjects that are far better regulated at a Europewide level. The bathing water directive is an example.
  If the Government wish to sustain support for Maastricht from other parties—particularly over the next few weeks—they had better stop thinking of selling out on such matters as environmental policy by handing more of them down for decision-making at national level. If that is the price that they want the European Community to pay for their ability to hold their party together, they risk losing the support of the Opposition parties. I hope that they will heed that warning. We will not sell out on the environment to get the Government out of a hole; if they take such action, it will be just another U-turn to add to their list.
  I share the Government's frustration over the fact that a European environmental agency has not been set up. I heard what the Minister said, and I hope that during the remaining few weeks of the British presidency the Government will exert even more pressure to sort out this nonsense once and for all. I know that it is not our fault, and I am aware that we are pushing; but we are in the President's chair, and we must put on the pressure even more.
  I am also aware that the Government are keen to ensure that there is a decent audit and inspection procedure. Earlier this year, in its report "Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Legislation", the Select Committee on the European Communities in the other place made it clear that we must have tough auditing and a tough inspectorate. As the hon. Member for Southend, East would surely agree, it is no use having laws if they are enforced partially rather than properly. However—as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others will also agree—it is also no use agreeing to laws, and criticising others for not applying them, when our own application of those laws is selective.
  The habitats directive is a clear example. The hon. Gentleman chose one figure; I understand that, in a single calendar year—last year—we lost 500 sites of special scientific interest in this country. It is no good delaying legislation—[Interruption.] It is no use the Minister muttering, "Rubbish." I should be grateful if he would tell us how many sites have been lost. Those appear to be the statistics. [Interruption.] The sites were damaged, certainly, if not lost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The reality is
  978
  that there is a directive but that the Government have not introduced legislation. They are doing nothing to do so. They are standing idly by.
  I also predict that the money required for the environmentally sensitive areas policy that was announced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not be made available. The Government's supposedly great commitment to environmentally sensitive farming will therefore be thrown out of the window as well.
  Thank God for the European Community's environ-mental policy. Thank God the European Community has taken so many initiatives. May it keep up the pressure. May nothing that this Government do water it down any more.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: When we listen to Conservative Members, particularly to those who sit on the Treasury Bench, we are accustomed to trite comment. They put their hands on their hearts and pledge the Government's support for a decent environment, but when we look in detail at their achievements we find that in almost every sphere there are grounds for serious concern. I noticed that, when the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the number of sites of special scientific interest, the Minister did not agree with his figure, and that, when it was pointed out that the sites had been damaged rather than destroyed, Conservative Members regarded it as a matter of hilarity. The fact that hundreds of important sites, recognised as vital for nature conservation, are damaged year after year while the Government deny that it is a matter of concern shows that they are unfit to be responsible for our natural heritage.
  When the Government rightly banned straw burning, some of the farmers in my constituency said to me, "You know what the response of farmers will be? Because they are banned from straw burning, they will buy and use far more pesticides." When I wrote to Lady Trumpington, she said in her reply that the Government knew that but hoped that farmers would not use more pesticides. During agriculture questions a few weeks later, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intended to take to ensure that, following the ban on straw burning, farmers were discouraged or prevented from liberally applying pesticides and other poisons to Britain's arable land. To the great delight of all his hon. Friends, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that I did not know what I was talking about because all hon. Members knew that pesticides were not poisonous. I accept that they may not be as poisonous as the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the fact remains that pesticides are poisonous and that the Government could not care less.
  The Minister said today that pollution does not respect national boundaries and that we must not lower our environmental objectives. Earlier this week, I telephoned the Department of the Environment to remind it that next month 2,700 drums of toxic waste will still be in my constituency. When it first arrived—since its arrival I have complained about it, in one way or another, 174 times in the House—I was told that it would be gone by Christmas. That was December 1989. I do not know whether it will still be there in December 1992.

  979
  I telephoned the Department and said that, although I knew that it wanted to forget about that toxic waste, there is shortly to be a court action in the United States which I hope will resolve the matter. There is just one problem: the Americans will not allow that toxic waste back into the United States. Although it was legal to export it, it is not legal to bring it back into the United States. We want to know what is to happen to that toxic waste.
  The site for that toxic waste is probably the largest single area of dereliction in western Europe. The Minister used to be chairman of the Dearne valley venture, but the chairmanship has now passed to Lord Henley. My only complaint about that is that the noble Lord is Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. I find that rather odd. I wrote to the Minister a number of times. I asked to see him in July, and I wrote to him in August. I have now been told to see the noble Lord who is Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. How seriously can we take the Government's concern about the environment when they pass off responsibility in that way?
  I know that the hon. Member for Southend, East. (Mr. Taylor) does not like the jargon and bureaucracy which sometimes emanate from Brussels, but, like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I thank God that Brussels is worried about environmental impact assessments. I have been heavily involved in nature conservation and the cause of the environment in Europe for a long time. I vividly recall that a big conference was held when eastern European countries began to embrace democracy. The British Conservative delegation attended to advice those countries on how to approach the economy and the environment. The eastern European countries are beset by foul pollution, but the delegation advised them: "Sweep away all your regulations; dismantle all your laws; free the entrepreneur to stimulate and ensure economic recovery." That was the advice of people who are not fit to be responsible for our natural heritage and for our environment.
  The Government have blocked Bills to protect hedgerows, have reduced the capacity of local authorities to protect their own environments and have allowed Britain to be poisoned by the entrepreneur, who has inflicted enormous damage on my area. A few weeks ago, the Department of the Environment produced a lovely little brochure and I wrote to the Minister to congratulate him on the photographs on pages 1 and 2 depicting the Manvers site in my constituency. The local community is still waiting for responses to expressions of enormous anxiety. Unless the Government change their regulations and course, land that they proudly boast to have reclaimed will remain in a sterilised condition as long ahead as one can see. We are entitled to expect the Government to be a little more sincere, a little more energetic and a little more convincing than they have been in recent weeks.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Chapter 13 of the document deals with the United Nations conference on the environment and development. The document was written before the conference.
  I remind the House of the twin themes of UNCED—environmental sustainability and social and global equity. UNCED was intended to be a turning point, and I shall quote from the document to show what a turning point it was supposed to be. Page 92 says that UNCED
  980
  "should therefore mark the transition from a model of development almost exclusively aimed at promoting economic growth towards a model wherein environmental protection and rational management of natural resources will be taken on board as integral components of development patterns."
  That was the environmental sustainability theme at UNCED.
  On page 92, there is a reference to the Dublin declaration of June 1990, which emphasises the need to meet
  "the specific needs … of its partners"—
  the European Community's partners—
  "in the developing world and in Central and Eastern Europe."
  Chapter 12 on bilateral co-operation and the section on developing countries is quite specific. It states:
  "The Community and Member States will continue to intensify their efforts … it is necessary to increase official development aid and to mobilise new financial resources … to finance sustainable and environmentally sound development programmes and projects."
  We all recall that the commitment of new moneys by industrial countries to fund agenda 21 was grossly inadequate—about £2.5 billion per annum compared to the United Nations estimated requirement of £70 billion pounds. That is a remarkable disparity. That is the equity theme of UNCED.
  Reports since suggest that even that pitiful requirement may not be honoured. First, the earth increment, part of the replenishment of the World bank International Development Association, is said to be in danger of collapse with Britain noticeably cool. It is said that we shall be lucky to maintain existing levels of that International Development Association budget, apart from any increase.
  Secondly, Britain offered at Rio to triple its contribution to the global environmental facility to £100 million. That is now said to be threatened by budget cuts. Thirdly, we are told that Treasury Ministers are threatening to cut £250 million from bilateral overseas aid.
  To renege on even the undertakings made at what was to be the most important meeting in the history of the world would make a mockery of the Rio agenda, a mockery of agenda 21 and a mockery of the new sustainable development commission which is to be set up in coming months. One can only imagine what the response among poorer countries could be and how disastrously damaging that response would be to the whole concept of environmental sustainability.
  If we accept the rhetoric of UNCED—that the future of our planet is at stake—the consequences do not bear thinking about. Already the catastrophic poverty in some of the poorer countries does not bear thinking about.
  I ask the Government to come clean and to make a clear statement about where they are at. The Government —this is true of all of us—must decide whether we wish to take UNCED and agenda 21 seriously or not.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Maclean: With permission, I will reply to a few of the points raised in an interesting debate. I should explain to the House, as I tried to explain in my opening speech, the nature of the fifth environmental action programme, especially for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He asked one fundamental question. If we did not have these documents, what difference would it make?

  981
  The difference would be that the Commission, which has the sole right to propose initiatives and legislation in the Community, could produce any directives and regulations that it saw fit without any guidance from the member states. The fifth environmental action programme gives some guidance. This may not be a good analogy, but it is like a giant a la carte menu. In some ways, it is like agenda 21. One does not expect to have to work one's way through every item on the list, but at least if everything is displayed in the window, one knows the sort of restaurant one is about to go into and the sort of meals that one might get there. My hon. Friend may have views as to the cooking ability of those concerned, but that is a different matter.
  I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is a great pleasure to see him on the Opposition Front Bench. It is perhaps unfair to be slightly carping towards him on his first appearance as an environment spokesman, but he should consider what we have been doing in the past few months. Where has he been during that time? He slammed into us on recycling, failing to realise that we gave £12 million in supplementary credit approvals last year, and £15 million this year to 126 local authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman made a fuss about eco-auditing —environmental auditing. That is one of the initiatives that we are taking forward and one of the matters discussed at the Luxembourg Council last week and at the informal Ministers' Council. We consider it terribly important. We have even included it in the published programme. It is one of the things that we hope to achieve during our presidency.
  The hon. Gentleman may be fortunate enough not to see television very often and has perhaps not seen the advertising campaign, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", which tells householders and individuals what they can do about global warming. That is one of our energy efficiency measures. It is easy to pick on certain Government Departments for not being energy-efficient in the first year of a five-year programme. I emphasise, however, that those Departments have signed up to energy efficiency improvements over five years, and I do not think that it is fair to judge them in the first year of their efforts to meet a five-year target.
  The hon. Gentleman went on about HCFCs. Of course we recognise that HCFCs have some ozone-depleting potential—about one twentieth that of CFCs, which are the real villain of the piece. If we are to make any real progress in combating ozone depletion, we must get the use of CFCs reduced and if we are to do that, we must allow HCFCs to be used in the interim, until all the other all-singing, all-dancing alternatives are available. Every other country in the world takes the view that HCFCs have a role to play in the interim period.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned environmental units in the Commission. We are keen on that idea; we repeatedly raised the subject at the Council meeting last week. I particularly made the point, drawing attention to that excellent report. This is a matter for the Commission, however. We do not have the power unilaterally to tell the Commission what to do or to impose a regime in Europe whereby all the directorates-general have their own
  982
  environmental units and reorganise and reform themselves. I repeat that we pursued the matter last week, and we shall raise it again and again because we see merit in it. Environmental policy has now been integrated into all other aspects of our policy in this country—we have interdepartmental discussions on it—and Europe could easily follow that example.
  The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to habitats, and sought to extract a promise from me that we will introduce legislation to implement the habitats directive. That is not news, however—we have been working on it, and we shall introduce the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. We have some years to do that, so time is on our side.
  This country has 5,600 sites of special scientific interest, and 8 per cent. of the land mass of Great Britain is contained within SSSIs. It is easy to pick on a site where damage has been caused, and I should perhaps have listened to hon. Members with more respect if they had pointed out that SSSIs in other countries have also sustained damage. I was fascinated by an article in The Daily Telegraph two weeks ago, showing the substantial damage that had happened not to an SSSI but to a special protection area. Although we are the third or fourth country in Europe in announcing SPAs, we have been criticised. According to the article, in one country thousands of acres have been devastated, but we heard not a word from the Opposition about that.
  In our White Paper, we publicly acknowledge those matters on which we have done well, and those on which we have not done so well and on which we must make progress. When considering the fifth environmental action programme, it does us no service to denigrate this country for some of the progress that we are making in respect of the environment and to paint a picture showing that our environment is the only environment which is going down hill or that we are destroying the environment. The reverse is the case. We are protecting our environment exceptionally well, although of course there is more that we can do. And we shall do more: we shall take further measures to protect our environment whether or not the Commission proposes those measures. We recognise that protecting all aspects of our environment is good for the people of this country and for our industry.
  Mr. Chris Smith: It does the House no service if the Government dismiss, as the Minister has just dismissed, the real problem of the 1,200 sites of special scientific interest which were damaged during the course of the fourth action programme. The Minister must not simply dismiss that as not particularly relevant. It is very relevant. The Minister said that we have plenty of time to institute the habitats directive and to implement it in legislation, but we do not have that time, because, while the Government are waiting, more SSSIs will be destroyed or damaged.
  Mr. Maclean: I reject the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. We are not complacent about some of the SSSIs that have suffered damage, but we must also recognise the extensive network of protection in this country exercised through English Nature, the large number of SSSIs, the substantial measure of protection, and the fact that we have the most designated Ramsar sites in Europe. We must also recognise the large number of special protection areas that we have designated. Of course, English Nature now wants

  983
  to concentrate on ensuring that its protection of SSSIs is as effective as it can be. When I said that we have plenty of time to implement the habitats directive, I meant that we have sufficient time within the time scale in the directive to do that. We intend that it shall be implemented.
  Mr. Hardy: The Minister suggested that we were not critical of our neighbours. I have been chairman of the natural environment sub-committee of the Council of Europe for a long time and I have berated our neighbours on many occasions. After the war, and for a considerable part of the post-war period, Britain was far and away the lead country in conservation and environmental concerns. That is no longer the position and the Minister gave examples which proved that a few moments ago. The Minister should not suggest that we are critical only of Britain.
  The Minister referred to Ramsar sites. On occasions, private Bills have been introduced in the House whereby important areas of the environment were due for serious damage or destruction and Conservative Members trooped through the Lobbies to support that destruction. They did so in respect of the very important Ramsar site affected by the Felixtowe Dock and Railway Bill which—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make another speech. Interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Maclean: I was trying to suggest that it would not be the British way simply to criticise our neighbours or to exempt ourselves. However, it is not good for us to give the impression that we criticise and denigrate only ourselves as though we were still the dirty man of Europe. I reject the claim that we are no longer in the lead in respect of nature conservation. We are the most respected country in the world in that regard. No other country has such a scientific lead in nature conservation as we have. In negotiations on the convention on trade in endangered species or other issues, it is the British scientists who are listened to because we have the expertise.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to pesticides and gave the impression that our use of pesticides was increasing and that farmers were ignoring the strictures, but that is not so. Pesticide use in this country has decreased by 20 per cent. in the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman should not give the impression that it is doing the opposite.
  On toxic waste, I do not want to comment on the specific case as it is sub judice—subject to legal procedures—at the moment. However, I make the general point that last week at the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg we obtained agreement. It was thanks to the brilliant chairing of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that we got agreement on the waste shipments directive. The Community is now in a position to sign the Basle convention, and we shall be able for the first time to bring in measures through the national self-sufficiency plans to put proper controls on the transfer
  984
  or shipment of waste between developed countries. I look forward to the day when those shipments will be drastically reduced if not stopped.
  The final point that I make to the hon. Member for Wentworth is about derelict land. Again he lambasted me on this matter. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have gone out to consultation on a scheme which will deal with section 143 registers. That consultation period has not yet ended; it will end at the end of this month. I am quite happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me expressing his concerns about how that might impact—
  Mr. Hardy: I am still waiting for a reply.
  Mr. Maclean: We are near the end of a consultation exercise. I should very quickly end up in court if I prejudged the outcome of the consultation exercise. I shall bear carefully in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made about the impact that those registers might have in his constituency and in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: I shall not give way, because I want to conclude my speech.
  As we endeavour to build on the commitments that we signed up to at Rio, and as we shape our policies on the environment into the next century, the European Community has a role to play alongside and together with the individual member states. The fifth environmental action programme will be a vital part of that process. I have indicated tonight the approach that we are taking in discussing the programme in Brussels and the main themes that we would wish to see the Community pursue as the programme begins to be implemented. As those discussions move forward, we shall take account of the views expressed in this debate.
  There is much work to be done in the Community in assessing how its policies match the aspirations of its member states—for example, the renewed commitment to the principle of subsidiarity and the requirement to integrate the environment in all policy aspects. As President of the Environment Council, we shall continue our efforts to ensure that the fifth action programme is adopted in terms which meet those concerns and enable the Community to continue to pursue effective environmental policies. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 6132/92, relating to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme; endorses the Government's welcome of the general shape of the Programme; supports the Programme's emphasis on the integration of environmental concerns into other areas of policy, subsidiarity and the need to set priorities and assess costs; and endorses the Government's intention to ensure that these elements and the outcome of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development are adequately reflected in the Resolution on the Programme which the Council is to adopt.

PETITIONS

  Pornography
  11.17 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: I present a petition from more than 350,000 people. We see laid in front of us evidence of the massive public concern about the growth of pornography. The terms of the petition are that
  urgent Government action is required to outlaw pornography. Because obscene and pornographic material, produced in Britain and abroad, is freely available on a scale as never before. The present Obscene Publications Act 1959 can control only the most extreme material. Because sex crime escalates children are increasingly at risk of being sexually abused and even murdered.
  We the undersigned believe that the circulation of obscene and pornographic material is harmful to all members of society, especially to women and children.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House call upon Her Majesty's Government to strengthen British Law against pornography and press for similar reform in the European Community without delay.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Link Road, Kirklees
  11.19 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I have the honour this evening to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Batley and Spen. My constituents oppose the proposal to construct a link road between the M1 and M62 motorways in Kirklees in West Yorkshire. The proposed road would cut through Hartshead, Roberttown and Norristhorpe in my constituency. It would take away green fields and houses and cut a village and a community in half. It would be of no benefit whatever to my constituents if the proposal went ahead.
  The petition has 3,000 signatures on it. It says:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will note our strong objections to these proposals and respect the wishes of the petitioners and prevent construction of any link road through Kirklees. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc. I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Search and Rescue (Kent Coast)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  11.20 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for the chance to raise during this short debate a matter which causes considerable anxiety to me and to my constituents —the provision of civilian search and rescue services covering the North Foreland and Dover strait.
  I should make it plain that the airfield at Manston, known jointly as RAF Manston and Kent international airport, to which I shall refer, lies mainly in the constituency of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that my hon. Friend's position as a Minister of State bars him by parliamentary convention from raising the issue on the Adjournment. But he is in his place on the Bench tonight and I hope that I shall speak for us both and for his constituents too.
  The anxieties that I shall voice are echoed by my hon. Friends the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—who represents the coastal town of Whitstable with its fishing fleet—and for Faversham (Mr. Moate)—who has the major port of Sheerness in his care. I am also aware of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who is with us tonight.
  The Dover strait, the North Foreland and the Goodwin sands, together with the north Kent approaches to the Medway and the Thames estuary, constitute the busiest and one of the most hazardous sea lanes in the world. A mariner friend of mine has described the almost continuous cross-channel, small craft traffic as
  "like children running backwards and forwards across a motorway."
  That mix of pleasure traffic, ferry traffic—about 200 crossings a day—and commercial shipping travelling to and from the great seaports of northern Europe is a series of accidents waiting to happen.
  Added to the cocktail of potential disaster are the many holidaymakers who, throughout the season, find themselves in trouble on sailboards, airbeds, rubber dinghies and the like. Much of the rescue has been met, and will continue to be met, by the extraordinarily courageous volunteer work of the crews of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the now modern lifeboats which it mans for both inshore and deep-sea purposes.
  There is another need which can be met only by the search and rescue helicopter service. For example, the Royal Air Force search and rescue team from Manston airfield was first on the scene when the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized. Civilians are alive today who owe their lives to the speed of that response. The search and rescue service from Manston has flown Kent county's firefighters to ships burning in the channel to remove casualties and fly them direct to Thanet district hospital and to put in fire-fighting teams in time to prevent small fires from turning into disasters.
  Kent county fire service has about 100 officers who are trained specifically to fight fires at sea. In recent years, those men have attended many incidents on board ships in the waters off the North Foreland and the Dover strait.

  987
  According to the Kent fire brigade offshore operations team manual, those incidents began back in May 1965 when
  "The Pakistani Freighter Yousef Baksh was on fire and in danger of sinking. She was beached in Sandwich Bay. Reconnaissance was carried out by Kent Fire Brigade Officers using a helicopter from Manston who also provided transport for firefighters."
  In the years that followed, major fire incidents attended with helicopter support include the Birkland, the Skyron, the Seafreight Freeway, the European Trader, the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Sally Star ferry and in June this year, the Bow Cedar. The fire service has also worked with the helicopter service to provide cliff rescues—an average of four a month during the summer—and now has equipment stores at Manston that include breathing apparatus, water and foam fire fighting equipment, rescue kit, and lighting and damage control supplies. There is also a fire service Manston liaison officer.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the fishermen off Hastings and Rye and the sailors in those waters are looking forward to enjoying the same sort of service, with a speedy response at the same amount of search time and the back up service that they are used to. I hope that my hon. Friend will make those points.
  Mr. David Shaw rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have one intervention on another. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) must respond to the first intervention before allowing another.
  Mr. Gale: I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye. I could not agree more with every point that she made, and I shall elaborate on some of those in a moment.
  Mr. Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Many of our constituents obtain work on, and enjoy the use of ferries between Dover and Calais. Is it not vital that the Minister assures us that there will be no compromising of safety standards, and that the efficiency of the rescue service will be maintained?
  Mr. Gale: Both my hon. Friends are entirely correct, and have reinforced the points that I shall make tonight.
  It has been the combination of airborne and water-borne rescue services that has, in the past, proved so successful and is so much appreciated by our constituents. Let me briefly review the history of helicopter search and rescue in east Kent. In the early days—in 1961—the RAF flew a single Whirlwind helicopter from Manston. In 1969, the RAF service was replaced by the civilian firm, Bristow, acting under contract for the coastguard service. The civilian service operated by Bristow, using mainly ex-RAF personnel, won the company the coastguard rescue shield in 1972.
  Shortly afterwards, the RAF reinstated Wessex helicopters to meet a perceived military aviation need at Manston and it may not surprise hon. Members to hear that there was a public outcry at the loss of the award-winning civilian service. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South—then Thanet, East—has been good enough to remind me that he instigated an
  988
  Adjournment debate, of which this one is almost the mirror image, to protest at the withdrawal of the Bristow contract.
  During that debate, my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force had said in a letter that there was
  "no direct service requirement to locate a helicopter at Manston".
  Concluding his speech, my hon. Friend said prophetically:
  "there is above all the fear that these RAF helicopters will again be withdrawn … as they were in 1969 … Therefore, in the interests of all the yachtsmen, swimmers, and shipping traffic of the Channel I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision and to leave the excellent helicopter service in the situation where it now is".
  Replying, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade was unable to give an undertaking that there would not come a time when the RAF service would be withdrawn but said that in that unlikely event
  "it would provide us with sufficient notice to enable a satisfactory alternative service to be put into operation".—[Official Report. 23 July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 1523–29.]
  The decision was taken, the RAF replaced Bristow and in 1988 the Wessex helicopters were replaced with Sea Kings.
  Over that period of 30 years, the helicopter search and rescue service has responded to over 3,000 calls, and since the advent of serious rescue flying over the sea, the Dover strait and the North Foreland have not been without swift helicopter cover. On this basis, and remembering the comments of the Under-Secretary in 1974 concerning the need for sufficient notice to be given to provide adequate alternative cover, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I first made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who has, with the Secretary of State for Defence, listened courteously to our opinions and carried out a thorough review of the military need in the area. It has, sadly, become clear that the military need is greater to the north, serving the air stations of East Anglia, and to the west, where there is a concentration of military and, particularly, naval, flying, than in the Dover strait area.
  In the past year, there have been three military callouts from RAF Manston. Two of those were airlifts—which means the evacuation of personnel on compassionate grounds—and one was recalled. None involved searches. In the previous four years, the pattern was not dissimilar. In 1991, military callouts involved one medical rescue, one medical evacuation, one airlift, two searches and two not required or false alarms. In 1990, there were fewer military callouts and only one search, one search in 1989, two searches in 1988 and no military searches in 1987.
  Given the enhanced range of the Sea King helicopter, its night flying capacity and load-carrying ability, coupled with the sophisticated survival equipment carried by military personnel, it is clear that the decision to relocate the military search and rescue flights to cover faster the areas of greatest military need was inevitable.
  My hon. Friends will join me in paying tribute to the courage and determination shown by the RAF search and rescue service. Many of the pilots and crews are our personal friends. We have grown accustomed to them—perhaps even taken them for granted—and we are relieved to know that the sight of the familiar yellow and green helicopters will not be lost to the north Kent coast, either on patrol from Wattisham or for the many ceremonial purposes at which their company has been enormously

  989
  appreciated and enjoyed. It is comforting to know that, from their new base, they will be only 40 minutes flying time away.
  While 40 minutes is not great duration for a military flier equipped to survive in a winter sea for some hours, and while it is well within the one-hour response time laid down in civilian regulatory requirements it is, as we know, far too long for the child swept out to sea on a Li-Lo or the winter sailboarder who, albeit experienced and well-equipped, has suffered injury. Forty minutes is also time for a fire to take hold, to burn fiercely and to take lives. In an extra 20 minutes flying time, some of those rescued from the Herald of Free Enterprise would not today be alive. The extra delay may, I fear, cost lives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I visited my noble Friend Lord Caithness, who has responsibility for the coastguard service, some weeks ago to raise this issue and to express our firm belief that the RAF service must be replaced by a civilian helicopter service designed and equipped to meet a civilian need.
  Consider the figures again. In 1987, there were 117 civilian callouts from Manston involving 45 searches, 25 medical rescues, three medical evacuations and seven flights providing top cover for other rescue services. In 1988, the civilian callout number rose to 144 with 38 searches, 20 rescues and 24 medical evacuations. In 1989 there was another increase, with 157 civilian calls, 35 searches and 23 medical rescues. In 1990, there were 175 callouts for civilian purposes, involving 52 searches, 16 medical evacuations and 26 rescues. In 1991, there were 141 callouts involving 42 searches, 28 medical rescues and 13 ordinary rescues. So far this year, there have been 127 callouts, 40 searches and 18 medical rescues.
  The figures speak for themselves. While the military need has fallen and can be well met from the new deployment of resources, the civilian need shows no sign of decreasing. I believe—I have to say it—that the combination of lifeboat and RAF search and rescue services from Wattisham will, on occasion, be insufficient to meet our needs. I cannot believe that the Minister is prepared to risk the life of one child or one sailor for the sake of providing, once again, civilian helicopter cover from Manston. The facilities are there and have recently been modernised. The precedent is there: civilian helicopters have flown from Manston for the coastguard service in the past and are currently flying from Lee-on-Solent. Above all, the need is there.
  Earlier this evening, on TV South, my noble Friend Lord Caithness said that of some 900 incidents attended this year, 127 had involved the use of a helicopter. I am sure that, on reflection, Lord Caithness would not wish to suggest that in some way those 127 incidents did not matter—of course they mattered—or that for those 127 incidents the helicopters, and not other services, was needed to save lives.
  I do not want to have to rise in this House to ask any Minister to answer a private notice question following an avoidable death off the North Foreland or in the channel arising from the failure to provide civilian search and rescue services from Manston. However, I know with an awesome certainty that, unless my hon. Friend the Minister and his noble Friend offer a positive response, the likelihood of my having to do so will be very great. I urge
  990
  my hon. Friend to take this case away and analyse it carefully. No decisions concerning civilian provision have yet been made. No political colours have been nailed to the mast and no reputations are on the line. My hon. Friend and my noble Friend will earn many people's gratitude if they provide at Manston the civilian services available from Lee-on-Solent. In all conscience, they can do no less.
  11.34 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on having secured this debate on such an important subject. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in his place, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I appreciate the importance which they all attach to the debate, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) are also concerned.
  The United Kingdom is very fortunate indeed to have a large and highly capable military helicopter fleet dedicated to search and rescue and which will, I am confident, continue to give good coverage around the whole of our coastline. Those helicopters are, however, provided by the Ministry of Defence to meet a military requirement and, although they are an invaluable asset, they are just one of a range of search and rescue resources available within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends will doubtless know of the announcement made last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Copies of the open government document entitled "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters" are in the Library.
  The Department of Transport is responsible for civil maritime and aeronautical search and rescue and, through Her Majesty's Coastguard, it meets the United Kingdom's obligations to provide an adequate level of SAR services for persons in distress within the United Kingdom's search and rescue region. We have at our disposal an armoury of SAR assets, which includes RAF, naval and coastguard helicopters, all-weather and fast inshore lifeboats of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and Coastguard response teams. SAR capability must be assessed taking all those available assets into account, not just helicopters. It is the job of the coastguard, as co-ordinator of search and rescue, to call on the best assets available to deal with any particular incident.
  There is no international obligation to provide a civil helicopter rescue service. This country is the only one in Europe to have dedicated SAR helicopters positioned to meet national coverage criteria. These criteria were established in 1986 by the helicopter coverage group of the United Kingdom SAR committee, which recommended that helicopters should be deployed so that points 40 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within one hour by day, and those at 100 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within two hours by night or in bad weather. Those response times include an allowance for scrambling times of 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes at night. I am advised that, in practice, helicopters are regularly scrambled within three minutes, so there is a large allowance within that formal limit of one hour.
  The recent review to which I referred and the announcement that flowed from it are a matter for the

  991
  Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend, as PPS to the Minister responsible, is in an interesting position. With his customary assiduity, he will be well aware of the contents. As he said, the number of RAF helicopters was determined by the military requirement. The effects on the provision of civil SAR were taken into account by the Ministry of Defence in the new dispositions of those helicopters to satisfy the civil requirement. The Department of Transport was consulted and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping was satisfied that the rationalisation of helicopter deployment met the helicopter coverage group criteria for civil SAR —except for those very small additional areas marked on annex C of the open government document. lit also maintained adequate response times around the whole coast. Changes to the basing structure meant that on some parts of the coast the response times would be reduced. At other places they would be increased, but they will still be within the agreed criteria. I know that my hon. Friends are seeking that assurance.
  It was decided that the criteria in south-east England could be met by a helicopter flight at Wattisham in Suffolk. That means that for certain areas around the Kent coast and in the English channel which are currently covered from RAF Manston there will be increased helicopter transit times. But we are satisfied that the Sea Kings at Wattisham will be available to respond to incidents in these areas within the response times recommended by the coverage group.
  I can also appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye. The response time in her constituency by the Manston helicopter now would be about 30 minutes. In future, helicopters from either Lee on Solent or Wattisham will take 15 to 25 minutes longer, depending on the precise location of the casualty. But I stress that this is still within the one-hour daytime criterion. I have to acknowledge that there is a small area in mid-channel, south of the Dover strait, which is outside the one-hour daytime criterion. But because, as I have said, helicopters are almost always airborne well within the 15-minute standby time, in this area too the rescue helicopter would be on station well within the hour.
  The North Foreland and Dover strait—of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover—are extremely well served by lifeboats, with fast inshore boats stationed at Whitstable, Margate, Ramsgate and Walmer, and large all-weather boats at Margate, Ramsgate and Dover. Further to the west, in or adjacent to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, there are lifeboats at Dungeness, Rye, Hastings and Eastbourne. As most incidents occur within two to three miles of the coast—my hon. Friend referred to people who drift out to sea on small craft—they will continue to be effectively resolved, as always, using a mix of national SAR assets, including these lifeboats and the helicopters from Wattisham and Lee on Solent. In the Dover coastguard district there are also 10 auxiliary coastguard response teams which are trained and equipped to locate and rescue casualties on the shore or on cliffs. There are similar teams around the whole coastline.
  It should be noted that, during 1991, the Manston aircraft was tasked by HM Coastguard on 127 occasions. My hon. Friend said that Lord Caithness used that very statistic. Only about 10 per cent. of those were actual rescues—13 in all. The balance included search operations, the lifting of injured people from ships, medical transfers
  992
  between hospitals and so on. So although helicopters are an important asset, they are not the only SAR resource available. The total number of incidents in the Dover region over the same period was 876, of which the vast majority—more than 700—were dealt with without recourse to helicopters.
  In the rare event of an incident occurring in the middle of the Dover strait or near the median line, or of a major incident elsewhere in the Dover region, the most suitable assets will be used, whether national or requested from adjacent foreign search and rescue regions. This is in line with accepted SAR practice with other European authorities. The recent incident when a fire disabled the French ferry Quiberon served to demonstrate the effectiveness of cross-border liaison arrangements. Even though the vessel was in French waters, the Ministry of Defence brought a great number of aircraft to readiness. But occasions on which we would need to call upon the French authorities or the Belgians to provide a helicopter to deal with a casualty in our waters would be very rare. I am advised that none of the incidents dealt with by the Manston helicopter last year would have needed the Belgian helicopter had the Manston one not been available. On the basis of past records, it is not expected that the removal of the Manston helicopter will increase the load on any other resources, including Belgian or French resources, for example.
  For the future, I am pleased to see the progress made by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution in developing its next generation of fast-afloat lifeboats and welcome its stated intention to give priority to the early allocation of these new fast boats in the areas affected by the change in helicopter deployment. The first of three of these boats for Kent should be on station within a few months of the departure of the Manston helicopter.
  It has been suggested that an extra helicopter—effectively, a coastguard helicopter—should be put at Manston, like the one at Lee-on-Solent. Our judgment is that it would be difficult to justify that allocation with the limited search and rescue benefits that it would bring. We have considered but rejected alternative arrangements to enhance cover by diverting helicopters from existing bases and having them travel to and from Manston each day. The relocation of the coastguard helicopter from its present base at Solent to a point further east would denude the night cover from the west of the Solent, as the Royal Navy helicopter at Portland does not have full night or all weather capability. The present base is best to maintain coverage of the south coast and mid channel under the 1986 criteria, even after the removal of the Manston helicopter.
  Although there will undoubtedly be a change in the make-up of search and rescue resources available to respond to incidents off the Kent coast and in the Dover strait, we have and will maintain a versatile and highly professional search and rescue capability both in those areas and around the entire coast of the United Kingdom. I well understand the concern that has been expressed extremely forcefully this evening. My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for Hastings and Rye have emphasised that concern. I could never predict what might happen on individual occasions or in individual incidents, but I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Caithness, when considering the

  993
  adequacy of the alternatives, was clear that, as far as was reasonably possible, the criteria that we are required to refer to would be adhered to.
  Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend able to give us an assurance that he will keep the decision carefully monitored and under review, and therefore ensure that we can feel confident about the future security of the rescue service?
  Mr. Norris: I shall ensure that the position is kept under close review. I shall draw the attention of my noble Friend the Minister of State to this debate tomorrow morning. I know that he will be extremely interested in the outcome of it.
  I make two final points. The first one is obvious, but it is worth making. It is that the first line of defence against disaster at sea must always be mariners themselves. The sensible user of the sea will always attend first and foremost to his own safety. He will know his own limitations and those of his craft. He will ensure that the
  994
  vessel is seaworthy and well equipped and that its engine is in good order. He will listen to the weather forecast and have appropriate safety equipment on board, including life jackets and life rafts. Every time a helicopter or a lifeboat is launched on a rescue mission, the crews are risking their lives. The number of rescue missions could certainly be reduced if seagoers acted sensibly and prudently.
  Finally, I know that the House would not wish to conclude a debate on search and rescue without paying tribute to the tireless efforts of the RNLI to provide for these islands a first-class lifeboat service, using both fast inshore and rugged all-weather boats offshore. As we all know, the institution is financed entirely by donations. We know also that the lifeboat crews are all volunteers. The organisation's sheer professionalism and its crews' high standards of seamanship are legendary, and I salute them. With these lifeboats, with the various helicopters and with the coastguard service, we have a potent and highly successful rescue service.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Agricultural Vehicles
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of road traffic accidents involving agricultural vehicles between the hours of sunset and sunrise in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  During 1991, there were 92 reported injury road accidents during the hours of darkness involving vehicles whose body type could be identified from registration details as being an agricultural machine. During 1990, there were 100 such accidents. Comparable data for earlier years are not available.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies that were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies that submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held centrally and could only be given at disproportionate cost.

  Car Model Tests
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, as part of his quality service objectives, he will require the publication of the findings of each new car model test commissioned since 1988 using public money.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All mass-produced new cars have to be type-approval tested against a range of standards before they can be registered. Although testing is supervised by the Vehicle Certification Agency, it is paid for by manufacturers, which are at liberty to make test results available voluntarily if they wish. Our principal concern is to confirm that type-approved vehicles meet key safety standards, rather than to record the extent by which they exceed those standards.

  We are nevertheless currently considering whether basic data about exhaust and noise emissions could be made available in future. Precise figures are recorded for these aspects of type-approval testing, and it may be possible to publish information like the official list on car fuel consumption, which has been published twice a year since 1983. Such a list may have to be compiled on an EC-wide basis as much type-approval testing of United Kingdom registered cars is undertaken elsewhere in the Community.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions his Department has recently directed local planning authorities to refuse planning permission for the creation of access to side roads from trunk roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: Ninety-seven since 1 April 1992.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will put an end to the export of toxic wastes to third world countries by ensuring a complete EC ban on the export of all forms of toxic waste;

  (2) if he will ensure that the right to ban toxic waste trade is enshrined in new EC regulations;

  (3) if he will set a date for an end to the import and export of toxic waste into and out of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The EC waste shipments regulation was agreed at the meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers on 20 October, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The regulation will enable member states to ban imports for final disposal from other member states unless they produce hazardous waste in such a small quantity that it would be uneconomic to provide new specialised disposal facilities. Imports for disposal will also be permitted from developing countries which do not have and cannot acquire the technical capacity and necessary facilities in order to dispose of waste in an environmentally sound manner.

  Exports for disposal will only be permitted to European Free Trade Association countries which are parties to the Basel convention.

  Movements of waste for recovery, which provide valuable substitutes for raw materials, will continue between Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, subject to the environmental controls set out in an OECD decision. There will be strict controls on exports of hazardous wastes for recovery outside the OECD area. Exports will have to accord with the environmental safeguards included in the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. Exports will be prohibited where a third country refuses to accept them or if the exporting member state has reason to believe that the waste will not be managed on arrival in an environmentally sound way.

  The regulation is likely to come into operation in 1994.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy at the meeting under his presidency on 20 October to(a) ensure that the clause which will allow EC member states to bar waste imports is inserted into the final regulations, (b) set a date for an end to the import and export of toxic wastes and (c) ensure that the regulation will stop the export of all toxic wastes to non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier today.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the additional cost to the water industry in meeting European Community legislation on drinking and bathing water standards since 1980.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no separate records for the whole period. However, of the £30 billion programme of improvements for the decade beginning in 1989, £12.1 billion is for water treatment and supply. This includes investment to meet our national requirements for drinking water which takes account of EC directives. The £30 billion also includes a £2 billion programme to meet EC standards for bathing waters.

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to invite in European Commission inspectors to evaluate radiation monitoring standards under article 35 of the Euratom treaty, at British Nuclear Fuels plants at Sellafield, Springfields, Capenhurst and Chapelcross.

  Mr. Maclean
  United Kingdom officials have agreed with officials of the European Commission the procedures to be followed in carrying out under article 35 of the Euratom treaty verifications of the operation and efficiency of environmental monitoring facilities in the United Kingdom. It is for the Commission to indicate in which areas it would like to undertake such a verification visit. The United Kingdom has not yet received a formal request from the Commission in respect of any specific area.

  Smoke

  SO2

  Year commencing

  Median

  98th percentile

  Median

  98th percentile

  April 1980

  20 (29 per cent.)

  104 (49 percent.)

  52 (43 per cent.)

  163 (47 per cent.)

  April 1981

  20 (34 per cent.)

  86 (40 per cent.)

  57 (48 per cent.)

  195 (56 per cent.)

  April 1982

  9 (13 per cent.)

  43 (20 per cent.)

  65 (54 per cent.)

  141 (40 per cent.)

  April 1983

  8 (12 per cent.)

  58 (27 per cent.)

  50 (42 per cent.)

  180 (51 per cent.)

  April 1984

  15 (22 per cent.)

  38 (18 per cent.)

  44 (37 per cent.)

  140 (40 per cent.)

  April 1985

  16 (24 per cent.)

  57 (27 per cent.)

  55 (46 per cent.)

  125 (36 per cent.)

  April 1986

  13 (19 per cent.)

  44 (21 per cent.)

  50 (42 per cent.)

  110 (31 per cent.)

  April 1987

  18 (26 per cent.)

  73 (34 per cent.)

  46 (38 per cent.)

  94 (27 per cent.)

  Note: All values are in micrograms per cubic metre and the smoke concentrations are to the British standard calibration. The percentages in brackets relate to the relevant EC directive limit value.

  In 1986, diffusion tube measurements of nitrogen dioxide at the Stratford site gave an average concentration of 32.2ppb—parts per billion—for the period July to December. The average for the whole of Greater London for the same period was 27ppb. When the study was repeated in 1991, only two months of data were obtained for this site, and the average concentration for this limited period was found to be 35ppb.

  The London borough of Newham has agreed to participate in a new long-term study of nitrogen dioxide, using diffusion tube samplers, currently being organised by the Department in conjunction with local authorities. Four measurement sites will be established in the borough in January 1993 as part of this survey.

  "The UK Environment"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of his Department's publication entitled "The UK Environment" have been published; and what steps have been taken to promote its widespread distribution.

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office published "The UK Environment" on 14 October on behalf of the Department of the Environment. The initial print run was 4,500 copies. A press notice went to all correspondents dealing with environment, water, pollution, education and the House of Commons in the national media. The report will feature in HMSO's catalogues and bibliographic listings and in a mailing to educational establishments scheduled for November. Copies are available by mail order directly from HMSO books, as well as from HMSO bookshops and HMSO agents both in the United Kingdom and overseas and the general book trade.

  Pollution, Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken by his Department to measure the extent of atmospheric pollution in the London borough of Newham; and what information is available on it.

  Mr. Maclean
  Continuously operated sulphur dioxide, SO2, and smoke monitoring was carried out at 383 Stratford high street, Newham between 1963 and 1988. The data for the past eight years of operation are given. The data were discontinued thereafter because the values recorded were consistently well below the air quality limit values for SO, and smoke prescribed in EC directive 80/779/EEC.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment what recent initiatives he has taken to improve public education on energy saving and energy efficiency.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government seek to promote the teaching of energy efficiency in primary and secondary schools through its involvement with CREATE—the Centre for Research, Education and Training in Energy —and is discussing with CREATE a number of new projects and improved funding arrangements.

  As part of its "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" Campaign, the Government are developing an education strategy to encourage school children and teachers to understand the link between the efficient use of energy, CO2 emissions and global warming.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent objections he has received over the environmental implications of the operation of the new thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has received a number of representations from members of the public objecting to the proposals for discharges of radioactive waste resulting from the proposals to operate the new thermal. oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield. I understand that the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will shortly be consulting on the revised draft authorisations for the discharge of radioactive waste from Sellafield.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding progress made by UK Nirex in locating a site to dispose of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes.

  Mr. Maclean
  UK Nirex is continuing to carry out site investigation studies in the Sellafield area. The company announced its intention to construct a rock characterisation facility at Sellafield as part of these studies, and issued a consultation document setting out these proposals on 21 October.

  Mr. Flynn
  , To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department participated in the special scientific programme on radioactive waste held at the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual general conference on 22 September.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: No Department of the Environment officials attended the meeting on 22 September. However, some officials from the Health and Safety Executive did do so.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the affordability of new housing association homes to households on low incomes if current presumptions continue to prevail; and if he will make a statement on what action the Government intend to take.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grant rates for housing associations are proposed by the Housing Corporation and approved by the Secretary of State in the light of all relevant factors, including outturn rents on completed schemes. We are currently considering the rates of housing association grant for 1993–94. Outturn rent levels are for associations to determine. The Government do not publish the underlying factors and assumptions implicit in the grant rate model, nor any general definition of affordability, since they do not wish to imply a view as to what constitutes an affordable rent in any particular case.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what change he expects to make in housing association grant rates for housing association developments, and what will be the average housing association grant rate in 1993–94;

  (2) what percentage change he expects to make in the total cost indicator levels applicable to housing association developments In 1993–94;
  538
  (3) when he expects to announce his decision on total cost indicator and grant rates for housing association development schemes in 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  Final decisions on grant rates and total cost indicators are not yet available but will be communicated to associations as soon as they are announced.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 1044, whether his Department has received any further evidence from the Housing Corporation on the affordability of new homes provided by housing associations; and if he will place in the Library reports of the main findings and supporting research which the Housing Corporation has made available to his Department in the past six months.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation has made available to the Department some of the results of its continuous monitoring of rents set for new housing association tenants. Information on these rents, contained in the National Federation of Housing Associations' continuous recording—CORE—quarterly bulletins, is already in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the output of(a) newly built and (b) rehabilitated housing associations homes in England, over the years 1975 to 1991, and his estimates of their expected output in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of housebuilding completions, and of renovations of dwellings, by housing associations in England are shown in tables 6.1(a) and 7.1 respectively of the annual publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". Figures for the years 1981 to 1991 will shortly be published in the 1981 to 1991 edition, and those for earlier years are shown in previous editions: viz for 1980 in the 1980 to 1990 edition, for 1979 in the 1979 to 1989 edition, etcetera. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  The Department does not prepare forecasts of housebuilding completions, nor of conversions and renovations.

  Housing Management Services
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) tenants and (b) organisations representative of tenants were consulted by (i) his Department and (ii) the consultants engaged by his Department in the course of preparing the proposals for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering by housing management services, as outlined in his Department's White Paper, "Competing for Quality".

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Tenants and tenants' organisations were given the opportunity to consider and respond to the consultation paper. Over 100 tenants organisations have responded.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the continuation and development of the Green House programme to promote energy conservation in local authority housing; and if he will make a statement.
  539
  Mr. Baldry
  An announcement on this will be made shortly.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of new council homes which will be(a) started and (b) completed in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not prepare forecasts of housebuilding activity. Estimates of actual housebuilding starts and completions by local authorities are published in the annual and quarterly versions of "Housing and Construction Statistics". Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  UNCED Agenda 21
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 562, to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), if he will deposit two copies of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Agenda 21 provisional document in the Library, pending the availability of official copies.

  Mr. Maclean
  Two copies of the provisional Agenda 21 document were deposited in the Library in July.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to ensure that where a house is sold or let with a water meter installed, the purchaser or tenant is informed of this fact at the time of the purchase or letting.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no intention of doing so. It is for the prospective purchaser or tenant to make the appropriate inquiries.

  Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions on waste reduction and packaging have been taken in recent meetings of the Environment Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  Waste reduction and packaging have not been on the agenda for recent meetings of the Environment Council.

  Government Premises
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long former Department of Trade and Industry premises in Victoria street have been empty; how long he expects them to remain unoccupied; what proposals he has for the future use of these premises; and what is the weekly cost of keeping the premises unoccupied, including maintenance, insurance and security liabilities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The property was vacated in September 1991 because it needed major works to render it suitable for continued occupation. Some time beforehand, negotiations were opened with the landlords to agree to a package whereby the property would be refurbished at their expense and the Secretary of State would enter into a new lease at a modern rent.
  540
  With the dramatic downturn in the property market, the landlords were reluctant to commit themselves to substantial capital expenditure while rents continued to fall. However, significant progress has been made and subject to finalisation of the negotiations a 24-month contract period will deliver the building fully refurbished and ready for occupation. It is intended that the building will be re-occupied by a Government Department or Departments.

  We are still contractually liable, under the terms of a long lease, for rent plus costs for insurance, maintenance and security of £40,000, but this will be reduced to £12,000 when the building contract commences shortly.

  Auto Emissions 2000
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department was represented at the Auto Emissions 2000 conference in Brussels organised by the European Commission on 20 and 21 September; and if he will deposit in the Library the papers prepared and presented to the conference.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department was represented at this conference. I am arranging for a set of the papers to be placed in the Library.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the statement for climate change at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development will be submitted for ratification within the United Kingdom Parliament.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom was party to the Munich summit communique of July 1992 which urged other countries to join the Group of Seven countries in a commitment to seek to ratify the United Nations framework convention on climate change by the end of 1993. We will continue to press for early ratification by a wide range of countries to ensure effective action to tackle this global problem.

  Mining Communities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional resources he intends to make available to the Rural Development Commission to support mining communities.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Rural Development Commission's resources for future years are currently the subject of discussion in the public expenditure round. The commission already operates a range of economic and social programmes in two rural east midlands coalfield areas and has recently increased the range of assistance available in the more southerly area. The commission is examining urgently what further assistance it might provide in coalfield areas of rural England.

  Natural Resources
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the establishment of an EC-wide inventory of natural resources during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.
  541
  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom presidency is working for the early establishment of the European environment agency which will have as one of its priorities the development of a EC-wide inventory of sources of environmental data and information.

  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will put out for consultation draft legislation on his Department's proposals for leasehold enfranchisement, before a Bill is presented to Parliament, in view of their complex and radical nature.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Coastal Zone Planning
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek the establishment of an EC directive on coastal zone planning and management during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Maclean
  At present, the Commission has not published a proposed directive on coastal zone planning. Therefore, the United Kingdom cannot take this forward during the presidency.

  Historic London
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with English Heritage on its views on the impact of enfranchisement on historic parts of London.

  Sir George Young
  My officials have discussed the proposals, including in particular the arrangements for estate management schemes, with English Heritage.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the establishment of a sustainable development commission for Europe during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom presidency is taking the lead in encouraging the early establishment of the sustainable development commission which will have world-wide responsibilities.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC to secure that the implementation of subsidiarity will not lead to(a) weakening of member states' obligations on environmental policy, (b) loss of redress for EC citizens relating to environmental policy, or (c) diminution of the Commission's powers to intervene in environmental issues where member states do not meet obligations.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to bring forward proposals to change building regulations in light of the construction products and workplace directives; and if he will make a statement.
  542
  Mr. Baldry
  The Building Regulations 1991. which came into force on 1 June 1992, contain appropriate references to the construction products directive, which was implemented in the United Kingdom through the Construction Products Regulations 1991. We are currently considering what further changes may be needed in the Building Regulations to make them consistent with regulations made to implement the workplace directive.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals to bring United Kingdom standards for lead pollution of drinking water into line with the World Health Organisation guideline level of 10 migrograms per litre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are continuing urgent consideration of what more should be done by the Government and water companies in the light of the World Health Organisation's guideline, which we expect to be promulgated early next year. The World Health Organisation recognises that it will take time and money for countries to meet the new guideline.

  Housing (Pregnant Women)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pregnant women were successfully prosecuted in each of the last five years for fraudulent attempts to gain priority status on housing waiting lists in Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Southampton, Liverpool, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Hull, Salford and Bristol.

  Mr. Baldry
  Such information is not held centrally.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority councillors were prosecuted in each of the last five years for fraudulently obtaining benefits while in receipt of council attendance allowances; and if he will give the political party which they represented.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Home Safety
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to making the promotion of home safety a statutory responsibility of local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. It is for local authorities to decide whether they wish to promote home safety, taking into account local circumstances.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will help those local authorities which have established home safety committees.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. Local authorities who have chosen to establish such committees will no doubt first have taken into account the resource implications of doing so.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 20 October.

  Mr. Howard
  I chaired the Environment Council which met in Luxembourg on 20 October. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council agreed a common position on a new regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. The Council has invited the European Parliament to co-operate in expediting the adoption of this regulation so that the next meeting of the Council in December can settle the date when the EC and the United Kingdom can ratify the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The regulation could therefore come into operation in 1994. The Government will have powers under the regulation to ban imports for final disposal from all countries including member states of the EC unless they produce hazardous waste in such a small quantity that it would be uneconomic for them to provide their own disposal facilities. The regulation also contains strict controls on the international movement of recoverable wastes and will give legal effect to an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development decision on the movement of recoverables.

  The Council agreed to press for methyl bromide to be added to the list of controlled substances covered by the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer at next month's meeting of the parties in Copenhagen, with an initial control involving a freeze at 1991 levels by 1995. My hon. Friend indicated that the United Kingdom would have been willing to go further and accept a 25 per cent. cut in methyl bromide production and consumption by the year 2000 if other member states had been willing to do likewise. The Council also exchanged views on the controls on chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances that the Community should press for in Copenhagen and on other issues likely to arise there.

  The Council held a discussion on the fifth environmental action programme—"Towards Sustainability"—and gave initial consideration to a draft Council resolution endorsing the programme. Ministers envisaged the adoption of the resolution in December when the European Parliament's opinion has been received.

  The Council held a discussion about the European Environment Agency. Ministers expressed regret at the lack of a decision on the location of the agency which continues to prevent it from beginning its work. They expressed the hope that the European Council would, as a matter of urgency, reach a decision on this issue.

  The Council discussed informally climate change and follow-up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. On the former, they agreed that the climate change convention should be ratified by the end of 1993; that member states should produce the national plans required under the convention by the same time; that member states' own plans for reducing CO2 emissions should be submitted to the Council by the end of this year; and that the Council will consider the Commission's proposals for monitoring
  544
  member states' CO2 emissions at its next meeting. On the latter, Ministers reaffirmed the plan agreed at the Lisbon European Council for follow-up action to Rio.

  The Council discussed the Commission's proposal for a regulation on eco-auditing, which would establish a voluntary scheme to encourage positive and effective environmental management of industrial operations and public reporting of the environmental impacts of their activities. Ministers endorsed the continuation of work aimed at the further refinement of the proposal to enable early agreement on it.

  The Council considered for the first time the Commission's proposal for a revision of controls on the wildlife trade—the "Convention on Trade in Endangered Species regulation". Other member states joined the United Kingdom in supporting a significant strengthening of current controls, while emphasising that any extension of controls beyond those species covered by CITES must be on a scientific basis. The Council agreed that any harmonised controls within member states must be sharply focused; that the Community must avoid needless bureaucracy; and that it was important to ensure that member states retained an appropriate level of discretion in operating the controls. Ministers invited the Committee of permanent representatives to continue their work on this issue.

  The Council took note of progress in preparing a directive which would extend to light-duty vehicles provisions on the control of exhaust pollutants which already apply to passenger cars and heavy commercial vehicles. Ministers hoped to reach a common position on the draft directive in December.

  Highway Signs
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines his Department issues to local authorities on highway signs in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The visual appearance of traffic signs is required to comply with the traffic signs regulations and general directions 1981. Circular roads 7/75 gives advice on the ways of minimising the intrusion of traffic signs on highways in rural areas. Guidance on the provision of signs to tourists attractions is given in circular roads 1/91.

  Copies of these circulars are in the Library.

  Sludge Incinerators
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning applications for sewage sludge incinerators are currently being considered by planning authorities in England and Wales; and if he will name those which he has called in for public inquiry.

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his reply 22 October 1922, c. 351]: The Secretaries of State are not automatically informed of all planning applications for sewage sludge incinerators. However, the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) Direction 1992 requires local planning authorities to notify them of development proposals which would significantly prejudice implementation of a development plan. Through this mechanism, we are aware of two applications currently before local planning authorities—Crossness in the

  545
  London borough of Bexley and at Beckton in the London borough of Newham. Neither of these applications has been called in.

  In addition to these current applications, Northumbrian Water and Internal Technology Europe Ltd. have appealed to the Secretary of State in respect of their incinerator proposals at East Howden in north Tyneside and at Portrack in Stockton-on-Tees; a public inquiry has been held and the Secretary of State is considering the inspector's report.

  Fuel Supplies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will relax the compulsory competitive tendering rules governing purchasing by local authorities to allow local authorities in England and Wales to identify the country of origin of fuel supplies.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The purchase of supplies by local authorities is not subject to the compulsory competitive tendering legislation. The Government have no plans to repeal part II of the Local Government Act 1988 which prohibits local authorities from introducing noncommercial considerations into the purchasing of supplies.

EDUCATION

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if it is his intention to apply the same criteria to grant-maintained schools as to local education authority schools when considering the rationalisation of school places.

  Mr. Forth
  We are determined to reduce wasteful surplus capacity and will apply similar criteria to all proposals for the rationalisation of school places.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which grant-maintained schools were visited by Her Majesty's inspectors during the period January 1992 to July 1992 and what was the total costs of these inspections; in the case of each school,(a) how many visits have taken place, (b) what is the number of inspectors involved, (c) what is the total number of days involved and (d) what is the cost; and whether it is proposed to publish any report arising from these visits.

  Mr. Forth
  HMI visited 50 GM schools in the period mentioned. None of the visits was a formal inspection intended to lead to a published report. The information available is given in the table.

  School

  Number of Days

  Cost (£)

  Hendon

  2.0

  780

  Queen Elizabeth

  2.0

  780

  Queensbury

  4.0

  1,560

  Baverstock

  2.0

  780

  Small Heath

  4.0

  1,560

  St. James CE

  2.0

  780

  Old Swinford Hospital

  2.0

  780

  London Oratory

  4.0

  1,560

  Heckmondwike GS

  4.0

  1,560

  Kings School, Lincoln

  3.0

  1,170

  Wilson's School

  2.0

  780

  Audenshaw

  2.0

  780

  Bankfield HS

  2.0

  780

  St. Francis Xavier

  4.0

  1,560

  546

  School

  Number of Days

  Cost (£)

  Southlands

  1.0

  390

  Claremont HS

  2.0

  780

  Ribston Hall

  1.5

  585

  London Nautical

  21.0

  8,190

  Bridgewater Hall

  1.0

  390

  Ecclesbourne

  5.5

  2,145

  Marling

  1.0

  390

  Stroud HS

  1.0

  390

  Watford Boys' GS

  2.0

  780

  Longfield HS

  4.0

  1,560

  Wolverhampton HS for Girls

  2.0

  780

  Bullers Wood

  2.0

  780

  Handsworth GS

  5.5

  2,145

  Great Barr

  2.0

  780

  Crossley Heath

  2.0

  780

  North Halifax HS

  1.0

  390

  Wilmington Boys' GS

  2.0

  780

  Lancaster Girls' GS

  2.0

  780

  King Edward VI, Lincoln

  1.0

  390

  Stratford

  3.0

  1,170

  Watford Girls' GS

  1.0

  390

  Vyners

  1.0

  390

  Haydon

  1.0

  390

  Homewood

  1.5

  585

  Southlands

  1.0

  390

  Bourne County Primary

  2.0

  780

  Moulton Primary

  2.0

  780

  Kingswood

  1.0

  390

  Manor High

  1.5

  585

  Avon Valley

  1.0

  390

  Christs Hospital

  2.0

  780

  The Gartree Tattershal

  1.0

  390

  Salterlee Primary

  0.5

  195

  Bassingbown Village College

  1.0

  390

  Minster College

  1.0

  390

  Myton

  2.0

  780

  Total

  122.0

  47,580

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many assisted places remained unfilled in 1992 in each standard region.

  Mr. Forth
  At the end of the academic year 1991–92, the numbers of assisted places available, the numbers taken up and the numbers unfilled in each region are as shown in the table:

  Assisted places

  Region

  Available

  Taken-up

  Vacant

  North-east

  1,477

  873

  604

  North-west

  7,214

  6,408

  806

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,267

  1,794

  473

  East Midlands

  2,063

  1,846

  217

  West Midlands

  3,146

  2,721

  425

  East Anglia

  1,578

  1,340

  238

  South-west

  3,580

  3,246

  334

  South-east

  5,873

  4,403

  1,470

  Greater London

  6,114

  5,010

  1,104

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of assisted places; and how it has increased since the inception of the scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  The total number of assisted places available and the total number taken up since the scheme's inception in 1981 are given in the table:
  547

  Academic Year

  Places Available

  Places Taken Up

  1981–82

  5,446

  4,185

  1982–83

  11,058

  8,616

  1983–84

  15,866

  13,102

  1984–85

  20,699

  17,386

  1985–86

  25,210

  21,412

  1986–87

  29,295

  24,478

  1987–88

  33,228

  26,899

  1988–89

  33,217

  27,083

  1989–90

  33,280

  27,008

  1990–91

  33,302

  26,740

  1991–92

  33,312

  27,641

  The figures are for England only

  Problem Schools
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out the basis for the assumption in his departmental White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools," that problem schools will be in the local education authority sector rather than the grant maintained sector.

  Mr. Forth
  No such assumption has been made. Chapter 11 of the White Paper sets out the steps that will be taken to tackle failing schools in the local education authority sector. Chapter 3 includes details of the powers which my right hon. Friend will have to ensure that remedial action is taken where grant-maintained schools are failing to provide an adequate standard of education for their pupils.

  Expenditure, Birmingham
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the level of education underspend for the Birmingham local education authority for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for the Birmingham local authority to determine its spending on education in the light of local circumstances and priorities. The Government do not set targets for spending on individual services. The Government do, however, calculate for each service what an authority would need to spend to provide a standard level of service—its standard spending assessment (SAA).

  The latest available figures showing the difference between Birmingham's estimated spending on education and the education component of its standard spending assessment are given in the table.

  Education SSA

  Estimated spending on education

  Difference

  Year

  £ million (rounded)

  £ million (rounded)

  £million (rounded)

  1990–91

  399

  352

  48

  1991–92

  457

  392

  64

  1992–93

  485

  428

  57

  Note: Information on estimated expenditure is taken from the authority's returns to the Department of the Environment on forms RA90/91–92/93 and RA(SG)90/91–92/93, repriced to outturn.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will consider increasing the access funds by an amount that takes into account the increase in the number of students since the inception of the funds.

  Mr. Forman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 12 May,Official Report, column 63. The money allocated to access funds is not specifically related to the number of students overall but is intended to be targeted at those in real need.

  "A Hard Act to Follow"
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration his Department has given to the criticisms of the Education Act 1981 made in the report, "A Hard Act to Follow", published by the Spastics Society, if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  "A Hard Act to Follow" has been given very careful consideration. I met representatives of the Spastics Society and discussed the findings of the report on 24 September 1992. I have already publicly welcomed the document as a useful piece of research, and have noted that the findings will add stimulus to the current debate on special educational needs. In many respects, the report confirmed the need for the Government's new measures, which had already been announced in chapter 9 of the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity", and elsewhere.

  Expenditure, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what study his Department has made of the city of Manchester's needs for capital expenditure for its education service in the financial year 1993–94, including basic need in schools; what help he expects to be available, in particular for the replacement of school premises which are in an unsafe condition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I discussed Manchester's capital plans briefly on a visit to the authority in July. Officials met representatives from Manchester local education authority to discuss their plans in more detail, prior ito preparation of their bid.

  I am meeting a delegation of officers and members from Manchester in early November to discuss their future needs, with particular reference to basic need in primary schools and surplus place removal projects in the secondary sector.

  I cannot yet say what resources will be available, but Manchester's needs will be carefully considered in accordance with the normal criteria, along with those from all other LEAs. Their capital allocation will be announced in December.

  London University
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from graduates of the university of London concerning the proposed break-up of the federal status of the university.

  Mr. Forman
  Generally, the future development of the federal university and the constitutional position of its
  549
  colleges are internal matters for the university and its constituent colleges. However, we have received some representations from the society "Graduate with Honours" about the future of the federal graduation ceremony.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Forman
  The information requested is set out. In addition to these, there have been four single-tender procurements for enhancements to existing systems—for which competitive tendering was inappropriate—with a total value of £110,250.

  Tenders for hardware

  None.

  Tenders for software

  a. Supply of a payroll system for the Further Education Funding Council.

  Companies invited to bid: three

  Unsolicited bids submitted: none

  Successful company: Centrefile Ltd.

  Contract value: £20,194

  Period of contract: supply only plus one year's maintenance

  b. Supply of Accounting System for OFSTED

  Companies invited to bid: four Unsolicited bids submitted: none Successful company: Tate Bramald Ltd.

  Contract value: £12,095

  Period of contract: supply only

  c. TOPIC software for Policy Branch Information System Companies invited to bid: 15

  Unsolicited bids submitted: none

  Successful Company: Verity Ltd.

  Contract value: £22,007

  1987 £

  1989 £

  1990 £

  1991 £

  Cheshire (Including some mineral income in Derbyshire)

  480,614

  534,715

  562,587

  571,521

  Staffordshire

  448,514

  529,028

  537,137

  541,322

  Yorkshire

  544,391

  690,657

  754,726

  858,966

  Lancashire

  552,873

  485,988

  562,862

  750,475

  Bona Vacantia in the County Palatine of Lancaster

  979,027

  839,845

  804,977

  938,597

  Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire

  140,604

  157,223

  176,300

  161,424

  Greater London

  789,755

  1,299,000

  1,409,861

  1,473,881

  Miscellaneous (Lincolnshire, Mid-Glamorgan, Leicestershire, Sussex and elsewhere)

  97,452

  115,594

  85,297

  87,630

  TOTAL

  4,033,230

  4,652,050

  4,893,747

  5,383,816

  550
  Period of contract: supply and licence only

  All values quoted exclude VAT.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

  The Attorney-General
  I have not myself made any appointment to a public body, as yet.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Revenue
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by(a) county and (b) location, the revenues received by the honours of the Duchy by year for the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The ancient possessions of the duchy of Lancaster include the honour and county of Lancaster, the honours of Leicester, Tutbury, Bolingbroke, Pickering, Tickhill, Halton, Knaresborough. However, receipt of duchy revenues is not restricted to possessions within these honours and accounting records by honour are not maintained.

  The hon. Member was given a list of all land holdings on 16 June 1992, Official Report, columns 360–61. To produce revenue figures for each individual holding for the past five years could only be done at disproportionate cost, and in some cases the revenue attributable would be insignificant. Duchy gross revenue—other than from investments and deposits—is analysed by county and is set out. All revenues are shown gross.

  During 1988, a new accounting system was introduced and the analysis for that year could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  This information is not held centrally and can only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE

  7 Old Palace Yard
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what has been the cost of the recent refurbishment of 7 Old Palace Yard.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) on 23 October,Official Report, column 399.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates have resigned or retired since 1 October; and how many magistrates have resigned or retired in October in each year since 1987.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The figures including those for the area within the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are:

  Number

  To 23 October 1992

  119

  October 1991

  156

  October 1990

  121

  October 1989

  145

  October 1988

  1104

  October 1987

  194

  1 Approximate.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been granted by her Department to(a) the victims of the Chernobyl disaster and (b) areas affected by the disaster; and how much money has been allocated to (a) purchase non-contaminated food and (b) purchase medical equipment for hospitals.
  552
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund is financing two Chernobyl-related projects. We have allocated £400,000 to advise how to measure radiation concentration in foodstuffs produced in Kiev region and £220,000 to prioritise clean-up requirements and prepare follow-up project proposals.

  In 1991, we provided £2 million emergency medical aid —essential drugs and equipment—to the former Soviet Union—FSU—of which Ukraine received more than a third.

  The European Community has agreed a food and medical aid loan to the FSU. Ukraine's share is 130 mecu. We understand Ukraine intends to use 104 mecu on food and 26 mecu for medical products.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the know-how fund for central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; and if he will give details on specific projects so far approved this year for each eligible country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Further to my written answer of 29 June 1992,Official Report, column 371, the know-how fund is continuing well. The amount spent or committed has increased to £95 million to cover more than 650 projects.

  An updated list of the activities has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Somalia
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance has been provided to alleviate the plight of the people of Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our total humanitarian aid for Somalia in 1992 is almost £27 million, including our share of EC aid.

  It includes £1.5 million in response to the appeal of the International Committee of the Red Cross on 9 July. This is for the ICRC's food programme under which hot meals are provided via some 600 communal kitchens to over half a million beneficiaries. We also provided £1 million for the British Red Cross to use for its medical/health care programme in Somalia, as a national contribution towards ICRC's operations.

  On 15 September, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a further £7.5 million to support British and international non-governmental organisations and United Nations relief operations in Somalia. Priority is being given to providing seeds and tools, helping with transport and medical supplies, and rehabilitation services.

  South Africa
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the deployment of observers to South Africa in accordance with the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 772.

  Mr. Hurd
  The United Nations, the EC, the Commonwealth and the Organisation of African Unity
  553
  are all sending groups of observers to South Africa. Their role will be to seek, by their presence in situations of potential conflict, to prevent violence, defuse tension and promote peace. They will be operating in close co-operation with each other, and with the National Peace Secretariat—as well as with the United Nations and observer teams from other international organisations.

  There will be 15 EC observers drawn from throughout the Community. The majority of participants have a police background. Two of them are British. They will arrive in South Africa on 29 October.

  The EC is also providing six police experts to be attached to Judge Goldstone's recently-established investigative task forces. A senior British police officer will act as the co-ordinator of the team. This officer arrived in South Africa on 7 October.

  The Commonwealth has recruited 20 observers to play a similar role to that of the EC group. One of the group is a United Kingdom police officer.

  The 50 United Nations observers are drawn from the staff of the United Nations secretariat. The composition of the OA U group is still under discussion.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy that there should be a level playing field for pools and a national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government are considering a number of representations from the pools industry.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many books were purchased for public libraries in(a) 1981, (b) 1985 and (c) 1991; how much money was allocated in each of those years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Public libraries in England added 10.8 million, 11.1 million and 11.0 million books to their stock in 1980–81, 1984–85 and 1990–91 respectively. These figures include donations and free publications, as well as purchases. Their actual expenditure on books for the same years was £41.0 million, £56.8 million and £84.8 million. This represents an expenditure increase in real terms of almost 13 per cent. between 1980–81 and 1990–91.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council Library, Bandung
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been saved by the British Government following the closure of the British Council library in Bandung.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There was no net saving to the Government.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on whose recommendation the British Council library in Bandung was closed.
  554
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British Council recommended and made this closure in order to release resources to meet new, high priority requirements elsewhere.

  Bosnia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the supply of arms or direct military support to the Serbian, Croat and Muslim forces in Bosnia in contravention of the arms embargo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are a number of unconfirmed reports of arms supplies to Bosnia. An Iranian aircraft carrying arms was seized at Zagreb airport recently. The Western European Union/North Atlantic Treaty Organisation surveillance operation in the Adriatic has reported a number of ships suspected of violating the United Nation's trade and arms embargoes. But it is not clear whether these vessels are carrying goods destined for Bosnia.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on whether the Bosnian-Serbs are continuing to receive arms and military supplies from the rump Yugoslavia; and whether any form of monitoring is proposed of the border between Serbia and the Serbian-controlled area of Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no firm evidence of whether Serbia is continuing to supply arms to the Bosnian Serbs. The Yugoslav authorities deny this. Moreover, the Bosnian Serbs are already well-equipped; further supplies from Serbia would be unlikely to have a significant effect on their military capability. The monitoring of Serbia's and Montenegro's borders with Bosnia-Herzegovina was agreed in principle at the London conference. But these borders run through mountainous terrain, and are highly permeable. Effective monitoring would absorb much personnel and equipment. The United Nations is thus according higher priority to using the resources available to ensure that the safe and rapid delivery of emergency relief supplies to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Sir Russell Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs prior to the full deployment of British forces to Bosnia-Herzegovina, what assessment he has made of the number of foreign mercenaries active in the field, their origin and the factions they are fighting with; how confident he is that British forces will be at no risk from attack by mercenaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been repeated reports of mercenaries fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and some are clearly well-founded. No reliable estimate of the numbers involved has been made. Our assessment at present is that mercenaries do not as such increase the threat posed to British troops by the various armed groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has now secured agreement from the Bosnian-Muslim, Bosnian-Serb and Bosnian-Croat communities to allow free passage for British forces deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina and to guarantee their safety from attack.
  555
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All parties to the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina have confirmed their willingness to co-operate with United Nations Protection Forces—UNPROFOR—personnel deployed to that region in accordance with Security Council resolution 776 of 14 September.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will seek Security Council approval to identify and name forces who attack United Nations military and humanitarian personnel in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Security Council resolution 776 of 14 September reaffirms the determination of the Council to ensure the protection and security of UNPROFOR and United Nations personnel: there is no need to seek an explicit resolution on these lines. Furthermore, United Nations personnel deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina to facilitate and escort convoys of humanitarian aid will proceed only on the basis of negotiated safe passage.

  Macedonia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which have given diplomatic recognition to the independence of Macedonia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Philippines, Russia, Slovenia and Turkey have been notified to us as having recognised the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia as an independent state.

  Kosovo
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the speech by Lord Owen representing the presidency of the EC in the debate on the former Yugoslavia in the plenary session of the Council of Europe on 3 October in which he excluded any possibility of independence for Kosovo represents Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We share Lord Owen's views. The Serbian authorities should grant the Kosovars genuine autonomy with full human rights, and the Kosovars should accept this. A special group on Kosovo is working intensively within the international conference.

  Overseas Missions
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the agreement within the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on 18 September to send missions to Vojvodina, Kosovo and Sanjak have been implemented; how many persons are being deployed and from which countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  CSCE long-term missions have been in place since the end of September in Kosovo, Vojvodina and Sanjak under the leadership of Ambassador Bogh of Norway. Apart from Ambassador Bogh, there are eight mission participants involved from Norway, United States, Austria, Canada, France, Sweden and Switzerland.
  556
  We welcome the establishment of these missions and the valuable role they can play on behalf of the international community in monitoring developments and in helping to prevent conflict in these troubled regions.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list showing those countries which have contingents as part of the United Nations protection forces—UNPROFOR—in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, indicating their numbers and function and where they are based.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following countries have contributed contingents to UNPROFOR. Numbers, function and location where known are also indicated. The table is divided into two parts to reflect countries commitments to UNPROFOR—first phase—and those agreed for UNPROFOR—second phase.

  UNPROFOR (1st Phase)

  Nationality

  Strength/Type

  Location

  Argentina

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Belgium

  620 Infantry Battalion

  Canada

  900 Infantry Battalion

  350 Engineer Battalion

  Czechoslovakia

  500 Infantry Battalion

  Denmark

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Egypt

  400 Infantry Battalion

  Sarajevo

  France

  410 Infantry Battalion

  Sarajevo

  143 HQ Company

  Sarajevo

  66 Airport Company

  Sarajeco

  600 Logistic Base

  Zagreb

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Finland

  300 Construction Battalion

  Zagreb

  Jordan

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Kenya

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Nepal

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Netherlands

  360 Signals Battalion

  Zagreb

  Nigeria

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Norway

  100 Movement Control Unit

  Zagreb

  Poland

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Russian Fed.

  900 Infantry Battalion

  Sweden

  100 HQ Company

  Zagreb

  Ukraine

  400 Infantry Battalion

  Sarajevo

  United Kingdom

  260 Medical Battalion

  Zagreb

  Various

  60 Military observers

  Sarajevo

  Various

  40 Civilian Police/Monitors

  Sarajevo

  Various

  100 Military Police Company

  Zagreb

  Luxembourg/ Belgium

  Composite Infantry Battalion (40 and 620 respectively)

  In addition to the above, UNPROFOR (1st phase) includes: 160 military observers from 29 countries; 650 civilian police monitors from 16 countries: deployed evenly to various sectors within Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  UNPROFOR (2nd Phase)

  Nationality

  Strength/ Type

  Location

  Belgium

  100 Transport

  Vitez

  16 HQ

  Kiseljach

  2 Support Unit

  Vitez

  Canada

  800 Infantry

  Banja Luka-Doboj

  20 HQ

  Kiseljach

  380 Support Unit

  Banja Luka-Doboj

  Denmark

  8HQ

  Kiseljach

  143 Support Unit

  Kiseljach

  France

  1382 Infantry

  Bihac

  199 Engineer Unit

  Bihac

  200 Helicopter Unit

  Bihac

  33HQ

  Kiseljach

  557

  Nationality

  Strength/Type

  Location

  Netherlands

  388 Transport

  Vitez

  99 Signals

  Vitez

  32 HQ

  Kiseljach

  8 Support Unit

  Vitez

  50 Engineer Unit

  Vitez

  Norway

  2 Engineer Unit

  33 HQ

  Kiseljach

  Portugal

  20 Surgical Team

  Spain

  710 Infantry

  Mostar

  16 HQ

  Kiseljach

  25 Support Unit

  Mostar

  United Kingdom

  883 Infantry

  Jajce-Vitez

  508 Engineer Unit

  Jajce-Vitez

  19 Support Element

  Jajce-Vitez

  42 HQ

  Kiseljach

  1206 Support Unit

  Jajce-Vitez

  United States

  400 Mobile Army Surgical Hospital

  15 HQ

  Kiseljach

  Headquarters will be based in three areas but with the main one in Kiseljach near Sarajevo.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, columns 34–35, what information the United Kingdom authorities have received over the political responsibility for war crimes by Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 771 calls for the submission of substantiated information about violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia. We have so far received no information relating to any named individual.

  Any substantiated information we receive will be submitted to the Security Council in line with UNSCR 771.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to both Wilton Park under its chief executive, Geoffrey Denton, and to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Anthony Beattie. I have asked them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. G. Denton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 22 October 1992:

  Thank you for your question about the papers published by the Chief Executive. The reply to your question is as follows:

  Geoffrey Denton; "Reconciliation and Reconstruction in South and Southern Africa", Wilton Park Papers, No. 47, HMSO, 1992.

  Letter from Mr. A. Beattie, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  Lady Chalker has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about papers published by chief executives of agencies.

  In the last 12 months I have contributed the foreword to two issues of NRI's newsletter 'Resource', which we distribute in Britain and overseas. The fourth issue was published in December 1991, the fifth earlier this month.

  Romania
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the impact on the Romanian economy and on the progress of change of the implementation by Romania of sanctions against Yugoslavia; if he has discussed this with his European opposite numbers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The implementation of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro presents problems for all neighbouring states. Romania has, however, been able to pursue its programme of reform with support from the international financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World bank, as well as with G24 balance of payments support.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in frequent consultation with European partners and with other interested governments on all aspects of the current crisis in former Yugoslavia.

  China
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the dates, programme and composition of the forthcoming delegation to visit the People's Republic of China to discuss human rights led by Lord Howe of Aberavon.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 23 October,Official Report, column 409, and to the response I made in the Adjournment debate on the same date, Official Report, columns 754–58.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table sets out the requested information.Tenders issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 9 April 1992 for the supply of computer hardware and software:

  (i) Computer Hardware:

  1.

  (a) LEMUR Project

  (b) For the procurement of computer hardware and software

  (c) 10 companies invited to tender

  (d) No company submitted a bid without prior invitation

  (e) Olivetti was awarded the contract

  (f) The value was approximately £500,000

  (g) The contract will run for 12 months approximately

  2.

  (a) HESD Multi-user System Project

  (b) For UNIX system hardware and software

  (c) 3 companies invited to tender

  (d) No company submitted a bid without prior invitation

  559

  (e) Contract not yet awarded

  (f) Value likely to be around £35,000

  (g) Contract will run for 12 months

  (ii) Computer Softwared

  3.

  (a) UNIX Typing Tutor Project

  (b) For procurement of 230 licences

  (c) 3 companies invited to tender

  (d) No company submitted a bid without prior invitation

  (e) Contract not yet awarded

  (f) Value approximately £15,000

  (g) Contract will run for one year

  4.

  (a) Uniplex Word Processing Project

  (b) For the procurement of Uniplex word processing software

  (c) 7 companies invited to tender

  (d) No company submitted a bid without prior invitation

  (e) Contract not yet let

  (f) Value unlikely to exceed £100,000

  (g) Contract will run for 12 months

  Sinai
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answers of 12 June,Official Report, column 326, and 30 June, Official Report, column 507, whether a decision has been taken on the future of the United Kingdom's participation in the multinational force and observers in Sinai.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Having carefully considered the views of the signatories of the 1981 protocol establishing the multinational force and observers, we confirmed our decision to withdraw. The United Kingdom contingent left on 21 October 1992. This decision reflects the fact that over 13 years after the signature of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel their border is stable and internationally recognised.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts have been made by Her Majesty's Government to ameliorate the shortfall in payments to the International Atomic Energy Agency for nuclear safety research and safeguards implementation.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply. The United Kingdom has played an active part in ensuring that priority programmes in the areas of safety research and safeguards implementation are excluded from the effects of any shortfall in contributions. The Government have also made extra-budgetary contributions to meet particular needs for the acquisition of safeguards equipment and to assist the agency's programme on the safety of aging reactors.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom permanent representative to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted for Libya to be elevated to the board.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Elections to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency are held by secret ballot. It is not Her Majesty's Government's practice to divulge its voting intentions or actions after the event on such matters.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mining Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings he has held with(a) the National Union of Mineworkers and (b) the Union of Democratic Mineworkers since 10 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 10 April, my right hon. Friend has met with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers (UDM) on 4 June and addressed its annual conference on 9 June. I have met with it on 13 May and 22 July and also when it met with the Prime Minister on 30 September. Both my right hon. Friend and I also met the UDM on 19 October. I met with the National Union of Mineworkers on 7 July.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters were decided in the meeting he held with the chairman of British Coal on 3 June.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend and the chairman of British Coal discussed a wide range of issues affecting the future of the coal industry.

  Closed Coal Mines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation has been made by his Department of the implications of water pollution from closed coal mines.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is an offence for a mine owner to cause pollution of watercourses. The body with statutory responsibility for regulation of water pollution is the National Rivers Authority. I understand that the NRA has been reviewing data on water pollution from abandoned mines of all kinds and intends to publish its assessment in the next few months.

  Industrial Strategy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of companies(a) created, (b) expanded or (c) helped, by his industrial strategy in each principal category of industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  This Government's industrial strategy is designed to benefit the long-term competitiveness of business generally.

  Coal Stocks
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reserves of coal were estimated to be in each of British Coal's mines that were in operation in September; and how long those reserves of coal would have taken to be exhausted at the rate of extraction achieved in each mine over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  The scale and potential duration of coal reserves at individual British Coal mines are matters for the corporation.

  Work Experience
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of his staff have work experience(a) outside Government service, (b) of science and technology in industry or commerce and (c) of law and accountancy in industry or commerce.
  561
  Mr. Eggar
  This answer can only be given at disproportionate cost.

  Electricity
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had regarding the increase in electricity prices for large-scale manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is in regular contact with large electricity users concerning electricity prices.

  Trentham Complex
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of profit and loss levels at Trentham colliery complex for the last full financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The issue which the hon. Member raises is a matter for British Coal.

  Parkside Colliery
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the profits and losses at Parkside colliery over each of the past six years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The issue which the hon. Member raises is a matter for British Coal.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether long-term contracts for the supply of gas to power stations include a clause linking the price to that of oil or any other measure; and if the Government will ensure that the price of electricity is not increased to take into account any increase in the price of gas.

  Mr. Eggar
  The contractual agreements between suppliers of natural gas and customers engaged in electricity generation are a commercial matter for the companies concerned. Licence conditions, including the electricity price controls, are a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Standing Charges
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he w ill introduce the necessary regulations to abolish all standing charges for telephones, domestic electricity and gas bills for people over the state pension age for retirement; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his estimate of the current cost of the abolition of all standing charges for telephones, domestic electricity and gas bills for people over the state pension age for retirement; and how the estimate was arrived at.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: This is primarily a matter for the utility companies, which may decide on the form and scale of their charges—including standing charges—within the constraints of their licences and relevant legislation. The utility regulators have an important role in agreeing the pricing levels and structures.

  Point of Ayr Colliery
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the viability of Point of Ayr colliery as a supplier of coal to Fiddler's Ferry power station; and if he will make a statement
  562
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The viability of Point of Ayr colliery will be considered as part of the review outlined by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 21 October. I should welcome any evidence or comments that the hon. Member may have on this issue to pass on to the review team.

  Miners (Hours of Work)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on limiting the number of hours worked underground by miners; what is the effect of the proposed European working time directive on his policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The Government took powers in the Coal Industry Act 1992 to repeal in due course the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908, which restricts the hours miners can work underground. The Government have made it clear, however, that the Act will not be repealed until it is replaced either by the adoption of the proposed European Community directive on working time or the introduction of an alternative United Kingdom measure.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, further to his answer of 19 May to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes),Official Report, columns 110–18, concerning the constitution and responsibilities of Cabinet committees, he will name the relevant committee charged with the responsibility for natural energy policy and the names of its members.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: Issues of national energy policy requiring collective discussion would normally fall within the remit of the Committee on Industrial, Commercial and Consumer Affairs. Other Committees, such as the Committee on the Environment, may also discuss issues affecting energy policy as appropriate. The membership of these Committees was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his answer of 19 May to the hon. Member for Harlow, Official Report, columns 110–18.

  Gas Reserves
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on which countries, on present projections, will run out of gas reserves in the next 20 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: The rate at which gas reserves will be depleted depends on many factors including demand, development costs, prices, levels of imports and technological developments. My Department's latest assessment suggests that United Kingdom gas reserves will be sufficient to meet expected demand, including demand for power stations for at least this period. My Department does not carry out comparative assessments for other countries.

PRIME MINISTER

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

  The Prime Minister
  As I told the hon. Member on 13 June 1991,Official Report, column 663, in answer to a similar question, this information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Associations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to representations from the National Federation of Housing Associations about the retention of the £2 billion grant for housing associations; and if he will make it his policy that no cuts in expenditure will be made to the budget for the west midlands.

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) wrote to me on 15 October, enclosing a letter which he had received from the chairman of the west midlands regional council of the National Federation of Housing Associations (NFHA). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment replied on my behalf.

  The Government cannot comment on the outcome of the public expenditure survey, which will be announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's "Autumn Statement". The Government have shown their commitment to housing associations as the main providers of new social housing by increasing resources for the Housing Corporation from £935 million in 1989–90 to over £1,700 million in 1992–93.

  Next year resources will be allocated among the Housing Corporation's regions in accordance with the housing needs indicator, which is agreed by the Department of the Environment, the Housing Corporation and the NFHA.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister in agreeing to the pit closures what account he took of the effect on competitiveness of the changes in exchange rate between the pound and the dollar; and if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970(a) the relative unit value of United Kingdom exports compared with those of the United States of America in each year based on the second half of 1973 equals 100 and the fourth quarter of
  564
  1986 equals 100, (b) the world price of coal in terms of dollars and (c) an index of freight rates from (i) the United States of America, (ii) Australia and (iii) the contract price for United Kingdom coal delivered to power stations.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The competitiveness of British-mined coal was considered at a range of pound:dollar exchange rates. The other information requested cannot be supplied in the time available and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will write to the hon. Member.

  Middle East
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy during his visit to Egypt on 23 October to raise with President Mubarak Israel's nuclear capability and the danger of nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: I discussed a number of middle east security matters with President Mubarak. I did not discuss Israel's nuclear potential.

WALES

  Perifra
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what benefits have accrued to Wales from the European Community's Perifra I and II re-training schemes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The EC Perifra programme is intended to part-finance small-scale measures in favour of peripheral regions and destabilised activities in the Community. In the case of defence industries, assistance is intended to alleviate the consequences of job losses by promoting the creation of alternative employment opportunities, and eligible activities include vocational training schemes.

  The Welsh Office submitted an application under Perifra I last year for the re-development of the Royal Navy armaments depot, Milford Haven. Unfortunately, that application was dependent upon the local authority purchasing the land, and this did not happen; the bid was therefore withdrawn.

  A further bid for £775,000 in grant support under Perifra II was prepared for the west Wales area in close collaboration with the west Wales task force and submitted to the European Commission in June this year. On 3 August, the Commission announced that west Wales would receive a reduced allocation of £140,000 for the training and employment in technology scheme sponsored by the west Wales training and enterprise council in partnership with the Employment Service and Welsh Development Agency. This will, of course, complement my own priority actions in the west Wales area. The size of the allocation is, however, disappointing and is considerably less than we had hoped for. My officials are seeking an urgent meeting with their Commission colleagues to discuss the whole issue.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources will be allocated to support the four new environmentally sensitive areas to which reference is made in chapter 18, paragraph 18.6 of "Britain's Environmental Strategy" (Cm 2068).

  Mr. David Hunt
  The provision for ESAs in future years will be determined in the context of the public expenditure survey now in progress. This year, I am making available £2.5 million to meet the cost of ESA's management agreements in Wales.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive a copy of the study into the Caldicot levels impoundment for wading birds being carried out by Mason Pittendrigh with respect to design and management and David Bellamy Associates with respect to the environmental aspects as part of the mitigation works in relation to the proposed Cardiff bay barrage.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I anticipate receiving the report of the feasibility study into the creation of a bird reserve on the Gwent levels before the end of this year.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been allocated in the form of loans by the European investment bank to Welsh Water for the improvement of water quality in rivers and beaches, and the upgrading of drinking water supplies in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Languages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will grant funding to the Mercator project on European lesser-used languages at the University college of Wales, Aberystwyth.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to fund the Mercator project in Aberystwyth.

  A465
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward the upgrading of the A465 head of the valleys road to dual carriageway between Witworth and Abergavenny into the medium-term programme under "Roads in Wales".

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The need to complete engineering design and statutory procedures means that it is unlikely that the dualling of the A465 head of the valleys road from Abergavenny to Hirwaun will start before April 1998. The position will, however, be kept under review.

  Disabled Pupils
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disabled pupils in(a) mainstream educational establishments and (b) special schools sat (i) GCSE
  566
  O-level examinations and (ii) GCSE A-level examinations in Wales for the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will indicate the numbers of disabled pupils obtaining (1) 10 or more passes at GCSE O-level, (2) five to 10 passes at O-level, (3) between one and five passes at O-level, (4) the number leaving school without any qualifications and (5) the number obtaining one or more passes at A-level.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the examination achievements of pupils with disabilities is not collected centrally.

  Visual Impairment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many visually impaired children attend mainstream schools in each local education authority areas of Wales; and how many such children have received formal mobility training during their education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on mobility training for children with visual impairments is not collected centrally.

  The numbers of children in maintained primary and secondary schools who were blind or partially sighted and for whom the local education authority was maintaining a statement of special educational needs, in January 1991, are given in the table:

  Number

  Clwyd

  78

  Dyfed

  23

  Gwent

  19

  Gwynedd

  14

  Mid Glamorgan

  13

  Powys

  3

  South Glamorgan

  24

  West Glamorgan

  63

  Wales

  237

  These figures include children in both mainstream classes and special classes units, in maintained primary and secondary schools. The figure for Powys includes one pupil educated outside of that authority. There may be a number of children with visual impairments for whom the LEA does not maintain a statement of special educational needs.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children between the ages of five and 16 years are estimated to have visual impairment; and if he will publish the official local education authority estimates for totals of blind and partially sighted children.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local education authority estimates of children with visual impairments are not held centrally. Information on the total numbers of children with visual impairments for whom LEAs maintain statements of special educational needs, by local education authority, is published in table 10.04, "Pupils with disabilities, by authority, 1990–91", of the Welsh Office publication "Statistics of Education in Wales: Schools, No. 5 1991", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for

  567
  projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 9 April, my Department has conducted only one relevant tender exercise. Three companies were invited to tender for the design and programming of a software application. No bids were submitted without prior invitation. The contract was awarded to Softa and Company Ltd. for a period of four months. Information relating to the value of the contract is commercial-in-confidence.

  Quangos
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will update the information given in "Public Bodies 1991" (HMSO) on quangos in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  "Public Bodies 1992" is expected to be published by HMSO in January 1993 and the relevant information is now being updated.

  Health Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what source of information is available to Welsh health authorities as purchasers on comparative prices for standard orthopaedic operations; what guidelines are given to health authorities in relation to baseload and marginal prices in quotation and final accounting procedures both between health authorities and within health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Providers routinely inform their purchasers of proposed prices to inform contract negotiations. On request, they also make in-year information on prices available to purchasers. Where the service is provided, tariffs include separately identified prices for orthopaedic procedures.

  Guidance on setting prices was issued to health authorities in October 1990. This emphasised that providers must price their services on the basis of full costs. Marginal costs should be used only when providers are able to offer additional services, in-year, making use of unplanned spare capacity. Activity purchased in this way should be reflected in a future year's contract on a full and not marginal cost basis.

  The detailed accounting requirements which health authorities should follow in completing their annual accounts and financial returns are given in the "Health Authority Manual for Accounts".

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the relocation of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales from Brunel house, Fitzalan place, Cardiff; and what(a) financial and (b) policy considerations played a part in the decision on the site for relocation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales moved to Brunel house in 1988 as a temporary 568
  measure while the authority's long-term accommodation needs were properly established. At that time the authority had between 50 and 60 staff. The authority's activities have expanded since that time and it is apparent that larger accommodation is now required.

  The authority has undertaken a comprehensive option appraisal of alternative premises to meet its long-term accommodation requirements. The lowest cost was selected from a short list of properties meeting the authority's requirements.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock Auctioneers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to prohibit the practice of livestock auctioneers keeping money for farmers from livestock sales at market on trust in bank accounts which are already overdrawn prior to the transaction.

  Mr. Curry
  This is not a matter for Government intervention.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to call for a world-wide ban on the use of organochlorine pesticides.

  Mr. Soames
  Given the diverse range of crops, pests and climatic conditions it is for each country to decide whether pesticides best meet its particular pest control and environmental needs. The use of persistent organochlorine pesticides is already prohibited throughout the European Community. The United Kingdom also protects the third world countries from the importation of hazardous pesticides by participating in the United Nations Environment Programme/Food and Agriculture Organisation's prior informed consent scheme.

  Genetically Engineered Food
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the foodstuffs that have been genetically engineered which are currently on sale to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The following products, produced by or containing genetically modified organisms, have been examined by the relevant expert committees advising the Government in this area and cleared for use in foodstuffs —a yeast for use in baking and three different preparations of the enzyme, chymosin, which is used in cheese manufacture. Once cleared for use, the sale of the products is a matter for the manufacturers concerned and their customers.

  Data Centre for Beef
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to provide funding for the data centre for beef.

  Mr. Soames
  This important industry initiative has attracted considerable support. As a commercial venture with potential benefits for all producers, the board of the animal data centre should continue to look to the users for funds.

  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of veterinary investigation centres, by county, in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1979 in England and Wales veterinary investigation centres were operating in Aberystwyth (Dyfed), Bangor (Gwynedd), Bristol (Somerset), Cambridge (Cambridgeshire), Cardiff (south Glamorgan), Carmarthen (Dyfed), Chester (Cheshire), Gloucester (Gloucestershire), Leeds (West Yorkshire), Lincoln (Lincolnshire), Liverpool (Lancashire), Newcastle (Tyne and Wear, Northampton (Northamptonshire), Norwich (Norfolk), Penrith (Curnbria), Reading (Berkshire), Shrewsbury (Shropshire), Starcross (Devon), Sutton Bonington (Nottinghamshire), Thirsk (North Yorkshire), Truro (Cornwall), Weybridge (Surrey), Winchester (Hampshire), Worcester (Worcestershire) and Wye (Kent).

  In 1980, the centre at Weybridge was closed and the area it covered was divided between the Reading and Wye centres. In 1985, the centre at Liverpool was relocated to Preston (Lancashire).

  In 1986, the centres at Cardiff and Northampton were closed. The areas they covered were taken over by Carmarthen and by Sutton Bonington respectively. The centres at Gloucester and Leeds were closed and the areas they covered were divided respectively between Worcester and Bristol and between Thirsk and Northallerton. In 1991, the centres at Bangor and Lincoln were closed. The areas they covered were divided respectively between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth and between Sutton Bonington and Thirsk. The centre at Wye was closed and its area was taken over by Winchester.

  This rationalisation of the service has allowed the centres to be continuously upgraded to meet the changing needs of the industry. Veterinary investigation centres in Scotland are attached to Scottish agricultural colleges and are not listed.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that copies of each of the replies to the consultation paper on the future of the Milk Marketing Board are placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gummer
  The consultation was carried out on the basis that the consultees' views confidential. Any who wish to make their views public can do so, or will have already done so.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.
  570
  Mr. Curry
  This Department has issued one invitation to tender for the supply of computer hardware and software in the period since 9 April 1992. The details are as follows: description of services—geographical information system; number of companies invited to tender—26; number of companies submitting an uninvited bid—nil; company awarded contract—ESRI (UK) Ltd.; period of contract—10 years.

  The value of the contract cannot be provided as the information is confidential.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Sherry
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy at the European Council of Finance Ministers to press for a reduction in the difference in excise duties between British sherry and Spanish sherry.

  Sir John Cope
  At the Council meeting on 19 October the United Kingdom and Spain reached an agreement on the duties to be charged on British and Spanish sherry. The agreement provides for duty differential between the two products, to be reduced to 25 per cent. by 1 January 1996, the name "British Sherry" being discontinued by the same date.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total amount of land, in hectares, affected by transfers under the conditional exemption system in each year since the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 in Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total area of land of outstanding scenic interest in Wales which has been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax since 1976 is estimated at 1,500 hectares. As there are only five cases benefiting from conditional exemption, the normal rules of taxpayer confidentiality prevent any further breakdown being made available.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to require the owner of land granted inheritance tax exemptions under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to make public the rights of access to the general public which have been granted as a result of the inheritance tax exemptions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The owner of land that has been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax is required to publicise the agreed public access arrangements. In addition, the appropriate heritage advisory agency is able to supply information about public access to heritage land including conditionally exempt land, although land will not be identified as conditionally exempt.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue forgone to income tax if MIRAS were available at a basic rate of 20 per cent. instead of the present 25 per cent., and the consequent saving.
  571
  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1992–93 is provisionally estimated to be £5.3 billion. If relief were available at 20 per cent. the cost would be about £4.2 billion, a reduction of £1.1 billion.

  Recession
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when is his estimate of the beginning of the recession in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the relative timing of the onset of the recession in the United Kingdom and other OECD countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  A recession is usually defined as a period of two or more successive quarters of falling output. Taking the first quarter in which output falls to be the onset of recession, following are the dates for the onset of the recessions in the United Kingdom and other OECD countries over the past two years.

  Country

  Date of onset of recession

  United Kingdom

  1990 Q3

  United States

  1990 Q3

  Canada

  1990 Q2

  Australia

  1990 Q2

  Denmark

  1990 Q4

  Finland

  1990 Q2

  Germany

  1991 Q2

  Greece

  1990 Q2

  Sweden

  1990 Q2

  Switzerland

  1991 Ql

  Source: OECD, CSO.

  Housing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the market value and the replacement value of the private housing stock as a percentage of money gross domestic product, for each year since 1962.

  Mr. Portillo
  The most appropriate measure of the market value of the private housing stock for which data are available is the value of residential buildings, published in the personal sector balance sheet. The concept of replacement value of the housing stock is not clear. However, one indirect measure which might be considered is the personal sector net capital stock in dwellings at current replacement cost. Land is included in the balance sheet measure, but not in the capital stock measure. Latest estimates of these series are available on the CSO database which may be accessed through the House of Commons Library. The relevant database identifiers are:

  Market value

  ALLN

  Net capital stock

  EXGV

  "Money GDP"

  CAOB

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom net contribution to the EC budget.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community budget in 1992 is £2,599 million. This was published in the "Statement on the 1992 Community Budget" (Cm 1948).
  572
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of EC agricultural support budget is spent in(a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy, respectively.

  Sir John Cope
  The European Commission's financial report for 1991 on the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund shows the shares of agricultural market support receipts for(a) Germany, (b) France and (c) Italy to be 16.3 per cent., 19.8 per cent. and 16.2 per cent. respectively.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the savings to his Department of taxing invalidity benefit and the numbers of people who would be worse off expressed as a percentage of the total numbers of people on invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate can be made of the number of people who would have an income tax liability whose sole income was invalidity benefit if invalidity benefit were liable to tax;

  (2) what would be the yield in a full year from making invalidity benefit liable to tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates are that the yield, at 1992–93 levels, from making invalidity benefit taxable would be about £450 million.

  Some 650,000 people or almost half of those receiving invalidity benefit would have an income tax liability. Of these about 70,000 would have invalidity benefit as their sole source of taxable income.

  Custom and Excise
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the reports for 1991–92 published by the executive units in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Sir John Cope
  The framework document "Next Steps: A Framework for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise" requires the heads of the Department's 30 executive units to provide the chairman of Customs and Excise with a report on its unit's performance annually, including against key targets, and to publish it in a suitable form. Reports for the year 1991–92 have now been published, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Disabled Passengers Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to lay the appointed day order repealing the disabled passengers scheme; what assessment he has made of the effects of its abolition on disabled people; and if he will provide details of consultation between his Department and organisations representing disabled people prior to announcing these plans.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  We shall make and lay the appointed day order repealing the disabled passengers scheme shortly.

  The order will ensure that current beneficiaries under the disabled passengers scheme will not lose their entitlement to exemption from vehicle excise duty as a result of the repeal.

  The repeal of the scheme was announced by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 7 May, in an

  573
  answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) shortly before the publication of the Finance Bill 1992. The decision to repeal the disabled passenger scheme was taken because, as a result of new social security benefits introduced on 6 April this year, it was no longer possible to administer the scheme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  London Parks (Policing)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the sums paid for the past 10 years by the Departments of the Environment and of National Heritage to the Metropolitan police for the policing of each of London's parks; what are the sums proposed for the next financial year; and if he will show the percentage increase, in real terms, for each year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Hyde park is the only London park policed by the Metropolitan police service for which a charge is made to the Department of the Environment and in 1992 the Department of National Heritage. Charges are set out in the table.

  From 1 April 1993 the Royal parks police will assume responsibility for policing Hyde park.

  (1982–83= 100 per cent.)

  Financial year

  Amount received

  Real terms

  1982–83

  757,000

  100

  1983–84

  817,000

  103

  1984–85

  869,000

  104

  1985–86

  1,001,000

  114

  l986–87

  900,000

  99

  1987–88

  1,012,000

  105

  1988–89

  1,057,000

  103

  1989–90

  1,114,000

  102

  1990–91

  1,293,000

  109

  1991–92

  1,357,000

  107

  1992–93

  1,509,000

  114

  1993–94

  Nil

  —

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the refusal of the United Kingdom to grant asylum to two Chinese women democracy activists in September.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no provision for receiving applications for asylum from abroad, but we are prepared to consider granting entry clearance for the purpose of making an asylum application where a person falls within the definition of a refugee in article IA of the 1951 United

  Table showing the authorised establishment of police forces in England and Wales

  Force

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1990

  percentage change

  1 April 1991

  percentage change

  1 April 1992

  percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  2,853

  3,080

  7.96

  3,081

  0.03

  3,087

  0.19

  Bedfordshire

  947

  1,072

  13.20

  1,085

  1.21

  1,178

  8.57

  Cambridgeshire

  1,090

  1,205

  10.55

  1,209

  0.33

  1,241

  2.65

  Cheshire

  1,805

  1,888

  4.60

  1,889

  0.05

  1,920

  1.64

  Cleveland

  1,411

  1,502

  6.45

  1,502

  0.00

  1,502

  0.00

  Cumbria

  1,088

  1,175

  8.00

  1,175

  0.00

  1,187

  1.02

  Derbyshire

  1,709

  1,793

  4.92

  1,812

  1.06

  1,850

  2.10

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,673

  2,863

  7.11

  2,865

  0.07

  2,928

  2.20

  Dorset

  1,164

  1,271

  9.19

  1,272

  0.08

  1,302

  2.36

  Durham

  1,349

  1,375

  1.93

  1,378

  0.22

  1,389

  0.80

  Dyfed-Powys

  934

  935

  0.11

  944

  0.96

  969

  2.65

  574
  Nations refugees convention and has close ties with the United Kingdom such as to make it the most appropriate country of refuge. On 28 August this year, Amnesty International wrote to the Home Office asylum division asking for the asylum applications of these two women, who were in Hong Kong, to be considered in the United Kingdom. The information provided by Amnesty International was carefully considered and the Hong Kong authorities were consulted. It was established that the applications had been fully considered by the Hong Kong authorities, who did not accept that either applicant would be at risk of persecution if returned to China. There were no grounds for taking a different view of the cases from the Hong Kong authorities, who had had the benefit of interviewing the applicants and hearing their representations at first hand. Neither applicant had any ties with the United Kingdom. Amnesty International was therefore informed on 4 September that there were no grounds for granting them asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Asylum Bill 1991
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals of his Department's staff worked on the Asylum Bill 1991(a) in Committee and (b) in the Home Office; and how many person-hours were used in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Within the immigration and nationality department three members of staff worked on the Asylum Bill in 1991–92, for the greater part of their time, two over the period October 1991 to March 1992 and one over the period August 1991 to March 1992. This work included time spent in preparing the Bill and in attending the Committee. The Bill was in Committee for some 27 hours. Other members of the Department were consulted on aspects of the Bill as part of their normal duties. In addition, three members of the legal adviser's branch of the Home Office worked on the Asylum Bill for up to 50 per cent. of their time.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police force area in England and Wales, and for the whole of England and Wales, the number of police officers in the authorised establishment at(a) 1 April 1979, (b) 1 April 1990, (c) 1 April 1991 and (d) 1 April 1992 and the percentage increase in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  575

  Force

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1990

  percentage change

  1 April 1991

  percentage change

  1 April 1992

  percentage change

  Essex

  2,525

  2,859

  13.23

  2,875

  0.56

  2,950

  2.61

  Gloucestershire

  1,116

  1,164

  4.30

  1,164

  0.00

  1,184

  1.72

  Greater Manchester

  6,735

  7,042

  4.56

  7,021

  -0.30

  7,077

  0.80

  Gwent

  975

  1,009

  3.49

  1,009

  0.00

  1,010

  0.10

  Hampshire

  2,954

  3,173

  7.41

  3,175

  0.06

  3,269

  2.96

  Hertfordshire

  1,533

  1,669

  8.87

  1,669

  0.00

  1,684

  0.90

  Humberside

  1,939

  2,007

  3.51

  2,007

  0.00

  2,034

  1.35

  Kent 1

  2,820

  3,018

  7.02

  3,020

  0.07

  3,096

  2.52

  Lancashire

  3,118

  3,201

  2.66

  3,203

  0.06

  3,229

  0.81

  Leicestershire

  1,706

  1,813

  6.27

  1,814

  0.06

  1,853

  2.15

  Lincolnshire

  1,182

  1,197

  1.27

  1,198

  0.08

  1,206

  0.67

  Merseyside

  4,451

  4,701

  5.62

  4,701

  0.00

  4,706

  0.11

  Norfolk

  1,265

  1,408

  11.30

  1,409

  0.07

  1,446

  2.63

  Northants

  950

  1,141

  20.11

  1,142

  0.09

  1,190

  4.20

  Northumbria

  3,325

  3,552

  6.83

  3,560

  0.23

  3,613

  1.49

  North Wales

  1,279

  1,351

  5.63

  1,352

  0.07

  1,369

  1.26

  North Yorkshire

  1,328

  1,408

  6.02

  1,408

  0.00

  1,418

  0.71

  Nottinghamshire

  2,145

  2,344

  9.28

  2,344

  0.00

  2,344

  0.00

  South Wales

  3,069

  3,168

  3.23

  3,168

  0.00

  3,168

  0.00

  South Yorkshire

  2,752

  2,998

  8.94

  2,998

  0.00

  3,031

  1.10

  Staffordshire

  2,066

  2,202

  6.58

  2,203

  0.05

  2,215

  0.54

  Suffolk

  1,088

  1,204

  10.66

  1,205

  0.08

  1,233

  2.32

  Surrey

  1,599

  1,659

  3.75

  1,659

  0.00

  1,673

  0.84

  Sussex

  2,802

  2,963

  5.75

  2,964

  0.03

  3,014

  1.69

  Thames Valley

  2,997

  3,685

  22.96

  3,685

  0.00

  3,812

  3.45

  Warwickshire

  876

  1,007

  14.95

  1,008

  0.10

  1,020

  1.19

  West Mercia

  1,834

  2,023

  10.31

  2,024

  0.05

  2,053

  1.43

  West Midlands

  6,509

  6,893

  5.90

  6,895

  0.03

  6,977

  1.19

  West Yorkshire

  5,104

  5,279

  3.43

  5,281

  0.04

  5,295

  0.27

  Wiltshire

  1,022

  1,098

  7.44

  1,099

  0.09

  1,181

  7.46

  Metropolitan

  26,589

  28,565

  7.43

  28,524

  -0.14

  28,276

  -0.87

  City 2

  1,022

  798

  -21.92

  798

  0.00

  798

  0.00

  Total

  117,698

  125,758

  6.85

  125,794

  0.03

  126,977

  0.94

  1. The police establishment of the Kent constabulary will increase by 40 officers on 1 January 1993.

  2 The police establishment of the City of London police was reduced at the request of the police authority.

  Safe Cities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to create any new safer cities areas; and what are his plans for the existing safer cities areas after 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  The safer cities programme was originally intended to create 20 local projects, all of which have now been established. We remain committed to doubling the number of safer cities projects to 40, when circumstances and resources enable us to do so.

  The first 16 projects to have been established have already been guaranteed funding until March 1994. No decision has been made concerning their futures beyond that date. The four most recently established projects—in Derby, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leicester and Middlesbrough—are planned to continue in 1994–95.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of(a) the Association of Chief Officers of Probation or (b) the National Association of Probation Officers; and what was the outcome of their discussions.

  Mr. Jack
  The Secretary of State last met representatives of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation in July 1992. The discussion covered a range of current topics relating to the changes in and expansion of probation work including the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, partnerships with the independent sector and the 576
  introduction of national standards. The Secretary of State has not met representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers this year.

  I have met representatives of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation on various occasions since my appointment. These meetings have covered a number of current topics about probation work. I met representatives of the National Association of Probation Officers in July; this meeting also covered a range of topics.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation staff by grade were in full-time employment during 1991 in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of full-time equivalent staff employed by the probation service, by grade and in post on 31 December 1991, was as follows:

  Number

  Chief Probation Officer

  55

  Deputy Chief Probation Officer

  24

  Assistant Chief Probation Officer

  210

  Senior Probation Officer

  1,163

  Main-grade Probation Officer

  5,702

  Probation Ancillary

  1,864

  Research and Information Officers

  64

  Other staff (Professional, Administrative, Clerical and Secretarial)

  5,250

  Car Crime
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the incidence of car crime in England and Wales in each year since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is set out in the table. Figures are for offences recorded by the police.

  Theft/unauthorized taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a motor vehicle

  1982

  351,230

  449,037

  1983

  325,699

  424,238

  1984

  344,806

  454,943

  1985

  367,426

  478,968

  1986

  411,060

  577,414

  1987

  389,576

  658,577

  1988

  366,713

  620,623

  1989

  393,399

  628,912

  1990

  494,209

  773,079

  1991

  582,300

  913,700

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department is offering sentencers and others on the extent to which judges and magistrates are expected to take previous offences into account when determining the level of seriousness of an offence.

  Mr. Jack
  The criteria for determining the seriousness of an offence for the purpose of deciding on an appropriate sentence are set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. However, it is for the courts alone to interpret the provisions of the Act as they apply to individual cases in the light of all the circumstances of the offence and the offender and any guidance which the Court of Appeal may issue in due course. In addition, a substantial programme of training for sentencers on all matters relating to the Act has been provided under the auspices of the Judicial Studies Board.

  Public Houses (Violence)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the trend of violence against landlords and landladies in public houses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many physical attacks on landlords or landladies of public houses were reported in 1991;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to encourage magistrates to exclude from licensed premises those who are found guilty of violence against landlords or landladies of public houses.

  Mr. Jack
  No central record is kept of crimes of violence against licensees and their staff on licensed premises. I am aware of concern about such violence, and that a number of steps have been taken by the licensed trade, in partnership with other agencies, against the problem. The Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 enables magistrates in England and Wales, when sentencing a person convicted of violence or threatened violence on licensed premises to make an "exclusion order" prohibiting him or her from entering 578
  those or any other specified premises for a period of between three months and two years without the express consent of the licensee. Sentencing in individual cases is entirely a matter for the courts in the light of all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

  Drugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the drug prevention projects funded under his Department's drug prevention initiatives together with(a) the current level of annual funds of each, (b) the start date of each and (c) the date to which funds have been agreed in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  There have been 20 local drugs prevention teams established between October 1990 and March 1992 under the drugs prevention initiative. The annual fund for each team excluding salaries and running costs is £85,000. This comprises £75,000 to grant-aid local drugs prevention projects and £10,000 for publicity. An additional £15,000 to support activities undertaken during European Drug Prevention Week has been allocated to each team for this financial year 1992–93. Funds have been agreed initially for a period of three years in each case. Details on the individual teams are as follows:

  Local drugs prevention team

  Start date

  Fundy agreed until

  Brighton and Hove

  29 October 1990

  29 October 1993

  Lewisham

  19 November 1990

  19 November 1993

  Liverpool

  10 December 1990

  10 December 1993

  Birmingham

  7 January 1991

  7 January 1994

  Hackney

  14 January 1991

  14 January 1994

  Southwark

  18 February 1991

  18 February 1994

  Newham

  4 March 1991

  4 March 1994

  Bristol

  4 March 1991

  4 March 1994

  Lambeth

  22 April 1991

  22 April 1994

  Nottingham

  13 May 1991

  13 May 1994

  Wolverhampton

  20 May 1991

  20 May 1994

  Brent

  5 August 1991

  5 August 1994

  Wirral

  30 September 1991

  30 September 1994

  Bradford

  18 October 1991

  18 October 1994

  Dundee

  2 December 1991

  2 December 1994

  Manchester

  3 February 1992

  3 February 1995

  Salford

  19 February 1992

  19 February 1995

  Newcastle

  7 January 1991

  2 March 1995

  Glasgow

  23 March 1992

  23 March 1995

  West Glamorgan

  30 March 1992

  30 March 1995

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects that have been set up under the drugs prevention initiative and the cost of each of these projects; and how long he intends these projects to be operational.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The 20 local drugs prevention teams were established between October 1990 and March 1992 for initial three-year terms. The position of the teams beyond that period is currently under active review. The effectiveness of the drug prevention initiative, including the work of the 20 teams, is being fully evaluated. A structural review has been commissioned to be carried out by the university of Bristol and a private sector consultancy. The results of the review will be available in June next year. The average annual cost of each team, including its grants and publicity budget, is approximately £200,000. Details are as follows:

  579

  Local Drugs Prevention Team

  Contracted until

  Brighton and Hove

  29 October 1993

  Lewisham

  19 November 1993

  Liverpool

  10 December 1993

  Birmingham

  7 January 1994

  Hackney

  14 January 1994

  Southwark

  18 February 1994

  Newham

  4 March 1994

  Bristol

  4 March 1994

  Lambeth

  22 April 1994

  Nottingham

  13 May 1994

  Wolverhampton

  20 May 1994

  Brent

  5 August 1994

  Wirral

  30 September 1994

  Bradford

  18 October 1994

  Dundee

  2 December 1994

  Manchester

  3 February 1994

  Salford

  19 February 1995

  Newcastle

  2 March 1995

  Glasgow

  23 March 1995

  West Glamorgan

  30 March 1995

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the case for introduction of an identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Although we remain ready to consider any arguments which may be advanced in favour of introducing an identity card system, we are not at present persuaded that the case for such a system has been made.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Manchester
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to make a statement about the market testing of Her Majesty's prison, Manchester.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Work has now been completed on the specification for the operation of Manchester prison. This forms part of the invitation to tender issued to the prison service and potential contractors from the private sector. A copy has been placed in the Library. Following the evaluation process, we aim to announce a decision on the successful bidder in early spring 1993. It is our intention that the part of the prison that is currently being extensively refurbished shall be ready to accept prisoners from autumn 1993.

  Prisoners (Injuries)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken by the prison service to reduce the level of suicide and self-injury by prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison service's policies in this complex and important area were recently described in an information paper, "Caring for prisoners at risk of suicide and self-injury: the way forward", which was published on 20 August 1992. I have today arranged for a copy of the paper to be placed in the Library of the House. The paper outlines in detail the measures being taken across the prison service as a whole and gives examples of some local schemes. I very much support the efforts being made by the 580
  prison staff, working in partnership with voluntary agencies and increasingly with prisoners themselves, to tackle the problems associated with suicide and self-injury.

  Discretionary life Sentences
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules he has made governing the proceedings of the parole board when considering the cases of discretionary life sentence prisoners who are eligible for consideration under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and how the board will be constituted when considering such cases.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The parole board rules 1992 were made on 31 August 1992 under section 32(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. They will come into force on 1 October. A copy of the rules has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  When considering these cases, the parole board will sit in panels of three. I have written to the chairman of the board asking him to bear in mind the following criteria when selecting panel members.

  Chairman
  Panels should be chaired by a High Court judge member of the Board where cases involve:
  terrorist offences;
  the attempted murder or wounding of a police or prison officer;
  the sexual assault or mutilation and killing of a child (ie in the same incident);
  serial rape;
  manslaughter following release from prison on a previous manslaughter sentence;
  offences giving rise to multiple life sentences.
  Otherwise, a circuit judge or recorder may take the chair.

  Second member
  The second member should generally be a psychiatrist.
  But, if there is conclusive medical evidence that no serious concern exists about the prisoner's state of mind at the time of the offence or subsequently during imprisonment, a psychologist or probation officer may be appointed.

  Third member
  The third member of the panel should be a lay member, a criminologist, or a psychologist or probation officer (where he or she is not already the second member).

  Prisoners
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, columns 64–65, (1) how many of the 616 prisoners came from each police area responsible for initiating action towards prosecutions; and in each case how many were remand prisoners and how many convicted prisoners;

  (2) if he will show in respect of each police authority area how many of those held in police cells were remand prisoners and how many were convicted prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: The information collected centrally does not separate remand and convicted prisoners held in police cells, but most would have been held on remand. It is also not possible to apply the available data to the Crown prosecution service areas, but the table gives the prisoner in police cells position for 16 October by prison service establishment. This may give the hon. Member a clearer indication of the origin of the prisoners concerned.

  581

  Number of adults and young adults in police cell accommodation on 16 October, by prison service establishment

  Establishment

  Adults

  Young adults

  Total

  Bristol

  18

  7

  25

  Cardiff

  4

  25

  29

  Durham

  1

  0

  1

  Gloucester

  27

  9

  36

  Hindley

  0

  7

  7

  Lewes

  8

  0

  8

  Leicester

  8

  0

  8

  Liverpool

  2

  0

  2

  Manchester

  380

  88

  468

  Preston

  30

  0

  30

  Risley

  2

  0

  2

  Totals

  480

  136

  616

  Prison Service
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his Department's estimates are for the potential redundancy costs of teaching staff currently employed by local education authorities arising from changes in the provision of educational services in Her Majesty's prison service;

  (2) who will have responsibility for redundancy payments of teaching staff in the event of changes in the provision of educational services in Her Majesty's prison service leading to existing contracts with further education colleges being changed;

  (3) what his Department's estimates are for the overall financial costs of the proposed changes in the provision of educational services in prison service establishments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The prison service has given notice that it intends to invite competitive tenders for the provision of education to inmates in prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales, for which it is responsible, with effect from 1 April 1993. This is consequent upon changes in the further education responsibilities of local education authorities resulting from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and is consistent with the Government's policies on market testing, as set out in the White Paper "Competing for Quality" (Cm 1730).

  Competition between the public and private sector is directed to achieving better service and value for money. It will be possible to quantify the overall benefits in quality and cost only when the tendering exercise is complete.

  All existing providers are being invited to tender, and any possible consequential redundancy costs cannot therefore yet be accurately assessed. Such costs would fall to the employer of existing prison education staff, normally the local education authority or a college of further education. They would only arise if the existing provider was unseccessful in the competitive tender and it was not possible to avoid redundancy, for example, by redeployment of staff to other areas or agreed transfers to the new contractor.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs were incurred by his Department in employing outside consultants to advise on changes to be made in the provision of educational services in prison service establishments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Consultants were employed to provide advice to the prison
  582
  service on the implications for the provision of education in prisons in England and Wales of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The cost was £27,500, exclusive of value added tax.

SCOTLAND

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will circularise planning authorities urging them to give sympathetic consideration to applications for new football stadiums in greenfield sites, particularly in cases where there is no feasible alternative for football clubs to meet with the requirements and time scale of the Taylor report.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Certain of Scotland's football clubs are required to have all-seater stadiums by August 1994 in line with recommendations contained in the Taylor report. The planning system should not obstruct this requirement.

  The Government's policy, as set out in Scottish Development Department circular 17/1985, is that planning permission should always be granted, having regard to all material considerations, unless there are sound and clear cut reasons for refusal. A draft national planning policy guideline on sport and recreation, containing further guidance on the implications of the Taylor report, will be issued for public consultation in the spring.

  As with any other applications for planning permission, the football clubs may appeal to the Secretary of State if they are aggrieved at a planning authority's decision or if the planning authority fails to determine an application timeously.

  Water Authority Land
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total acreage of land presently belonging to Scotland's water authorities, broken down into each authority area.

  Sir Hector Monro
  This information is not held centrally.

  Scottish Nuclear
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any intention of privatising Scottish Nuclear.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Roads
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce experimental traffic measures at Dairsie.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Traffic-calming measures for Dairsie have recently been approved by the Scottish Office roads directorate and the necessary signing/road marking authorisation and revised speed limit order are presently being processed. On completion of these procedures, the "village gateway" measures will be implemented as soon as is practical.
  583
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the progress of the Auchtermuchty bypass.

  Mr. James Douglas-Hamilton
  The preparation work for the Auchtermuchty bypass is at a stage where it could be quickly completed, but no funding opportunity has presently been identified for the scheme and therefore no further action is being taken at this time.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the capacity of the trunk roads which pass through Cupar and their ability to accommodate projected traffic flows by the year 2000.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A transportation study to address trunk road capacity and other matters in Cupar was recently carried out by the Scottish Office roads directorate and Fife regional council. This exercise included consideration of both a bypass and an inner relief road in relation to the medium and longer-term needs of the A91 trunk road. An evaluation of the findings of the report is currently under way to determine how best to meet the requirements of Cupar and the trunk road.

  Housing, East Lothian
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of housing to rent in East Lothian; and if he will make a supplementary housing capital allocation to East Lothian district council for the current year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is the responsibility of East Lothian district council to consider the housing needs of its area, including housing for rent. The Government took full account of East Lothian's needs, as set out in its housing plan and housing capital programme, when decisions were taken on East Lothian's housing capital allocations for 1992–93.

  All resources currently available for housing capital expenditure in Scotland in 1992–93 have been distributed. If further resources become available, the relative housing needs of East Lothian will continue to be taken fully into account.

  Haddington Sheriff Court
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the backlog of cases at Haddington sheriff court relative to other sheriff courts; and if he intends to take any steps to improve the efficiency and accommodation of the court in Haddington.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 15 July 1992,Official Report, columns 708–10, setting out the waiting periods for civil proofs and summary criminal trials for each sheriff court in Scotland. Haddington is within the national average for each category. The speedy and efficient disposal of sheriff court business is a matter for sheriffs principal. Witness accommodation at Haddington has been improved over recent years and steps are being taken to provide better interview facilities for solicitors and their clients. The main courtroom will be refurbished when resources permit.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of homeless persons in Scotland and each local authority area for(a) the most recent date for which figures are available and (b) 1979–80.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 October 1992]: Table 2 of the statistical bulletin HSG/1992/3, "Operation of the Homeless Legislation in Scotland 1979/80 to 1990/91: District Analyses", shows the number of applicant households, by local authority district, for the years 1979–80 and 1990–91, the latest date for which this information is available. Copies of the bulletin are available in the House Library.

  Information on the number of persons in each applicant household is available only from 1990, in case returns supplied by authorities to the Department. The table gives for 1990–91, by district, the number of households for whom case returns have been received and the total number of persons in these households.

  Number of applicant households and number of persons in these households 1990–91

  Area

  Number of case returns received for households applying as homeless in 1990–911

  Number of persons

  SCOTLAND

  32,379

  67,965

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  16

  55

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  17

  40

  Roxburgh

  109

  230

  Tweeddale

  49

  119

  Central

  Clackmannan

  523

  1,035

  Falkirk

  1,300

  2,756

  Stirling

  575

  1,249

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  97

  255

  Nithsdale

  600

  1,197

  Stewartry

  97

  259

  Wigtown

  107

  273

  Fife

  Dumfermline

  311

  788

  Kirkcaldy

  1,325

  3,049

  North East Fife

  476

  1,063

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  1,485

  3,232

  Banff and Buchan

  225

  602

  Gordon

  290

  785

  Kincardine and Deeside

  45

  141

  Moray

  195

  543

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  19

  58

  Caithness

  7

  22

  Inverness

  361

  899

  Lochabcr

  75

  182

  Nairn

  40

  104

  Ross and Cromarty

  107

  263

  Skye and Lochalsh

  68

  155

  Sutherland

  10

  36

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  960

  2,108

  Edinburgh

  2,633

  5,902

  Midlothian

  143

  344

  West Lothian

  532

  1,054

  585

  Area

  Number of case returns received for households ap-plying as homeless in 1990–911

  Number of persons

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  330

  774

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  81

  202

  Clydebank

  655

  1,390

  Clydesdale

  446

  942

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  421

  1.107

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  67

  155

  Cunninghame

  445

  1,038

  Dumbarton

  1,705

  3,223

  East Kilbride

  521

  1,064

  Eastwood

  11

  28

  Glasgow

  8,565

  15,054

  Hamilton

  329

  837

  Inverelyde

  360

  796

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  440

  991

  Kyle and Carrick

  607

  1,202

  Monklands

  309

  574

  Motherwell

  988

  2,070

  Renfrew

  957

  1,965

  Strathkelvin

  318

  835

  Tayside

  Angus

  468

  1,174

  Dundee

  924

  2,084

  Perth and Kinross

  432

  1,234

  Islands Councils

  Orkney Islands

  19

  51

  Shetland Islands

  131

  265

  Western Isles

  53

  112

  1 The 32,379 case returns represent 94 per cent. of the 34,600 applications in 1990–91.

  Housing
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of capital expenditure on housing for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1991–92 inclusive in cash and real terms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Gross Capital Expenditure on housing in Scotland by local authorities, Scottish Homes and New Town Development Corporations

  £ million

  Cash terms

  1Real terms

  1979–80

  421.0

  1,021.0

  1980–81

  477.0

  977.6

  1981–82

  480.1

  897.2

  1982–83

  561–3

  979.3

  1983–84

  706.0

  1,177.1

  1984–85

  583.0

  925.8

  1985–86

  600.1

  903.1

  1986–87

  657.9

  958.5

  1987–88

  791.4

  1,093.6

  1988–89

  800.7

  1,031.9

  1989–90

  985.2

  1,191.2

  1990–91

  953.8

  1,066.4

  1991–92

  1,081.1

  1,127.0

  1 Expressed in 1992–93 prices.

  Recycling
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make supplementary credit approvals available as hypothecated local authority expenditure to enable local authorities to engage in recycling projects.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: No. As in previous years, local authorities in Scotland will each receive a capital consent allocation for its general services capital programme. Allocations will be determined in light of the proposals for capital expenditure contained in the detailed financial plans submitted by authorities. Thereafter, within the limits of their consent, it will be for local authorities to determine their own priorities for capital expenditure, including on recycling projects.

  Health Care
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what private psychiatric services are offered by Grampian Healthcare.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: None.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken and what further measures he proposes to promote organic farming in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Through Food from Britain, the Government set up and now fund the United Kingdom register of organic food standards to determine national standards, codes of practice and provide credibility to certification procedures. The Government also fund a wide range of research relating to organic farming, from strategic research into production methods through to wider issues such as the environmental impact of organic farming systems.

  In addition, Scottish farmers of organic produce can benefit under a number of schemes open to farmers generally. These include the farm and conservation grant scheme; set-aside arrangements and the group marketing grant scheme. The need for any further measures will be considered in the context of the implementation of the European Community agriculture and environment regulations.

  Forth Valley Health Board
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much money has been spent on refurbishing Forth Valley health board headquarters over each of the past five years;

  (2) if he will give a detailed breakdown of the total expenditure on refurbishing Forth Valley health board headquarters over the past five years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The total expenditure on refurbishing Forth Valley health board's headquarters at 33 Spittal street and 9 Gladstone place, Stirling over the past five years is as follows:
  587

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 to date £

  Capital-backlog maintenance

  519

  9,330

  37,767

  15,601

  46,328

  Equipment

  127,411

  83,429

  95,108

  206,980

  43,863

  Maintenance

  21,800

  34,265

  25,436

  27,046

  35,535

  Total

  149,730

  127,024

  158,311

  249,627

  125,726

EMPLOYMENT

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions she has had with(a) the chairman of British Coal, (b) members of the National Economic Development Council, (c) the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, (d) the Major Energy Users Council, and (e) the coal industry trades unions on the implications of the coal industry pit closure plans.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employment Ministers have not met representatives of these bodies to discuss the pit closures. There has been a meeting with the training enterprise councils involved to discuss what help can be given.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what day her Department first made preparations to deal with the impending pit closures.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: My Department has been aware for some months of possible future pit closures and has been involved in contingency planning.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions she has had with the European social affairs and regional Commissioners in regard to the implications for EC employment and regional aid programmes of the pit closure programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply. I have been in contact with Mr. Millan, the Commissioner with responsibility for regional policies, and discussions have begun at official level.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the level of resignations amongst directors of training and enterprise councils in the 12-month period to the end of June.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the year to the end of June 1992, the turnover of TEC directors—excluding chairmen—was 19 per cent. Although information on the reasons for these moves is not held centrally, the common reasons are moves around the country, retirement or changes of job.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the present level of funding for TECs to meet current demand for training programmes for young people; and what estimate she has made of the effect of any budget cuts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 7 July,Official Report,
  588
  columns 171–72, new measures to establish a national system for monitoring the numbers of young people seeking training. There is currently no shortage of funds for TECs to meet the demand for youth training.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is taking to alleviate hardship resulting from concentrations of high unemployment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The social security system provides comprehensive support for unemployed people in all parts of the country through unemployment benefit, income support and help with housing costs. The social fund provides a mixture of interest-free loans and non-repayable grants to meet the costs of specific items. To help unemployed people to find work as quickly as possible, we are now offering the widest range of help and advice ever made available to unemployed people.

  Medicopharma UK
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 348, whether Medicopharma UK has now met all claims for redundancy payments; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Redundancy payments have been made to all entitled employees, initially by the company and, following the company's insolvency, by the Department's redundancy payments service. In addition, some claims in relation to protective awards made by an industrial tribunal are currently being processed.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she intends to take any action to speed up the hearing of industrial tribunal cases at London, North;

  (2) how many industrial tribunals were lodged each year in the area covered by London, North industrial tribunals, Woburn place for the period 1987–1991; what proportion of these proceeded to hearing; what number are settled; and what number were withdrawn before hearing;

  (3) what is the average time between the lodgement of an industrial tribunal IT1 form, and its being heard at London, North tribunals each year for the period 1987 to 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The listing of industrial tribunal cases for hearing depends on the availability of tribunal chairmen and I am informed that there has recently been a shortage of chairmen in the London, North region. Appointment of chairmen is the responsibility of my right
  589
  hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and in an effort to improve the situation, five new chairmen—one full time and four part time—have been appointed in the past six months. I understand that further appointments are under consideration. London, North has also adopted an intensive case listing policy in an effort to accelerate the throughput of cases.

  Tribunal statistics are held for financial rather than calendar years and the tables have been compiled on that basis. The number of applications lodged at London, North is shown in table 1. Table 2 shows the outcomes of cases dealt with. I regret that information on the waiting time between a claim being lodged and heard is not available in the precise form requested. The figures in table 3 show the percentage of applications coming to first hearing within six, eight, 10, 12, 20 and 26 weeks respectively of receipt of the application.

  Table 3

  Waiting time for cases to come to first hearing

  Percentage under (weeks)

  6

  8

  10

  12

  16

  20

  26

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  1

  2

  10

  17

  34

  53

  75

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  1

  6

  13

  23

  46

  61

  77

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  5

  19

  31

  44

  65

  75

  85

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  4

  15

  26

  36

  49

  79

  91

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  10

  26

  41

  54

  71

  83

  90

  Employment Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the Employment Service.

  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 Mr. M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 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 papers published by the Employment Service in the la st 12 months. This is something which falls to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  I have attached to this letter an annex which sets out the details you have asked for. If there is a particular publication which you are interested in please let me know and I will ensure you receive a copy promptly.

  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.

  EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PUBLICATIONS
  General information about the Employment Service:
  This is the Employment Service (CORP 1 August 1992).
  Public Employment Services: Into the 1990s (article in the Employment Gazette October 1992).
  Performance and Accounts:
  Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts 1990–91
  Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts 1991–92
  590

  Table 1

  Applications lodged

  Number

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  5,667

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  4,308

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  4,007

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  2,405

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  2,661

  Table 2

  Outcome of applications

  Heard

  Settled

  Withdrawn

  1 April 1991–31 March 19921

  1,041

  919

  1,216

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  1,170

  688

  1,248

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  738

  1,008

  792

  1 April 1988–31 March 1989

  1,000

  660

  547

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  938

  978

  650

  1 1 April 1991–31 March 1992 figures are provisional.

  Employment Service Operational Plan 1992–1993.
  Advisory and information booklets and leaflets:
  Helping You Back to Work. Information for Claimants (UB40/UBL18 revised September 1991).
  Just the Job—New Edition (EMPL 45 revised September 1991).
  Jobseeker's Charter leaflet (JSCIL December 1991).
  Jobseeker's Charter. Help us to get it right…and how to complain if you think we have got it wrong (JSC3L December 1991).
  Restart Course leaflet No. 1 (RCL1 February 1992).
  How to be Better Off in Work (BOIWL1 September 1992).
  Job Search Seminar Leaflet (JSS L3).
  Guide for Managers/Executives/Professionals (EXJ1).
  Just for the Record Leaflet—Help for People with a Criminal Record (OFJ1).

  Working Abroad (OPU1).

  Working in Holland (OPU3).

  Working in the UK (OPU4).

  Working in France (OPUS).

  Working in Germany (OPU6).

  Working in Belgium (OPU7).

  Working in Spain (OPU8).

  Working in Portugal (OPU9).

  591

  Working in Italy (OPU10).

  Working in Ireland (OPU11).

  Working in Denmark (OPU12).

  Working in Greece (OPU13).

  Working in Luxembourg (OPU14).

  Employing People with Disabilities—Sources of Help (PEL2).
  Employing People with Disabilities—PACT Placing, Assessment and Counselling Team (PEL).
  PF1—Folder for A4 inserts entitled "Information on Disability and Employment".
  Information leaflet for people with severe disabilities on Sheltered Placement scheme (SPS1).
  Information leaflet for host companies about the Sheltered Placement Scheme (SPS2)
  Marketing Leaflet for Employers (EMPL46).
  Our New Computer System (NUBL1).
  Job Interview Guarantee scheme Client Wallet.
  Job Interview Guarantee scheme Employer Wallet.
  How to make the most of your Work Trial.
  Research and Evaluation:
  The Employment Service Research and Evaluation branch carries out internal studies and commissions studies by external contractors. With the exception of those produced by some contractors the reports of these studies are not published as on sale documents. Copies are placed in the House of Commons Library and sent to people who ask for them. The following lists the reports which have been issued in the past year and, where appropriate, the name of the external contractor concerned. The items marked * are available on sale.
  External Contractor Reports
  Evaluation of joblink—Qualitative study report (Research Services Limited November 1991).
  National Customer Satisfaction Survey—Report of Findings (Research International Limited January 1992).
  New Clients: A survey of new clients to the Employment Service and their response to New Client Advisor interview (Social Community Planning Research March 1992).
  Quality assessment and guidance in Job Review Workshops (Psychological and Statistical Services April 1992).
  Working with a disability: Barriers and facilitators (Social Community Planning Research May 19921).
  Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) Evaluation—Report on a survey of JIG employers (British Market Research Bureau May 1992).
  Attitudes to Employment Service Local Offices: Qualitative Survey (Ecotec Research and Consulting Limited June 1992).
  An evaluation of the Pilot Employment Initiatives for Disabled People scheme (Ecotec Research and Consulting Limited June 1992).
  Progression, Regression, Turnover, Quality and Support in Sheltered Employment (Policy Research Unit July 19921).
  Restart Cohort Study (Policy Studies Institute September 1992).
  Quality of Assessment and Guidance in Job Review Workshops (Psychological and Statistical Services October 1992).
  Internal Research Reports
  Actively Seeking Work—Evaluation (Report 68 November 1991).
  Survey of non-claiment users of ES local offices (Report 69 January 1992).
  Multifunctioning Pilots—an assessment of performance (Report 70 January 1992).
  Evaluation of ES461—the initial cliam form for unemployment benefit (Report 71 March 1992).
  Private Employment Agencies (Report 72 April 1992).
  Restart Course Follow-up Survey (Report 73 July 1992).
  The Effectiveness of the NCA (New Client Advisor) Interview (Report 74 October 1992).
  NUBS2 (National Unemployment Benefit computer System) Business Pilots Staff Views (Report 75 October 1992).
  Psychological Service Project Reports
  Critical Skills of Employment Service Advisors (Report No. 410 October 1991).
  Utility Analysis: A method of costing the impact of a training intervention (Report No. 407 November 1991).
  A Questionnaire Survey of Training Needs in Employment Department Corporate Services Branch (Report No. 402 December 1991).
  A Questionnaire Survey of Training Needs in Employment Department Estate Branch (Report No. 403 December 1991).
  An Evaluation of the training which equips newly appointed Adjudication Officers to deal with Doubtful claims to unemployment benefit (Report No. 411 January 1992).
  Exit Interviews with Psychologists (Report No. 404 January 1992).
  Job Interview Guarantee: An evolving Placement Programme (Report No. 408 March 1992).
  Do Prison Linked Jobclubs work and evaluation for initiatives at Pentonville and Holloway.
  PDCA in West Midlands—Evaluation Report (Report No. 409 March 1992).
  How Users assess the reception, post, messenger and typing services provided at 236 Grays Inn Road (Report No. 410 March 1992).
  Participant Observation of 3 day Occupational Assessment workshops for unemployed people in the North East Region (Report No. 412 May 1992).
  Outcomes for the first Employment Department Head Office PDPLINK programme (September 1991 to May 1992): a project-based approach to personal development using external placements (Report No. 413 July 1992).
  How participants and tutors rated the December 1991 SEO to Grade 7 Manager Development workshop (Report No. 141 April 1992).
  End of programme evalution of the first "Executive

  593
  Stretch": A personal development option for senior managers (Report No. 415 June 1992).
  Referrals to Sheltered Employment (Report No. 416 September 1992).
  Evaluating the Impact of the ES Stress Pack (Report No. 399 September 1992).
  Is there a gap in provision for people with special needs (Report No. 406/R September 1992).
  How People in the Employment Service view Travel and Subsistence, Development and Pay Issues (Report No. 417 October 1992).
  Training Disability Employment Advisors in assessing individual clients with the aid of psychological tests: An early evaluation of Enhanced Assessment Training (Report No. 418 October 1992).
  Improving the usability of information systems…a briefing for systems developers (Report No. 400).
  Adjudication:
  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Quarter ending 31 December 1991.
  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Quarter ending 31 March 1992.
  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Year ending 31 March 1992.
  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Quarter ending 30 June 1992.
  Personnel Related:
  Revised Administrative Assistant Interview Plan, Guidance, and Rating Form.
  Revised Administrative Officer Interview Plan, Guidance and Rating Form.
  Article on "Promotion Through Vacancy Advertising" (PVA) appeared in the Spring edition of "Equality Network".

  Financial Services
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will supply figures for the numbers employed in the financial services sector for each of the past three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is as follows.

  Employees in employment: Great Britain

  June of each year

  Thousands Banking, finance and auxilary activities1

  1990

  671.1

  1991

  648.7

  1992

  623.7

  1 Class 81 and Group 831 of the 1980 standard industrial classification (SIC 80).

  Doncaster Travel-to-work Area
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will outline the current travel-to-work area boundaries for the Doncaster area; and if her Department has any plans for reviewing them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current travel-to-work areas, TTWA, have been compiled from 1981 ward boundaries,594
  using data from the 1981 census of population. The wards for the Doncaster TTWA are as follows: Ardwick, Armthorpe, Askern, Balby, Bentley, Central, Bentley, North Road, Bessacarr, Central, Eddington and Warmsworth, Hatfield, Intake, Richmond, Rossington, South East, Southern Parks, Stainforth, Thorne, Town Field, Wheatley—which are all in the Doncaster local authority district—and Haxey, which is in the Boothferry local authority district.

  A travel-to-work area review is planned and will take into account any significant changes in commuting patterns in the United Kingdom. It will use the special workplace statistics from the 1991 census of population scheduled for release in November 1993. Draft TTWAs are expected to be available approximately six to nine months after that.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing the absolute and percentage change in the level of manufacturing employment in each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country since October 1990; and if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relative performance according to this indicator.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Comparable information from the OECD is available only for the total of the energy, manufacturing and construction industries. Manufacturing is the lagest component but its share in the total differs between member states. Changes since September 1990 are shown in the table.

  Changes in civilian employment in production and construction industries between September 1990 and June 1992 Seasonally adjusted (thousands)

  Absolute change

  Percentage change

  Canada

  -284

  -9.2

  USA

  -1,578

  -5.1

  Japan

  761

  3.6

  Australia

  -164

  -8.2

  Austria1

  27

  2.2

  Finland

  -153

  -20.1

  France2

  -175

  -2.7

  West Germany

  47

  0.4

  Italy3

  -85

  -1.2

  Norway

  -32

  -6.5

  Portugal3

  -118

  -7.5

  Spain

  -128

  -3.0

  Sweden

  -173

  -13.2

  Switzerland

  -62

  -5.0

  United Kingdom4

  -767

  -11.6

  1 Latest data available is at December 1991.

  2 Figures available are not seasonally adjusted.

  3 Latest data available is at March 1992.

  4 Figures exclude participants in work related Government training programmes (for which separate industry estimates are not available).

  Source: OECD, except United Kingdom (Employment Department).

  The level of employment is not the only or the best indicator of the health of the country's manufacturing sector. It would be wrong to ignore improvements in productivity for instance. A better measure is provided by the ratio of manufacturing output to total gross domestic product. This has remained broadly constant in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years, as it has in a number of other countries including France, Italy and west Germany.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by her Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (B) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by her Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department group has issued a substantial number of tenders for the supply of computer hardware, software and associated services since 9 April 1992. Details of these in the form requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Disqualifications
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list by unemployment benefit under each paragraph of section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 for the latest month for which information can be obtained for the Doncaster area(a) how many unemployed people were disqualified for unemployment benefit, (b) what were the reasons given by his office, (c) what was the length of disqualification imposed, (d) how many unemployed people appealed against his office's decision and (e) what was the result of the appeal.

  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 Mr. M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 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 about the latest available information on the number and length of unemployment benefit disqualifications, and subsequent appeals under Section 20(1) of the Social Security Act in the Doncaster area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Unfortunately information is not available in the form you have requested. We compile information on disqualifications by region; the Doncaster area is included in our Yorkshire and Humberside region and quarterly rather than monthly intervals. A record is not kept of the length of disqualification periods imposed under Section 20(1) of the Social Security Act 1975. We collect information on the number of appeals made in each region broken down by the numbers reviewed and allowed by adjudication officers and the numbers submitted to social security appeal tribunals.

  During the quarter ending 30 June 1992 the number of people in Yorkshire and Humberside disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit under section 20(1) of the Social Security Act was as follows:—

  Leaving employment voluntarily without just cause

  4,002

  Employment lost due to misconduct

  1,746

  Refusal of employment without good cause

  14

  Neglect to avail oneself of an offer of employment

  26

  Refusal to comply with written instructions

  Nil

  Although voluntary termination of approved training without just cause, misconduct whilst on approved training, refusal of an offer of approved training without good cause
  596
  and neglect to avail oneself of approved training can also lead to disqualification under Section 20(1) a record is not kept of the number of disqualifications under these sub-heads. In this same period the number of appeals processed in Yorkshire and Humberside was as follows:—

  Total of all appeals received

  563

  Appeals reviewed and revised

  121

  Appeals submitted to Social Security Appeal Tribunal

  405

  I hope this is helpful.

  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.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Newtownbreda
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to rebuild the forensic science laboratory at Newtownbreda following the recent bomb damage; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to re-locate the forensic science laboratory from Newtownbreda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory is functioning from temporary premises. A full study is being carried out of the options for permanent accommodation for the laboratory.

  Firearms
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new firearms licences were issued in each of the past five years; how many applications were refused in each of these years; and how many were issued on appeal to the Secretary of State in each of those years.

  Mr. Mates
  Firearms licensing is the responsibility of the Chief Constable of the RUC. There is a statutory right of appeal from the Chief Constable's decision to the Secretary of State.

  The table sets out the total numbers of firearm licences issued, refused and issued on appeal to the Secretary of State. These figures relate to all licences—new licences, variations of licence and renewal of licences—since it is not possible to provide figures on new licences only without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Licences issued

  Licences refused

  Licences issued2 on appeal

  1987

  41,161

  781

  133

  1988

  33,815

  821

  122

  1989

  27,923

  948

  153

  1990

  39,810

  773

  112

  1991

  33,432

  343

  70

  11992

  19,630

  412

  43

  1 up to 30 September 1992

  2 includes those resolved by Chief Constable following submission of appeal

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for

  Northern Ireland what was the date of the terrorist bomb at the forensic science laboratory at Newtownbreda; and

  597
  how many owner/occupiers of homes have now received an interim compensation payment of £2,000 or more as a result of damage caused to their homes by this explosion.

  Mr. Mates
  The date was 23 September 1992. By 25 October, the Compensation Agency had authorised interim payments in all cases where it was possible to do so. The total number authorised in the case of owner/occupiers was 45, of which five amounted to £2,000 or more.

  Students' Unions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the amount of public funds allocated to the students' unions in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; what proposals he has to abolish for students at the Queen's university of Belfast and the Ulster university, compulsory membership of the students' unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Public funds are not allocated direct by Government to students' unions in Northern Ireland. However, the amounts which have been allocated by universities and colleges of education in Northern Ireland to students' unions were as follows:

  Live births

  Still births

  Hospital

  1987

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1987

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Ards

  1,069

  987

  950

  936

  959

  5

  6

  5

  4

  4

  Bangor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ulster

  2,100

  2,059

  1,905

  1,988

  2,035

  21

  11

  7

  5

  12

  Local Government Staff Commission
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the reasons for the variance from year to year in the budget of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland; and what action he will take to avoid substantial increases in costs to local government authorities.

  Mr. Atkins
  The variance in the budget of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland in recent years can be attributed to the development of its role in assisting district councils and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in a range of services connected with the recruitment, training and terms and conditions of employment of officers.

  Approximately 14,000 people are employed by district councils and the NINE. Under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, the staff commission has a statutory duty to, among other things, establish advisory appointment panels, draw up codes of procedure for recruitment and promotion; assist in the development of training of officers and monitor the fair employment practices of district councils.

  The staff commission carried out an organisational review in 1991 which identified a need for the commission to restructure and to take on additional staff in order to be able efficiently and effectively to discharge its statutory functions. This it has done: it now offers a comprehensive package of services delivered by a team of professionally qualified officers which assists councils and the NIHE in the full range of personnel services.
  598

  Universities £

  Colleges of Education £

  1987–88

  917,612

  62,293

  1988–89

  886,315

  65,915

  1989–90

  1,088,505

  69,350

  1990–91

  1,241,948

  73,500

  1991–92

  1,350,000

  77,900

  Information on the amounts paid by further education colleges is not available.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education recently announced that he is bringing forward proposals on the voluntary membership of students' unions and consideration is now being given to the options available for the implementation of those proposals.

  Births
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many babies were born at(a) Ards hospital, (b) Bangor hospital and (c) Ulster hospital in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  The increased costs of the staff commission therefore relate primarily to the remuneration of new staff, although the commission did move to new premises this year and the rental and furnishing costs associated with this are reflected in the current year's budget.

  Although the commission's budget has risen substantially over the past few years, I am entirely satisfied that it is necessary in order to ensure that it is in a position to help councils and the NIHE meet their statutory obligations and also to enable it to assist them to enhance and develop their reputation as good employers.

  Lough Foyle
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what damage to the environment has been caused by the recent leak from the Du Pont synthetics factory into Lough Foyle; what will be the cost of the clean-up; how far the company will be charged for the cost of cleaning up the pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Scientists in the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland consider that the leak has not resulted in any significant damage to water quality or aquatic life in Lough Foyle. Samples of water and of shellfish taken after the spillage showed a slight increase in normal background levels but within a few days the levels had fallen and results were only slightly above or at the levels of detection.

  No subsequent clean-up operations were necessary.

  Belfast Institute
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vice-principals there were in the three colleges merged to form the Belfast Institute; how many(a) vice-principals and (b) deputy directors were appointed to the new institute; how many of these were formerly vice-principals in the old structure; of the former vice-principals, how many have remained on vice-principal protected salaries; and what teaching duties these persons now perform.

  Mr. Hanley
  The management structure of the new institute provides for three deputy director posts—its nomenclature for vice-principal—of which two have been filled to date. One of these was a former vice-principal. Of the remaining four former vice-principals, three continue to be employed on protected salaries and none of these undertakes teaching duties. The other former vice-principal has retired.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve communication between the different sites of the Belfast Institute.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the institute and the Belfast education and library board.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of upgrading the Computerised Information Management of Further Education in Northern Ireland system, and the cost of(a) hardware and (b) software needed to cope with the needs of the Belfast Institute.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of £201,326, comprising £85,523 for hardware and £115,803 for software, installation and training, was required to enhance the capability of the Computerised Information Management of Further Education in Northern Ireland System to meet the management information needs of the institute.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where the central headquarters of the

  Further Education College

  Northern Ireland

  Republic of Ireland

  Great Britain

  Elsewhere

  Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education

  21,427

  37

  2

  2

  North West Institute of Further and Higher Education

  5,166

  734

  4

  5

  Fermanagh College of Further Education

  2,607

  175

  0

  0

  Limavady College of Further Education

  1,431

  0

  0

  5

  Omagh College of Further Education

  2,118

  13

  0

  0

  Antrim College of Further Education

  1,901

  0

  0

  0

  Ballymena College

  3,723

  0

  0

  0

  Newtownabbey College of Further Education

  3,544

  1

  0

  21

  New Technical College, Ballymoney

  1,378

  5

  0

  0

  Coleraine Technical College

  1,860

  4

  0

  0

  Magherafelt College of Further Education

  1,311

  0

  0

  0

  Larne College of Further Education

  1,201

  0

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland Hotel and Catering College, Portrush

  286

  6

  0

  0

  Lisburn College of Further Education

  3,230

  0

  0

  0

  Down College of Further Education

  2,952

  1

  0

  8

  Newcastle College of Further Education

  1,078

  0

  0

  32

  Castlereagh College of Further Education

  3,119

  2

  1

  0

  North Down and Ards College of Further Education

  5,815

  56

  0

  1

  Lurgan College of Further Education

  1,544

  17

  0

  0

  Portadown College of Further Education

  2,993

  3

  0

  0

  Armagh College of Further Education

  2,026

  23

  0

  0

  Banbridge College of Further Education

  1,496

  0

  0

  0

  East Tyrone College of Further Education

  2,422

  3

  0

  0

  Newry/Kilkeel College of Further Education

  4,000

  231

  0

  0

  Total

  78,628

  1,311

  7

  75

  600
  Belfast Institute is situated; what were the set-up costs; how many persons are employed in the central headquarters; what were the annual running costs.

  Mr. Hanley
  The central headquarters of the Belfast Institute is at Park house, 87–91 Great Victoria street, Belfast. The cost of adapting the premises was £101,000. Twenty-five institute staff are located there. The estimated annual running costs are £113,000.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many heads of department were appointed to the new Belfast Institute; and how many of the heads of department of the former colleges were not appointed and retain salaries; and what are the annual costs associated with such department status former heads of departments over the salaries payable for the posts they now occupy.

  Mr. Hanley
  All heads of department in the former colleges continue to be employed as heads of department in the new institute, with the exception of six who elected to retire on amalgamation.

  Students
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the number of students from(a) Northern Ireland, (b) the Irish Republic, (c) Great Britain and (d) elsewhere, in each further education college in Northern Ireland, in (i) total and (ii) full-time equivalents; and what is the cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer in respect of these students.

  Mr. Hanley
  The latest enrolment details are for the 1991–92 academic year and are set out in the table; however, full-time equivalent numbers are not yet compiled for that year. It is not possible to calculate costs. For information on the latest overall student unit costs I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 19 October,Official Report, column 104.
  601
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students from(a) the Irish Republic, (b) Great Britain, (c) elsewhere in the EEC and (d) elsewhere, attend each of the universities in Northern Ireland; and what is the cost of students from (i) the Irish Republic and (ii) the rest of the EEC to the United Kingdom taxpayer.

  Mr. Hanky
  Final enrolment figures are not yet available for 1992–93. However, the latest available estimates for 1992–93 non-Northern Ireland domiciled enrolments at each of the universities in Northern Ireland are as follows:

  Queen's University Belfast

  University of Ulster

  (a) Irish Republic

  637

  1,775

  (b) Great Britain

  329

  444

  (c) Elsewhere in EC

  50

  214

  (d) Elsewhere

  491

  133

  Information on the cost of students is not readily available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, the estimated cost to public funds of tuition fees for eligible students from the EC in the 1992–93 academic year will be about £4.2 million.

  Assistance to Business
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of firms sponsored by(a) the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and (b) the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland, in each of the last two years, the total sums paid to the firms in each category in those years, the total costs relating to (i) the LEDU and (ii) the IDB and the number of persons now employed in these two groups of firms.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information is as follows:

  Number of firms which have received offers of assistance

  Total amounts paid to these firms (£ million)

  1990–91

  IDB

  83

  28.79

  LEDU

  3,011

  9.6

  1991–92

  IDB

  59

  6.98

  LEDU

  2,072

  5.6

  There are currently 25,116 employees in IDB client companies which accepted of assistance in the past two years. It is not possible to provide a similar LEDU figure without disproportionate cost, but there are currently 31,550 employees in all LEDU client companies.

  Terrorism
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the sums paid for(a) criminal injuries and (b) criminal damage, which arose as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available and the amount estimated for such payments in the appropriation orders for those years; how any shortfall in the estimates was funded; what other
  602
  Northern Ireland programmes were reduced as a result of transfers to pay for such damage; and whether payments were sought and received from the contingency fund to cover higher than expected compensation payments.

  Mr. Mates
  The available information on the amounts paid for criminal injuries and criminal damage resulting from terrorist activity is as follows:

  Financial year

  Criminal damage £000

  Criminal injuries £000

  11988–89

  11,766

  3,466

  1989–90

  18,168

  6,489

  1990–91

  18,756

  7,965

  1991–92

  29,765

  10,878

  1 From 6 August 1988.

  The amounts exclude costs incurred by applicants in making their claims. In formulating estimates, no distinction is made between terrorist and non-terrorist compensation.

  Within the Northern Ireland block, the Secretary of State has flexibility to reallocate any savings in order to meeting increased requirements. In recent years the amount of such savings has generally been sufficient to cover new demands, including compensation costs, without the need for imposed reductions or access to the reserve. In 1991–92, exceptionally, it was necessary to introduce a brief moratorium on certain—mainly capital —expenditure as a result of substantial increased demands: these arose primarily in education and health rather than solely or mainly in relation to compensation costs.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the level of racial discrimination in Northern Ireland; what are the racial divisions he intends to recognise in legislation to outlaw discrimination on grounds of race; and by what physical definition he intends to divide the population into its racial groups.

  Mr. Mates
  The former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in March 1992 agreed in principle to the publication of a consultative document which would examine the scope for legislation on racial discrimination and consider what additional action ought to be taken by the Government to promote equity of treatment for ethnic groups. This should be published later this year. Consideration of the content of possible legislation will he informed by the outcome of the consultative process.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken in each of the last five years to recover DSS payments made to support persons who were injured in road accidents from the compensation received by the injured party from insurance companies; and what sums were received by his Department in each of those years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. My noble Friend Lord Arran has asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  603
  Letter from M. A. Wylie to Mr. William Ross, dated 26 October 1992:

  Your recent Parliamentary Question on the recovery of compensation payments has been passed to me for reply as I am responsible for social security operational matters.

  I should explain that prior to September 1990 compensation payments were reduced by the amounts of social security benefits received and this was a matter between the compensator and the benefit claimant. No records of such payments are therefore available.

  In July 1989 a Compensation Recovery Scheme was introduced in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland following which a Compensation Recovery Unit was established. Under the Scheme compensation payments made on or after 3 September 1990, where an injury occurred on or after 1 January 1989, are reduced by an amount equal to the whole value of benefits received for the injury in question, but only up to the date of settlement or for a maximum period of five years.

  I regret that information relating to amounts recovered in respect of persons injured solely as a result of road accidents is not available. The total amounts recovered in respect of all accidents since the introduction of the Scheme for each year are as follows:

  £

  September 1990—March 1991

  581,505

  April 1991—March 1992

  2,830,102

  April 1992—September 1992

  2,036,921

  I hope this is helpful to you and I will be pleased to provide any further information you may require.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he now expects the standards of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to be applied in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government intend to introduce in Northern Ireland provisions similar to those of the Act in due course.

  Chlorobutadine
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish his Department's assessment of the dangers to health if chlorobutadine is inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

  Mr. Hanley
  Danger to health from chlorobutadine depend on concentration and exposure time. At the levels encountered in industry it is of low toxicity. Exposure to the high levels can result in skin, eye and lung irritation and generalised toxic systemic effects. Gross overexposure, as in the case of many chemicals, can lead to fatalities. It should therefore be handled with care and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the chemical formula of the residues of the chlorobutadine spillage in the drainage system of the Du Pont site at Maydown, County Londonderry, and Lough Foyle; what effect such residues have on the environment; and whether they exceed environmental protection standards.

  Mr. Atkins
  The chemical formula of the compound is 2-chloro-1, 3-butadiene (C4 H5 C1) (Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) No. 31900–55–7).
  604
  The levels detected in samples collected in the week beginning 12 October 1992 were at or below the analytical detection limit. At such low levels it is considered that there has been no adverse effect, given that chlorobutadine is not known to bioaccumulate.

  The median tolerance limit (TLM96) for the compound is 234 milligrammes/litre—the test species is the blue gill sunfish. This is the concentration at which 50 per cent. of the test species survive. Levels detected in samples were of the order of 10,000 times lower than this value.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the warning equipment first denoted a fault in regard to the spillage of chlorobutadine at the Du Pont factory at Maydown, County Londonderry; what action was taken then; when the spillage was sealed off; when his Department was notified; and what steps he has taken to determine the extent of the damage and dangers to workers and persons resident near the plant and the environment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has been advised by Du Pont that the warning equipment at the Maydown factory first signalled a fault in the early hours on Tuesday 6 October 1992. This signal was misinterpreted by an employee as having been caused by fumes from a vat containing chlorobutadine which had been cleaned out. At 7 am it was discovered that a pump had failed and was allowing chlorobutadine to escape to the waste stream to Lough Foyle. A second alarm failed to go off because it was blocked by the substance.

  The processing was stopped at once but Du Pont has advised the Department that it did not at first appreciate the scale of the spillage. It was not until further analysis had been made of the routine samples from the waste stream and the recovery system had been checked that it was realised on Thursday afternoon, 8 October, that some two to three tonnes could have been spilled.

  The Department of the Environment was first advised by Du Pont of the spillage before lunchtime on Friday 9 October.

  Arrangements were made at once to take water and shellfish samples from Lough Foyle and the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) immediately issued a warning against consuming fish or shellfish from the Foyle system. Subsequent analysis of the samples showed an increase in normal background levels, but samples taken later showed that the levels had fallen, with most slightly above or at the level of detection. On 14 October, DHSS withdrew the advice against eating fish and shellfish.

  The Department of the Environment considers that the spillage has not resulted in any significant damage to water quality or aquatic life in Lough Foyle. Arrangements will be made for long-term monitoring but it is unlikely that any persistent effects will be found, as chlorobutadine is not known to bioaccumulate. The health and safety inspectorate of the Department of Economic Development has been inspecting the chemical plant to avoid a recurrence of this type of incident.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the exposure limits to the vapours of chlorobutadine; and whether those limits were exceeded in the recent spillage of chlorobutadine at the Du Pont factory at Maydown, County Londonderry.
  605
  Mr. Atkins
  Exposure limits to vapours of chlorobutadine have been assigned in United Kingdom and in the United States at 10 parts per million over an eight-hour working day/40-hour week. There is no evidence to suggest that these limits were exceeded.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the storage of chlorobutadine is covered by the regulations set out in Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland 1992 No. 401.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. These regulations—the Pollution of Waters by Dangerous Substances (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992—do not relate to storage. They implement the requirements of a series of European Community directives on pollution caused by dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment. Chlorobutadine is not one of these substances.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish his Department's assessment of the dangers to human health and to the environment of chlorobutadine and the adequacy of a long-term exposure limit of 10 parts per million for this substance.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department believes that the normal use of chlorobutadine within industry does not pose a significant risk to human health or to the environment. In terms of occupational exposure, the internationally accepted standard concentration in the air of 10 parts per million, calculated on the basis of an eight-hour day over a working lifetime, is considered to be safe.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the inspection carried out by his Department of the spill of chlorobutadine at the Du Pont site at Maydown, County Londonderry.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department's officials have inspected the neoprene plant at Du Pont and have had discussions with the company's staff. The company has reviewed its alarm systems and has instructed its staff, if there is any suspicion whatsoever of a spillage, to stop processing immediately and divert the waste stream to an emergency holding facility.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether the storage and transport of dangerous substances at the Du Pont site at Londonderry meet the standards set out in current regulations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The health and safety inspectorate of the Department of Economic Development inspects this plant 606
  regularly and is satisfied that the storage and transport of chlorobutadine meet the requirements of the current health and safety legislation.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what surveys he has carried out to discover how many persons or animals suffered or appeared to suffer discomfort as a result of the spillage of chlorobutadine at Du Pont's site at Maydown, County Londonderry, in early October.

  Mr. Hanley
  No specific public health surveys have been carried out. However, the Western health and social services board was alerted to the spillage and the incident was widely publicised throughout Northern Ireland. To date, there have been no reports of discomfort or illness to humans or animals as a result of the incident.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether the precautions taken against static discharges of dangerous substances at the Du Pont site at Maydown, County Londonderry are adequate.

  Mr. Atkins
  Du Pont has a consent from the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland DOE NI) under section 7 of the Water Act (NI) 1972 to discharge its trade effluent to Lough Foyle. All the effluent from the factory is discharged through a single outfall.

  Prior to the recent incident, DOE (NI) had been reviewing the Du Pont discharge consent and was on the point of finalising new tighter consent conditions. Du Pont is an environmentally responsible company and has consistently complied with the consent conditions. Improvements over the years in the factory processes have made it possible to impose more stringent discharge standards.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether the storage and transport of dangerous substances at the Du Pont site at Maydown, County Londonderry, presently meet the standards set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  The provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have not yet been extended to Northern Ireland. The storage and transport of dangerous substances at the Du Pont site meet the standards applicable under current legislation.

DEFENCE

  Empty Houses
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many empty houses are currently owned by his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,388 MOD-owned dwellings were vacant of which 9,167 were service married quarters. The majority of the vacant properties were either undergoing or awaiting major modernisation work, or allocated to incoming service families. A total of 1,807 dwellings were in the process of being sold, and a number of others were being considered for disposal.

  Armed Forces (Commitments)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional commitments have been required of United Kingdom armed forces as a result of responses to international problems by the United Nations, the European Community, the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the past 12 months, the armed services have been asked to contribute personnel to United Nations operations in the former Yugoslavia and Cambodia, and the joint NATO/WEU sanctions monitoring operation in the Adriatic. Military personnel are also filling headquarters and support posts in the EC monitor mission in the former Yugoslavia during the period of the United Kingdom's EC presidency. At the same time, the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations force in Cyprus and the multinational force and observers in Sinai are reducing.

  Yugoslavia
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current contribution to peacekeeping in Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give an update on the level of the British commitment to the United Nations peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A main party of about 1,800 personnel is expected to be operational in Bosnia by mid-November. In addition, 400 extra troops, mainly Royal Engineers, will be involved in order to assist in the initial stages of deployment. This brings the total number to be deployed initially to 2,400, including headquarters troops. We have also provided United Nations observers, a field ambulance and an RAF Hercules has been taking part in humanitarian airlift operations into Sarejevo.

  Forces in Europe
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the strength of British forces currently stationed in Europe, broken down by countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total strength of British forces currently stationed in Europe outside of the United Kingdom as at 1 July 1992 was 62.643. The distribution by country was:

  Number

  Germany

  53,488

  Cyprus

  4,722

  Gibraltar

  1,045

  Belgium

  692

  Italy

  669

  Holland

  611

  Denmark

  366

  Norway

  344

  Former Yugoslavia

  305

  France

  206

  Portugal

  105

  Turkey

  59

  Switzerland

  31

  Trident
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Trident programme continues to progress to time and within budget towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s. The first Trident submarine, Vanguard, left Barrow-in-Furness for her contractor's sea trials on 23 October.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the cost of Trident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The currently estimated cost of the Trident procurement programme is £10,518 million at 1991–92 prices and £1 = $1.59.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in arrangements for NATO forces to undertake a peacekeeping role for CSCE.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO is considering ways in which it might support CSCE peacekeeping operations if called upon to do so. Allies have, in addition, provided valuable support to the United Nations deployment in the Balkans as well as deploying forces for sanctions monitoring in the Adriatic.

  Turkey
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces deployment in eastern Turkey.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom contribution to the coalition deterrent force in south-east Turkey comprises eight Jaguar and two tanker aircraft plus ground support. These forces have played and continue to play a major part in helping to ensure the safety of Iraqi citizens in northern Iraq. The continuing presence of British coalition forces demonstrates our determination that renewed repression will not be tolerated.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet other NATO Defence Ministers to discuss NATO defence policy in relation to eastern Europe.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I will next see my alliance colleagues at meetings of European Ministers and the defence planning committee in Brussels from 9 to 11 December 1992. I expect our discussions to cover a range of current alliance business.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy regarding United Kingdom military assistance for Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom provides a range of military training for the Zimbabwean armed forces, including places on defence-related courses in the
  609
  United Kingdom and the provision, since independence in 1980, of a resident British military advisory and training team (BMATT). The size and nature of our military assistance programme are kept under regular review.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of 1991–92 defence expenditure spent(a) in the south-east region and (b) in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Mr. Aitken
  Information on Ministry of Defence expenditure by standard United Kingdom region is only available for equipment expenditure. In 1990–91, the latest year available, we estimate that the Ministry of Defence spent £2,900 million in the south-east region and £150 million in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Low Flying
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes in the occurrence of low-flying training since 1 January 1990; what changes he proposes in the near future; and what changes he proposes in the arrangements to inform the public and deal with complaints.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We expect to cut the amount of jet low flying in the United Kingdom by about 30 per cent. by the end of 1994. The appointment earlier this year of regional community relations officers for the Lake district and the Borders has provided the public in those areas with a focal point for their inquiries on low-flying matters. The management of the United Kingdom low-flying system is kept under constant review and changes are made when necessary.

  Nuclear Deterrence
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on nuclear deterrence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government intend that our independent nuclear deterrent should continue to provide the ultimate guarantee of our security in the decades ahead, as it has for decades past.

  Korean War
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the result of his inquiries into the position of British soldiers captured during the Korean war, who may have been held in the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No evidence has been received that supports allegations that British soldiers captured during the Korean war were held in the Soviet Union.

  Iraq
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by the United Nations peacekeeping forces, with the involvement of United Kingdom troops, towards implementing the United Nations resolution relating to the disposal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Significant progress has been made with substantial United Kingdom involvement.
  610
  Despite Iraqi obstruction much vital evidence has been uncovered, but more remains to be found. The process of destroying weapons and facilities is well advanced, with the majority of the proscribed items declared or discovered to date destroyed by the Iraqis under United Nations supervision.

  Naval Support Command
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the naval support command is to be situated.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Although some work remains to be completed, I hope to be able to announce the preferred location in the Bath area for the naval support command by around the end of the year.

  Allivane Ltd.
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all contracts signed between his Department's logistics executive and Allivane Ltd. in the export of military equipment since 1987.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no record of any contracts between the Army's logistic executive and Allivane Ltd. for the export of military equipment since 1987. One contract was signed in 1988 for the short-term storage in MOD facilities of ammunition subsequently exported by the company.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report all addresses of Allivan Ltd. and Allivane International Group as registered by his Department as authorised exporters of military equipment during the period 1985 to 1989.

  Mr. Aitken
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the letter of reply to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 23 July in response to the written question on hazardous waste control policies of his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  The text of my reply of 23 July was as follows:I undertook to write to you in response to your recent Parliamentary question concerning our procedures for the minimisation and disposal of toxic and radioactive wastes.
  I should say at the outset that it is our overall policy to minimise or eliminate the use of toxic substances whenever this is practicable. Because discharges of such materials can occur at every stage of their manufacture, use and disposal the only method of reducing exposure to them is to restrict their use to essential applications or to phase them out altogether. Accordingly, special controls exist over the use of cadium, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), asbestos, arsenic, triorganotins and pesticides. The controls reflect the requirements of domestic legislation or EC Directives or both. They are outlined in the Department's Environment Manual together with information on minimisation of use and phasing out. Additional guidance on the use of toxic materials and disposal routes is contained in regulations issued by the Directorate of Defence Health and Safety and, also Health and Safety Executive Guidance notes. Waste residues containing such substances are defined as special waste and are subject to disposal procedures regulated by the Control of

  611
  Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1988. It is our policy that special waste will only be disposed of at a properly licensed disposal facility and that the transport of special waste will follow strictly the prenotification, consignment note and recording requirements stipulated by the Regulations.
  The Department's policy is to dispose of radioactive waste through nationally available disposal routes wherever possible, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in England and Wales and Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate for Scotland. Very low and low level waste are transported in purpose built containers and by approved methods for disposal at an authorised site which, for low level waste, is the BNFL site at Drigg in Cumbria. There is at present no national disposal route for intermediate level wastes and MOD, like the civil nuclear operators in the United Kingdom, has to store such waste under secure controlled conditions at the site of origin, pending the availability of the deep depository planned by UK Nirex Ltd. to be in operation in 2005. The increasing costs associated with the available disposal routes is an additional incentive to minimise the amount of waste generated by our activities over and above the obvious health and safety and environmental considerations. Accordingly, radioactive waste minimisation is, and will remain, a key element in our operating procedures.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Nuclear Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the letter of reply to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 22 July in response to his written question on nuclear defence expenditure.

  Mr. Aitken
  The text of my reply of 22 July was as follows:I said I would write in answer to your question on 16 July about nuclear expenditure and 13 Figure of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992 (CM 1981).
  The figure shows in some detail how the Defence Budget is distributed to Top Level Budget Holders under the New Management Strategy. Expenditure on nuclear warhead testing and nuclear warhead design and development is included in the Chief of Defence Procurement's top level budget. A small amount is also included in the Chief Executive of the Defence Research Agency's top level budget.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Aerospace to discuss defence procurement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the forces have to change their recruiting techniques both for officers and for other ranks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to change recruiting techniques. Although the reduction in the size of the armed forces has resulted in lower recruiting targets, there will be a continued need for new recruits during the drawdown period in order to preserve an appropriate balance of age and skills.

  RAF Ascension Island
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 666, if the detailed investment appraisal of
  612
  the continuing charter of Maersk Ascension for bulk fuel storage for the RAF at Ascension island has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The investment appraisal on bulk fuel storage for the RAF at Ascension island has been completed. My Department is now considering whether to go ahead with the project.

  Plymouth Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in determining the amount of(a) funds and (b) surplus land to be transferred from his Department's vote to the proposed Plymouth urban development corporation; what are the mechanics of the transfer; what progress has been made in determining the future of the Royal William Yard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The MOD land identified for transfer to the proposed Plymouth urban development corporation (UDC) comprises Royal William Yard—and adjacent land at Western Kings—RAF Mountbatten and an area of Mount Wise. The precise nature of the intended conveyance remains to be resolved. In addition it is proposed that £20 million from MOD funds is made available to the proposed UDC through normal financial channels over a four-year period. The future of all the areas transferred will be a matter for the proposed UDC to determine.

  Nuclear Weapon Transporters
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 530, what further progress has been made in the provision of armoured nuclear weapon transporters and containers to Russia.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) earlier today.

  Fishery Protection
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy has been able to meet the requirement for fishery protection in 1992–93; which ships are currently assigned to the coastal division of the fishery protection squadron; and what plans he has to fulfil the fishery protection requirement in 1993–94.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Navy Fishery Protection Squadron is on target to meet the level of patrolling for 1992–93 agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. HM ships Blackwater, Brinton, Sheraton, Berkeley and Brecon are currently assigned to the coastal division of the Fishery Protection Squadron. Plans for fishery protection in 1993–94 are still under consideration.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many battalions are now deployed in, or committed to, Northern Ireland; and how that figure varies from the assumptions underlying "Options for Change".
  613
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 12 battalion-sized units deployed in Northern Ireland. Planning under "Options for Change" assumed that no less than 10 such units would be deployed but that the actual number would be revised from time to time in the light of the security situation.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the effect of the deployment of British forces with the United Nations in Bosnia on his Department's projections for military requirements under "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The requirement to allow sufficient leeway to deal with the unexpected and to meet peacetime commitments without unacceptable strain was one of the major considerations underpinning our work on "Options for Change". The deployment of forces to Bosnia has had no impact upon our plans for the restructuring of the Army.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected interval between emergency tour deployments for infantry soldiers if current and planned deployments in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere continue as well as amalgamations of battalions and cuts in infantry strength under "Options for Change"; and if he will make a statement on the attainability of his Department's target of 24-month intervals between emergency tours for infantry soldiers under present circumstances.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The effect of current and planned deployments to Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere will be to reduce the projected interval between emergency tours for infantry battalions, although the impact will vary from case to case. The projected intervals for the 17 battalions due to undertake emergency tours during 1993–94 will range from 17 to 82 months.

  It was always recognised that the non-availability of units undergoing amalgamation or redeployment would also affect tour intervals in the short term but once the restructuring process is complete, the target tour interval of 24 months will be achieved.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry soldiers currently serving on emergency tours have returned to such duties after an interval of less than 24 months; what is the shortest interval for an individual soldier; and how many of those soldiers are involved in the amalgamation of battalions under "Options for Change".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Of the infantry battalions currently serving on emergency tours none has returned to such duties after an interval of less than 24 months—this excludes deployment to the Gulf. Tour intervals for individual soldiers would usually reflect those of their parent unit unless they have been posted between battalions in the interim.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of applications for redundancy by officers, non-commissioned officers and private soldiers in each infantry battalion which is commencing the process of amalgamation under "Options for Change"; and how those figures relate to the reduction in personnel required under his plans.
  614
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The closing date for applications for the second phase of the Army redundancy programme is 30 October. I will write to the hon. Member once this period is over and my Department has had an opportunity to assess the response.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact on his Department's budget of the reduction in the value of sterling in relation to other European currencies and the dollar.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As explained in Supply Estimates 1992–93 (HC273-I), about 10 per cent. of the defence budget is to be spent in US dollars and deutschmarks during 1992–93. As in previous years, the MOD has bought forward the bulk of its estimated requirements for these two currencies through the Bank of England in accordance with government accounting practice. Recent changes in the pound's value should not therefore lead to significant additional expenditure in 1992–93. The requirement for other European currencies is less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget and any effect of the change in the pound's value is likely to be small.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the feasibility of continuing with plans to produce the European fighter aircraft without participation by Germany, Italy or Spain.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government are making every effort to ensure the continuation of EFA on a collaborative basis. If these are unsuccessful, the Government believe that it would be technically feasible for the United Kingdom to continue the project alone but we would need to consider the cost and other implications.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British armed services personnel are currently stationed in Indonesia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At 1 September 1992 there were three. One Navy officer and one Army officer as military attaches and one Army soldier as support staff.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military training Her Majesty's Government currently supply to the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty's Government provide training for members of the Indonesian armed forces covering a wide range of military topics, including officer development courses such as staff college, and technical instruction. Details of training provided are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the provisions of the memorandum of understanding signed in September by the United Kingdom and Indonesian Governments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The two Governments signed a supplement to the existing defence equipment memorandum of
  615
  understanding. This will cover training arrangements in connection with a possible further sale of Hawk aircraft. The supplement will only become valid if a contract for the sale is concluded.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information the hon. Member requests is not held centrally and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Activity Bulletins
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to place regular bulletins on developments and activities in(a) Bosnia and (b) the Gulf, which affect the troops deployed there, in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am considering how best to keep the House informed of developments and activities in Bosnia and the Gulf which affect British forces. I will inform the hon. Member of my conclusions.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to reduce the United Kingdom contingent in the United Nations force in Cyprus.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Following consultation with other troop contributors and the United Nations secretariat the Government have decided to reduce the United Kingdom's contribution to the United Nations force in Cyprus by 25 per cent. by the end of this year. This will mean a reduction of about 200 personnel and reflects the improved security situation in Cyprus. The other major troop contributors are also reducing their contributions to UNFICYP and the United Kingdom will continue to make the single largest contribution.

HEALTH

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will commission research into the variation in the levels of blindness caused by glaucoma in people of different ethnic origins.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  American research studies have found that Afro-Caribbeans have a higher risk of contracting glaucoma than Caucasians and that the condition occurs earlier. The results of a research study carried out in this country are expected to be published early next year.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department will conduct a survey of the health effects on communities where significant unemployment is created by the closure of the main local industrial employer.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The effect of unemployment on health has already been well documented.

  Prescription Charges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the change in prescription charges in each year since 1976 in cash and real terms.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The requested information is in the table. Only one in five prescribed items dispensed in the national health service now attracts a charge at the point of dispensing, compared with one in three in 1979. In 1991, over 100 million more items were dispensed free of charge than in 1979. Although the prescription charge has increased, it continues to represent less than half the average total cost of a prescribed item to the national health service.

  Prescription charge increases 1 April 1976 to 1 April 1992, in cash and real terms

  Date

  Prescription charges £

  Cash change £

  Per cent. Change/cash

  Per cent. Change real terms

  1 April 1976

  0.20

  —

  —

  —

  1 April 1977

  0.20

  —

  —

  -12.0

  1 April 1978

  0.20

  —

  —

  -9.8

  16 July 1979

  0.45

  0.25

  125.0

  92.8

  1 April 1980

  0.70

  0.25

  55.6

  31.5

  1 December 1980

  1.00

  0.30

  42.9

  42.9

  1 April 1981

  1.00

  —

  —

  -8.8

  1 April 1982

  1.30

  0.30

  30.0

  21.4

  1 April 1983

  1.40

  0.10

  7.7

  2.9

  1 April 1984

  1.60

  0.20

  14.3

  8.8

  1 April 1985

  2.00

  0.40

  25.0

  18.5

  1 April 1986

  2.20

  0.20

  10.0

  6.5

  I April 1987

  2.40

  0.20

  9.1

  3.5

  1 April 1988

  2.60

  0.20

  8.3

  1.0

  1 April 1989

  2.80

  0.20

  7.7

  1.0

  1 April 1990

  3.05

  0.25

  8.9

  0.7

  1 April 1991

  3.40

  0.35

  11.5

  4.2

  I April 1992

  3.75

  0.35

  10.3

  5.5

  Social Work
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the statutory responsibilities of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work for training workers to meet the social rehabilitation needs of visually impaired people; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Under section 10 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work has a responsibility to promote training in relevant social work. This responsibility includes promoting training in social work with visually impaired people.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in discussions with the
  617
  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to consider how deficiencies in training of workers with visually impaired people in the social care field can be improved.

  Mr. Yeo
  Officials will be meeting shortly with the training agencies in the visual impairment field together with representatives of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and the Local Government Management Board in order to discuss how qualifications for workers with visually impaired people can be integrated into the emerging continuum of qualifications at vocational, professional and post-qualifying levels.

  Manpower Statistics South East Thames Region 30 September 1987–91

  1987 WTE

  1988 WTE

  1989 WTE

  1990 WTE

  1991 WTE

  Consultants

  1,048.0

  1,068.9

  1,097.2

  1,134.2

  11,166.0

  Other Medical Staff

  1,909.9

  1,967.1

  1,984.4

  2,043.8

  12,031.5

  Nursing and Midwifery

  29,650

  29,280

  29,350

  29,110

  28,280

  Ancillary

  9,570

  8,720

  8,310

  8,020

  6,470

  Administration and Clerical

  9,210

  9,590

  9,760

  10,030

  9,560

  1 Provisional figures

  Notes:

  1. Medical figures include permanent paid and honorary staff only.

  2. Figures for nursing and midwifery exclude agency staff.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to propose a European ban on tobacco advertising at the conference of European Community Health Ministers on 13 November.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate a study into the relationship between the numbers waiting on the consultants' waiting list for longer than the maximum time specified under the patients charter and the numbers awaiting their initial out-patient appointment and length of that wait.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. The patients charter requires health authorities to set and publish local guarantees for the length of time people wait for out-patient appointments. The NHS is therefore expected to deliver a balanced programme that progressively reduces the whole waiting experience.

  Surgery Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is collected from, held and disseminated to health authorities as(a) purchasers and (b) providers on comparative prices, both on base load and marginal costing principles, for operations in general surgery, and orthopaedic surgery.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Extra contractual referral (ECR) tariffs are collected by regional health authorities (RHAs) from providers in their regions. RHAs are responsible for publishing and distributing these tariffs to purchasers

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultants, (b) other medical staff, (c) nurses, (d) ancillary staff, (e) administrators and (f) accountants were employed within the South East Thames region in each of the years from 1987 to 1992; and how many are estimated to be employed in the region in 1993, 1994 and 1995.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The manpower statistics available centrally are set out in the table.

  Responsibility for manpower planning rests with the regional health authority. The hon. Member may like to write to Mr. Peter Barker, chairman of South East Thames regional health authority, for future manpower plans.

  within their region—including GP fund holders who request them—and to other RHAs, for distribution to their purchasers.

  Distribution of these tariffs to providers is not specifically required but providers may arrange with their local RHA for access.

  During the financial year a provider may agree to provide unplanned excess capacity at marginal cost. There is no national vehicle for providers to advertise marginal rates due to this being an in-year agreement. Typically this agreement would be with the local main purchaser or local GP fund holder.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what criteria will be used to determine the allocation of community care funding to local authorities which have not reached agreement by 31 December with health authorities concerning discharge arrangements;

  (2) what arrangements have been made to protect the well-being of individuals who will be affected by the withholding of funding for community care when local authorities have not reached agreement by 31 December with health authorities concerning discharge arrangements;

  (3) what plans she has to exclude from the receipt of community care funding any local authority which does not by 31 December have agreements with health authorities concerning discharge arrangements;

  (4) what is her current estimate of the number of local authorities unlikely to have concluded the required discharge arrangements with health authorities by 31 December.
  619
  Mr. Yeo
  All authorities should he able to reach the required agreements. Consideration will be given in due course to the action which may be necessary if any authorities fail to do so by 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates the Government have prepared of the cost of housing provision necessary to meet the requirements of the Government's community care plans; and whether she will publish these in a form which identifies the scale and timetable of such provision for the respective groups of people in need.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply. The new community care arrangements will be fully implemented from April 1993. Their impact on housing demand is expected to be gradual and progressive. It will be some time before a full picture of new housing requirements emerges.

  Number of tenders issued for:

  Description of the service required

  Number of companies invited to tender

  Number of companies submitting bid without priror invitation

  Which company was awarded the contract

  The value of the contract

  The length of the contract

  Computer hardware

  Computer software

  Telecommunications equipment

  None

  None

  One (1)

  A variety of telephone handsets and monitoring units

  Three (3)

  None

  ASCOM Ltd.

  £30,000

  Not applicable. The contract was for the "one off' supply of goods

  —

  —

  One (1)

  The supply, installation, and maintenance of local area network equipment to Leeds based offices

  Fourteen (14)

  None

  ACT Cablestream Ltd.

  £500,000 plus £50,000 pa maintenance for 5 years

  5 years

  One(l)

  One(l)

  —

  A broad range of IT products including hardware and software

  An initial 88 responses to the original OJEC advertisement, but only 13 subsequent proposals

  None

  Not yet awarded

  Not yet decided

  2.3 years

  Sorrento Maternity Hospital
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to reply to the letter of 3 June and the reminder of 17 August from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak regarding the proposed closure of the Sorrento maternity hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  I replied to the hon. Member on 26 October. I regret that, due to an oversight, a reply was not sent sooner.

  Employment of Children
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has commissioned into the levels of illegal employment of school age children; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  None.

  Radionuclides
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the Radioactive Substances (Hospitals) Exemption Order 1990 prescribes a higher permitted level of megabecquerels per month for radionuclides, excepting Technetium-99, in human excreta than for media other than human excreta.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by her Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by her Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested, from 9 April 1992, is shown in the table:

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are two different categories of procedure involved covering, namely:

  (a) administration of radiopharmaceuticals to patients who then return to the exempted hospital, after treatment at another hospital, and who therefore pass a proportion of the administered activity to drain at the exempted hospital; and

  (b) the preparation of radiopharmaceuticals, and other "in vitro" laboratory uses of radioactive materials on the exempted hospital premises.

  From a radioactive waste management point of view, the significance of (b) can be greater than that of (a), per unit of activity discharged to drain. This is because (b) involves the manipulation of radioactive materials, and because some of the radionuclides used in a pathology laboratory, especially iodine-125, have both a relatively long half-live and a relatively high radiotoxicity compared with most diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals administered to patients.

  The order thus aims to ensure that there is adequate provision for patients who return to an exempted hospital, but that any hospital which undertakes radiotherapy work or diagnostic scanning on its premises, or which has substantial pathology laboratories, will not be exempt and will require an authorisation under S.6 of RSA60.

  Regional Health Authority Chairmen
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will announce the appointment of regional health authority chairmen.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her reply, 9 July 1992, c. 335]: I have today invited Sir William Stavely GCB to become chairman of North East Thames regional
  622
  health authority for a term of office beginning on 1 January 1993 and ending on 31 July 1995. He will replace Mr. Tim Chessells who has agreed to become chairman of the London implementation group.

  Sir William is currently chairman of the Royal London NHS Trust. I have invited Mr. Michael Haines to take over the chairmanship of the trust.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the current level of expenditure on family credit on families whose main earner is in an occupation covered by one of the wages councils, by(a) all families and (b) couples where the main earner is (i) male, '(ii) female and (iii) single person families.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the form requested. An analysis of family credit recipients, by the occupation of the main earner, is contained in table A1.05 of "Social Security Statistics 1991", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Scott
  The following papers have been published in the last 12 months by the chief executives of the Department of Social Security's executive agencies. In addition, the Department publishes a wide range of explanatory leaflets on matters such as individual social security benefits.

  Benefits Agency

  Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Payments Guide

  Social Fund Administration Guide

  Social Fund Officer's Guide, Volume 1

  Social Fund Officer's Guide, Volume 2

  Cold Weather Payments Handbook

  Addendum to Social Fund Officer's Guide

  Social Fund Officer's Guide, Amendment 1

  Mortgage Interest Direct Handbook

  Income Support for 16–17 Year Olds Handbook

  Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Payments Guide, Amendment 1

  Social Fund Administration Guide, Amendment 1

  Annual Report of the Pensions Ombudsman 1991–92

  Homeless Customers Hostels Residential Care and Nursing Homes

  Income Support Uprating Handbook

  Social Fund Officer's Guide, Amendment 2

  The Customer Charter

  The Benefits Agency National Customer Survey

  Benefits Agency Service Delivery—A Discussion Paper—One Stop

  Benefits Agency Business Plan 1992–93

  The Benefits Agency—A Short Guide for Members of Parliament

  Introduction to DLA (Disability Living Allowance)

  Introduction to DWA (Disability Working Allowance)

  Resettlement Agency

  Business Plan 1992–93

  Annual Report and Accounts 1991–92

  Standards of Service under the Citizens Charter (in poster form)

  Contributions Agency

  Contributions Agency Business Plan 1992–93

  Information Technology Service Agency (ITSA)

  The ITSA 1990–91 Annual Report and Accounts (October 1991)

  The ITSA 1992–93 Annual Business Plan (June 1992)

  The ITSA 1991–92 Annual Report and Accounts (July 1992)

  "Children Come First"
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations and individuals who responded to the Government's White Paper, "Children Come First."

  Mr. Burt
  Listed are the organisations that responded to the White Paper "Children Come First". In addition, comments were received from some 100 private individuals and 85 members.

  Association of County Court and District Registrars

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Barnado's

  Basidon Council

  Building Societies Association

  British Bankers Association

  British Agencies/Adoption and Fostering

  Bradford University (Department of Applied Social Studies)

  Bristol University

  British Computer Society

  Campaign for Justice in Divorce

  Campaign for Work

  Catholic Family Care Society (Northern Ireland)

  Chelmsford Women's Aid

  Chief Adjudication Officer: Social Security Legislation

  Child Poverty Action Group

  Children's Legal Centre

  Children and Lone Parent Centre (Plymouth)

  Church Action on Poverty

  Citizens Advice Bureau (Scotland)

  Confederation of British Industry (Northern Ireland)

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges

  County Councils Women's Forum

  Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland)

  Disability Alliance

  Dudley Law Centre

  Gingerbread

  Gingerbread (Scotland)

  Families Need Fathers

  Family Charter Campaign

  Family Law Bar Association

  Family Welfare Association

  Forum of Private Businesses

  Hammersmith Unemployed Workers Group

  Hillingdon Women's Centre

  Justices' Clerks' Society

  Lambeth TUC Unemployed Branch

  Law Society

  Legal Action Group

  London Boroughs Association

  Magistrates Association

  Mencap

  Moorpark Lone Parent Group

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureau

  National Association of Welsh Medium Nursery Schools & Playgroups

  National Childrens Home

  National Commission of Women in Great Britain

  National Council for One Parent Families

  National Council of Women of Great Britain

  Newcastle University

  North East Money Advice Centre

  Northern Ireland Resident Magistrates Association

  Northern Ireland Family Law Association

  North Yorkshire Welfare Benefits Unit

  Norwich City Council

  One Plus One Parent Families Strathclyde

  One Parent Families York

  Oxfordshire Welfare Rights

  Pay Day

  Payroll Alliance

  Portsmouth Women's Aid Support Group

  Principal Registry of Family Division

  Save the Children

  Scottish Council for Single Parents

  Scottish Family Conciliation Service

  Scottish Law Commission

  625

  Scottish Women's Aid

  Sheffield University

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunals N.I.

  Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen Family Association

  Solicitors Family Law Association

  Spastics Society

  Stepfamily

  The Childrens' Society

  Thamesdown Law Centre

  TUC

  University College London

  Wages For Housework Campaign

  Wandsworth Social Services Department/Welfare Rights Unit

  Welsh Womens Aid Trust

  West Yorkshire Probation Service

  Womens National Commission

  Womens Aid Federation

  Wythenshawe Law Centre

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of households receiving the following benefits(a) housing benefit, (b) community charge benefit, (c) family credit and (d) income support; and if he will list the figures separately for those households in which the head of household is (i) in full-time employment and (ii) in part-time employment.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The available information as at May 1991 is as follows:

  Housing benefit with income support

  Housing benefit without income support

  Region

  Weekly average benefit for local authority tenants £

  Weekly average benefit for private tenants £

  Weekly average benefit for local authority tenants £

  Weekly average benefit for private tenants £

  South East

  29.67

  40.18

  20.66

  26.72

  London

  35.87

  47.62

  28.83

  31.46

  North

  22.74

  30.18

  14.94

  20.46

  Wales

  26.14

  32.31

  17.86

  24.21

  Scotland

  23.05

  34.51

  16.09

  21.95

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21.48

  30.76

  13.86

  23.44

  East Midlands

  23.04

  31.29

  14.98

  21.17

  East Anglia

  25.65

  37.46

  17.82

  26.01

  South West

  26.91

  37.56

  19.19

  29.24

  West Midlands

  25.23

  31.69

  18.10

  21.22

  North West

  24.28

  33.48

  16.70

  21.05

  Great Britain

  26.16

  37.20

  18.37

  24.98

  Note:The average weekly amount of housing benefit for housing association tenants is included in the amounts for private tenants.

  Disability
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to provide more reliable information about(a) the level of disposable household income of those currently receiving invalidity benefit, (b) the level of disposable income of those claiming, but not receiving, invalidity benefit and (c) the level of disposable income of those from whom entitlement to invalidity benefit has been withdrawn.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the income of invalidity benefit claimants is not available as this information is not required to make a decision on the claim. Information on the income of invalidity benefit recipients—but not the other two groups identified by the hon. Member—is 626

  Number of households with earnings

  Thousands

  Housing Benefit

  330

  Community Charge Benefit

  641

  Income Support cases with earnings of claimant

  117

  Income Support cases with earnings of partner

  48

  Family Credit (as at July 1992)

  430

  Notes:

  1. Head of the household may not necessarily be the claimant.

  2. In income support cases, neither the claimant nor the partner could have been in employment for more than 24 hours a week.

  3. There will be considerable overlap between the benefits, e.g. the figures given for income support may also include housing benefit/community charge benefit.

  4. Information on earnings is collected separately for a claimant or partner in income support cases, although there may be some overlap.

  5. All figures arc rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount of housing benefit paid each week to(a) tenants receiving income support and (b) other housing benefit recipients not receiving income support, who are respectively (i) local authority tenants, (ii) housing association tenants and (iii) other tenants in Great Britain and in each region of Great Britain.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest information, for May 1991, is set out in the table.

  available from surveys such as the family expenditure survey (FES). The family resources survey, announced in July 1992, will have a larger sample size than the FES and will provide better information in due course.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his practice to provide a direct ministerial answer to letters sent to him by hon. Members relating to the ineffective working of the disability living allowance scheme, and not to transfer such letters to the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by the then Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 6 June 1990, at column 615.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue new guidelines on the granting of social fund payments to appointed persons in residential homes to cover the funeral costs of deceased residents, to include recommended time scales for dealing with applications and appeals.

  Mr. Scott
  Everyone taking responsibility for funeral costs is entitled to a funeral payment from the social fund if they satisfy the eligibility criteria. There is no need for special provision for people in residential homes.

  The average clearance time for a funeral payment is just over eight days; but due to the complexity of some cases the Benefits Agency have no recommended time scales for dealing with applications or appeals.

  Contributions Records
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sum of money is held at the Newcastle records office unattributed to the contributions record of the specific contributor.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The amount of moneys held at Newcastle but unattributed to specific contributors is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Miss A. Chant to Sir David Mitchell, dated 27 October 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I am responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State about monies held at Newcastle but unattributed to specific contributors.

  This Agency deals with nearly 59 million accounts and recording contributions is almost always done automatically. But we rely on employers and individuals to provide us with the correct identity details. If for some reason we are unable to allocate the individuals' contributions they are held while we make further inquiries. In some cases individual contributors query their National Insurance position and we enlist their help to allocate contributions.

  The records we hold of these unallocated contributions constantly shift day by day as items are traced and allocated and further items are added.

  I am sorry that the precise information you require is not available. It could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  I hope that the information I have provided is helpful but because it may not answer all your concerns I will be writing to you shortly to see if I can be of any further assistance.

  Contributors Charter and Employers Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations were undertaken with service users in the course of the production of the contributors charter and the employers charter.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The consultations undertaken with service users in the course of production of the contributor's and employer's charters is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
  628
  Letter from Miss A. Chant to Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, dated 27 October 1992:

  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I am responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State about the consultations that were undertaken with service users in the course of production of our Charters.

  The Contributions Agency produced a working draft of the Charters which was circulated to the 36 customer organisations with whom we had contact. They were given 2 months to comment and we asked them what they thought about both its style and content. From the replies we received we made several significant amendments and incorporated those in the first versions of the Charters.

  The 36 organisations represented accountants, payroll bureaux, large and small employers and the self-employed. The interests of individual contributors were represented by the National Association ofCitizen's Advice Bureaux, the TUC and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) to what extent Government forecasts of future demands on the staff of the Benefits Agency were wrong in relation to the disability living allowance; where and by whom the forecasts were made; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many hours of overtime have been worked by staff of the Benefits Agency in processing claims for the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance; and if he will indicate the equivalent in terms of additional staff;

  (3) what additional resources were made available to the Benefits Agency to deal with the backlog of cases involving claims for the disability living allowance, top-up claims and claims for attendance allowance for people aged over 65 years; what was the number of cases still awaiting clearance at the end of September; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 26 October 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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about staff dealing with Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

  You asked first about the forecasting of future demands upon Benefits Agency staff in relation to DLA. I should explain that the implementation of DLA was planned within the Agency by a discrete Project team based at Fylde. Staffing levels were determined using forecast workloads prepared by the Government's Analytical Services Division, which in turn were built upon the benefit's original policy intentions and some assumptions as to likely take-up rates etc.

  From this basis it was calculated that around 2,000 staff would be required to administer claims to DLA and Attendance Allowance (AA) for the over 65s. However, the pleasing success of the advertising campaign and the widespread interest from disabled people, attracted a much larger number of applications in the early stages than was predicted.

  Whilst at first the take up of new claims to DLA was slow, the intake in March was more than double that forecast. In addition the "Top-Up" claims received by the end of April

  629
  had exceeded the total number forecast for the whole year (137,000) and by the end of September had reached 195,000, an increase of 35 per cent.

  At the same time the staff in the Disability Benefit Centres, where DLA claims are processed, experienced a surge in claims to AA. Over 55,000 more claims than originally forecast were received in the period February to April, representing an overall increase of 42 per cent. Indeed the total claims activity for DLA (including "Top-ups") and AA for those over 65 during the period February to April inclusive was an intake of 447,000 which represented an increase of 27 per cent. (94,000 claims) over the original estimate of just over 353,000. Consequently, the effects of both the numbers and the rate at which claims were received resulted in backlogs.

  As you will know from my recent letter to Members, we have as a result increased the number of staff devoted to handling DLA and AA claims by over 800.

  You also asked about overtime. Since the onset of the new benefits almost 420,000 hours of overtime have been worked by staff at the Disability Benefits Centres (DBCs) and the Fylde Unit which is equivalent to around 340 posts in terms of additional staff. I have also established a senior management task force to tackle the arrears and to optimise work flows.

  These measures have increased the throughput of new claims considerably, and we are on schedule to clear the backlog shortly.

  Your third question also asked about number of cases still awaiting clearance at the end of September. The table below gives details of outstanding claims for the months June to September inclusive:—

  New claims

  Top-ups

  AA

  June

  125,000

  123,000

  153,000

  July

  117,000

  104,000

  143,000

  August

  106,000

  79,000

  122,000

  September

  90,000

  58,000

  90,000

  All figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  During the same period, the numbers of claims cleared rose steadily from 15,600 in April to 52,000 in September in the case of DLA claims with 22,700 and 70,500 respectively for AA cases. The clearance of top-up claims remained steady at around 7,000 per week during the months August and September.

  Of course there will always be a certain number of cases in action at any one time. We expect this normal on hand level for new claims to be in the region of 50,000 cases for DLA and just below 60,000 for AA.

  Finally you also asked how many hours of overtime had been worked by staff in processing claims for Disability Working Allowance. So far no overtime has been worked by staff in processing applications for this benefit.

  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.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what criteria he plans to determine the award of performance-related pay to Michael Bichard, chief executive of the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Mr. Bichard's entitlement to performance bonus is largely dependent upon the achievement of a range of specific targets which include improving on the performance targets which we set the Benefits Agency each year. These are published in the "Benefits Agency's Business Plan", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the disability and other organisations from which expressions of concern have been received about delays in processing claims for the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living 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 Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 26 October 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 if he will list the disability and other organisations from which expressions of concern have been received about delays in processing claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

  The organisations that have made general enquiries to the DLA Ministers Unit about the delays in processing DLA claims, as opposed to those that have made customer specific enquiries, are attached.

  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.

  Organisations/Representative bodies who have made general complaints about delays in the processing of DLA claims:

  Angus Citizens Advice Bureau

  Carers National Association

  Dartford Unemployed Group

  Hampshire County Council

  Isle of Wight Spastics Society

  Knowsley Care Society

  Manufacturing Science Finance Union

  Manningham Project

  Middlesbrough Law Centre

  Motor Neurone Disease Association

  Nantwich and District Citizens Advice Bureau

  Rugby Citizens Advice Bureau

  Shirley Citizens Advice Bureau

  Skye and Lochalsh Community Advice Service

  Solihull Citizens Advice Bureau

  Swansea Citizens Advice Bureau

  The Terrence Higgins Trust

  Wakefield Centre for the Unemployed

  Wear Valley Citizens Advice Bureau (Bishop Auckland)

  Wycombe Living Options in Practice

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many special rules claimants have died before receiving benefit from disability living allowance; and in how many such cases, payment was made after six months from the application.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure for(a) disability living allowance, (b) disability working allowance, (c) mobility allowance and (d) attendance allowance from 1 April to 1 October.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how analysis of potential take-up benefit was undertaken prior to the introduction of disability living allowance.
  631
  Mr. Scott
  The analysis of potential take-up of disability living allowance lower rates was made using data produced in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys surveys of 1985–88. OPCS questions related to lack of independent mobility were used to produce estimates of the number of potential lower rate mobility beneficiaries. Questions relating to the extent of people's need for help with personal functions and with preparing food were used for the lower rate care component.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the backlog of claims for disability living allowance benefit to be cleared; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. David Marshall, dated 26 October:

  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 about when the backlog of claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will be cleared.

  I should explain that there are two categories of claims for DLA. Firstly there are claims from people who were not already in receipt of Attendance Allowance or Mobility Allowance when DLA was introduced. Secondly there are applications from people who were in receipt of one of these benefits but who may be entitled to an additional amount under the DLA entitlement rules. These latter applications are known as "top-up" claims. Since February, therefore, when applications began to be accepted for the new benefit, we have been dealing with claims made under the old scheme and processing the new-style claims at the same time.

  In the first eight months of live operation over 303,000 new claims and almost 195,000 "top-up" claims were registered.

  I wrote to all MPs on 19 October explaining how the backlog has arisen and detailing the measures introduced to deal with it. I am glad to say that these measures have already resulted in a substantial improvement in the speed of claims processing.

  At the end of September the number of claims still to be dealt with was approaching 90,000 new claims and 58,000 "top-up" claims. This compares with the outstanding figures of 125,000 new claims and 121,000 "top-up" claims in July. Most significantly, Disability Benefit Centres are now clearing 12,000 claims per week compared with approximately 6,000 per week in June and only about 3,000 per week in April. The clearance of "top-up" claims remained steady at around 7,000 per week during the months August and September.

  I am by no means complacent about the number of applications still to be processed and am currently monitoring the situation closely. I am confident, however, that we will have reached a steady state shortly for new claims and by the end of November for "top-up" claims.

  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.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by number and percentage of the total number of claims for disability working allowance received by his Department that were refused on the grounds that(a) the claimant was not in remunerative work, (b) the claimant's income was above the limit, (c) the claimant was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit, (d) the claimant was receiving family credit, (e) the joint income of the claimant and his or her partner exceeded the limit, (f) the claimant was working less than 16 hours a week or (g) for other reasons.
  632
  Mr. Scott
  By 16 October the total number and percentage of claims refused in each category was as follows:

  Percentage

  Not in work or working less than 16 hoursa week

  10,208

  59

  Income of claimant and partner exceeds DWA level

  1,929

  11

  No qualifying benefit

  4,455

  26

  Receiving family credit

  409

  2

  Other reasons

  425

  2

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures were taken by his Department, and when, to identify people receiving severe disablement allowance or with underlying entitlement to severe disablement allowance following their transfer to retirement pension who became eligible for the age-related addition introduced in December 1990; and if he will make it his policy that no one will lose out due to ignorance of their entitlement.

  Mr. Scott
  In August 1990 DSS local offices identified and arranged to pay, from 3 December 1990, all severe disablement allowance (SDA) recipients entitled to an age-related addition. A check of national insurance records was made in May 1992 to identify those retirement pension recipients, with an underlying entitlement to SDA, who had not received an age addition.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the findings of research commissioned by his Department on invalidity benefit; what is the total cost of this research; and how he plans to use it.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department has commissioned a number of related research studies about invalidity benefit. The findings of an international comparative study of the growth in incapacity benefit caseloads were presented to the Beveridge anniversary conference in September. Fieldwork for some of the remaining studies is still in progress, and it is not yet known when the findings will be published. The research will cost £320,000. It is designed to explain the growth in invalidity benefit caseloads and to improve forecasts of the numbers receiving the benefit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of appeals heard by disability appeal tribunals to date; and if he will provide a breakdown of these by(a) outstanding mobility allowance, (b) outstanding attendance allowance and (c) disability living allowance and attendance allowance, post-February 1992 appeals.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to him given to him by my hon. Friend on 13 July at column 455.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers awarded the disability living allowance to date by(a) those awarded the higher rate of the care component, (b) those awarded the middle rate of the care component, (c) those awarded the lower rate of the care component, (d) those awarded the higher rate of the mobility component and (e) those awarded the lower rate of the mobility component.
  633
  Mr. Scott
  Following is the information requested.

  Number of awards of each component of disability living allowance made at 30 September

  Number

  (a) Higher rate care

  25,000

  (b) Middle rate care

  34,000

  (c) Lower rate care

  73,000

  (d) Higher rate mobility

  75,000

  (e) Lower rate mobility

  75,000

  These figures include new claims and "top up" claims from existing attendance allowance or mobility allowance beneficiaries.

  All figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average award of invalidity benefit(a) for all claimants, (b) for single people, (c) for childless couples and (d) for couples and/or single parents with dependants.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly payment of invalidity benefit for a single person and a married couple at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. The average weekly payment of invalidity benefit as at 30 March 1991(1) was £67.40.

  Notes:

  1The latest date for which figures are available; information from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  2Separate information is not available for single people and couples.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the number and percentage of recipients of invalidity benefit who are also in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Scott
  Available information is in the table:

  Number

  Number of invalidity benefit receipients on 30 March 19911

  1,306,000

  Number of income support claimants, in receipt of invalidity benefit, in May 19912

  104,000

  Number of income support claimant's partners in receipt of invalidity benefit, in May 19912

  7,000

  Notes:

  1Information from 1 per cent. sample claimants.

  2Information from the annual statistical enquiry.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the savings to his Department of freezing invalidity benefit and the numbers of people who would become eligible for income support as a result.

  Mr. Scott
  The answer would depend on the assumptions made by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of people in receipt of invalidity benefit as a percentage of average full-time earnings among men and women employees.
  634
  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. The average gross weekly income of benefits units' in which there is at least one IVB recipient is £1552. This represents 65 per cent.3 of the average weekly earnings of adults in full time work.

  1A benefit unit is a single adult or a couple, together with any children dependent on the adult(s) who are entitled to claim benefit in their own right.

  2 Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1989.

  3 Source: New Earnings Survey 1989.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of successful disability working allowance applicants by(a) average hourly earnings, (b) average hours worked, (e) average age, (d) sex, (e) marital status, (f) householder status and (g) qualifying benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the householder status of applicants is not available. The table provides estimated figures derived from an analysis of successful claims up to 31 August.

  Estimated figures

  Average hourly earnings

  £2.92

  Average hours worked a week

  30

  Average age

  37

  Number of awards to men

  1,089

  Number of awards to women

  765

  Number of awards to single people

  1,120

  Number of awards to couples

  734

  Qualifying benefits:1

  Invalidity benefit

  240

  Severe disablement allowance

  66

  Income support with disability premium

  128

  Housing benefit with disability premium

  20

  Community charge benefit with disability premium

  56

  Lower rate disability living allowance

  161

  Higher rate disability living allowance and attendance allowance

  1,183

  1 Applicants may have more than one qualifying benefit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for attendance allowance and mobility allowance were made(a) in the six months priorto February 1992 and (b) in the six months prior toFebruary 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  Attendance allowance

  Mobility allowance

  August 1991-January 1992

  283,000

  118,000

  August 1990-January 1991

  209,000

  85,000

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalidity benefit recipients there are by age, sex, household, and marital status.

  Mr. Scott
  Available information is in the table. This shows the number of invalidity recipients on 30 March 1991, the latest date for which information is available.
  635

  Age

  Men

  Women

  Married woman

  Other women

  All persons

  All ages

  976,100

  329,900

  225,600

  104,300

  1,306,000

  Under 20

  200

  200

  —

  200

  400

  20–29

  24,800

  28,400

  17,200

  11,200

  53,200

  30–39

  60,000

  49,700

  33,600

  16,100

  109,700

  40–49

  125,600

  75,100

  53,300

  21,800

  200,700

  50–59

  291,500

  139,500

  99,600

  39,900

  431,000

  60 and over

  474,000

  37,000

  21,900

  15,100

  511,000

  Note: Information from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for the disability working allowance were received by his Department in each month since its introduction.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 October at column 173.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the current claim pack for disability living allowance is to be replaced by the revised version; and if he will provide details of his Department's plans to monitor the impact of the changes in the revised pack and state when and where the results of such monitoring will be published.

  Mr. Scott
  As part of our continuing efforts to meet the needs of customers, improved claim packs for disability living allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance (AA) will be available in November. In monitoring the effectiveness of the claim packs we engage in an ongoing dialogue with disabled people themselves and their organisations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent in total by his Department to date on publicity for disability living allowance and disability working allowance; and if he will publish a breakdown by type of medium used.

  Mr. Scott
  The Department has spent a total of £7,227,304 on publicity for disability living allowance and disability working allowance. The breakdown by medium is as shown:

  £

  Advertising

  3,288,149

  Exhibitions

  74,850

  Film/video

  562,816

  Marketing/response

  1,947,448

  Publications

  1,026,685

  Research

  327,356

  Total

  7,227,304

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for the disability working allowance have been received by the Department to date; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) the number and percentage of these that resulted in an award, (b) the number and percentage of these that were refused and (c) the number and percentage of these that are awaiting a decision.

  Mr. Scott
  By 16 October 1992 the number of claims for disability working allowance received was 21,174; and the 636
  number of awards made was 2,401, 11 per cent; the number of claims refused was 17,426, 82 per cent. and the number of claims awaiting a decision because further information was needed to assess the claim was 619, 3 per cent.; the remainder of claims were withdrawn by the claimant before a decision was made.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the number and percentage of invalidity benefit recipients who are in receipt of other sources of income by source and average amount of such other income.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form requested. Available information is shown in the table.

  Table: Benefit Unit with an IVB Recipient: Sources and Amount of Components of Gross Income, 1989

  Source of Income

  Percentage of benefit units with at least one member on IVB in receipt of other named source of in-come per cent.

  Average amount of income, for those in receipt of given source of income £

  IVB

  100

  59

  Occupational pensions

  43

  60

  Investment income

  62

  21

  Income support

  6

  23

  Housing benefit/rent rebate

  35

  16

  Community charge benefit (Scotland only)

  6

  6

  Other social security pensions and benefits

  18

  8

  Earnings

  24

  129

  Other income

  86

  20

  Gross income

  100

  155

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey, 1989.

  Notes:

  1. Gross income is income received by a benefit unit in which there is at least one IVB recipient, and includes all social security benefits and pensions. A benefit unit is a single adult or couple, together with any children dependent on the adult(s), who are entitled to claim benefit in their own right.

  2. Average amounts of income are gross of tax and NI contributions, and are rounded to the nearest £1.

  3. CCB was only applicable to Scotland in 1989.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people choose to remain on invalidity benefit after reaching retirement age; and if he will provide an estimate of the savings to his Department in each of the years up to and including 1997–98 if the right of invalidity benefit recipients to remain on invalidity after reaching retirement age were removed.
  637
  Mr. Scott
  The number of invalidity benefit recipients over retirement age on 31 March 1991—the latest date for which information is available—is:

  Number

  Men

  200,900

  Women

  37,000

  Total

  237,900

  There would be no savings to the Department if the right of invalidity benefit recipients to choose to remain on the benefit after reaching retirement age were removed. The rate of benefit payable to invalidity benefit recipients over retirement age is based on their entitlement to the retirement pension which would then be put into payment.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of the higher rate mobility component made since 3 February were made(a) on the ground that the person was severely mentally impaired and displayed severe behavioural problems and (b) under the deaf-blind provisions.

  Mr. Scott
  Number of people awarded the higher rate mobility at 30 September:

  (a) On grounds of severe mental impairment and severe behavioural problems: 715

  (b) Under deaf-blind provisions: 62

  References to the regional medical services cleared between quarters ending March 1991 and March 1992.

  31 March 1991

  30 June 1991

  30 September 1991

  31 December 1991

  31 March 1992

  Incapable of work (without examination)

  135,750

  132,820

  156,842

  120,192

  127,745

  Claim terminated before examination—no opinion given

  1,840

  2,282

  3,625

  1,716

  3,571

  Failed to attend examination

  17,576

  14,062

  14,347

  17,045

  14,664

  Incapable of work (after examination)

  47,154

  41,125

  43,507

  40,182

  51,545

  Capable of work (after examination)

  10,188

  8,525

  9,008

  8,188

  9,332

  Capable of work within limits (after examination)

  14,024

  11,753

  12,920

  10,512

  14,785

  Total number of references cleared

  226,532

  210,567

  240,249

  197,835

  221,642

  Note: Information relates to references for all incapacity benefits.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount of benefit received by long-term sick and disabled people in each member state of the European Community expressed in pounds sterling.

  Mr. Scott
  Comparable information for each member state of the European Community is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and percentage of(a) first claims (b) renewal claims and (c) requests for a review, of attendance allowance and mobility allowance received by his Department prior to 3 February remain outstanding; how many have been decided; and what number and percentage of reviews decided resulted in the award of the lower rate of (i) the care component, (ii) the mobility component and (iii) both components of the disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.
  638
  Includes new claims and "top up" claims from existing attendance allowance and mobility allowance beneficiaries. All figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of successful disability working allowance applicants by(a) people already working and (b) people who started working shortly before making an application for benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available to say how many disability working allowance recipients were previously in employment. Of the 2,401 people who had claimed successfully up to 16 October, we estimate that 27 per cent. had received invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance or a disability premium with income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit in the eight weeks before claiming disability working allowance.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowance were referred to the regional medical services in each month since January 1991; how many of these cases resulted in medical examinations; and what were the outcome(a) where examinations took place and (b) where they did not.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for(a) mobility allowance and (b) attendance allowance were refused, annually, for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  Mobility allowance

  Attendance allowance

  1985

  50,000

  71,000

  1986

  61,000

  76,000

  1987

  61,000

  92,000

  1988

  72,000

  111,000

  1989

  78,000

  101,000

  1990

  85,000

  93,000

  1991

  90,000

  108,000

  Figures rounded to nearest thousand
  639
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure for(a) mobility allowance and (b) attendance allowance from 1 April to October 1991.

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

  Estimated expenditure for each benefit in the 1991–92 financial year was:

  £million

  (a) Mobility allowance

  1,061

  (b) Attendance allowance

  1,706

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been received for disability working allowance; and how many, to date, have been successful.

  Mr. Scott
  Up to 16 October 21,174 applications for disability working allowance had been received and 2,401 awards made.

  John Gardner
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects that Mr. John Gardner of 115 Countisbury avenue, Llanrumney, Cardiff, will have a response to his application for mobility allowance, now being treated as an application for disabled living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. As the application is a personal and confidential matter, he will reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Miners' Redundancy Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the age distribution of the miners to be made redundant; and how long their redundancy payments are likely to last before they qualify for social security.

  Mr. Burt
  Information on the age distribution of miners who are affected by redundancy is a matter for British Coal.

  The effect of redundancy payments on entitlement to social security benefits will depend on the nature of the payment and on the type of benefit claimed.

  Most social security benefits are not affected by statutory redundancy pay, or similar payments intended as compensation for loss of employment. However, in the income-related benefits, such payments are treated as capital and may affect entitlement.

  Fraudulent Claims
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated amount of money claimed fraudulently from his Department in 1991; what is the basis of the estimate; and what action he has taken to recover the estimated amount.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total sum claimed fraudulently from the Department is not known. The Benefits Agency 640
  has a target which is based on detected fraud. In 1991–92 £427 million was estimated to have been saved. This estimate is derived from

  (1) the calculation of the weekly amount of benefit being claimed wrongfully when action by fraud investigators put a stop to the fraud or irregularity;

  (2) the conversion of this weekly amount to an estimated overall saving;

  (3) the actual value of benefit saved by the termination or prevention of an instrument of payment irregularity.

  The multiplier used for item 2 was 32. This was based on the estimated average number of weeks the fraud would have continued had fraud staff not stopped it.

  The Benefits Agency pursues vigorously the recovery of overpayments of benefit from those who cheat the system. In appropriate cases criminal or civil proceedings will be instituted.

  Terminal Illness
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been received by his Department from organisations working with terminally ill people on problems with the special rules procedures and the particular difficulties caused to people with terminal illness on account of the delays with the processing of disability living allowance claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We receive a large volume of correspondence on disability benefits, some of which comes from organisations involved in the care of terminally ill people and refers to the special rules arrangements. Much of the correspondence applauds the rules, some contains suggestions on further improvements we might make to the procedures. We welcome these representations, which we actively consider.

  We have also received representations about delays in dealing with claims in respect of people with a limited life expectancy. Unfortunately, because of the massive influx of claims more generally on disability living allowance and attendance allowance, some delays have occurred in dealing with claims made under the special rules. The Benefits Agency is taking firm action to clear the backlogs and in doing so treat claims for people who are terminally ill as a top priority.

  Doctors' Fees
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the fees payable to doctors for each type of medical examination required for adjudication purposes for all social security benefits and for the disablement pension.

  Mr. Scott
  The fees payable to doctors for medical examinations required for all social security benefits are as follows:

  £

  Regional Medical Service

  Part-time referees

  88.40

  Sessional Rate

  War Pension Medical Board

  Consultant members

  One Case

  54.40

  Two Cases

  77.60

  Sessional Rate

  108.70

  641

  £

  Examination and Report necessitating a Domiciliary Visit

  Chairman and Member of Single Doctor Board:

  * up to and including 1.5 hours

  37.90

  * over 1.5 up to and including 2. hours

  56.90

  * over 2.5 hours

  88.40

  Second Member:

  * up to and including 1.5 hours

  33.00

  * over 1.5 up to and including 2.5 hours

  49.60

  * over 2.5 hours

  77.10

  Medical Board

  * per session (2.5 to 3.5 hours):

  Chairman

  88.40

  Members

  77.10

  single doctor acting as a board

  88.40

  * per case:

  Chairman

  31.60

  Members

  27.50

  single doctor acting as a board

  31.60

  Consultants

  * Work in NHS hospital:

  Examination and report or treatment

  Standard fee per case

  54.40

  Standard fee per case when hospital laboratory radiological or other technical facilities are used

  81.50

  Sessional fee

  108.70

  Sessional fee when hospital laboratory or radiological or other technical facilities are used

  163.10

  * Work in private consulting rooms

  Examination and report or treatment

  Standard fee per case

  69.90

  Per session (3.5 hours)

  163.10

  Examining Medical Pratitioner Examination for DLA and AA65+ Chairman and Member of single Doctor Board:

  * up to and including 1.5 hours

  37.90

  * over 1.5 up to and including 2.5 hours

  56.90

  * over 2.5 hours

  88.40

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of the invalidity benefit from each year since 1983–84.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table:

  Year

  Beneficiaries (in thousands)

  1983–84

  760

  1984–85

  825

  1985–86

  865

  1986–87

  935

  1987–88

  1,010

  642

  Year

  Beneficiaries (in thousands)

  1988–89

  1,100

  1989–90

  1,190

  1990–91

  1,265

  1991–92

  1,325

  Source: 1992 Departmental Report and earlier Public Expenditure White papers.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his Department's expenditure on invalidity benefit has been, in cash and constant prices, for each year from 1983–84, until the latest year for which figures are available; and what is the expected outturn expenditure on invalidity benefit for 1992–93.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows expenditure on invalidity benefit for Great Britain at cash and constant 1992–93 prices in each year from 1983–84 to 1992–93.

  Year

  Cash £ million

  1992–93 prices £ million

  1983–84

  1,972

  3,123

  1984–85

  2,142

  3,403

  1985–86

  2,249

  3,386

  1986–87

  2,673

  3,896

  1987–88

  2,968

  4,103

  1988–89

  3,359

  4,331

  1989–90

  3,837

  4,642

  1990–91

  4,431

  4,955

  11991–92

  5,255

  5,491

  21992–93

  5,695

  5,695

  1 Estimated outturn only.

  2 Planned expenditure.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies which were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies which submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.

  Miss Widdccombe
  The tenders issued by the Department for computer hardware and software since 9 April 1992 are as shown in the table. We have not supplied information on the value of the contracts as to do so could be a breach of commercial confidentiality.
  643

  a(i)(ii) Hardware (H/W) Software (S/W)

  (b) Description

  (e) Number of companies invited to tender

  (d) Bids from companies with-out invitation

  (e) Contract awarded to:

  (g) Length of contract

  S/W

  Contributions Agency—Civil recoveries system. Supply & development of bespoke software, with installation, training & maintenance.

  1

  None

  Linetime Ltd.

  Indefinite: Renewable annually

  S/W

  CD—ROM Project. This is a BA initiative involving computerisation of training material & instruction manuals.

  6

  None

  Future Office Systems

  Project Specific

  S/W

  Terminal Emulation s/w package able to run all STAP supplier unix platform. Initial requirement is for the FAMIS & CSA Projects. Future requirements not yet known.

  3

  None

  ICL

  To 1995

  H/W

  Provision of a networked & upgraded computer system for use within Private Office.

  2

  None

  ICL

  Project Specific

  H/W&S/W

  Provision of computer equipment and implementation to 7 computer centres for the Child Support Agency.

  3

  None

  IBM

  Project Specific

  Cabling

  Cabling of BA Offices for the FAMIS Project.

  3

  None

  ICL IBM Siemens Nixdorf

  1 Year

  Independent Living Fund
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what form the replacement for the independent living fund will take; what will be the size of its financing; and what criteria will apply for individual applicants receiving it.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of the arrangements will be announced in due course.

  Maxwell Pensioners
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made by the special unit and the trust fund established to assist the Maxwell pensioners.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 8 June I announced a number of Government initiatives following the loss of assets from the Maxwell pension schemes. These included the provision of a £2.5 million emergency fund to help to keep pensions in payment in the short term, the setting up of the Maxwell pensions unit within my Department, and the establishment of the Maxwell Pensioners Trust.

  The unit has made grants amounting to just over £1 million to eight pension schemes. All pensions in payment in February 1992 are being paid, as are those due to people who have retired since then at the normal retirement age for their scheme. In addition, grants have been made in respect of people who have retired since February 1992 on grounds of ill health. Pension scheme members who have been contracted back into the state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPs) have that part of their pensions paid direct by my Department.

  The unit is also working with Sir John Cuckney, as chairman of the Maxwell Pensioners Trust and special adviser to the unit, to help in the recovery of missing assets, by encouraging out-of-court settlements wherever possible, reducing the time and cost of legal actions. The unit has established constructive working relationships
  644
  with pension scheme trustees, the liquidators and administrators dealing with the Maxwell companies, and the pensioners action groups.

  The Maxwell Pensioners Trust was formally constituted on 17 July to help secure Maxwell pensions in the longer term. Following an initial appeal, the trust has raised just under £6 million. And payments have already been made, or are being processed, to 86 ex gratia pensioners. This is a creditable achievement, but substantially more funds are needed if the justifiable anxiety felt by the pensioners about their future security is to be properly addressed.

  No Government could accept an obligation to use taxpayers' money to make good losses resulting from fraud. However, I believe it is right for the Government to exercise those responsibilities we do have in ways which actively assist the pensioners' position. I am announcing one further such step today.

  When pension scheme members who have been contracted out of SERPS are brought back into the state scheme, the pension scheme is required to pay state scheme premiums for each member to the national insurance fund. The amounts involved can be substantial. I have discretion to postpone collection of these premiums for as long as I am satisfied that it would not be in the interests of scheme members to enforce payment.

  I have decided to exercise this discretion, on a scheme by scheme basis, in the case of the Maxwell pensioners. This amounts to an interest-free loan to the trustees of the pension schemes of some £100 million. It is a major extension of Government assistance to securing pensioners' financial future, and it will give the schemes a breathing space while the remaining matters in dispute are resolved.

  This measure will not close the gap between the Maxwell schemes' assets and liabilities. For that, we still need substantial contributions to the trust. I hope that this further example of Government support will encourage those companies and institutions that have not so far felt able to contribute to the trust to reconsider its position.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Lord Geraint
Geraint Wyn Howells, Esquire, having been created Baron Geraint, of Ponterwyd in the County of Dyfed, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hooson and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
Lord Elis-Thomas
Dafydd Elis Elis-Thomas, Esquire, having been created Baron Elis-Thomas, of Nant Conwy in the County of Gwynedd, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hooson and the Lord Thomas of Gwydir.

The Mentally Handicapped
2.59 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now appoint a task force, comparable with that for the mentally ill, to work with the national development team in encouraging good practices in services for the mentally handicapped.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we have no plans to do so.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather disappointing reply. Does she recall that in the 1990 Act when the Government conceded a special grant for the mentally ill, they refused a similar concession for the mentally handicapped? I understand that some guidelines are being issued. However, does she agree that the Government should do rather more than issue guidelines and become more directly involved by appointing a task force, as is done for the mentally ill, supported perhaps by a little money? If they do not do so, is there not some risk that those with learning disabilities (if that is the preferred phrase) will again be the poor relation under the new community care arrangements? What better opportunity would there be for a new policy than the relaunch of MENCAP which was announced yesterday?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I feared that there might be some disappointment in my Answer. Perhaps I may soften it by congratulating the noble Lord on the relaunch of MENCAP yesterday, which I gather was a great success. Your Lordships will be aware that there has been much faster progress in developing services for people with a learning disability than for those with mental illness. For that reason the task
1012
force was set up. With regard to resources, the Government have put considerable funds into the field for those with learning difficulties (or mental handicap, as we used to call it). Indeed, this year for the health services it is an increase of 13 per cent., and in local authorities over the past 10 years it is an increase of 91 per cent.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the term "learning difficulties" is an ambiguous one, whereas the term "mental handicap" clearly indicates people who have an incurable mental condition? Is she further aware that there are 20,000 of them still in long stay hospitals, many of whom are getting rather old but all of whom would like to have the opportunity to live in the community? Does she agree therefore that there is a much greater need for a task force to help those people than there is even for those who are mentally ill?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I am aware that there are people in long stay institutions who still want to be moved into the community to lead a fuller life. The Government are doing all they can to make that possible. The term "mental handicap" is one with which I feel much more comfortable. It is one which is well understood. But when the department consulted the general public, there was a very strong feeling that the term should be changed to "people with a learning disability".
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right; there is disappointment at her response. In view of the fact that the same logic which led to setting up a task force for the mentally ill applies to the mentally handicapped, in so far as they are very vulnerable and subject to being put at the back of the queue, will the Government think again? Does she agree that although progress has been a little faster for those who are mentally ill, it has not been so fast for those who are mentally handicapped?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that since 1979 we have reduced by half the number of people in long-stay mental handicap institutions. There are now no children in long-stay hospitals. That is tremendous progress. We also have the benefit of the national development team which is doing extremely good work in progressing those policies.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend confirm my belief that, quite apart from the question of a task force, the Secretary of State has power under the Mental Health Acts to issue a code of conduct in those matters? Have any codes of conduct been issued to assist the mentally handicapped in addition to those suffering from mental disorder?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that question. Yesterday the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment issued two sets of guidance, one for local authorities and one for health authorities.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, regardless of which of the two terms we use, does the Minister accept that there is and will be a great deal of regret in the country at the Answer that she gave? Does she agree that the mental illness task force has rendered an important service and should be commended? In view of that and, following the relaunch of MENCAP, the need for good practice to be made widely known throughout the country, will she reconsider the Answer given?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that good practice is disseminated widely by the national development team. That is its role. The task force was set up for mental illness because we are aware that a great deal more has to be done in that area, unlike in the field of people with learning disabilities in which enormous progress has been made over the past 10 years.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, every five or 10 years we change the term we use to describe the mentally handicapped. Does the noble Baroness agree that there is nothing wrong with those terms? It is the attitude of the public that needs changing. Why do we not spend more time seeking to change the attitude of the public rather than changing the terms used?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord may agree with me that the two factors are interrelated. The language that we use influences the attitude of the public.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we on these Benches add our welcome to the relaunch of MENCAP, and the issuing of the guidelines for people with learning disabilities to which the Minister referred. The guidance from the health service and management executive states clearly that additional resources will be necessary to enable people with learning disabilities to use the services satisfactorily. However, the departmental circular to local authorities states that it will be,
"a matter for local determination in the light of assessment of need, available resources and competing pressures on services".
Which statement is right? Will there be new money to implement the guidelines? Without new money, they certainly will not work.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that year on year we put more money into the National Health Service. I am sure that health authorities which are commissioning services will use their powers and their resources to increase funds for that client group. Over the years we have seen places in voluntary and private local authority homes and hospitals increased by 57 per cent. We have also seen staff and places at training centres increase. Year on year we put more resources into the field of people with learning disabilities.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that, semantics and politics apart, many of us who have worked in that field for many years are deeply worried that difficulties are arising almost by accident? Will she confirm an assurance already given from the Government Front Bench that no changes
1014
will be made which will disadvantage the people who are already disadvantaged by closing down establishments which have proved to work and which have shown that they are capable of dealing with conditions of mental deficiency or of mental illness? Will she confirm that such establishments will be closed only when a better provision is in place, regardless of the comparative sums?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I give that assurance to your Lordships' House.

Gross Domestic Product: Forecast
3.9 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of GDP for 1992 compared with 1990 and 1991.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish a new forecast in the Autumn Statement.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while recognising that the noble Earl cannot anticipate the Autumn Statement, nonetheless is he aware that reputable independent forecasts have suggested that compared with the 2.4 per cent. fall in GDP last year there is likely to be a further fall of 1 per cent. this year and very little prospect of noticeable improvement next year? Is he also aware that the CBI has recently published its quarterly trend statement which suggests an increase in pessimism among its respondents for future business prospects? The Government have recently announced that they will take steps to seek to achieve a recovery of the economy. Will the noble Earl tell us in broad terms what those steps may be?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned reputable forecasters. He will be aware that the average forecast of the independent reputable forecasters happens to be the same as the Treasury's at Budget time. With regard to the recent CBI survey, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is not surprising that confidence has fallen, given the recent turbulence in financial markets and general uncertainty about the economy. The Government are taking active measures in that field and we look forward to expanding on those when answering his noble friend's Question next week.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is an urgency to revive the economy in a non-inflationary and non-consumer led way? I am thinking of the reintroduction for a period of two or three years of the 100 per cent. capital allowance for plant and machinery. Does my noble friend agree that although such measures normally require to be introduced in the Budget, the situation is too serious to be constrained by the conventional Budget timetable in each year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree that any recovery should be non-inflationary,

1015
and that has been the basis of the Government's policy. I take note of my noble friend's other points and will bring them to the attention of my right honourable friend. It is worth stressing that a successful conclusion to the GATT round would be helpful.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as it is clear that our membership of the ERM has caused a reduction of GDP, can we have an assurance that there will be no early return to the ERM and perhaps no return at all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is an interesting question but slightly wide of that on the Order Paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the obstacle to a happy conclusion of the GATT round is the attitude of the French? Will Her Majesty's Government take the strongest action against them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, during his presidency of the EC my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken extensive action to bring the GATT round to a successful conclusion. We shall continue to do so and shall strive with might and main.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the closure of coal mines will deal a grievous blow to GDP as well as to the balance of payments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the subject of the closure of coal mines was recently well ventilated in your Lordships' House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue the French attitude, although recent history has shown that one of the more effective ways of returning to full employment is to declare war. I hope that is not what the Minister has in mind! Obviously we shall wait to hear the Autumn Statement but the Treasury is always coy about saying what it believes. My question relates not to politics but to the general attitude of the Treasury. In order to enable businessmen in particular to plan properly for the future, is it not time that the Treasury produced monthly a view of what it believes is happening? We accept that it may make mistakes, but would not such a document at least help businessmen to know the kind of economic environment that the Treasury believes exists?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will not have long to wait for the Autumn Statement; it will be made on 12th November. All noble Lords will agree that a stable economy and a consistent growth pattern is the best environment in which business can operate.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, will my noble friend say what constitutes a reputable forecaster and how many there are?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was merely picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord
1016
Ezra, about forecasting. Someone once said that trying to run the economy was like trying to pull along a brick with an elastic band.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, what does the Minister consider will be a successful conclusion to the GATT round?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a successful conclusion will be the signing of the GATT round. That would increase world trade considerably, give opportunities for British businesses which do not exist at present and prevent a protectionist system.

Smoking Ban: National Express Proposal
3.15 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposed ban on all smoking on National Express coaches, which have 80 per cent. of the long-distance market, is in accordance with the individual rights of their 3½ million passengers who smoke.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is a matter for the commercial judgment of the operators concerned.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that British Rail continues to squeeze the 20 per cent. of its clients who are smokers into a smaller proportion of each train and that coaches are to follow the same policy? Is my noble friend further aware that a small group of people travelling from, say, Swindon to London next Monday will be banned from smoking on coaches? They may be unemployed and hard up and will obtain a competitive return fare which is £ 8 cheaper than British Rail's but they will be banned from smoking. What right has a large organisation to claim that it represents 90 per cent. of its customers and will not therefore allow smoking? I am not a smoker but I suggest that the Government have a responsibility to protect the rights of minorities. People who smoke feel strongly about the issue. Why should they not be allowed to smoke in moderation and have a special area on every conveyance reserved for their purposes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am surprised that my noble friend wishes the Government to intervene in the commercial judgment of operators. I should have thought that he would have supported me on that issue.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is it not apparent that the anti-smoking dictators are at it again? Will the Minister advise National Express that we still have the right and the freedom to enjoy smoking tobacco? Will he also advise the 3½ million smokers to change to the small operators and therefore have the pleasure of seeing the profits of National Express fall while they go up in smoke in its competitors' coaches?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the customer will look at every opportunity available.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that National Express is not an ordinary commercial organisation? It has a quasi-monopoly on most routes. As such it has a duty to cater for all those who are obliged to use its services for want of anything better—not merely non-smokers. Why cannot the organisation reserve a few seats at the back of each coach, as is done on aircraft, and thereby make everyone happy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards smoking National Express has undertaken a considerable consumer survey of passengers who use its coaches and has come down firmly in this direction.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of a recent survey which shows that the dangers from passive smoking are greater than medical opinion had previously believed? Is he further aware that to old age pensioners such as myself who are without a motor car and who depend on public transport the elimination of smoking brings comfort in our dwindling lives?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that only goes to show that it would be wrong for the Government to become involved. Let us leave the matter to the commercial operators.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, do Ministers agree with the evidence about passive smoking? Is there not overwhelming evidence to show that people who are forced to inhale other people's tobacco smoke at home, in offices or on coaches are suffering and becoming ill? Is it not right that the views of the majority as opposed to the views of the minority should carry, and is not the coach company to be congratulated on the initiative which it proposes to take?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government's position on the Froggatt Report, an independent scientific report on smoking and health published in 1988, brought to people's attention the considerable evidence of the dangers of passive smoking. I repeat that is a matter for the operators and not for the Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when the industry was under public ownership, people had a lot more freedom? Is he further aware that there is absolutely no reason why people who do not smoke should be forced to inhale other people's smoke? It is perfectly possible these days to separate smokers and non-smokers, both on railways and in coaches. Would it not be far better if the national bus company did its best to please all its customers and did not give in to the opinions of one section?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, although the noble Lord contends that there was more freedom when National Express was publicly owned, I am sure that he will now agree that it produces a far better service in the private sector.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that many Members of the House will agree with his view that this is not a matter for
1018
government interference? Having said that, is it not right that we should compliment National Express coaches on their initiative, bearing in mind that this is not a question, is it, of convenience? It is a question of danger to the health of those people who wish to travel free from the risks of passive smoking.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards the first part of the question, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is able to agree with the Government's position. As regards the second part of his question, it is a matter for the commercial operators. There is a difference of opinion, which has been clearly represented in the House today.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the United States of America there is no smoking on any railway but there is a club car attached to every train in which one can smoke, drink and talk to friends? Why can we not do the same?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as we are talking about buses, that rather restricts me in the answer I can give the noble Earl.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend publish the proof which he has about passive smoking? A large body of opinion all over the world believes that it is not as injurious as people are now taking for granted? The case is not proven. Will he therefore publish proof which is accepted by a majority of medical experts?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have now gone completely off the subject of buses and are talking about reports on passive smoking. I shall however draw the matter to the attention of my noble friend who has, in fact, been listening to the exchanges.

GCHQ: Surveillance
3.24 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether GCHQ is maintaining surveillance of Amnesty International under the Mayfly procedure; and if not, when it stopped so doing.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government do not comment on matters of this kind. GCHQ is fully answerable to Ministers and subject to the Interception of Communications Act.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is about time that the Government did start commenting on matters of this kind? Is she aware that 90 charitable organisations have protested against the practice of GCHQ putting them under surveillance? This concerns not only Amnesty International but also Christian Aid, and 90 other organisations have protested. It seems that GCHQ is totally out of control. It is known that even on those occasions on which official permission has been given, thereafter that has been ignored and the matter has been put on a basis of permanent

1019
surveillance. Is it not high time that something should he done to bring the spying organisations under more effective government control?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speculations of the noble Lord. Your Lordships will have an opportunity to discuss that and other matters when the SIS/GCHQ Bill is introduced, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech on this subject on 6th May.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that that procedure has serious implications for charities and for the recipients of aid? Will she confirm that Amnesty International has written on the subject to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister? Will she tell the House his response?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government do not comment on alleged activities by the security and intelligence agencies. Amnesty International or any other organisations which thinks it has a case can complain to the tribunal set up under the Interception of Communications Act. I understand that that was the Prime Minister's reply.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say how many cases have been heard under that Act?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, I cannot say. I cannot comment on individual cases but the IOCA commissioner reported in March that there is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that the law is being bent by GCHQ.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that that assurance would gain much greater acceptance if it were made by a Minister who is able to say that the Government are in a position to discuss this matter, rather than hiding behind a total veil of silence? Does not the noble Baroness agree that it is high time that the protections which she says have been created were more effectively verified, if not by the House as a whole, then by the Privy Council?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government, including past Labour Governments of which the noble Lord was a member, have always refused to confirm or deny that interception has been authorised in any particular case.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Orkney and Fife inquiries.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Croydon Tramlink Bill will he taken.

Woodgrange Park Cemetery Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Persons to whom this Part applies]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 15, after ("day,") insert ("ceases to hold that office and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. Paragraph (b) (ii) as drafted might lend itself to the interpretation that a person who holds a qualifying judicial office on the appointed day would be required to transfer into the new pension scheme if he took on a second and concurrent office listed in Schedule 1. That is not my intention. That paragraph is intended merely to require that a person holding a qualifying judicial office on the appointed day should be brought within the new scheme if he is promoted to another office which would have meant moving to a different scheme in any event. The amendment makes that clear. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.2:
Page 2, line 8, after ("time") insert ("not ending earlier than 6 months after retirement").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has the great advantage of brevity. It also has two factors which are quite unusual. First, basically, it is included at the invitation of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who requested us to draft what we thought should go into primary legislation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did likewise. Reference to that in Committee can be found at col.671 of Hansard on 30th June 1992. Secondly, to make sure that I have your Lordships entirely on my side as regards the amendment, I should tell the House that it originated from my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman who, at the conclusion of the Committee stage, handed me a manuscript amendment upon which I could not improve.
The amendment is designed to enable a person to exercise the option to join the new scheme. It is a highly academic provision. The scheme now before your Lordships suffers from such disadvantages compared to the current scheme that it is highly unlikely that anyone will opt into it.
First, it increases the accrual period from 15 to 20 years—a matter which will be debated later. Secondly, it makes the accrual of 20 years come into force gradually, year by year—again a matter which will be referred to later—as against the present position where there is a guarantee to the High Court judge, immediately on becoming a judge, of one quarter of his maximum pension. Thirdly, the lump sum is capped—again that will be referred to later.
Fourthly, instead of the pension being calculated as heretofore on the salary being paid at the time of retirement, it is averaged over 12 months.
In short what has happened is this. The judicial retirement age has been lowered from 75 to 70, something which is generally supported. But it will cost more to fund, as all pensions do when they involve earlier retirement. Quite simply, the Bill says that the judges must pay more for that expense in the respects that I briefly summarised. My amendment, which will make clear in primary legislation that a person has a right to opt into the scheme with a limitation in the manner described, is highly academic. However, I believe that it should be contained in primary legislation and that is the reason I tabled it. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment. I can perhaps forecast what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will say in regard to Amendment No.3. The difficulty about that amendment is that it gives a prescription; the advantage is that it deals with the possibility that the choice may be made after death, which Amendment No.2 does not cover.
Possibly the way to deal with the matter is to put the two amendments together and to re-write the amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor so that it allows the choice to be made as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but also includes the possibility that the deceased judge's representative can make the choice after death. The further difficulty about the amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the usual one of regulations appearing at a later stage and we do not know precisely what they will say. There does not seem to be much difference between the two positions.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a short intervention, which is all that is necessary. On the last occasion when this matter was discussed the possibility of the noble and learned Lord being able to produce a draft regulation was debated. I believe that he did not regard the suggestion as being in the slightest degree outrageous.
In the circumstances, having regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, said, is it possible for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to agree that Amendments Nos.2 and 3 should be amalgamated? However, if he does not want those provisions included in primary legislation—although I believe it is far better that they should be—perhaps before Third Reading there can be tabled a regulation which carries out the spirit of Amendment No.2.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred deals only with the question of the timing of a notice under the provision. As a result of discussion at Committee stage I undertook to consider the matter further, inviting your Lordships to see what was
1022
required. I prepared a draft set of regulations which I hope were circulated at the end of last week together with the note in regard to the amendments to the Bill, in order to indicate precisely what I had in mind as regards the regulations. I hope that noble Lords who are interested in the matter have seen the draft.
Amendment No.3 is intended to cover all the matters covered by the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, and more. It is important that those other matters should be dealt with. The proposed draft regulations permit an election to be made at any time after the Bill comes into force until three months after a qualifying judicial officer's retirement, provided that a pension had not commenced to be paid under the officer's old scheme. I should add that, for administrative reasons, a pension would not commence to be paid to an officer under his old scheme unless he had indicated that he wanted it to commence payment. Therefore if he is considering the matter he would not ask for the payment to start in the meantime.
The regulations also provide for an election to be made by the personal representatives of a judicial officer should that officer not have done so before death, and provided no benefits under the officer's old scheme had commenced payment. The purpose of the amendment in my name is to clarify the vires of the regulation-making power (Amendment No.3) so that there can be no doubt that the regulations can permit elections after retirement or death. Without that clarification, parliamentary counsel advises me that there is some doubt as to whether elections after retirement or death will be effective because the rest of the Bill is not drafted in terms which suggest that that is what is envisaged and therefore it is wise to make it clear.
In respect of my noble and learned friend's amendment, I am not wedded to the period of three months as opposed to six, but three months seems more than ample. Under that scheme, as now, anyone who indicates his intention to retire in advance, or who is approaching his compulsory retirement date, will be approached by my officials far enough ahead of the event for any necessary consultation with financial advisers to be made and decisions taken. In most cases, therefore, the three months after retirement will serve only as a safeguard. In the event of retirement with immediate effect it should be more than adequate for the necessary decision to be taken. In most cases the respective value of the two quotations provided will be clear-cut and the decision will make itself.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner suggests that it can only be one way in any case. I do not believe that he has taken full account of the various cases that may be covered under the scheme; for example, a person who falls under a scheme which accrues more slowly than the scheme of the High Court judges may well wish to make such a change.
The amendment of my noble and learned friend is covered fully by my amendment when one takes account of the regulations that I am proposing, with the exception that it is three months in the draft rather

1023
than six. As I said, that is a matter which can be readily adjusted should your Lordships feel that six months is important.
In the light of that explanation I hope that my noble and learned friend will think that it would be right for my amendment to go forward and that his point will be catered for in Amendment No.3 by the draft regulations that I suggested.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps he will be good enough to explain how one can obtain a copy of the draft regulations. They are not in the Printed Paper Office. I was not sent a copy. Should there be other draft regulations which are relevant to our future discussions, it would be helpful to be provided with copies of them or to know how one can obtain them.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that I also have not seen these draft regulations. It would have been helpful, in consideration of the amendments, if they had been made available.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may answer that point before my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner responds. I sent copies of the regulations to the Printed Paper Office as part of a set of papers which include comments on all the amendments which are in my name. I understand that these were put into the Printed Paper Office last Friday. If there is some problem about that I shall have to look into it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not see them on display this afternoon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may make my own position quite clear. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to send me a copy of the documents which he has just mentioned. While I am on my feet perhaps I may clarify one point, again with the leave of the House. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that although the draft regulation only provides the period which he mentioned, he is prepared to see that it will now comply with Amendment No.2? The noble and learned Lord mentioned the will of the House and that can only be expressed either by the majority of speakers who address your Lordships or by a vote. If the noble and learned Lord would clarify that matter it may be that a vote will not be needed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I put three months into the draft on the view that that was probably long enough. If on consideration it is thought that it is not long enough then it is quite easy to change it. I wish only to give the House an opportunity to say. It may not be necessary to have a vote, but my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, in dealing with his amendment, may express the view that the six months which he opted for in his amendment is essential in his mind. If that is so then I would feel disposed to agree.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thought six months a reasonably generous period. Retirement can involve all kinds of complicated decisions which should not be rushed. It does no one any harm to say six months; it
1024
is obviously mathematically twice as good as three months. Therefore I support it. The reason why I put it in the primary legislation is that it was thought that the safeguard should be put there. I looked at the history of judicial pension legislation. Significantly, in 1959, when a new scheme came into existence dealing with graduated pensions, there was in Section 3 of the Act primary legislation providing for the option. I believe it desirable that judges should have that provision enshrined in the primary legislation, as it was some 33 years ago. That is why I put it in. It can obviously be extended to cover death, again in the primary legislation. These regulations, which do not make the position immediately apparent, should perhaps be avoided, if that is possible. I certainly urge on your Lordships the period of six months.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am content to put six months into the draft regulations. The provisions proposed in Amendment No.3 make it fairly plain that such regulations are in mind. I believe that the provisions which I have in Amendment No.3 are necessary to cover death and election by personal representatives not covered in my noble and learned friend's amendment. If he feels able, I hope that we can proceed on the basis that Amendment No.3 will cover the matter on my undertaking that the draft regulations will be extended to six months.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on the basis of my noble and learned friend's assurance I am content to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.3:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) The circumstances that may be prescribed under subsection (2) above, and the time that may be prescribed under subsection (3) above, include circumstances or times which permit the making of an election notwithstanding that the person in question has retired from qualifying judicial office or has died; and, without prejudice to section 29(3) and (4) below, where any such circumstances or times are so prescribed—

(a) the person in question shall be treated for such purposes as may be prescribed as if he had, at such times as may be prescribed, been a person to whom this Part applies; and

(b) any right to make an election notwithstanding the person's death shall be exercisable by his personal representatives.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, our past discussion is sufficient explanation of this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.4:
Page 2, line 14, after ("holds") insert (", on a salaried basis,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. In moving it I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.6, 9, 15, 17, 20 to 24, 27 and 28, which are amendments to Schedule 1, and Amendments Nos.51 and 55. Before talking about these matters further perhaps I may return to the fact that I put into the Printed Paper Office on Friday a note about these amendments. I understand that

1025
copies of that note are in the Printed Paper Office. Appended to that note was the note of the draft regulations. These are the only draft regulations I have in mind. Some of your Lordships who have seen the note may not think of it as including the draft regulations. It contains comments in the hope of sorting out amendments so that your Lordships can see quickly which amendments are of substance.
As presently drafted the Bill may entitle in appropriate circumstances anyone who holds a qualifying judicial office listed in Schedule I to pension benefits under the new scheme. Some of those offices, however, may on occasion be held by a member of the scheme as a secondary office concurrently with the scheme member's primary appointment. In these circumstances, the member should, as now, accrue benefit rights only in respect of the first office. Similarly, some of the offices in the schedule do not at the moment carry a sufficient workload to warrant the employment of a full-time office holder. In this situation a suitably qualified person may be employed on a daily and fee-paid basis, again with no entitlement to pension benefit arising from that employment. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that no person in one or other of these positions could claim a pension in respect of that secondary or fee-paid work. They leave open, however, the possibility of those offices attracting pension benefits at some point in the future should they be filled by full-time or part-time salaried officers. I believe that the use of the word "salaried" is a very simple way of differentiating those who carry a pension entitlement immediately. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I could not take part in the earlier transactions on this Bill. Therefore, I feel considerable reluctance at inflicting myself at this stage. I do so because I happened to be at the Treasury when the previous scheme, which was so much less harmful to the judiciary, was hammered out and approved subsequently by Parliament. However, as regards this amendment I have a small drafting point. As I cannot trust my eyesight I am very ready to be told that I have got it entirely wrong. The point arises in connection with Amendment No.24 which is being discussed with the amendment which has just been moved by my noble and learned friend. That is Schedule I, page 26, line 47, to leave out "full-time". I could not find the words "full-time" in that line at all.
A similar point arises on Amendments Nos.25 and 26 which are grouped with Amendment No.10. It appears that something has gone wrong in the printing of the Marshalled List and the previous list of amendments. In order to leave time for the draftsman to send a chit down to my noble and learned friend to tell him why I am wrong, perhaps I may take the opportunity of drawing the attention of the House—as this amendment does—to the extraordinary list of officers in the schedule over which my noble and learned friend and his department exercise patronage. It has grown up gradually over the years, but it is now quite formidable. The schedule is not the end of it
1026
because there are a number of other officers in the new schedule which my noble and learned friend will be moving in due course.
I came across the problem personally when I was President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. Oddly enough, the holder of that office is responsible for a large government department—namely, the Principal Probate Registry and the District Probate Registries. Constitutionally, this is clearly anomalous. Among the duties was appointment and promotion within that department, and particularly appointments to the position of senior registrar, registrar, and district registrar. The registrars of the Principal Probate Registry were only half drawn from the legal profession. The other half were drawn from the clerks within the registry. My predecessor as President—not my immediate predecessor, but my predecessor at some distance, Lord Gardiner—had indicated that he wished to exercise that patronage. He also expressed a similar wish in relation to the Masters of the Supreme Court. That was resisted by Lord Parker, who was then the Lord Chief Justice.
Although it seemed to me to be anomalous that I should have responsibility for the administration of those officers and therefore for the appointments, it also seemed anomalous that responsibility for those appointments, particularly since half related to the clerks to the registry, should be taken away and vested in the office of the Lord Chancellor. However, I have always taken the view that executive decisions should, as far as possible, be taken by someone who is responsible to Parliament. That is somewhat of a legal fiction these days, but nevertheless I felt bound to honour it. In a sense, it was empire-building by the office of my noble and learned friend.
I mention it only because the Bill raises very important constitutional points and one should not lose sight of the vast patronage which is exercised by my noble and learned friend and his office. I have noticed a chit coming down to tell my noble and learned friend why I was wrong on my first point, so I can resume my seat.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I regret to say that my noble and learned friend's observation on that point is not quite correct. To date, I have no such chit. I have, however, sought to follow the amendments that my noble and learned friend is querying and, as far as I can follow the points that he is making, I must advise him that the word "full-time" does occur in the lines in question. I shall certainly check again in more detail although I have tried to do so while sitting and listening to my noble and learned friend. We are endeavouring in this aspect to go along with another principle that my noble and learned friend is keen on—that is, to try to shorten legislation. By including the reference to "salaried", we have been able to omit references to "full-time" where they occur.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have heard my noble and learned friend correctly. Is he saying that the word "full-time" does occur in those lines?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes, that is what I am saying. As far as I have followed the amendments to which my noble and learned friend has referred, I have found the word "full-time" in the lines under discussion. However, in view of the fact that he has queried that point, I shall certainly wish to check it at my leisure. So far, however, I have not followed his point.
Turning to my noble and learned friend's reference to patronage, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for appointing people who hold judicial office or quasi-judicial office and in some cases for recommending the appointment of such people to Her Majesty the Queen. I believe that it is right that these appointments should be made by the Lord Chancellor who has a variety of responsibilities, one of which is to be accountable to Parliament.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Orkney and Fife Inquiries
3.56 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement about child care in Scotland which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I have today published as a Return to an Address of the House the report which Lord Clyde prepared of the inquiry which I asked him to undertake into the removal of nine children from South Ronaldsay to a place of safety on 27th February 1991. I have also published as a Return to an Address of the House Sheriff Brian Kearney's report on child care policies in Fife following the inquiry which my predecessor asked him to undertake. I am also placing in the Library later today letters I am sending today to the chief executives of the two authorities concerned and also letters to the chief executives of all regional and islands councils about the action to be taken on the two reports.
"These are two important reports which have major implications for child protection and for the management of child care policies.
"Dealing first with the Orkney inquiry, I am grateful to Lord Clyde for completing such a full and clear report into circumstances which were both difficult and complicated. He has not only set out very clearly the facts of the handling of a difficult episode but has also drawn helpful conclusions and made positive recommendations which have major implications for child care law and practice. I am also grateful to the expert assessors who supported Lord Clyde in carrying out his task, Miss Ann Black and Dr. Hugh Morton.
"The report identified significant failings on the part of Orkney Islands Council social work department, the Northern Constabulary and the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, not only in the way in which
1028
the decision to remove the children was reached but also how it was implemented and how the interviews were carried out with the children. The House should be in no doubt that this is a report which is justifiably critical of the way in which this affair was handled.
"However, Lord Clyde goes beyond immediate criticisms to make positive recommendations designed to prevent situations of the kind arising again in the future. At the same time he recognises the way in which agencies, and in particular social workers, have to face up to very difficult decisions in carrying out their duty to protect children. In this case in particular he notes that all those involved acted in good faith.
"I have examined the 194 recommendations of the report with care. Action is needed and I am anxious to see early progress. Some recommendations can be implemented without undue delay whereas others require primary legislation or further consideration and consultation. A number fall directly to the Scottish Office for action, but others affect other agencies: local authorities, the police and the health service. I am minded to accept the great majority of these recommendations and to take them forward in consultation with the agencies involved as a matter of priority. Some recommendations will require further consideration, and my officials will be contacting the organisations concerned to follow these up.
"I have in mind to make changes, broadly along the lines which Lord Clyde has recommended, on emergency protection of children and their removal to a place of safety. These would be implemented principally by primary legislation and I will include my detailed proposals for change in a White Paper on Child Care Policy and Law which I shall publish early next year. I am also minded to accept certain changes proposed for regulations and revised regulations will be issued for consultation in the usual way. These changes will be designed to increase the safeguards for children and parents involved in child protection investigations and procedures.
"A considerable number of the changes recommended relate to central guidance. We are committed to revise the central Scottish Office guidance on "Effective Intervention" and this will be done in the light of Lord Clyde's recommendations. At the same time we have established with the Association of Directors of Social Work a working party which will produce new practice guidance for social workers engaged in child protection. I shall ask the working party to embody Lord Clyde's recommendations in this guidance. One recommendation I would particularly highlight, and which I endorse, is Lord Clyde's recommendation that removal of a child should be recognised as a course to be considered only where no alternative exists and the urgency of the risk requires it, and that caution must be exercised.
"I have also established along with the Lord Advocate a working party to draw up guidance on joint working and the interviewing of children. This

1029
involves the police, the Crown Office, social work and other expert interests. I shall direct them to Lord Clyde's recommendations as the basis for their work. I intend all of this work to be carried out as a matter of urgency.
"Training for child protection is identified as an area of major importance. This has already been recognised by the significant commitment to various initiatives, notably support of the development of courses at Dundee University and the introduction in 1992– 93 of the new specific grant to help local authorities develop social work training. I propose immediately to increase substantially the amount available for specialist training for social workers in the Islands this year and to give close attention to the need to improve training in the current public expenditure round.
"The report provides an invaluable basis for moving ahead to improve child care. It not only analyses events within Orkney but draws conclusions and makes recommendations which should improve the way in which we afford protection to children in future. I also support what Lord Clyde says at the conclusion of his report that at the end of the day the welfare of the nine children involved should not be overlooked and every opportunity should be taken to overcome any effects of the inquiry and the incidents which prompted it. I am sure the House would want to endorse these sentiments. I also endorse his plea for action to re-establish relationships between Orkney Islands Council social work department and the local community. There will be an inspection next year in Orkney by the Social Work Services Inspectorate which I established earlier this year.
"I turn now to the report of Sheriff Kearney's inquiry on child care policies in Fife. This inquiry was established because of issues which were brought to the attention of my predecessor about the child care policies pursued by Fife Regional Council. As a result of his inquiry Sheriff Kearney has reached the conclusion that,
"very serious cause for concern exists as to the implementation of the Regional Council's social work department's child care policy".
"I accept this view. Sheriff Kearney makes a number of recommendations directed to Fife Regional Council to rectify these matters. I also accept his view that the implementation of the recommendations of the report will not remove the deficiencies described by Sheriff Kearney until and unless the region and the Director of Social Work are prepared to accept that these deficiencies exist. I have today written to the council asking it to let me have a report within eight weeks on how it proposes to implement the recommendations specifically addressed to it and what action it proposes to take on the issues of concern highlighted in the conclusions of the report. In particular I have asked what action it is taking to improve working relationships within the child care system in Fife. My officials will meet with regional
1030
council officials to discuss implementation and there will also be an inspection next year in Fife by the Social Work Services Inspectorate.
"As far as the general recommendations are concerned, I am minded to accept the great majority of the recommendations subject in some cases to consultation and I am writing today to a wide range of interests to draw some recommendations to their attention for immediate action. Other recommendations will be incorporated in guidance to be issued by me or in primary legislation in due course.
"I am grateful to Sheriff Kearney and his social work assessor, Professor Mapstone, for the care which they have given to this complex remit.
"I am very conscious of the difficult nature of the important task which confronts social workers, the police, and other agencies over the whole field of child care. The dilemma they face in deciding whether, when and how to intervene is often acute. But I am also conscious of the importance of public confidence in this work, which has such a major impact on the lives and well-being of children and their families. Above all there is the overriding obligation to ensure that in every action by the many bodies with responsibilities in this field, decisions are taken with care and that the best interests and welfare of the children remain paramount at all times.
"These detailed and substantial reports address very serious issues to which all concerned must respond. The action that I have announced today will be carried forward urgently by the Scottish Office in consultation with all the relevant agencies. It is my firm intention that it will result in improvements in procedures and the quality of practice for the future."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place relating to the two inquiries involving the protection and care of children at risk of sexual and other abuses. I also welcome the caring and constructive approach of the Government as outlined in the Statement to this difficult area of human, or perhaps I should say inhuman, relationships.
I deal with the reports in reverse order. The Kearney Report unfortunately took three-and-a-half years to complete but I am sure that the conclusions and recommendations it makes will be of considerable value to the Government and the regional authority in the reappraisal of all the issues raised, which involve not only the children but their parents and guardians and sometimes close members of the family. I concur with the Minister in thanking Sheriff Kearney and his assessor for the meticulous care which they have taken in preparing the report.
Likewise, Lord Clyde deserves the thanks of the community for his typically fair and painstaking conduct of a very difficult inquiry in Orkney which was subjected to continuous media attention over a period of eight months. The report reaches almost 400

1031
pages and makes almost 200 recommendations. On the content of the report I reserve judgment as, despite my efforts to obtain a copy, at this stage I have not had a proper opportunity to consider the report, although parts of it—many parts in fact—have been leaked by the media since last Friday both on radio and in the press. Presumably, members of the press were in possession of embargoed copies of this very important report but just ignored the embargo. Indeed, I have a cutting from a newspaper yesterday which is headlined:
"Blame cast on police and social workers. Clyde Report highlights the lessons of Orkney".
If we are to have a system of giving reports to the press with embargoes on them, then it is the duty and responsibility of the press to pay attention to that embargo and not leak on a daily basis right up to the publication of the report.
I wish to raise several matters arising out of the report. One issue which arises in particular is the format of this type of inquiry. I should like to ask whether the Government agree that the procedures involved require to be urgently reviewed to ensure that any other such inquiry, if we have the misfortune to have one, is completed with minimum delay while doing justice to the issues and parties involved. Every day lost in such reports will almost certainly be another child or many other children being abused unnecessarily and without the protection of the community.
Specifically arising out of the Orkney inquiry, where solicitors and counsel seem to be the main beneficiaries, will the Government in their review of child care and law consider whether the adversarial approach is suitable to establish the facts in this type of inquiry? It may be a contradiction in terms to appoint an inquiry, announce the terms of reference and then turn that inquiry into what amounted in some cases to almost a criminal trial in respect of some of the principal people involved. I ask the Government to consider that suggestion.
That is only one option. But perhaps I may suggest one way in which it might be better dealt with as one option. A more suitable and swift system would be for the inquiry, once it has been set up, to ask for representations in writing for anyone with an interest. The inquiry could then analyse those representations and issue a preliminary report focusing on the main matters for consideration and inviting further comment all within a tight time-scale. Thereafter, the inquiry could invite witnesses that it considers necessary to attend and supplement the evidence which they may have already given in writing, with the proviso that if any other person not invited considered that his oral evidence and testimony was vital to the inquiry he could make application to it and then, cause shown, be allowed to give evidence to the inquiry.
The format at Orkney as it developed—and I do not blame anyone for this; I am not trying to allocate blame anywhere because it would be inappropriate—was viewed by many members of the public (and was, indeed, expressed in some newspapers) as a gravy train for lawyers. As I was not a passenger on that
1032
train I cannot comment with authority, but even the estimated costs of £ 5 million surely demand that that form of inquiry should be reviewed.
Unfortunately, child abuse is a desperately sad area of life for all those involved, whether that abuse be physical, sexual or a combination of both. Like industrial law and unfair dismissal, which started out to be a simple and readily understandable branch of the law to the layman, child abuse in itself has almost become an industry. Lawyers, solicitors, social workers, sociologists, medical men, and so on, are necessarily involved to get to the root of the cause of the abuse. However, some control must be taken over such matters.
We took the Statement in your Lordships' House because, although these are two Scottish inquiries, sexual abuse of children is not a parochial matter; it is a universal matter and, indeed, a United Kingdom matter. Cleveland, Rochdale and Orkney will all go together in the roll of sexual abuse. The dilemmas faced by all the parties involved—and I believe that this fact was recognised by the Minister—arc the same whether you are in Glasgow or in London. Social workers, doctors, the police and others all have the same problems in this very difficult task. If they move too soon they are criticised; but if they move too late they are also criticised. On occasions, some of them have been quite justifiably criticised and even verbally abused in various quarters.
The main problem in child abuse cases is the close involvement of other members of the family. Experience has shown that child abuse has not come from outsiders; it comes from other members of the family, close relatives and sometimes trusted babysitters. I wonder whether it is time for the Government to take a look at the situation and pool the resources we have from all the various people interested in child abuse into a UK pool of knowledge. It is no use someone in Glasgow doing one thing and someone in Portsmouth doing another. Let us have a universal approach to the matter. A child in Orkney is no different from a child in Oldham or a child in Orpington. To implement the report as proposed is all very well, but the knowledge should be passed to the South and to other countries.
I look forward to reading the White Paper on child care and law which, again, was no doubt delayed by the system of the two inquiries. The longer the White Paper is delayed, the longer proper legislation will he delayed. That underlines the plea I make for swifter procedures to be involved. If it cuts out the lawyers, well, so be it. It may be for the benefit of the community. All the matters raised in the inquiries are important and will no doubt be taken into account by the Government.
Finally, as part of the overall review of child care and social work, will the Government consider whether the time has come to carry out a complete review of the operation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, soon to have its 25th birthday. It covers a wide, time-consuming and very costly area of public life. No parliamentary Act is perfect. A review of that Act would be welcomed in many quarters. In closing, I repeat my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the

1033
very full Statement on the two matters. However, I hope to bring all those issues back to the House for a full debate at the earliest possible date.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should also like to thank Lord Clyde for what I am sure is a most excellent report, though I have not had the opportunity to read it. This was a tragedy for all Orkney. It caused great unhappiness, especially to children and it certainly shook our faith in the social services. I believe that the Statement will do something to reassure people that action is to be taken on what the Minister himself described as a "justifiably critical" report.
As for the report's 194 recommendations, I welcome the statement by the Minister that he intends to take action. However, I should like to be reassured that the action will not seem too remote or too professionally oriented. To my mind, one of the things that went wrong was that the community which used to look after a great many matters concerning children, family life, and so on, became divorced from what were its responsibilities. It felt that it was going to be taken over by social workers. But social workers cannot take over those responsibilities. Least of all, they cannot take them over in a scattered, island community. A limited number of career social workers simply cannot compete with the problems which may arise in such scattered communities and which used to be dealt with by the family—that is, aunts, uncles, cousins and so on.
I read that the working party involves the police, the Crown Office, social workers and other expert interests. But, above all, it involves the local people and their families. I hope that their interests will be represented on it. I also hope that they will have every opportunity to make their views known. I have always had doubts about these inquiries. As has been said, this one went on for eight months and cost £ 1 million. In it, as always, allegations were made against individuals to which they could not reply. That is an old and justifiable complaint. I would much rather that, wherever possible—I agree that it may not always be possible where children are concerned—the normal procedures of law should apply. If crimes have been committed (and there were allusions that they were committed) they should be prosecuted in the courts where proper procedures are enforced. If public servants or the police have trespassed under the law, they too are subject to it and action should be taken against them.
The allegations made against the people who cannot answer back are very serious. The problem has existed for a long time. I hope that some attention will be paid to it. I understand that a review of local government is taking place at the Scottish Office. I hope that that review will not be solely concerned with local government finance or local government areas. I hope that it will look at the responsibilities of local government and the ability of the local authorities to discharge those responsibilities.
It is not only the career civil servants, the social workers, who are involved; it is the senior officials and
1034
the elected representatives of the local authority. It is time certainly in small communities, and I think probably in all communities, that we looked at the responsibilities that we are constantly placing on local authorities and their ability to discharge them, or indeed to recruit adequate staff to do so. With those reservations I welcome the report as far as I am able.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful for the response and the welcome that has been extended to the publication of these reports, and indeed for the statements by both noble Lords. Perhaps I may deal first, as did the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, with the Kearney Report. Indeed it took a long time to reach its conclusion, but as the noble Lord will see, when he has the time to study it, it involves the detailed examination of a large number of cases.
I regret to say that it included some rather worrying conclusions. For example, it says at one point:
"The central impetus in implementation of policy which we found to exist was the tendency to over-simplify the approach of the social worker to the intricate and difficult discipline of child care and to impose this simplified approach in a rigid and dogmatic manner which, thus imposed, alienated others involved in child care such as, on the one hand the Children's Panel and the Reporter, parts of the hearings system and on the other hand, other professionals directly involved in child care such as teachers, guidance teachers, educational psychologists, child psychiatrists, clinical child psychologists and health visitors."
The noble Lord will appreciate that in bringing it together he had a major task in attempting to redress what he saw as a serious imbalance in the way in which social service policy was being taken forward.
I agree with the noble Lord that there has certainly been some considerable publicity in the Scottish press about the reports, but I would indicate to him that there were no leaked reports. None was given out, under embargo, until about an hour ago, so their speculations are not on the basis of the actual reports. I think that the noble Lord will be aware that criticisms of the police and the social workers were widely known as the evidence was reported from Orkney itself.
While the noble Lord's concern about the format of the inquiry is one that I readily understand, and it did take a long time, this was against the background of the circumstance where, following on a decision by a sheriff, it was not possible to take the case forward in the court to see if the grounds of referral were established, nor indeed in my capacity then as Lord Advocate did I think that there was a possibility to take the matter forward then to see if there might be any basis for criminal proceedings. Although Lord Clyde's remit was quite clear that he was not in a position to examine whether or not the allegations were true, as the inquiry developed there were not surprisingly attempts made from all quarters in one way or another to establish whether the underlying allegations had any truth in them.
The inquiry cost a lot of money. I think that the figure of £ 5 million that the noble Lord gives is, so far as we yet know, on the high side. We have paid out some £ 2.25 million so far. The noble Lord is right to draw this into the context of the other major inquiries that there have been south of the border. In particular,

1035
in one matter, the Cleveland inquiry concluded with an indication that social workers should have careful regard to what children said without necessarily believing them. Lord Clyde has found it necessary to repeat that recommendation.
At the centre of what Lord Clyde has said is that Section 37 of the 1968 Act should be amended so that children should only be removed from their homes on a test along the lines of when they are likely to suffer imminent and significant harm. Obviously we hope that if such a change were to be incorporated into primary legislation the likelihood of such removals would be reduced in the future.
I turn to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I think that I have covered what he had to say in terms of a criticism that proper legal procedures should have been followed. I entirely agree with him. As a former Lord Advocate may I say that it would have been much more desirable if that had been possible, but the circumstances made it almost beyond it. The noble Lord made some observation with regard to drawing members of the community into a working party. As large parts of the report indicate, great regard must be had, particularly in Orkney, to the views of the community. The particular working party was a specialist one on developing proper techniques with regard to the questioning of children. Lord Clyde has a number of significant criticisms to make about the way that was done in this case.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in setting up the working party that my noble and learned friend has just announced, will he bear in mind that among children's rights must be the right to be children? Being asked by whatever means to expose the truth of what their parents or other adults have, or have not, done to them can be a burden for children which is often quite out of proportion to the usefulness of the facts that emerge. Should not more of that burden be put upon adults and greater effort put into finding more successful ways of getting the truth out of them?
Lord Fraser of CarmyllieMy Lords, a significant part of the report by Lord Clyde is devoted to an examination of what might be the best ways of discovering from children just exactly what the truth of the situation may be. He also reflects carefully on whether in all circumstances the most appropriate way to respond to the paramount needs of the child is always that of removing him from his parents, and indeed goes on to offer some observations as to whether in such circumstances it is always appropriate to prosecute a parent if there is an allegation that might be supported by evidence of sexual abuse. These are extremely difficult areas, and areas that ought to he discussed carefully, but I have no doubt that there are quite sharply conflicting views on whether prosecution is or is not always appropriate.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, may I say, with the leave of the House, that in the light of the assurances that the noble and learned Lord has given me that no embargoed copies of the report were released to the press, I unreservedly withdraw any
1036
comments criticising the abuse of the system. However, clearly information leaked from somewhere to the press.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the perplexity, if not the certain anxiety, of the general public about the way in which the police appear to have been involved together with the social services in the early morning raid, particularly as no subsequent prosecution was mounted? Are the police bound to answer the call of the social services in matters of this kind without first perhaps investigating what the social services fear has been happening?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are a number of criticisms by Lord Clyde that the Social Work Services Department and the police and others failed to consider the position of the children, and failed to keep an open mind as they considered these allegations before they took steps to remove the children from their homes. I should make it clear that in the report in relation to what are described in the popular press as the "dawn raids" Lord Clyde said:
"The timing of the removals was beyond serious criticism. The time for the removal of a child must depend upon the whole circumstances of each particular case, but the prime consideration must be the welfare of the child."
Although he makes that observation in his report with regard to the particular circumstances of the Orkney case, he also quotes from a policy document prepared by the directors of social work in which they indicated that in a planned intervention, such as the intervention of the type we saw in Orkney,
"removal of children who are sleeping in their homes or have just risen from their beds cannot be supported as a form of intervention centred on the interests of the children concerned."
With respect, I agree with that.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will recall that for some four years I had responsibility for social work at the Scottish Office. That, I hasten to add, was before any of these issues arose. However, I certainly recall some of the issues mentioned in the Statement today and the need to address them. I welcome the news that there will be regulation in this area and that a White Paper will be published that addresses the issues and considers how we might improve both regulations and legislation with regard to children and child care. When is the White Paper likely to emerge?
Will my noble and learned friend also tell me whether we are likely to have the opportunity of a debate in this House once we have had a chance to digest what must be detailed and full reports? Will he comment in general terms on the fact that the two reports cost a great deal of money and took a great deal of time to be produced? That was also the case with other similar inquiries. Is it not time the Government took a look at how they run inquiries of this nature so that they cost less and take a lot less time? My noble and learned friend will know that during the course of the Lord Clyde inquiry there was a great deal of adverse publicity in Scotland directed at the legal profession and at the very nature of these

1037
inquiries. I hope that my noble and learned friend will agree with me when I say the one thing that is left hanging in the air over the Orkney case is the truth or otherwise of the allegations. Many of us feel that situation is totally unsatisfactory.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall respond to the noble Lord's final point first. I understand why the noble Lord should consider the state of affairs unsatisfactory. However, as I have sought to explain, once a sheriff had indicated that he considered there was a fundamental flaw in the procedures which had been followed—that decision was subsequently reversed in the Court of Session—the children were returned to their families immediately. That course having been followed, it was thereafter effectively impossible to determine whether or not the allegations that had been made were true or false. The parents and others, who were the subject of these allegations, enjoy, along with every other citizen in this country, the presumption of innocence. None of them has been brought before a criminal court and none of them has been found guilty of any offence. There the matter must rest.
The matter of the length and the cost of an inquiry is always a difficult one to consider. My noble friend may like to consider what Lord Clyde said when he embarked on this inquiry. He certainly attempted at the outset to keep the inquiry short. He attempted as best he could to pursue it in what might broadly be described as an inquisitorial fashion. However, for the reasons I have just outlined—that is, that there were those who felt they had their own serious interests to protect—it became difficult for Lord Clyde to deprive various parties of their rights to examine matters fully. I offer no criticism whatsoever of Lord Clyde in that regard.
The White Paper will be produced in the early part of next year. It will cover the reports of the Orkney inquiry and the Fife inquiry. A review of child care was published in 1990. There is a further report that discusses the role and functions of the reporter. It is time for us to reconsider much of the 1968 material. We await only a review of residential accommodation in Scotland. Once all those aspects have been studied the White Paper will be published.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope I may intervene in connection with the portion of the Statement which deals with the issue of the White Paper to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred. In the course of a discussion on these serious matters it has been stated that these are problems that concern the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Scotland. I understand that the White Paper will be produced by the Scottish Office. I hope we may take it that the paper will constitute an accumulation of the wisdom of the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with all that department's experience of the Children Act—the Act was brought before this House with great distinction by the noble and learned Lord—and that of the Home Office as regards the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope we may take it that the White Paper will constitute a unified
1038
representation of all the wisdom that could be assembled and that it will benefit all our children, whether they be Scots or not.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct to say that children at risk are often at risk for much the same reasons in Scotland as they are south of the Border. As I believe I indicated when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, it is disappointing that Lord Clyde should criticise the fact that notwithstanding that a document had been issued by the Scottish Office entitled Effective Intervention, which relied heavily on some of the recommendations of the Cleveland report, those recommendations were not followed through or observed. Sometimes we in Scotland tend to be chauvinistic as regards our law, but I am sure there are some worthwhile lessons to be learnt from some unhappy experiences south of the Border and from the legislation which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor introduced some time ago.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us welcome the additional resources that are to be made available for social worker training in Scotland? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that there are clear indications that the training of police officers for conducting inquiries of this kind should be reviewed? What discussions are taking place with the chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland to ensure that the training processes are now reviewed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, criticisms are made of the training of social workers but there are also indications that police officers who were engaged along with social workers and officials of the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children lacked a sufficient degree of skill as regards their training and expertise when interviewing children. The recommendations that Lord Clyde made are all accepted by the Secretary of State and those that relate to the training of police officers in this difficult and complicated area of investigation will be implemented as vigorously as those that relate to the training of social workers.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the Statement said that the social work inspectorate would make thorough inspections of the Fife and Orkney social work departments. Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that those inspections will take place without any notice being given to the social work departments involved because if inspections are notified in advance they become virtually useless?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I appreciate that in certain circumstances it is desirable to conduct inspections without any notice being given so that those who are being inspected will have no knowledge that an inspection is about to take place. However, the type of inspection that is envisaged here aims to ensure, following on the criticisms made in the report, that social work departments have in place a number of officials who are qualified and expert in the area of child abuse, or whatever. In those circumstances I do

1039
not envisage that people from the independent inspectorate will suddenly emerge from a plane in Orkney without warning. However, in spite of that, I can assure the noble Lady that the inspection will be most thorough. It is important that social work matters on the island of Orkney are improved and also that they should return to some degree of normality.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("judicial offices for the time being") and insert ("offices").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. Its primary purpose is to put beyond doubt that all the offices listed in Schedule 1—including those offices which might not usually be described as judicial—shall be regarded as qualifying judicial offices for the purposes of the Bill. It also removes an ambiguity. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, before the amendment is formally adopted perhaps I may clarify the position relating to the bundle of extremely helpful documents about which there was some discussion a while ago. The position is that those papers were apparently supplied to the Printed Paper Office but they were not put on display. Apparently they never are. Therefore, they were only available to noble Lords who cared to ask for them. The problem was that many noble Lords did not know of their existence.
Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that where such a situation arises in the future, as it is bound to do, noble Lords who have taken part in the debates on the subject at various stages up to that time might either be sent the documents direct or at least notified that documents whose existence they had no reason to suspect are available on request.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I accept that point entirely. We sought to disseminate the documents to some extent. I am sorry that it appears that everyone did not receive copies. I took some trouble in preparing the documents and had hoped that they would be disseminated. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, did not receive a copy earlier. We shall certainly see whether we can make better arrangements for the future.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.6:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert ("if it is held on a salaried basis.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, a person holds an office "on a salaried basis" if and so long as, and to the extent that—

(a) his service in the office is remunerated by payment of a salary; and

(b) that salary is not subject to terms which preclude rights to pensions and other benefits accruing by reference to it;

1040
and the reference in that subsection to an office being held on a salaried basis shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment with Amendment No.4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.7:
Page 2, line 18, after ("amend") insert ("either Part or).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. Schedule 1 has two separate parts and the amendment merely serves to make it clear that offices may be added to either part of it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may ask why the amendment is necessary. If the Minister is given powers to amend the schedule why is it necessary to say that he has power to amend both parts of the schedule? Is it not merely a symptom of the prolixity from which we have been suffering, in spite of the protests of the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Renton?
There is another point which arises in connection with the amendment. Is it not a Henry VIII provision as defined by the Donoughmore Committee? Did not my noble and learned friend say during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill that the Government took fully into account the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee? Did not those include the recommendation that a Henry VIII clause should not be used merely because it was convenient but when it was necessary? Why is it necessary here?
There are other ways of dealing with such a situation. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not merely say either that when a new judicial office is created it is convenient or it is more convenient for him to be allowed to amend the Act of Parliament. As your Lordships know, under the procedure for parliamentary disqualification of officers holding offices of profit under the Crown as the new office of profit is created that very statute amends the schedule to the Parliamentary Disqualification Act. Why cannot that be done in this case?
I repeat the question, which is capable of a simple answer. Is this a Henry VIII clause? Is it consonant with the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee to which I referred? Even if it is convenient, why is it necessary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, so far as concerns the amendment, which is the matter at issue, it is desirable to make it plain that either part of the schedule can be amended in order to remove the possible suggestion that all one can do is add something to the end of the schedule.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend allow me to intervene? Can there possibly be any doubt that if the schedule can be amended both parts can be amended?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am in the course of trying to explain why parliamentary counsel advised that the amendment was wise. He took the view that amending the schedule might be regarded as

1041
restricted to adding offices to it. The point is that the office could be added to either part of the schedule and he thought it wise to specify that that was the case.
It seems to me that this type of clause is perfectly appropriate for the purposes of adding to or amending a schedule of this kind, which sets out a list of offices to which the pension provisions might apply. The amendment is concerned with only a minor aspect, and that is why I have moved it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hesitate to hold up the Report stage of the Bill on a point which has been raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale with such eloquence, but I wish to ask whether the amendment clarifies the position or does the reverse. If one can amend a schedule one can obviously amend any part of it. If one introduces an amendment which provides that one can amend either part of the schedule does not one then have to choose whether to amend Part I or to amend Part II of the schedule? With the original wording there can be no doubt about the power to amend the schedule.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the clause which has been amended is not quite so simple. It says that:
"The appropriate Minister may by order amend Schedule I to this Act by adding offices to those for the time being there specified".
It is the view of parliamentary counsel, which has led to the amendment, that that wording contains an ambiguity in that it may suggest that one can only add offices to the schedule and that therefore that would mean at the end of the schedule. It was for that reason that the amendment was proposed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may take one more second.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it may be great cheek on my part to intervene but I have been told by our learned clerk that the noble Lord is out of order.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.8:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert ("other than subsection (6) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to allow subsection (6) to come into force at an earlier date than the rest of the Bill, should that be desirable. That would enable the Lord Chancellor to bring any further offices which may be necessary within the scope of Schedule 1 before the appointed day. The Bill would then operate in exactly the same way in respect of such offices when it comes into force on the appointed day as it would in respect of all others. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Qualifying judicial offices]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.9:
Page 25, line 20, leave out ("salaried").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No.4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 25, line 35, leave out ("Senior, or other").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No.10 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos.11 to 14, 16, 18, 19, 25 and 26.
These are purely technical amendments intended to ensure that the list of offices in Schedule 1 correctly describes those offices which are to come within the new pension scheme and does not include any which are not. Amendments are made to the entries relating to the district judges of the Principal Registry and the Family Division, child support commissioners, the presidents of a number of tribunals and the chairmen of a number of tribunals and various officers of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. The chairmen of child support appeal tribunals also gain separate entries in the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.11 to 14:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert ("excluding appointments in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991").
Page 26, line 9, at end insert (", excluding appointments in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991 as that paragraph has effect by virtue of paragraph 8 of that Schedule").
Page 26, leave out lines 12 and 13.
Page 26, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert ("for Northern Ireland").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos.11 to 14 with Amendment No.10. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.15:
Page 26, line 18, leave out ("Regional or other full-time")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No.4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.16:
Page 26, line 19, leave out from first ("tribunals") to end of line 20 and insert ("and disability appeal tribunals").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No.10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 26, line 21, leave out ("Full-time").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No.4. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.18 and 19:
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("disability appeal tribunals and child support appeal tribunals") and insert ("and disability appeal tribunals").
Page 26, line 23, at end insert:
("Chairman of child support appeal tribunals Chairman of child support appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No.10. With your Lordships' leave, I move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.20 to 24:
Page 26, line 29, leave out ("Full-time").
Page 26, line 32, leave out ("Full-time").
Page 26, line 37, leave out ("full-time").
Page 26, line 46, leave out ("Full-time").
Page 26, line 47, leave out ("Full-time").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos.20 to 24 with Amendment No.4. With your Lordships' leave, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments 25 and 26:
Page 26, line 49, leave out ("Vice-President") and insert ("other member").
Page 26, leave out lines 50 to 52.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No.10. With your Lordships' leave, I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.27 and 28:
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("full-time").
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("full-time").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No.4. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2 [The judicial officer's entitlement to a pension]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner: moved Amendment No.29:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("65") and insert ("60").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I take together Amendments Nos.29 to 33 and 35 to 36 because all relate to Clause 2 and the ages referred to therein. The first one referred to is the age at which a person who retires from the qualifying office can draw his pension. In Clause 2(1) (a) that is 65. Clause 2(1) (b) obliges him to have done five years' service in the qualifying office. Clause 2(2) deals with someone who wishes to retire before 65. If he retires at 55 he has his pension actuarially reduced.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the scheme consistent with modern practice. Sixty five is in excess of the usual retiring age. The general age for senior employees, certainly in the private sector, is 60, and doubtless that is so within the Civil Service. Your Lordships may remember that the pension proposal devised by the Government was not handed over to the Top Salaries Review Body to provide a scheme as was done in the case of Members of Parliament. It is difficult to know why, because it is accepted that a pension is deferred pay and the remit of the Top
1044
Salaries Review Body is to advise the Minister on matters of pay in regard to those within its remit. The result was that a consultative paper was published by the Government. Among those who reacted was the Top Salaries Review Body. On the subject of age it commented:
"The early retirement provisions are insufficiently flexible and fall short of good practice elsewhere. The Inland Revenue allow any pension earned to be put into payment after the age of 50 without an actuarial reduction. However, most employers impose some actuarial reduction and we would suggest that this should apply to early pensions where members leave between the age of 50 and 60. Pensions of men and women retiring early over the age of 60 should not be subject to actuarial reduction in line with good practice elsewhere and rulings in the European Court of Justice".
When the matter was debated in Committee my noble and learned friend said:
"To take 60 as the normal age at which a pension would be payable would be to make a considerable change to the scheme. That would have the effect of seriously damaging the possibility of the scheme standing as it does". [Official Report, 30/6/92; col.675.]
He did not vouchsafe any further reasons for that and it is difficult to understand why a reduction from 65 to 60 (the ordinary retirement age) and a reduction from 60 to 55 (the actuarially reduced pension) should in any way cause that result.
The limits we propose are modest in extent. Those which are in the Bill are out of date and according to the TSRB not consistent with good practice.
The next amendment is to delete:
"(b) who has, at the time of that retirement, completed, in the aggregate, at least 5 years' service in qualifying judicial office."
There does not seem to be any justification for taking five years. After two years a person is entitled by law to a pension under the social security regulations. Therefore, there would seem to be no purpose in imposing a five-year limitation. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the difference in the normal and early pension ages in this scheme from those in the private sector is a function of the unusual career path which the judiciary follows. Although the Bill reduces the compulsory retirement age for judges and makes provision for the first time for early retirement with an immediately payable pension we have not yet reached the point when the judiciary will follow exactly the same career and employment patterns as the rest of the public and private sectors.
To a great extent it is, I believe, common ground among many of your Lordships, in particular my noble and learned friends, that the best persons to fill judicial posts are those who have reached a certain degree of standing in the legal profession appropriate to the offices in question. This usually means that entrants will come to those offices rather later in life than generally applies in other careers and that they will tend to work to a later age. That this has consequence for the shape of the scheme is, I believe, obvious. An occupational pension scheme must be designed to reflect the realities of the career paths of its members. It is for that reason that the judicial pension scheme will have the shortest accrual period the Revenue will permit for earning maximum pension benefits whilst attracting tax-approved status. It is for this reason also that the early retirement and normal

1045
pension ages are a little above those used for others. Because of the age at which members of the judiciary are appointed, it would be impractical to allow them, as these amendments seek to do, to retire within a few years of appointment with an immediately payable pension without actuarial reduction. The taxpayer has a right to expect some minimum length of public service from public office holders before taking on the not inconsiderable expense of pensioning them and their dependants, possibly for a good many years ahead.
I believe that the Bill as drafted is fair both to the scheme members and the taxpayers. In my judgment it is a scheme which is properly fitted to the career pattern that judges would normally follow. Accordingly, I must invite your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he will tell the House whether he anticipates that, with a retiring age reduced from 75 to 70, he envisages the appointment of judges earlier than on average occurs at present.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is difficult to be certain about how that may operate. It may well be that judges will be appointed somewhat earlier than at present but not so early as to justify the provisions in these amendments.
The provisions of the Bill reduce the current retiring age. It is worth mentioning that in response to the consultation paper, the Association of County Court and District Registrars (as it was) stated:
"We strongly support the proposal to reduce the normal retiring age to 65".
The Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges, writing about that, said:
"The ability to retire at 65, taking a lower pension if necessary, is to be welcomed and is an undoubted benefit".
I quote from the departmental response. My point is that even if judges are appointed in future at a point somewhat lower than at present, the need for them to attain a degree of standing in the profession is such that in any event this particular proposal would be inappropriate.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, from my noble and learned friend's answer, it follows that if a judge—this could easily apply to a circuit judge or a district judge—is appointed under the age of 45, and the present 20-year accrual period stands, he has to serve more than 20 years in order to retire with his pension. If he retires earlier, it will be actuarially reduced, although he has served more than 20 years.
That seems to me to be utterly wrong. Why should that situation arise? He has done his 20 years and ought to be able to go. Instead, he is not only obliged to stay on but to stay on for all practical purposes at half pay. If he had gone after 20 years at the age of 65 he would have received his half pay pension. He is obliged to stay on without drawing that half pay and therefore in effect only receiving half pay merely
1046
because the modern retiring age, which applies not only in the private sector but equally throughout the Civil Service, is not to be used in this instance.
I take comfort only to the extent that I infer from my noble and learned friend's answer the clearest possible concession that the judges are sui generis, a matter on which I hope that we shall be able to build later in the debate. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am happy that this amendment is no longer necessary. It was tabled to deal with the situation of a judge, who because of ill health, was required to retire. He did not resign but was required to go. That provision was coupled with the provision later in the Bill which deals with removal for misbehaviour. It was in order to divorce the one from the other that the amendment was tabled. I am happy to concede that the amendments proposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor achieve that purpose but, obviously, with greater ability and distinction. Accordingly, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No.30 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos.31 to 37 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to deal with the matter referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner in his observations a few moments ago. In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No.39 which is part of the series to which my noble and learned friend referred. I shall endeavour to deal with that amendment and also Amendment No.44 tabled in my name. I speak to Amendments Nos.38 and 44 but the subject matter is also covered by Amendment No.34, to which reference has been made, and Amendment No.39.
As has been said, the amendment is intended to deal with the point raised by the drafting of subsection (4). That subsection deals with the pension entitlement of a qualifying judicial officer who is removed from office. As drafted, it gives just two grounds for removal: incapacity and misbehaviour. In fact, the grounds on which the different classes of officer who will come within the scheme may be removed are many and various and not limited to just those two. Therefore, the simplest way of dealing with the matter is to cut out altogether the description of the grounds. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.39:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("incapacity or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that there may be some slight confusion here and I should like some assistance in clarifying it.
Amendments Nos.37 and 76 are grouped together and listed below Amendment No.39. I take it that Amendment No.39 will be put to the House before Amendment No.37 is dealt with.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I called Amendment No.37 a little while ago.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the grouping shows very clearly that Amendment No.37 is to be taken with Amendment No.76. They are related. Amendment No.39, to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred, appears in the grouping above it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to call the amendments in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. I called Amendment No.37 and I understood that my noble and learned friend responded to the effect that it was not moved. It may be possible for him to deal with this difficulty. Obviously, if he wants later to raise an amendment which is related to Amendment No.37, I shall not stand in the way of ultimately giving effect to Amendment No.37 if your Lordships are in favour of the later amendment.
Lord Hailshani of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we are getting into rather a muddle. I understood my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to have proposed Amendment No.38 and the House passed it. Amendment No.38 leaves out,
"on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour".
Amendment No.39 leaves out "incapacity or". The phrase has already been left out.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understood the problem to be that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner was wishing to raise Amendment No.37 which I called some time ago.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in view of my noble and learned friend's kind suggestion, when we deal with Amendment No.76, which is linked to Amendment No.37, with your Lordships' indulgence I shall marry the two together. That is why they are grouped together.
[Amendment No.39 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 26, after ("determined") insert ("(subject to section 4(6) below)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos.57 and 66 to 68.
They are technical amendments and are concerned with the rare case of a scheme member who retires and begins to receive a pension but is then reappointed to judicial office. That is something that does not happen too often. A person in that situation will not be required on returning to service to refund any lump sum payment which he may have received on his first retirement. However, when he comes to his final retirement his pension and lump sum will be calculated by reference to his full service and any part of the final lump sum he has already received should not of course be paid to him again.
Clause 4 as drafted already provides for the deduction of an equivalent amount to any lump sum
1048
the officer has already received from the lump sum payment he receives on final retirement. It does not provide, however, for equivalent deductions from the lump sum payments made to personal representatives in the event of death in service or in the circumstances set out in Clause 4(3). The amendments are designed to cover those points and to put that matter right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.41:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert:
("( )A A pension under this section shall be payable at such intervals, not exceeding three months, as the Treasury may determine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos.70,80 and 81.
The purpose of the amendments is to establish the timing of payment of a pension under this section, and of the surviving spouses' and children's pensions. The amendments allow for administrative flexibility by enabling the Treasury to determine the actual timing of payments, but include the safeguard that the intervals between payments shall not exceed three months. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert ("(except to the extent to which it is given effect under or by virtue of section 12 below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where an officer holds an office which is added to the list of offices in Schedule 1, his accrued rights in that office before the date on which it becomes a qualifying office can be transferred into the new scheme under the provisions of Clause 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.43:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert ("and for this purpose a payment in respect of a pension shall be treated as becoming due on the first day of the period for which it is payable.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this technical amendment is solely to protect the interests of a judicial officer's estate in respect of pension payments that were due to a judicial officer but have not actually been paid to him at the time of his death. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.44:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert:
("(e) where a person ceases to hold qualifying judicial office in consequence of infirmity of mind or body, the cessation (however brought about) shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to constitute retirement, not removal, from such office.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment with Amendment No.34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [The appropriate annual rate]:
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No.45 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos.46 to 48 inclusive.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No.45:
Page 4, line 10, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:

("(1) In the case of a person who at the time of his retirement from qualifying judicial office has completed not more than twenty years' service in such office the "appropriate annual rate" for the purposes of this Act is an annual rate equal to one-fortieth of his pensionable pay multiplied by the aggregate length of his service in qualifying judicial office (expressed in years and fractions of a year).

(2) In the case of a person not falling within subsection (1) above the appropriate annual rate for the purposes of this Act is an amount equal to one-half of his pensionable pay plus an amount equal to one-seventieth of his pensionable pay multiplied by the aggregate length of his service in qualifying judicial office which exceeds 20 years of such service, but not extending beyond the date upon which he attains the age of 65 or completes 25 years of such service whichever first occurs (expressed in years and fractions of a year).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I first moved the amendment in Committee. I make no apologies for bringing it back again today because when my noble and learned friend sought to answer, he did not so much answer as probe the thinking behind the amendment. With the four months which have passed since Committee stage, I hope that he may have found it possible to look favourably at the thinking behind the amendment, if not the wording which I concede is incomplete at this stage.
The amendment provides a modest increment to pensions of judicial officers who are appointed before the age of 45 years, but would do so only in respect of periods of service exceeding 20 years and completed before the age of 65. Under the Bill as drafted such judicial officers will have been unable to make tax-effective contributions to their pensions during their periods of service before the age of 45. That fact alone, according to my understanding of the thinking behind the Bill, ought to speak loudly in favour of the amendment being accepted.
I remind the House that in the consultation paper, the point is answered by the statement that the extra pension payable to persons for periods in excess of 20 years would exceed the limits allowed for tax-approved schemes. On the basis of the actuary's report prepared for the Association of District Judges, I argued in Committee that that was incorrect. I challenged the assumption. I stated that the modest increment that the amendment allowed was within the limits laid down for those schemes. My point has not been challenged. I believe that the point which I made in Committee still holds good. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important and constructive contribution to this aspect of the debate. If the Government were prepared to accept Amendment No.45, I would support it. However, as I understand the attitude of the Government, they will not accept Amendments Nos.45,46 or 47. Since I prefer Amendments Nos.46 and 47, with deference to my noble and learned friend, I shall support those amendments in due course.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I stated in calling the amendment, it pre-empts later amendments. That I understand to be the purport of the observations of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The pension scheme has to be designed with an eye to a maximum level of benefit obtainable under it. In this case we have set the accrual span for earning maximum benefit at the minimum that the revenue allow for a tax-approved scheme; namely,20 years. I can see that there is possible scope for a person who has not any retained benefits to wish to improve what he might receive. In this connection, having in mind what my noble friend said at Committee stage, I have considered what else can be done.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine will have noticed the provisions of the additional voluntary contribution scheme referred to in Clause 10 of the Bill. I believe that it may be possible to open that up still further by making technical amendments which I shall propose later in order to enable people in the situation to which my noble friend referred to make such additional contributions. Contributions made under such a scheme will attract tax relief and would therefore be a way of adding to the value of the judge's pension up to the Inland Revenue's maximum in his particular case. If a person has no retained benefits, that would be quite an attractive option. I cannot accept the amendment as it is put. However, I have endeavoured to deal with the situation by opening up further the possibility of a scheme under Clause 10.
I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment and make it possible for us to have a debate on Amendment No.46 and later amendments.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I listened to what my noble and learned friend said and I wish to consider the points that he drew to my attention. I cannot help believing that if the period could be stretched to 25 years where that is justified that would be right. However, tonight is not the time to take the matter further; I sense that the will of the House is that the amendment is withdrawn and consideration is deferred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No.46:
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("20") and insert ("15").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may first express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for withdrawing his amendment and thus enabling the House to debate Amendment No.46. It is grouped with Amendment No.47, which is purely consequential and need have nothing said about it in its own right. Amendment No.46 raises the great issue of whether we should have a minimum accrual period of 15 or 20 years. Its purpose is to retain that accrual period where it exists and to extend it throughout the new scheme which is proposed by the Bill.
I moved the two amendments in Committee. They received unanimous support from all who spoke other than, necessarily, the noble and learned Lord the Lord

1051
Chancellor. However, that is not a matter of criticism. I withdrew the amendments in order to enable the noble and learned Lord to put the views of the Committee before the Treasury. I assume that he did so, but there has been no sign of any change of mind.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord resisted the amendments and in doing so advanced two explanations. First he said that in 1988 Parliament altered the general tax laws relating to pensions. That is entirely correct, but the change was in the general tax laws—and I stress the word "general". There was no suggestion that the judicial pensions scheme for the higher judiciary would in consequence require revision or that if for other reasons it were thereafter revised, any such revision must be within the 1988 general tax framework.
Few laws, and in particular tax laws, can have universal application. As we all know, no government have ever had the slightest hesitation in making exceptions in tax laws for exceptional situations in which the public interest genuinely so requires. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken in the debate about the exceptional career path or pattern of the judiciary. It is my submission to your Lordships that that very exceptional career path or pattern raises the question of whether exceptional treatment should be accorded to the judiciary. I wish to make clear that I am not suggesting that in the interests of the judiciary; I suggest it in the public interest. It must be judged by the public interest and it is only if the public interest would be served by exceptional treatment that there should be such treatment.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it was desirable that there should be one uniform scheme for judicial pensions which would eliminate the anomalies and injustices which undoubtedly arise when, as at present, we have more than one scheme and a judicial officer has to change schemes on promotion. I am sure that no one will disagree with that objective. However, there are more ways than one of achieving it, and the way in which the Bill is drafted is not one of them.
What the noble and learned Lord did not say, but what I ventured to suggest underlies the Government's whole attitude towards amendments to the Bill, is that whatever changes are being made in the pension arrangements, the result must be financially neutral; those changes must cost nothing. If a 30-year accrual period is to be changed to 20 years, some other period must be increased. In the Government's view that is the only public interest which matters.
With the greatest respect, I suggest that that is complete nonsense. We are not legislating for a time of temporary recession; we are legislating for the long term. Indeed, the full effects of the Bill will not be felt for at least 15 years, and some people suggest it will be longer.
In that situation there exists another public interest of far greater importance; that is, the quality of justice and the calibre of the judges who administer it. No one denies that the office of judge of whatever level is rewarding in its nature. At present it rightly carries with it a certain status in the community. However, if
1052
one makes that sufficiently financially unattractive, the day will assuredly come when suitable candidates will say to themselves, "Well, if the public rate the importance of the job that low, I am just not interested in seeking appointment".
Not only will the candidates for judicial appointments be affected, so will the administration of justice which, as your Lordships well know, is deeply rooted in public confidence. Why should the public have confidence in judges if they are relatively lowly regarded in the league tables of esteem as measured in terms of remuneration?
The principal vice of the Bill is that it seeks to make two changes; one is clearly desirable and the other could be justified only if the judicial career structure or path were radially different. Put together, their effects are cumulative and will almost certainly prove disastrous in the longer term.
For reasons previously given, I supported and continue to support lowering the retirement age to 70. That necessitates lowering the average age of appointment to judicial office by approximately five years. If at the same time one increases the pension accrual period by five years, one will, in effect, reduce the average age of appointment by 10 years. One is then talking about appointing judges aged between 40 and 45 which, as a norm, is too young. Such judges will not have acquired the depth of experience which is required by them. Furthermore, it will deprive the public of the services of the brightest and best members of the practising branch of the legal profession just at a time when they are beginning to develop their full potential. Therefore, there will be a double loss; a loss to the practitioners who directly serve the public as clients and a loss to the Bench.
There are real objections to a 20-year accrual period, apart from being combined with a reduced retirement age. The majority of judges will never be promoted. They will continue throughout their careers to serve in the office into which they were first appointed. That is inevitable even if it is inherently undesirable. It is inevitable given the pyramidical nature of the judiciary, the numbers involved and the real differences between the talents called for at the different levels. Twenty years of an endless diet of the same professional fare will inevitably blunt the enthusiasm for sympathy and the critical approach which judges would bring to bear upon all the cases which they are called on to try. I suggest that we cannot afford to have judges soldiering on simply in order to earn their full pension. Apart from anything else—and there are many other objections—it would tend to raise the normal retiring age rather than lower it.
It is a great mistake to think, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appeared to think when this matter was last before us, that practitioners at or about the age of 40 will already have acquired significant pension rights. Only the exceptional few will have had incomes to make that possible. Of those few, many will naturally and humanly, if not perhaps very sensibly, have concentrated their expenditure on

1053
the immediate needs of their families, including such matters as expenditure incurred to educate their children and to service the mortgages on their homes.
When offered judicial employment, those people will have to ask themselves whether they are prepared to forgo the opportunity of acquiring the really worthwhile pension which would be open to them if they continued in private practice for 10 or 15 years when the alternative facing them is to hold judicial office for 20 years and end up with a very much smaller pension.
At present it is extremely rare for a judge to be appointed at an age at which he cannot earn a full pension based on a 15 year accrual period. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor contemplates that in future it will be the rule rather than the exception that a judge should be appointed at a time when he cannot serve for long enough to qualify for a full pension. If so, judicial pensions will not normally exceed a figure of perhaps one third rather than one half of final salary. That may well save money but it will be singularly unattractive to those who are considering judicial appointments. As always, the result will be that we simply get what we pay for. I hope that the House will support these amendments not in the interests of future judges but in the public interest.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I regard this as the crucial clause in Part I. I wish to support this amendment with such force as I can muster. I believe that I do so with the greater authority in that I know I speak on behalf of the judiciary as a whole, not just the High Court Bench but especially the circuit Bench up and down the length and breadth of this country.
What is proposed in this amendment is not an advantage for the judiciary which it has not hitherto had. All that is sought is that the status quo should remain. That status quo has existed for a long time and for very good reason, the good reason being, as has already been said and acknowledged by my noble and learned friend, that the judiciary is in a unique position because of what my noble and learned friend referred to as the unusual career path and the fact that before anyone is ripe to be appointed to the Bench he needs—again I use my noble and learned friend's words—to have acquired status and experience. That means that the judiciary starts its job in that role at a stage when many people are already beginning to contemplate retirement. Therefore, it means that the length of the accrual period for pensions in relation to the judiciary must be separately considered from any consideration in regard to public servants in general. That has been recognised and that is why the accrual period of 15 years for the judiciary has been in existence for so long.
The arguments on this clause have already been deployed skilfully by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and at previous stages of the Bill. However, I make no apology for repeating
1054
them because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has not addressed them either in this House or in such discussions as I have had with him.
Perhaps I may make two preliminary remarks. First, the present judiciary has no self-interest to protect in regard to this clause because it simply does not bite upon those in office at present. Therefore, however cynical anyone may feel about self-interest, it simply does not apply here.
The second point has already been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington. At a time when every increase in payment or every financial provision must be scrutinised in the light of the stringent circumstances in which we find ourselves temporarily, this Bill does not fall to be considered in those terms. As has already been said, here we are laying down the guidelines for judicial pensions not for this year or next year and, indeed, not even beginning to have any bite for another 15 years or so. When they do have a bite, they will continue to bite for many years during which I hope that this country will again see periods of prosperity. Therefore, this clause need not be considered solely in the light of present stringent circumstances.
I am fundamentally opposed to the 20 year period, not because it is financially unfavourable to the judiciary—of course it is—but my reason is concerned with the public interest. Together with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I am primarily responsible for the efficiency and standards of service of the judiciary. I am quite satisfied that to require judges to serve for 20 years in order to earn a full pension is contrary to the public interest. Twenty years sitting on the Bench, after a career in a profession preceding it, is an extremely long time. There can be no doubt but that there is a tendency for staleness, for case hardening, for inflexibility of approach and for resistance to change, both as regards new laws and society, to set in when a judge sits for too long—and particularly when he sits for too long—doing the same work in the same place.
I do not mean in any way to denigrate—quite the contrary—the circuit judges who form the backbone of the judiciary in this country, disposing of the great majority of civil cases and jury trials. However, they tend to sit in the same place doing the same class of work day in and day out, year in and year out. Presently the evidence shows that many judges who are appointed when they are about 50 have lost their zest for the work by the time they have been there for 15 years. They have had enough. Judges, particularly on the circuit Bench but not solely there, who have been appointed at about the age of 50 are in many instances ready to go and do go at the age of 65 or thereabouts.
If this clause is not amended, it will force them to work on for another five years in order for them to gain a full pension. In those five years they will not be happy and I dare say that the public interest will not be served by judges who are soldiering on simply for that purpose, whereas they really feel that they have done their work on the Bench.
The answer to this which has been presented so far by my noble and learned friend is not to address the

1055
argument head-on and say, "I do not accept that 20 years is too long or that case hardening sets in". His argument is to say, "Well, they do not need to stay that long. They can go after 15 years, as they always have. Of course, they will only receive fifteen-twentieths of their pension but there is the retained benefit, and how generous we are in not taking retained benefit into account, which is a unique privilege attaching to the judiciary and to nobody else".
That is misconceived. It is particularly misconceived in relation to the circuit Bench because in that case we are not necessarily dealing with high earners who have been able, in the very few years of their maturity at the Bar, to put aside money by way of retained benefits so that they have some private pension to supplement their fifteen-twentieths if they go at the age of 65. Those who are appointed to the Circuit Bench are often not high flyers. One does not need to be a high flyer in order to be an extremely good judge. In the past it has been thought that those who are the most flashy and able advocates are not always the best on the Bench because they continue to practise that skill from the Bench where it is not as appropriate as it was from counsels' benches.
There are many judges who are extremely good but who have not earned high fees at the Bar. Moreover, at the time they are appointed to the Bench (and, a. fortiori, if they are appointed a little earlier as my noble and learned friend contemplates they will be) the moment of appointment will hit them just when they are trying to educate their families, pay their mortgages and generally enable themselves to be established in middle life rather than at a time when they have been prosperous for a period and been able to make a nestegg for themselves as the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seems to contemplate. The retained benefit argument may be all right for a few high flyers. However, it does not apply to the foot soldiers of the judiciary. It is those judges for whom I am most concerned in this provision.
Should the clause remain unamended, the Bill will contain two major clauses which clash in their purposes. I support and have always supported a reduction in the retirement age of the judiciary. That is provided for in Part II of the Bill, a reduction from 75 to 70. In fact that was not initially proposed by the Government. It was initiated and supported by the judiciary themselves. At the time it was so supported and proposed there was not the countervailing provision looming on the horizon of making the judges work an extra period in order to earn a full pension.
At the moment, should the clause remain amended, judges will have to retire earlier and work longer in order to earn their full pensions. It seems to me that those two provisions incontestably work in opposition to one another. The motive for reducing the retirement age of judges from 75 to 70—namely, to achieve a younger judiciary more acceptable to the public in the 1990s—will be defeated by the fact that most judges on the Circuit Bench who would have retired at 65 or thereabouts will now hang on until
1056
they are 70. The average age of the judiciary will therefore be higher as a result of the Bill rather than lower.
It is for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and myself to ensure that the judiciary are so appointed and deployed as to give the public the best service. I have yet to hear the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the argument that to have judges soldiering on for 20 years is contrary to public interest. But the justification is said to be twofold. First, that it is in accordance with general taxation policy; secondly, that it is bringing the judges into line with other public servants.
As my noble and learned friend said, judges are in a separate category. The general taxation policy can be varied. There is no reason why there should not be exceptions; indeed, if there were not there would be no need for this part of the Bill at all. My noble and learned friend contemplates that there will be exceptions in relation to the judiciary, to wit, the retained benefits. Therefore if it is desired and thought to be in the public interest that there should be an exception in relation to the accrual period, then that can be made too. There is nothing which requires the judiciary to be placed in the general Procrustean bed of a 20-year accrual period simply to bring them in line. Bringing them in line is not necessarily a good thing in all cases; uniformity is not necessarily the ultimate virtue.
The arguments put forward in favour of the clause simply do not meet the main argument in regard to the public interest which I have endeavoured to present. I hope that the House will see the force of my argument and carry the amendment. I ask particularly that when my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack replies, he has regard to the efficiency of the judiciary—of which he is the head—has regard to the public whose interests should be paramount and does not simply speak for the Treasury.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope not to take up too much time. I ask the House to believe that my one object in speaking is that I am concerned that we should obtain the best judges we possibly can to serve the public. Two of my noble and learned friends on the Cross-Benches pointed out that the financial cost of the accrual period will not, in the nature of things, bite during my lifetime—certainly not for 15 years. The effect of accepting the Bill, if it is not amended in the sense proposed by my noble and learned friends, will bite the moment the Bill comes into effect and from then onwards. It will have immediate effect.
If it be the case that it will be more difficult for future Lord Chancellors to recommend to Her Majesty appointments of judges of adequate calibre, the Bill will have done almost infinite harm. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said, we have the concurrence of the two main propositions in the Bill. The first is the reduction in the retiring age from 75 to 70 in the higher grades of the judiciary which appears to be fairly uncontroversial in itself.

1057
However, it is the effect of the accrual period upon that reduced retiring age which will produce the result that we fear.
Last week an Unstarred Question debated the need for judges. There was unanimous opinion from the Cross-Benches on that occasion and from other quarters in the House regarding the need for more judges in the judicial establishment. I share that view. We probably need another seven judges in the judicial establishment at the High Court level, and I do not know how many more at circuit judge level. I do know that when I was Lord Chancellor I had to appoint around 400 circuit judges, and I do not know how many recorders and assistant recorders in addition. When my father was Lord Chancellor, he had to appoint around one-quarter of that number.
The Bar was smaller then, as was the solicitors' profession. But in fact the extent by which work has increased for the courts is totally out of proportion to the rise in the numbers of the profession. Crime at the trial on indictment level has risen by around 10 per cent. a year compound interest almost since the war. Divorce work (or family work as it now is) has risen similarly since the Act of 1969. Motor accident cases, which form a great deal of the bread and butter of the Queen's Bench Division, are a result of the number of motor vehicles on the road. When we come out of recession, as I hope we all will, the employers' liability cases will rise in direct proportion also. The construction cases and the official referee work are even now running at far beyond what I was accustomed to when I was practising at the Bar. One can say the same of the Commercial Court which was referred to in the previous debate on the Unstarred Question.
I can only say that I found it extremely difficult to find enough judges of adequate calibre when I was Lord Chancellor—which, after all, was almost seven years ago. The situation must have grown a good deal worse since then. We managed to keep our heads above water. The Bar as a whole and the solicitors' profession are public servants who are eager to serve the public and often regard a judicial career as the legitimate aim of a career in the law, and I also take that view.
However, there comes a limit. I certainly was not finding it easy to compete, let us say, with the City. I look around this Chamber, but I do not see all of them here. The number of high-class high-fliers at the Bar who take remunerative positions in the City firmament at quite astronomical salaries, is not inconsiderable. I know from various sources that are open to me that the earnings at the Bar are very much higher. They make my mouth drool with envy compared with when I was practising. One has to compete with them. There is no reason why a man should not go on practising and earning large sums instead of joining the judicial Bench, but that is not what I believe a really public-spirited man will do.
Thank goodness there is a good deal of job satisfaction about being a judge, and one should take that into account. There is also the public esteem in which especially High Court judges and above are
1058
held. But that is not really enough. If one needs to appoint judges mainly aged 45 and above—it is no use referring to very much earlier ages than that—they have to be called for 15 or 20 years before they are appointed. It is true that the late Lord Devlin was aged about 41 when he was made a High Court judge, but in the main judges are appointed at the age of 45-plus. If one is then to say that a judge will have to retire at 70 with an accrual period of 20 years, that does not make sense.
It is no good referring—as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack did at an earlier stage of the Bill—to the general pension law. That point has already been dealt with in this debate by both my noble and learned friends the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice. The fact is that judges in the common law world—perhaps the Scots will forgive me for including them for this purpose—are appointed from successful practitioners whereas in the Code Napoleon world they are appointed as a separate profession when they leave law school and become part of the civil service. But that is not so in the common law world. The appointments have to be made from successful practitioners. They have to be of a quality which commands the respect of the profession. If one goes on saying that this provision has to be part of the system which applies to civil servants and other career patterns of the ordinary kind, one is going to get into terrible trouble. I beg my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to consider his successors even if he gets by with it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have just heard three remarkable speeches. I doubt if any of your Lordships who heard them would consider other than that their case has been made out conclusively. This is very much a Treasury Bill. I do not at all use that as a term of opprobrium. I thought it might be useful for your Lordships to know how the situation appeared to the Treasury in 1958– 59 when the present system was established.
The first point is negative. Nobody suggested for a moment that there were any grounds for bringing judicial pensions into line with the Civil Service pension. That argument was never advanced. The other point is positive. The situation which faced both the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury, which were entirely at one, was that for many years a judge had to subsist on the Bench for 15 years before he acquired a right to a pension at all.
I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham will bear me out when I say that when we came to the Bar there were a number of judges who were soldiering on, to use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, at Second Reading, and repeated and further spelt out by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice today. A number of judges were obviously in pain and ill-health which seriously affected their performance, but they felt in duty bound to their families and themselves to soldier on until they were quite convinced that they could no longer properly perform their duties. So the obvious answer, and the one that was adopted, was to have a graduated accrual system. The problem of soldiering on to earn a pension after 15 years is greatly

1059
exacerbated by the provisions of this Bill. To earn a full pension a judge is now required to go on for an extra five years.
There is one factor which we do not know as far as I have been able to ascertain. What is the benefit to the public purse of harming the judges in this way? At Second Reading my noble and learned friend said that obviously the increase from 15 years to 20 years is not helpful. I take that to be Ministerspeak meaning harmful. It certainly will be harmful to the judges as a whole. It has been estimated that the provisions of this Bill amount in effect to a cut of 7.5 per cent in the value of the pension. That is the calculation which has been made. If I am wrong I am sure that my noble friend Lord Benson, who has such expertise in these matters, will correct me.
We do not know and we have not been told, what the financial benefit is of this extra burden that is being put on the judges. I hope that my noble and learned friend will not say that it cannot be calculated because there are so many imponderables. There are certainly uncertainties, but some such calculation must have been made to justify the statement in the Financial Memorandum that the financial effects of this Bill are broadly neutral. Therefore, I press my noble and learned friend to give his best estimate of the figure involved if this additional burden is carried into effect so that judges must serve 20 years and not 15 years to earn a full pension. What is the advantage, on the best estimate in pounds, shillings and pence, to the public purse? I support this amendment as strongly as I can.
6 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the first Judicial Pensions Act was passed in 1799, which is nearly 200 years ago. It provided for the pension to be earned after 15 years' service. That period has therefore inured for close on 200 years. Now, for some purely Treasury reason as far as one can gather, one is contemplating altering it. In case it is thought that there is something idiosyncratic about the British period of 15 years, perhaps I may inform the House that in the United States the period is 10 years, which is one-half of the 20 years proposed; in Australia the period is 10 years, which again is one-half of the proposed period. In Canada it is 10 years, which again is one-half of the proposed period. In New Zealand there is an interesting compromise which some would favour. There the period is 16 years, which is one year added to our 15 years. However, the pension is not one-half; it is two-thirds, and it is tax-free. I imagine that the Government will not support that proposition.
To avoid repetition the only other point that I wish to make relates to the reference which has been made so frequently and which will no doubt be made again to the enormous advantage that members of the judiciary have in not being obliged to have their retained benefits taken into account. I am referring to the pensions that they may have acquired by money purchase or similar schemes. With the deepest respect, that is a red herring for the following four quite separate reasons.
First, it is, generally speaking, a justifiable assumption that pension provisions are part of an
1060
employment package—a pension representing deferred pay. After entering into employment, an employee gradually builds up his pension entitlement. In the course of his career he may be promoted or he may achieve an improved salary by taking on different employment. It is therefore considered right that credit must be given for the benefits he thus achieves under the various pension schemes into which he enters in the course of his employment. Therefore, as I understand it, although not in primary legislation, Inland Revenue practice contains a provision requiring that retained benefits are then to be taken into account.
However—this is my second point—before appointment to the Bench, the self-employed lawyer is in a different position. True enough, he can make some provision for his future retirement by money purchase, but the extent to which he does so varies considerably in practice. Some lawyers who have no children or other family commitments may be able to set aside satisfactory provision for the future. Others, burdened with house purchase and mortgage interest and with the heavy cost of children's education, find that they cannot finance any—or any adequate—pension provision in addition to their existing outgoings until later in their lives—indeed, at just the period when they might he offered a judicial appointment. Others may invest not in pension contracts but in real property or other assets. Moreover, the judicial appointment offered does not involve as is the case with promotions—an increase in income, but the very reverse. Taking retained benefits into account would, in all those circumstances, be quite inequitable. Why should wealth in one form—accumulated pensions—be taken into account whereas wealth in another form—real property—is not? Why should the saver be penalised but the speculator not?
The third point is that the Government know full well that if retained benefits were taken into account the only practical effect would be seriously to inhibit recruitment to the High Court Bench of those whose incomes are so high as to enable substantial pension provision to he made by the age of 50 to 55. In relation to circuit judges, in practice the retained benefits are likely to be very modest if not totally irrelevant.
My fourth and final point is that the decision to disregard retained benefits is not some new advantage that has been conjured up to facilitate the passage of the 20-year accrual. It is something which judges have enjoyed ever since pensions began and has certainly been of value for the past 40 or so years during which pensions have been able to be earned with tax advantages.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly from the Back Benches as a practising member of the Bar who has absolutely no interest to declare. By reason of age, any question of judicial preferment is quite impossible. However, on the grounds of the reasonable, convincing and moderate arguments advanced by noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches and in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, surely there is an overwhelming case to be made in support of the

1061
amendment? I wish to have the privilege of having said just a few words publicly and on record in support.
Beyond the general argument that has been raised, only one matter concerns me. I refer to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he asked, "What is it all about in terms of cash?" What does the Treasury want? What is it going to get? And is it really worth it in terms of the public interest—the only interest with which we are concerned?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it will probably be said that the only remarkable thing about my speech is that so far as I can tell, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I am the only person to have taken part in our entire proceedings up to now who is not legally qualified, and the noble Baroness has an honoris causa Doctor of Law degree to her credit.
I am moved to speak for very much the same reasons that I was driven to my feet on 9th June 1989 during the Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill. I had not intended to speak then, but I got so fed up hearing not only the Minister who introduced the Second Reading but also speaker after speaker from the Government Benches deplore the fact that dockers had jobs for life that I had to say that this was hardly the place for people to talk about having jobs for life. I mentioned that there had been a recent Friday debate in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had introduced his proposals for the reform of the Bar. I drew attention to the fact that of some three dozen speakers, two dozen were barristers. I made the point that possibly our proceedings on the Dock Work Bill might have been rather different if two dozen dockers had been Members of your Lordships' House.
When I was a schoolboy, if somebody was being bullied we used to have an expression, "Two (or three) against one isn't fair." During these proceedings, we have been in the position of having N against one, where N is any given number of your Lordships who happen to be legally qualified, speaking against the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Although I know that the judges have only the interests and the standing of their profession at heart, they are in the extremely fortunate position of being able to table amendments on, and to discuss, their conditions of service. Frankly, if members of the mining community had had the same privilege, things might possibly have taken a different course recently.
On the question of staleness in jobs, I feel it necessary to point out to your Lordships that there are numerous professions in which people become stale after a time. Indeed, for many people plodding on towards retirement, possibly with a recurrent illness, is a real hardship. It becomes more and more difficult for them to give the zest and the attention to the job that they were able to give in their younger days. Perhaps we should try to move towards some sort of system in which membership of various professions, such as teaching, social work, probation work and prison
1062
work, could be almost interchangeable so that people can move smoothly from one service to another to avoid the staleness that we are talking about.
I am afraid that if we accept this argument from noble and learned Lords today it will be the thin end of the wedge and the whole question of comparability will be raised. Other people will then be trying to do this and will be exerting pressure. I want to put it on record that the judges, while they serve our community nobly, are really in an exceptional and very privileged position.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, for many reasons I wish that I had been able to speak before my noble friend. Nevertheless I suppose it falls to me to some extent to answer the point. I answer in this way. No one who belongs to the profession that I have the privilege to belong to has argued in any way the purpose of this amendment on the basis of more remuneration—more money—for judges. It is true that the pound may have fallen in value and that our balance of payments may be looked upon with some derision by wealthy countries in the world. But there is one thing that no one in this world could ever say with truth. That is, that our system of justice with the standard of our judiciary is not the highest in the universe. That is due, as has been said, to the quality of our judges.
I say to my noble friend with a smile that no one should think that our circuit judges and puisne judges are treated with great luxury on appointment. I can say this with the knowledge of someone who is a practitioner but who has never been appointed a judge. Those who claim so are completely and absolutely wrong. Does anyone think that they have suites at their disposal, as befits, one might think, the dignity of the High Court judge, or research assistants galore to help them in researches for their judgments, as anyone might think was appropriate to a High Court judge who is required to be of the standard I have mentioned'? Does anyone think that there is secretarial assistance galore of the highest ability? Those who think that do not know the truth. Indeed I know so well that the modern luxury chambers of counsel and solicitors compare so much more favourably with the rooms that are given even to our judges in the Court of Appeal and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who assist your Lordships' House in the administration of justice. We are not talking about luxury appointments.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments so far advanced because that would not aid the cause that I have in mind. I do not want to make the position of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor any more difficult than it is. I say that with complete sincerity. In Committee I made the respectful suggestion that between that stage and today the noble and learned Lord should use his considerable powers of advocacy, employed in Committee with great ability even if not received with the utmost popularity by your Lordships, to persuade the Treasury and the Revenue that it is a bad suggestion that the age should, on the one side, be reduced for retirement and, on the other side, that there should be

1063
the figure of 20 years instead of 15. The suggestion is an absolute absurdity apart from anything else, but I shall not repeat the obvious arguments on that basis.
I do not know what has happened in the noble and learned Lord's discussions. I make this suggestion to the noble and learned Lord and I wonder whether your Lordships will not feel that it is appropriate and possibly that no further participation in this debate may be necessary if only my suggestion is adopted. The noble and learned Lord is the proud head of the judiciary, a judiciary which he has served with, from his point of view, complete integrity. But as head of the judiciary he has heard the view expressed, for example, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who has consulted the judiciary at circuit level and at High Court level. He will know the opinion therefore of the judiciary of which he is the proud and distinguished head.
All of us appreciate that he has a dual position. He is a member of the Government and a member of the Cabinet. All I suggest is this. Will he not agree that the appropriate thing to do in these circumstances is to accept this amendment because it will have expressed the view of the judiciary and of those who sit in your Lordships' House without any legal qualifications but who may agree with the amendment? Let us see what the attitude of the Revenue and Treasury would be on the amendment being accepted as the view of your Lordships' House. There will always be the opportunity at Third Reading for the noble and learned Lord to have another view to express to the House in the light of the reaction of the Revenue and the Treasury. I ask the noble and learned Lord, having heard all the speeches in Committee and on Report, to accept the amendment at this stage so that the Revenue and Treasury may know the view of your Lordships' House.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wish to make two very brief points in support of the amendment. First, it is self-evident that if a judge has to retire at the age of 70 and has to put in 20 years before he can expect his full pension, it means that he has to be appointed before the age of 50. That is too young in the great majority of cases. Members of the Bar are called in their early twenties. They can normally expect to do 15 to 20 years as juniors in order to provide a good, solid, hard base for their practice before they take silk. I know there is a tendency these days sometimes for them to take silk almost as soon as they finish their pupillage. That ought to be resisted. It is necessary, if there is to he a strong junior Bar, that they should serve as juniors for 15 to 20 years. After taking silk, they then have to acquire a wide range of experience of all facets of the law in this country, in Europe and internationally before they are really fit to serve on the Bench. That is bound to take another 10 to 15 years or so. If this amendment is not carried it means that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will in future have to look for the overwhelming majority of his recruits to the Bench from members of the Bar who are under the age of 50. I believe that that simply will not be practicable.
1064
My second argument is this. I have had the pleasure of appearing many times in the past before judges who have served for longer than 15 years. I mean no offence to anyone in your Lordships' House whom this may affect. I am bound to say that, by that stage, I found that none of those judges was improving. They were without exception deteriorating. It would be a disaster to seek to make them all continue in that way.
Lord Benson: My Lords, after the eloquence to which we have listened this afternoon on the point it would be an impertinence for me to speak at all. However, I wish only to put a point of view from the layman, the man in the street. What we are worried about, and nothing else, is the quality of the persons who sit on the Bench. What we have heard tonight from people who speak with unexampled authority is that, if the Bill goes through in its present form, there is a danger either that the best people will not be appointed or, if they are, that they will become stale by the end of 15 years. What has not been stressed in the House is the fact that in every other comparable walk of life the retiring age is 60. Judges already have to do 10 years' more work than any of their compatriots in other classes of work. No wonder they are likely to become stale. Other people retire at the age of 60 and enjoy their retirement from then on.
I should like to stress one further point. In another field we have seen the result of appointing second raters. Between the 1960s and the 1970s we appointed many teachers in schools who were not qualified for the job. As a result, discipline in the schools went by the board and the teaching was deplorable. We are only now climbing out of that misery. I beg the Government not to make another similar mistake with the infinitely more important administration of justice.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as 1 said earlier, and I repeat it now, the career pattern of judges is different from that of most other people; indeed, reference has been made to that fact more than once. Judges follow an unusual career path. I agree with some matters that have been raised. First, I agree that those who have spoken who are either already retired members of the judiciary or presently serving members of it are not speaking from any personal interest in these matters but from the point of view of the public interest as they perceive it.
I also agree with the view that what we are seeking to set here is the system for pension payments for the future; in other words, I shall not refer to any present aspect of the economy or anything of that sort in dealing with the matters which have been raised. However, I shall put forward what I believe is a proper basis for considering this amendment and those that are related to it.
I agree with the view that the calibre of those who sit on the Bench is vitally important. Along with those who have already expressed the opinion, I believe that the calibre of judges we have is extremely high. It is derived from their particular judicial qualities which have matured over a period of service in the profession. That is the way in which we have hitherto—and, I believe, will in the future—properly looked

1065
for our judges and not in a career path referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—which some continental countries adopt whereby one becomes a judge at an early age and then moves up through a judicial hierarchy.
I believe that our system, against the background of our tradition, is a better one. Judges are appointed after they have participated in the profession and reached a standing and standard in that profession which marks them out as suitable for judicial office. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale mentioned the previous system and my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner pointed out that for certain judges from 1799 there was a 15-year accrual system.
One has to look at the position from the point of view of the present general tax law. First, people working in a profession on a self-employed basis have opportunities for laying aside money for pensions out of their earnings, with tax relief. That started off in a very modest way and has gradually improved as regards the way in which tax relief is allowed. Fortunately, we are in a tax regime which is a little more benign than it was some years ago. The basic allowances have been considerably improved over what they were when the allowance started. Therefore, the tax system of this country allows people at the cost of the Exchequer to make provision for a pension while they are working as self-employed people. I submit to your Lordships that that is the first important point to be borne in mind when considering the special position of the judiciary: that they have worked in the profession with an opportunity, so far as concerns the tax law, to make provision for their retirement with tax advantage.
When the time comes for such people to go on the Bench, they will typically have served for quite a long time in the profession. I have not yet reached the stage of handing out silk patents to people who have just recently completed their pupillage. I believe that our system also properly recognises distinction in practice at that level. Those whom one would be looking to appoint either to the circuit Bench, to the Bench of district judges or to the High Court Bench would all have served an appropriate time in the profession.
In my submission, we have to approach the correct arrangements for judicial pensions on the basis of what is the general tax law. That is the first aspect of the tax law which has to be taken into account. The second is that the general rule provided under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 is that a 20-year minimum accrual period is required for the provision of a full pension under a tax-approved scheme. That is the general rule. I believe that it is proper and appropriate to design the pension arrangements for the judiciary taking full account of their special circumstances against that background.
Therefore, the best possible pension which can be given to the judiciary is one that gives its members those tax advantages. It is right that they should have a pension with a 20-year minimum accrual period. The result of that is to produce a scheme such as that provided by the Bill. In one scheme it incorporates all
1066
the different levels of the judiciary that are set out in the schedule. It has important advantages; for example, in relation to the promotion of a circuit judge to the High Court.
I, for one, take the view that it is important that there should be an avenue of promotion from the circuit Bench to the High Court. Apart from anything else, I believe that it helps to maintain a zest for judging in circuit judges which, were there no such avenue, might wither rather earlier than would otherwise be the case. That is an important aspect of the judicial career. Secondly, in the development and deployment of judicial talent it is important to seek to provide for them a variety of work. The arrangements in place these days help in that direction.
The appropriate system therefore appears to me to be one which gives the best possible tax treatment of the pension accruing to the judge coupled with recognition that the judges have had an opportunity under the tax regime for the profession to make provision for their pension while serving in the profession. I accept at once that precisely what provision a person makes may vary according to circumstances; but so far as the tax law is concerned, that provision is there to enable a person to make a substantial contribution to his pension, with the proper tax relief on it, while working in the profession.
The next matter I want to mention is that so far as I can judge the effect of the retirement provision—subject to amendments that we shall consider in relation to the retirement part of the Bill—is to make 70 the maximum age to which a senior judge, a member of the higher judiciary, can hold office. That is a reduction of five years from the present limit. That has the effect of reducing the maximum age at which judges will hold office, and nothing in the pension part of the Bill does anything to erode or damage that. That is the maximum age. It is that point that is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has told your Lordships about his experience of attending on judges who have had 15 years' experience. I should think it highly likely that the reactions of particular judges would vary considerably from one judge to another. It is most unlikely that it is wise to stereotype judges as if all of them, after 15 years' service and at whatever age they were appointed, suddenly become stale and unable to follow what is going on, or to adapt to change. I do not believe there is any real basis on which 15 years can be selected as self-evidently the right time at which to ask judges to retire. If it were so, it should apply to all judges. Generally speaking, it is the age at which judges sit that may have importance in this connection and not the length of time for which they have already sat. I do not accept that it is established that judges who sit for more than 15 years on the Bench are thereby less fit to perform their judicial functions than those who sit for 15 years or less.
In my submission, the scheme proposed in this Bill is a proper recognition of the special career path of the judiciary against the background of the general tax law that I have described. I have indicated a number of matters in correspondence with my noble and

1067
learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and others that I shall be proposing by way of improvement on certain aspects of the scheme; but so far as this aspect is concerned, I believe that what we have proposed in the Bill is appropriate against the background that I have described.
It has been suggested in some speeches that what I am seeking to do is to align judges with other public servants. The accrual rate in the new judicial scheme is about double the level applicable to most public service employees, so I am not seeking to align the judges' accrual rate with public service employees generally. It is about 50 per cent. more favourable than the provision applicable to Members of Parliament. So far as the private sector is concerned, nearly two thirds of private sector employees who are members of occupational pension schemes are subject to an accrual rate of one-sixtieth. Only 10 per cent. of private sector employees enjoy accrual rates higher than one sixtieth, and only a tiny minority have accrual rates as high as one thirty-fourth. In broad terms, I believe that the judicial pension arrangements are worth about twice the typical provision made for either public service or private sector schemes.
In my submission, it is appropriate that the retained benefits should be allowed as an addition, having regard to the special position of the judiciary; but I believe that it is right that the judicial pension arrangements should take account of the general tax law to which I have referred. It is for these reasons that in my view the provision of the Bill should stand and this particular amendment should not be given effect to.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he please indicate whether the consultations that were requested between Committee stage and Report stage have taken place between the noble and learned Lord and the Revenue and the Treasury?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I speak here for Her Majesty's Government; and the view that I have put forward is the government point of view. I do not think it is appropriate for me to enter into details of my discussions. I am putting forward here what is the government point of view, and I have sought to explain the basis on which it rests.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend finally sits down, is he going to say what is the financial benefit to the Exchequer of extending the accrual period from 15 to 20 years?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is quite difficult to make that sort of calculation. As I said before, and I say again, the best judgment that I can make is that the judicial scheme proposed in this Bill, compared with the schemes being replaced by this scheme, is broadly neutral. I do not think it is possible to be detailed about these calculations. Much depends on one's assumptions; but so far as the Treasury is concerned, if a judge goes on for 20 years he is getting exactly the same, so far as the pension provision is concerned, out of the scheme as he would under the
1068
present arrangements. The fact that the pension accrued when he had served 15 years does not make it any more costly to the Treasury.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, could he tell us whether he is aware of Table 7 in the most recent report of the Top Salaries Review Body, which is headed Cost to Employer of Pension Benefits? It then sets out percentage of pensionable salary, and in relation to High Court judge and circuit judge it is 30 per cent.—hence Lord Simon's 7½ per cent. He has taken 30 per cent., and because the accrual rate is to go up by five years he has divided it by four; ergo,7½ per cent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the arithmetic that my noble and learned friend has put forward is apparent to anyone who has listened. My noble and learned friend mentioned the Top Salaries Review Body. That body commented on our proposals and made no suggestion that it was inappropriate at this time to adopt a 20-year accrual rate. My noble and learned friend has pointed to other criticisms that the TSRB made of our proposals, but as regards the point that we are discussing no criticism was offered.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, the reply of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is deeply disappointing although not entirely surprising. In view of the fact that today—this was also the case in Committee—the voices were near unanimous in favour of this amendment, on this occasion I wish to give the non-voices an opportunity to express their views too. I therefore shall not withdraw the amendment as I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 94.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Grantchcster, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gridley, L.

Beloff, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Benson, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Blease, L.

L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brightman, L.

Harrowby, E.

Butterworth, L.

Howell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carnock, L.

Lane, L.

Carter, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lowry, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lytton, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

[Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Meston, L.

Foot, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris, L.

Galpern, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geddes, L.

Morton of Shuna, L. [Teller.]

1069

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Mustill, L.

Roskill, L.

Newall, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Nicol, B.

Seear, B.

Norrie, L.

Shannon, E.

Ogmore, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Orkney, E.

Templeman, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teynham, L.

Parry, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pender, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Westbury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rees, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Renton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Richard, L.

Winstanley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Long, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Alport, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Milverton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chilver, L.

Moyne, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Onslow, E.

Cranborne, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Palmer, L.

Davidson, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Downshire, M.

Prentice, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rea, L.

Elles, B.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Flather, B.

Savile, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selborne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Somerset, D.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Harmsworth, L.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hothfield, L.

Teviot, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vivian, L.

Joseph, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kimball, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wynford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
[Amendment No.47 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert ("provided that if the period in the qualifying judicial office does not amount to 6 years the judicial pension will be one quarter of his last annual salary;
1070
if the period amounts to 6 years or more, the pension shall be one quarter of that salary plus l/40th of that salary for each completed year of service exceeding 5.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.48 I wish to speak also to Amendment No.76. If there is just a slight hint that the latter amendment might refer back to Amendment No.37 it is purely coincidental. This is an important part of the Bill because it focuses on what happens if a judge becomes ill or dies in office as a result of illness.
During the last debate I referred to the first Judicial Pensions Act, which was passed in 1799. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon pointed out, that Act provided that a judge received a full pension if he had to retire as a result of infirmity, no matter when that occurred. That position continued for 160 years until, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, in 1959 the situation was amended. That amendment brought in a graduated pension provision and at the same time made it possible to obtain a pension without having to serve the full 15 years provided one had reached the age of 70.
The clause which I wish to insert in the Bill is the very clause which exists at present in respect of High Court judges. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an indication of the figures involved to show how important the matter is. It is, sadly, not unknown for a judge to fall sick after appointment. There has been the sad case recently of Mr. Justice Desmond Fennell, like myself a former chairman of the Bar. No doubt the stress and strains of that office, particularly during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill, were an added strain in a stressful office.
Perhaps I may explain the position today and what it would be if the Bill were passed. I ask your Lordships to accept for the sake of convenience that a High Court judge's remuneration is £80,000. That is more convenient because it makes the mathematics easier; it is in fact £87,000. If the judge suffers a stroke in his first year in office, under the present situation he receives one half of the full pension which he would have earned if he had served his full 15 years. On a salary of £80,000 he would receive a pension of £40,000 if he had served his full 15 years in office. If he suffers a stroke in his first year and has to retire from the Bench he will receive £20,000—one half of £40,000, the maximum pension he could have earned. That is the situation today. If he dies during that year—and this is why Clause 76 enters into the equation—his widow receives one half of the pension which he would have obtained—one half of £20,000: £10,000.
The position today is that if a judge suffers a stroke and has to retire after one year he receives a pension of £20,000. If he dies during that year his widow receives half, £10,000.
After the Bill comes into force the wretched judge who becomes disabled in his first year receives £2,000, one tenth of what he receives now. The widow, logically, as the Bill provides, instead of receiving her £10,000, receives one tenth—£1,000. That position is arrived at by the simple process of abolishing the provision which I have set out in the amendment. It results from the simple fact that the Bill provides no fast accrual period after appointment but instead a slow, year by year, addition over 20 years of one

1071
fortieth. The judge ends up after 20 years with 20 fortieths. In his first year he receives one fortieth, hence my arithmetic of £ 2,000 — 40 x 2 equals £ 80,000—and, in the case of the widow, who receives one half of what he would have received, £ 1,000.
One asks why that is the case. There is no question of having to conform—the favoured word of the Government in this measure—with existing legisla-tion. This is simply and starkly a money-saving operation designed to achieve what I indicated to your Lordships at the outset. The judges who have to suffer—not a suffering which I emphasise—a reduction in their retirement age from 75 to 70 have to pay for it.
No one could have put the matter better than the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who said at Second Reading:
"In any pension scheme if one reduces the retiring age it increases the cost at an extravagant degree, depending on the number of people involved. The statement can therefore be true"
the statement in the Bill that the costs would level out only if the benefits paid to the new entrants under the new scheme have been correspondingly pared off to make up the difference".—(Official Report,16/6/92; cols.151 and 152.]
That is what has happened here. In order to pay for the reduction in their pension age judges are required to give up that which most judges look upon as vital—security for themselves and, in particular, for their widows in the event of their falling sick.
I remind your Lordships that in the past five years 76 per cent. of High Court judges were aged 50 years or over. That is known to be a vulnerable period. If the year by year accrual provided for in the Bill operated in relation to the ordinary employee starting at the age of 21,22 or 23, then the anxiety relating to early sickness would not arise.
The situation was commented upon firmly and critically by the Top Salaries Review Body in its comments to the Lord Chancellor on his paper in the following terms:
"Pension benefits calculated on the basis of pensionable pay and past service but payable immediately in the event of retirement on the grounds of ill health could be more generous. An alternative approach would he to base ill-health pensions on potential service to age 65".
Mr. Alexander of the well-known firm of consultant actuaries Watson & Sons (who advised the TSRB on pensions for Members of Parliament) was very sensibly retained by the Government to give his comments to them on the Bill. He reported:
"On ill-health retirement an immediate pension is payable based on complete service. Where service is short the pension payable will he relatively small, whereas it can he argued that it is precisely such individuals who need the greatest support. This is one reason why it is more common to provide a more generous basis of calculation. In 59 per cent. of private sector schemes (see the NAPF 1990 survey), whereby some or all of potential service to normal pension age is included for example, a somewhat complex enhancement formula is common in public service schemes. We suggest that consideration is given to something simpler, such as inclusion of half the potential service".
I have more material to establish the undoubted hardship, unfairness and lack of justification of the present system in relation to the judge and his widow. Following the conclusion of the Committee stage on 30th June, on behalf of the judges we obtained a very detailed report from a consultant actuary, a Mr. Wynne-Griffith. senior partner in a well-known firm.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice sent that to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor by the end of July. At the end of September the comments from the Lord Chancellor were received and within the matter of days the comments of our experts on those comments were provided.
A meeting was sought by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. That meeting was attended by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and myself. The Lord Chancellor had indicated that in regard to the question of sickness he was minded to consider whether some concession could be made. We have recently been informed that he is contemplating making an amendment. As I understand it, that will provide not for deemed service to the age of 65—which is in my Amendment No.76 and was in my Amendment No.37—but half that sum. Apparently the draftsmen found that the intervening four months between the end of the Committee stage and today was not long enough to enable them to put that into proper drafting form, and there is nothing before your Lordships now. Therefore, it would he pointless for me to weary your Lordships further with argument because I understand that that amendment by the Government will be provided at Third Reading.
Moderation (which is the hallmark of debates in this House) limits me to say that I find this an astonishing situation but one that has to be tolerated. Without further speakers addressing the House your Lordships may find it convenient at this stage for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to indicate whether I have accurately represented the Government's current position and perhaps to tell your Lordships the precise nature of the amendment that he has in mind for Third Reading which is to take place on an as yet unspecified date. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I undertake to produce at Third Reading an amendment which will provide for the relevant service of a person who retires on the ground of ill health to be enhanced by half the service outstanding to 65; in other words, if somebody retires at 50 on the ground of ill health he will have seven-and-a-half years—half of 15 years—credited to him as if he has served those in calculating the benefits for pension purposes. I am able to do that in the light of the discussions to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has referred. I think it is fair to the parliamentary draftsman to say that this has nothing to do with him. I needed to consider the position with some care and the decision to make the change followed the meeting to which my noble and learned friend referred. I undertake to produce at Third Reading an amendment to give effect to that decision. I hope that in the light of that undertaking my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has been kind enough to say that he undertakes to produce an amendment at Third Reading. Will he

1073
be kind enough to give the House an assurance that it will be available for all to see at least a week before Third Reading so we have time to consider it and be better able to analyse its repercussions?
Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will certainly produce it as soon as I possibly can. I hope to be in a position to produce it before Third Reading, certainly in sufficient time for your Lordships properly to grasp its full implications.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue my noble and learned friend. My request was a modest one, that it be produced one week before Third Reading. Four months have gone by. Our experience to date has not been a very happy one. That is why I ask for the assurance. With great humility, I suggest that it should not be very difficult to give it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have given the best assurance that I can. I hope I may be able to produce the amendment more than a week before Third Reading. I shall certainly do my best to produce it in ample time for Third Reading. At the moment I am not in a position to say when Third Reading will be.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in the light of the discussion that has taken place I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I am bound to say that at this stage the offer of one-half of what we have sought is hardly likely to prove acceptable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to say that if Amendment No.49 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No.50.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.49:
Page 4, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) a person's "pensionable pay" is the greater of the following amounts, that is to say

(i) the highest pension-capped salary payable to him in respect of his service in qualifying judicial office in any one of the five years ending with the day on which he retires from such office, and

(ii) the highest annual average of his pension capped salary in any three consecutive years out of the ten years immediately preceding the day on which he retires from such office.

Provided that where pension capped salary is calculated by reference to any year other than the last complete year ending on the day on which he retires from such office pension capped salary shall be increased in proportion to any increase in the retail price index (being the index of retail prices compiled by the Department of Employment) from the last day of that year up to the said day.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an awkward amendment to deal with before the adjournment when the intake of a little protein might have put one in a better position to explain it. It concerns what I understand is known as dynamisation; that knowledge having been recently massaged into me. It reminds me of the occasion when I was briefed to take part in litigation on performing rights. I revelled in two technical phrases. One was "needle time" and the other was "over-exposure", which had nothing to do with criminal litigation. Quite simply,
1074
dynamisation means that, provided one does not base one's pensionable salary upon the last year, the Revenue permits one to take other years and to add to them the inflation factor if in those other years one has not achieved or exceeded that inflation factor.
The Top Salaries Review Body, whose report received little sympathy in the Government, at least provided material which was not open to contradiction. One piece of material was that the real income of the group (that is, all the top salary earners taken as a whole) has risen around 7 per cent. over the period since 1985, whereas real average earnings in the economy have risen by 22 per cent. Even more significant is that the 200 or so most senior posts covered have had the worst experience, with a real decrease in their income of 3 per cent. Data from studies and surveys which are described more fully later in that report provide a further perspective. That is found at page 3, paragraph 14, of the report, which goes on to provide a figure which shows that senior private sector earnings have had a real increase of 41 per cent.
So down go the very top earners by minus three whereas the private sector goes up to 41. In my submission, it is only fair and proper that the judges should be entitled to have regard to what the Inland Revenue permit. The Inland Revenue permit "dynamisation". On many occasions my noble and learned friend has said that he has achieved the most tax efficient scheme obtainable. Therefore in tabling this amendment I ask whether he has sought to obtain the Revenue's consent to dynamisation being provided and if so with what result. Alternatively, if he has not sought its observations, would he be kind enough to do so? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment for so-called dynamisation is interesting. Notwithstanding my noble and learned friend's eloquent description of it, the precise wording leaves one with a certain degree of perplexity as to what exactly is in mind.
First, this sort of formula is not found in any other public sector scheme which I know. Secondly, it is quite obvious that it is quite a complicated formula to administer. So far as I have been able to follow it, I do not see how it would give any particular advantage in the case of the judiciary. The passage from the TSRB report to which my noble and learned friend referred would not suggest that the method of dynamisation proposed in the amendment would produce much of an increment. Under the present definition of pensionable pay it is the highest pensionable pay over the previous three years which counts. I cannot think it at all likely in present circumstances that any advantage is to be gained by increasing that period to five years. Moreover, if one takes into account the remuneration in line with the RPI, one will find that the remuneration which is payable is not at all likely to be increased by that particular approach.
Accordingly, apart from the fact that this would be an expensive scheme to administer, I cannot see that the advantages are likely to make it worthwhile. In the

1075
light of that explanation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel that it is not right to press the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pays me no compliment in thinking that I have not done my homework. Having obtained, after a delay, from his department figures for the earnings of High Court judges for the past 10 years—that is the relevant period—those figures were handed over immediately to our consultant actuary. The advice that he has provided is that it will make a difference of a few thousand pounds a year to the High Court judge.
If my noble and learned friend does not want to take the matter up because he feels that it will do the High Court judges no harm, I can dispose of that point. Perhaps he would be kind enough, on the basis that we can establish that it does the High Court judge and above positive good, to consider with the Inland Revenue if there is any reason why the Inland Revenue practice, which I have, recorded in IR9/91, should not be made applicable.
The point is one of principle. Other people are entitled to it under the Inland Revenue practices and we have heard the assurance that my noble and learned friend has achieved the most tax efficient scheme available. In this respect he does not seem to have achieved that. I should be grateful, on the basis that we satisfy him that it will make a significant financial difference to the calculation of the judicial pension, if he will tell us whether he will give it consideration.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to consider any material that my noble and learned friend likes to put before me. My understanding is as I have said. Those are the reasons why I urge your Lordships not to accept the amendment. I am very willing to look at any information that my noble and learned friend has which he believes would serve to instruct me even better than I am instructed at the present moment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. On that basis, I shall withdraw my amendment with a view to bringing it back. I should inform the House that technical though it is, we have not bounced it on the Lord Chancellor. It was in our consultant actuary's report which was provided on a "cards on the table" basis to the Lord Chancellor. All we have done in the recent past, having obtained figures from his department, is to establish that it would be effective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.50:
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("he retires from such office; ") and insert (", within the meaning of section 590C(l) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (earnings cap), his participation in the scheme constituted by this Part ceases; ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment relating to the mechanics of pensions indexation. It covers the situation of a
1076
judicial officer who opts out of the new scheme to enter a personal pension scheme under the provisions of Clause 13 and elects for his pension rights under the Bill scheme to remain in the scheme until his retirement from judicial office. When such a judge comes to retirement and collects his pension, the clause as drafted requires that the pension be calculated by reference to the judge's pensionable pay at retirement, not at the time he opted out. However, his accrued rights under the scheme will already have attracted pensions increase—an annual up-rating designed to raise the value of preserved benefits to keep pace with inflation. To leave the clause unaltered in this respect would be to give a judge double inflation-proofing. It might also entitle the officer to get more than he should under the top-up provisions of Clause 19.
The amendment ensures that the pension of the judicial officer in this position is correctly calculated by reference to his pensionable pay at the time he opted out of the new scheme, not at the time of his retirement from judicial office. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.51:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment with Amendment No.4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.52:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("there is a reduction in").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos.53 and 54. They are purely drafting amendments which I have thought it wise to make following my discussion with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross during Committee.
It might help if I explain the effect of subsection (3) (d) in a little detail. Subsection (3) (a) provides that, for the purposes of determining pensionable pay, the largest amount of pension-capped salary payable to a scheme member in any period of 12 months in his or her last three years of service will be taken to be the operative figure. Subsection (3) (d) deals with the situation where an officer's salary during those three years is reduced by reason of absence on sick leave. It provides that any such reduction in salary will be ignored for the purposes of determining pensionable pay.
There is, therefore, nothing in subsection (3) (d) which could affect a scheme member's decision when to retire, as any reduction in salary due to periods of ill health would not affect the level of pension the officer received. There is nothing in the clause which restricts, or alters in any respect, the present arrangements relating to sick leave, sick pay or retirement on the grounds of ill-health.
Turning now to the amendment, I must emphasise that this has no substantive effect. It merely redrafts subsection (3) (d) to make its meaning more transparent to the reader. I have considered my noble friend's suggestion that the three-year period should be extended to five, but given a clear understanding of

1077
the effect of this clause, I hope it is evident that there is little, if anything, to be gained by doing so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.53 and 54:
Page 4, line 45, after ("above") insert ("is less than it would have been apart from the periods of ill-health,").
Page 4, line 47, leave out ("without any such reduction") and insert ("at the rate at which it would have been payable, apart from the periods of ill-health; ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords I have already spoken to Amendments Nos.53 and 54 with Amendment No.52. With your Lordships' leave I beg to move put them en bloc.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I realise that the amendment has been referred to but I find the drafting of it difficult to follow. Perhaps my noble and learned friend would be so good as to give some idea of a salary,
"which is paid on terms which preclude rights to pensions and other benefits accruing by reference to it".
I did not know that there were such salaries within the judiciary.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the particular point to which my noble friend refers. At present I am referring to Amendments Nos.53 and 54.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought that my noble and learned friend had dealt with those amendments and was now moving to Amendment No.55. I must have misheard.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.55:
Page 4, line 47, at end insert:
("(e) in determining a person's salary in respect of his service in qualifying judicial office, there shall he left out of account any part of the salary which is paid on terms which preclude rights to pensions and other benefits accruing by reference to it: ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No.55 with Amendment No.4. However, perhaps I may explain the reference to my noble friend Lord Renton.
There are some positions to which a judge may be appointed for a temporary period in which he may receive an additional salary. However, that salary is not part of his judicial salary and does not count for pension purposes. That is part of the terms on which he takes the appointment. The amendment makes clear that in that situation the additional salary which he receives does not count for pension purposes. One needs to make that clear. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. Amendment No.55 was one of a dozen amendments referred to earlier and not every one could have been explained.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No.56 may take a little time. It is almost 7.30 p.m. This might be a suitable moment to break if that is convenient.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
7.24 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time and to be printed.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a Private Bill jointly promoted by London Regional Transport and Croydon London Borough Council.
I am pleased to introduce this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. The purpose of the Bill is to seek powers to enable the construction and operation of a system of trams running on partly conventional railway track, to be known as Tramlink, connecting the centre of Croydon to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.
London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services in Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London and to the efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
Croydon council—one of the London borough councils—has numerous statutory duties in particular as a highway and planning authority, and is also empowered to produce an economic strategy. The district plan for Croydon, adopted in 1982, identified the need to develop public transport while at the same time promoting environmental policies as an important consideration in any new developments. The council considers that this scheme is a key element in those strategies.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, London is suffering from severe congestion to its transport system both on the roads and on the existing public transport network. The Confederation of British Industry has estimated that the cost of congestion of London's transport system amounted to some £ 10 billion per annum. Your Lordships will also be aware that the environmental cost in terms of noise and pollution is equally substantial and studies have been undertaken to propose long term solutions to the problems of both central and Greater London.
In central London, studies were undertaken culminating in the publication of the Central London Rail Study published in 1989. This work identified two schemes: the Crossrail scheme and the Chelsea-Hackney scheme to provide long term congestion relief to the central area. Both schemes involve the construction of conventional underground railways and a Bill for the construction of Crossrail was deposited in November 1991.
Following the successful promotion of the Docklands Light Railway scheme, London Transport and British Rail carried out a joint study into the

1079
contribution which light railways could make to the improvement of transport in London. A report published in 1986 identified a number of areas where light railways could be of value. Chief among those was a system based upon Croydon using a mixture of British Rail lines and new construction to link Croydon with the adjoining boroughs. Further work was carried out with the active co-operation of Croydon Borough Council and in 1987 a system of three routes was identified as being financially viable, physically possible and of great benefit to the economic life of the area.
In 1989 further reports were prepared for the Department of Transport on the transport problems of various parts of London. They were known as the assessment studies. One of those, the south London assessment study, related to the area of south London with Croydon as its southern focus. The report identified existing transport problems, with traffic congestion probably being the most important issue.
The report examined a range of transport improvements for south London including better traffic management, junction improvements, road widening and new routes. Bus priority measures, restructuring of bus and British Rail routes were included. Croydon council has implemented many road and junction improvements to make the most of the existing road network but it concluded that a more ambitious approach to the problems of congestion was required which offered substantial environmental and economic benefits. Croydon council concluded that the Tramlink scheme offered the prospect of revitalised public transport and a credible alternative to travel by car which was reliable, quiet, efficient and accessible to all. The scheme would improve the environment and general amenity of the locality. As a result of that conclusion Croydon council resolved to develop Tramlink in conjunction with London Regional Transport.
Development work has been actively pursued since that date resulting in the Bill now before the House. The resulting scheme combines existing British Rail infrastructure with new light rail links to residential areas previously without such links and heralds the return to Croydon's streets of trams. The scheme is a bold and imaginative combination of a traditional form of public transport brought up to date with the most modern technology and design incorporated in an integrated transport system.
It may be of benefit if I briefly outline the scheme which centres upon central Croydon with branch lines extending to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington. The Wimbledon branch of Tramlink will extend from a terminus near the main line British Rail and London Underground station at Wimbledon to central Croydon. The alignment will use the existing under-utilised British Rail branch line and will replace the existing rail service between Wimbledon and West Croydon. It will provide for interchange with other British Rail services at Wimbledon and Mitcham Junction. The line will provide a more frequent and attractive service,
1080
connecting residential areas with rail services into London at Wimbledon, Mitcham Junction and Croydon.
The branch connecting central Croydon to Beckenham will share an existing alignment with British Rail services. Disused British Rail alignment will also be utilised together with the construction of new track where necessary. This line will connect the highly-developed commuter areas of Beckenham, Elmers End and Woodside with Croydon.
The branch to New Addington will utilise in part disused British Rail alignment with new track being constructed through open land. This new line will provide the first ever rail service to the New Addington estate. New Addington has a total population of around 25,000 and is the largest residential area in London without rail services.
The central section of Tramlink will comprise a loop connecting West Croydon and East Croydon British Rail stations to the Wimbledon, Beckenham and New Addington branches of Tramlink. This central section of Tramlink will be constructed in the street as a conventional tramway incorporating a variety of road traffic schemes to integrate the new tram system into the existing transport network.
The promoters have striven to design Tramlink to meet the needs of all members of the community and particular attention is being given to the needs of the elderly and disabled. Accordingly, the promoters are committed to make the whole system accessible to people with disabilities. All aspects of the scheme, including the design of the stops and the rolling stock, will be subject to the closest scrutiny to maximise accessibility. For example, the floor level of the tram vehicles is likely to be only one foot above ground level allowing easy access from raised footways and low platforms to be provided at tram stops.
I do not intend to describe the Bill clause by clause but your Lordships may wish to be made aware of certain important features. Although the Bill is promoted by London Regional Transport and Croydon council it is intended that the construction and operation of Tramlink will be undertaken by the private sector. The private sector will bear the commercial risks and responsibilities for the success of the system. The mechanism to permit close involvement of the private sector will be by means of a concession arrangement.
Clause 47 provides the necessary mechanism for the Secretary of State to transfer from London Regional Transport to the concessionaire the functions to enable it to construct or operate or to construct and operate Tramlink. Such an arrangement has the advantages of easing the burden on the public purse by maximising the private sector contribution to the scheme at a time when there are many competing demands for new transport projects and of reaping the benefits of the involvement of private sector enterprise and expertise. This active co-operation will allow the promoters to draw upon considerable worldwide expertise in the introduction and operation of modern light rail systems.
Substantial progress has already been made in establishing the involvement of the private sector in

1081
the scheme. A project development group comprising London Regional Transport, Croydon council and their selected private sector partners has begun to take forward the development and detailed design of Tramlink.
The scheme enjoys the support of Croydon council, which has voted unanimously in favour of it, and is strongly supported by the Croydon Chamber of Commerce and Industry which is a consortium of 1,300 local businesses. The scheme is also supported by local trade associations, environmental groups, and the neighbouring boroughs of Bromley, Sutton and Merton. A very high degree of public support was expressed during the consultation period. It is an exciting opportunity to introduce a modern, clean, reliable and above all safe transport system which will enhance the quality of public transport in a large area of south London and improve the environment by encouraging the use of Tramlink for a wide number of business and leisure journeys. London needs and deserves the best in modern, environmentally friendly and convenient public transport.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this most worthwhile scheme should be given every encourage-ment and I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and I thank her for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the Bill. My contribution will be a poor innings compared with her splendid opening stand.
The Bill has been some time in gestation. It is a matter of civic pride and has received a considerable degree of support from all sections. However, an element of individual unease has been expressed by a number of people. It is on that issue, but not that alone, that I wish to speak. Strongly-held opinions exist on both sides and therefore the Tramlink proposals have generated a good deal of heat. However, I fear that not so much light has been thrown on the subject. My concerns are the cost benefits of the scheme and the effects upon individuals.
I was privileged to have correspondence on the Bill earlier this year with Lady Ewart-Biggs. I know that the effect on private households in particular was close to her heart. In paying tribute to her memory in the context of the Bill I hope that she would have approved of my contribution.
My involvement arises from my activities as a practising surveyor concerned particularly with the statutory compensation code. I had some involvement with the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. I have no professional or financial involvement with any party in connection with this scheme. My attention was drawn to the Bill principally because of the implications for blighted private residential property.
It follows that I am not against the Tramlink proposals as such. However, although it is clearly a
1082
public transportation scheme, the Bill would facilitate what is first and foremost a commercial undertaking. Therefore, the overriding public interest which may be pleaded by, for example, a government department is not something that can be taken as read in this instance nor can the promoters lay unqualified claim to it. It follows from that that the rights of individuals cannot be treated as secondary in that context.
Wherever a public scheme of works is proposed, there is often a blighting effect on private property. Within Croydon and governed by the route of the scheme there is a corridor in which the Tramlink scheme will now show up on every local search of property so that there is no possibility of selling or purchasing a property without parties to the potential transaction being aware of the scheme. For many properties that will have no significant effect and there will be no effect on the ability of individuals to deal in their property. But in other cases the effects can be quite severe and would have a material effect on any disposal or acquisition of property, whether it be by sale, purchase or indeed altering mortgage facilities and that kind of matter. My anxiety is also in respect of businesses but I am particularly concerned about the effects on private citizens in their own homes as they are affected by the scheme.
That problem is not unique to the Tramlink proposal. There are measures in general legislation to deal with the problem. However, I believe that there are some specific differences in this case. First, the process is protracted by the need for private legislation. The person suffering from the blighting effects of the scheme can wait an inordinate time before the normal statutory blight provisions can be implemented.
Secondly, in the current, very depressed, market conditions, particularly in the housing market, it may be difficult to sell properties or to deal with them at all, let alone to prove that that difficulty has been caused by the Tramlink scheme. Therefore, it is difficult to exclude the general economic factors from the specific ones relating to the Tramlink although it must be said that if a tram station is to be constructed just beyond the bounds of one's front garden, then the evidence must be fairly overwhelming.
Thirdly, the Bill will enable the Tramlink to be constructed within certain specified lines of deviation. The precise position of the permanent way, its embankments and so on are not, as I understand it, finally fixed. On Thursday last I made a trip to Croydon to the borough council's offices. I spoke with some of the officers there. At that meeting I was shown a revised plan of one section of the route which was described to me as being hot off the press on that day. Clearly, the detailed engineering input and the costs associated with that are matters which the promoters would not wish to undertake before they had to. However, I should point out that that causes acute problems for private individuals, particularly residential occupiers who may have some genuine need to move house, sell a property or whatever.
Fourthly, as I mentioned earlier, this is a Private Bill to facilitate a commercial undertaking. It seems to me that the most serious effects of any uncertainty

1083
which may arise as part of the scheme must be shouldered by the promoters and their commercial backers and not exported to private individuals without recompense.
Therefore, my first objective is that I am looking to the promoters to have in place, and immediately thereafter to implement, a scheme for buying in genuinely blighted properties when required to do so. That should happen not later than the time at which the Bill receives Royal Assent. I am reinforced in that view by the knowledge that the principle of best practice in acquiring blighted properties is employed in many areas of the country. Certainly British Rail seems to have found it expedient on its Channel Tunnel link and I suggest that it is an appropriate course of action here.
I am advised that the general law in relation to compensation provisions will apply to this scheme. That is an extremely important safeguard in the light of recent legislation on the subject. However, the Bill seeks to amend the general law provisions relating to betterment. I am not clear that there are good grounds for expanding beyond the general law those provisions which—I term it loosely—would provide for a contra-indication in the terms of the compensation payable on grounds of betterment to a claimant's other property. I make that point, although I do not wish to dwell on it, because as I understand the Bill, it seeks to depart from the general law.
The Bill's provisions would allow the exercise of powers conferred within five years. I assume that that is five years prior to serving the notice to treat, which is the statutory notice following the grant of a compulsory purchase order which is served on the individual. Section 4 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 suggests that the powers of an acquiring authority should not be exercised after three years from the date upon which a compulsory purchase order becomes operative. Again, and because of the need for specific legislation in this instance, I believe that the time limit could operate substantially to the detriment of prospective claimants of blighted property. For example, Clause 51 provides for the development to be commenced within 10 years of the enactment of the Bill. It cannot be right to permit ill effects of that type to be visited upon private individuals and,—for that matter, companies—for such an extended period.
As I understand it, the Tramlink will also necessitate a diversion of a large amount of the vehicular traffic which currently travels along Addiscombe Road. Noble Lords may be aware that that is quite an important vehicular access route from the east into the centre of Croydon. The consequences of that are the subject of an environmental study and therefore do not form part of the Tramlink environmental assessment itself. So far as I know, the separate study is not complete and is certainly not available, to the best of my knowledge, in a published form. Petitioners in respect of the Bill could be forgiven for being anxious about the absence of an assessment on such a material consequence of the constructional work arising from the proposal. My understanding is that the effects of increased traffic on
1084
some roads may he significant. It seems to me that provision should he contained in the main environmental assessment. Certainly, I am not happy that matters of that nature are put on one side for separate treatment as part of a subsequent study.
I have seen a copy of an amended economic evaluation. That has not been produced by the promoters of the Bill. It was prepared for an organisation which is opposed to the Tramlink. I make no claim for it or against it. However, regardless of the circumstances in which it came into being and the terms of reference under which it was produced, it is clear that there may be some fairly significant side effects which should be addressed, having regard to the priority which will be given to trams over all other traffic. There is one particular area at Gravel Hill which I know is causing anxiety to some people.
I must rely on the premise that the promoters satisfied themselves about the figures. At the same time, I must point out that others dispute them. It certainly seems to me that there should be expert scrutiny on that specific point lest the proposal turn out to be another example of civic pride before commercial head, whether or not bolstered by the notion of some kind of safety net at public expense should it go wrong. I do not wish to sound pejorative about the scheme, but noble Lords will understand when I say that experience is littered with circumstances where exactly that has happened. It follows from that that financial soundness is the bedrock of the Bill. I have no doubt that when it is referred to the Select Committee it will receive representations on that point.
My second objective therefore is to draw attention to the need for detailed consideration of the economic background of the Tramlink and the factual and financial provisions that underpin it.
I turn to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper which I shall deal with at this juncture rather than separately. It is undeniable that a number of properties already are and will continue to be affected by the mere promotion of the Bill. Their values will be affected and they will be less saleable. For owners suffering in that way Parliament needs to be satisfied that the promoters have sufficient financial wherewithal to carry out the proposed project.
There is an example of that in recent times in the case of the Jubilee Line extension where, as I understand it, the value and marketability of properties was damaged severely. There is now some doubt as to whether or not that scheme will go ahead and it leaves individuals and companies affected by a blight having, in many cases, incurred considerable expense and been unable to do anything about it. I do not expect that all owners of property can or should be protected from the ill-effects of every measure of this nature. But it is something that should be taken into account in this instance.
For all those reasons I shall move the Motion which I believe to be an important safeguard. I should also like to associate myself with the Motion standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The environmental impact on parkland is of great importance, particularly in that area of London.

1085
It would be wrong for me not to thank the many people who have helped me. I should particularly like to single out the way in which the petitioners, their advisers and officers of the London Borough of Croydon and London Regional Transport helped me in my consideration of the matter. Clearly it is appropriate that the Bill should proceed to a Select Committee and I am grateful for the opportunity of addressing the House on the matter.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced the Bill. At the outset I should like to say that I strongly support the idea of the Tramlink and should like to see many more such schemes in progress. I believe that it is the way that transport must go, particularly in London and the surrounding areas.
The purpose of my much more limited Instruction to the committee is quite different from that of the noble Earl. Its purpose is to remind the committee of the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. However desirable a development may be, it should still be carried out within the rules and legislation unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. That is the purpose of my Instruction—to enable the Committee to decide for itself whether or not there are good reasons why the Acquisition of Land Act should be ignored. Section 19 of the Act requires that when a compulsory order is made on,
"any land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment, the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State is satisfied—(a) that there has been or will be given in exchange for such land, other land, not being less in area and being equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights, and to the public, and that the land given in exchange has been or will be vested in the persons in whom the land purchased was vested, and subject to the like rights, trusts and incidents as attach to the land purchased".
There are exemptions to that but they are not appropriate in this case. As we all know, the amount of open space available for public enjoyment is rapidly diminishing. It is particularly vulnerable to pressures in an urban environment and it is just such an environment that makes open space particularly valuable. As it stands, it appears that the Bill would result in a permanent loss of approximately 40 acres—I know that that figure is in question but nobody doubts that a considerable amount of land would be permanently lost to public enjoyment—without any provision for replacement elsewhere.
It is being argued that since the development in question is a tramline, the use would be intermittent and the line itself no barrier to public enjoyment of the land. But I find that argument unacceptable. However careful the landscaping may be and however intermittent the use of it by trams, the line itself represents a degradation in environmental terms.
We then come to the financial value of the land. I should like to quote to your Lordships from a Department of Transport report dated March 1992
1086
entitled Assessing the Environmental Impact of Road Schemes. I feel that it is equally applicable in this case. Paragraph 14.12 states,
"Much of the land acquired for road-building has a low existing use value, because it is in the countryside, or is open space. For these same reasons it may have a high environmental value. It is also unlikely, under our system of development control, to have much development potential. [I am sure that that is true in this case.] Very often it has none at all. The result is that this element of the capital cost of the scheme is likely to be quite low; and the imperatives of the search for value for money may encourage a cost-conscious Government Department to prefer to take such land, rather than developed land, where the cost of acquisition is likely to be greater".
Paragraph 14.13 states,
"The acquisition of the land for road-building now frustrates the very purpose for which the land was being reserved. Therefore, for social cost-benefit analysis purposes, its value should equate to the price which society was previously willing to pay for the benefit, now removed, of the earlier restriction".
I see no reason why that advice from the Government's Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment should not apply in this case. It appears that the local population is to lose out in financial as well as environmental terms. I urge the Select Committee to look closely at that aspect of the Bill.
It is surprising also that not only is there no provision for replacement of the land, but also Clause 48 of the Bill allows the local authority to dispose of the land at a price,
"less than the best that can reasonably be obtained".
Putting those two items together it is hard to believe that the authority is acting in the best interests of all its constituents. The least they should expect is that the open space that they previously enjoyed should be replaced. I hope to move that Instruction at the end of the debate.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she will allow me to intervene for a second. She will have noticed that no noble Lord from these Benches put down his name to speak in the debate. However, it may be helpful to the noble Baroness to know that there are those among us who may support the Bill—knowing the experience of the tram system in Manchester which now operates extremely successfully, I am one of those—but who nevertheless share the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness and expressed by the Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society and the Ramblers Association.
As the noble Earl has said, it is true that there are provisions in the law which may minimise these difficulties. But the fact remains that open land is a resource which is in desperately short supply in England and under ever-increasing heavy demand. I thought that it might be helpful to the noble Baroness to know that some of us on these Benches support what she said.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his support.
8 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. The project seems enormously imaginative. I shall say something about both the speeches preceding mine to which we have just listened with much pleasure. It is right to point out that a very large part of the route for the proposed Tramlink makes use of railway lines which ceased to be used for rail traffic in some cases many years ago. That will mean bringing back into effective use assets which have been lying dormant.
I was given a copy of the Croydon Area Light Rail Study 1990 by a firm called MVA. Without wanting to weary the House with too much material there are three or four statements in the report which seem to me to lend weight to the very powerful case which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes made in moving the Second Reading.
There was consultation with a large number of what are called "decision-takers" in Croydon—that is to say, people running businesses and retail shops and senior management personnel. The conclusion was that the,
"light railway was welcomed and recognised as playing a major role within a strategy aimed at resolving Croydon's transport problems".
I shall not go into the detail. There are objections on the part of people whose properties are likely to be affected; there are objections to the alternative going across open land—a bit of both. In the light of those problems one must remember that Croydon and surrounding areas suffer very serious traffic congestion. That is a point which the council and business people in the area, and no doubt a very large number of residents, are well aware of. They see traffic congestion which is strangling, or is liable to strangle, the economic life of Croydon. Something has to be done.
The next conclusion of the report to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that,
"the expenditure on light rail would represent significantly better value for money than the construction of roads".
When the south London road assessment study was done the public outcry in the area was huge. There would have been very little prospect of securing the necessary public consent for the kinds of road schemes which the Department of Transport had asked its consultants to look at. As regards Tramlink—and I question whether this is still a valid statement—I am told that the very widespread public consultation which Croydon council undertook showed 80 per cent. support for the scheme.
If one takes those factors together the system is essential for the economic life of the area. It is infinitely better than the alternative. It is also a great deal better than trying to build up bus services which add to congestion. The scheme has wide public support. The case for it becomes overwhelming.
I turn now to points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I shall take them in order. Finance is obviously crucial, but I simply cannot accept that if a project is thoroughly desirable in the public interest, the fact that there is going to be a healthy input of private capital and
1088
enterprise to bring the scheme about somehow creates a different duty for safeguarding the interests of individuals.
The interests of individuals must be protected. That is why one has the provisions of the compulsory purchase laws and the procedures which will be open to individuals, groups of individuals and local associations to put in petitions, as many have, so that they can have their particular circumstances properly examined by the Select Committee.
The noble Earl seemed to indicate that because private capital is involved then somehow there needs to be an altogether higher duty to protect the public. I am not sure that I accept that. I adopt his words in that if there is to be proper protection, then individual members of the public should not bear the cost of the detriment which the scheme may introduce without compensation. There seems to he every prospect that the operation of the system,
"would provide a healthy surplus of revenue over operating costs, and would make a significant contribution to the overall funding of the scheme".
If that is right, and given that we all recognise the reality of what the public expenditure situation is likely to be for some years, the choice is whether one goes ahead with such a scheme, with a significant private sector input and many other advantages, or one does not have the scheme and continues with the ever-worsening congestion in the area.
As regards that point, I am not sure that the noble Earl did not overstate his case a little. The promoters of the Bill have assured me that they are acting within the provisions of the national compensation code as set down most recently in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to which the noble Earl referred. Undertakings have already been offered to some local residents whose property is likely to be affected.
In defining the route alignment—this may he a disappointment to the noble Baroness—the primary objective of the council and London Transport, as I understand it, has been to minimise the amount of property required. As I said, two-thirds of the route lies on existing BR lines which will be transferred to light rail or on disused rail corridors. I am told that no more than 25 properties will be required of which two are commercial and the remainder residential. I regard that as a great triumph for planning because this is an 18-mile network in a heavily populated area of south London.
Of course, blight goes wider than the properties which will be taken. In his past life the noble Earl may have drawn up particulars of sale of properties. What do they say? "Convenient public transport close by." That is put into estate agents' jargon and I have no doubt that they put it a great deal more colourfully than that. The number of properties that will benefit from having a convenient public transport system close by has to be offset against the few that will have a new tram station nearby. It is only a stopping place. The average is about 600 metres between each stop. It is much more like tramways as we used to know them. Those factors have to be weighed in the scales.
I agree with the noble Earl when he says that it is important that there should be proper regard paid to

1089
the deleterious effect that that may have on some properties. I have no doubt that this is a matter that will be looked at carefully by the Select Committee. It is what the procedures are for. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Earl as regards his point concerning betterment. It seems to me that if an owner has property which will suffer and therefore seeks compensation, and has other property which will gain, I do not see why the public should be asked to ignore the gain and pay out for the "worsenment", if I may call it that.
I should like to ask a question although I do not know whether I should put it to my noble friend on the Front Bench or to my noble friend who moved the Second Reading. In the case of the Jubilee Line, it is said that there should be very substantial contributions from the landowners, principally businesses, who have premises close to the stations because there is not the slightest doubt that when that line is built their property will increase substantially in value. It may be too late now to do that for the Jubilee Line. But is there any proposal that those whose land will become much more valuable because of the access that will he given by light rail should be asked to make some contribution to the scheme? I should like to be sure that that matter has been fully examined before we ask the public purse to disburse money for this line. Because of the congestion advantages, there might well be a case for a grant from the public sector, but the issue of "betterment" should be considered at the start of a scheme such as this. One can only do so at the start of a scheme: such provisions cannot be added later, as has been discovered with the Jubilee Line.
Because the line involves so few houses, it passes through a great deal of open space. I have some sympathy with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in her wish to see the matter better handled by the Bill. I am told that the figure that she mentioned—over 40 acres—means that all the land that might potentially be taken, if the maximum deviations were adopted, has been added in. That seems a highly unlikely state of affairs. A more reasonable figure is that something like 13.2 acres of public open space, green belt and parkland will be required, of which 9.2 acres comprise parks and open spaces. That is a rather less alarming figure. Nonetheless, if it is right, the noble Baroness has a point.
The Instruction which the noble Baroness has expressed the intention of moving asks that that land be,
"replaced by land of equal amenity value in an accessible area".
I have some experience of this. Considerable parts of my former constituency formed part of Epping Forest. Epping Forest conservationists, who have faced pressure over the years not only from road building but also from other developments, have always insisted that whenever an acre of land is taken from the forest, an acre should be added back. However, if one takes an acre from Epping Forest in the middle of the London Borough of Walthamstow,
1090
one cannot then find another acre of forest in the London Borough of Walthamstow, so the land that has been found has been out at Epping and beyond.
Therefore, I venture to suggest to the noble Baroness that her Instruction is impractical. Indeed, the Select Committee might he considerably hindered in its work if it had to take account of an Instruction which asks for what may very well be impossible. Having said that, however, I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Baroness and I hope that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes can give the House some assurance on this point in her reply. I hope that the London Borough of Croydon will make every effort to try to replace with additional open space the open land that has had to be taken in the course of the construction of the Tramlink although I realise that it may well have to be open land elsewhere.
I warmly support this initiative. It is an imaginative scheme and I hope that it will come to fruition. As always, the Select Committee will read what has been said in this debate very carefully and will take the fullest account of the points that have been made, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, both of whom have raised perfectly valid issues. I hope, however, that they might be persuaded not to press their Instructions to a Division. It is my experience that that adds considerably to the length of the committee proceedings and therefore, inevitably, to the cost for both the promoters and the petitioners. Learned counsel are very well able to make the maximum use of Instructions which have found their way into the committee's deliberations. It is my experience that it is very much better if the members of the committee take the fullest account of what has been said. I hope that this evening we shall allow the Bill to proceed to the Select Committee unadorned so that the measure can receive the full consideration that it merits.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for the way in which she introduced the debate, and to all noble Lords who have participated. Prima facie, some strong points were made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I hope that those points will be properly considered and digested when the Select Committee considers the Bill.
Perhaps I may draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, the fact that my noble friend Lady Nicol was not asking for land of equal amenity to he secured in a place comparable to Walthamstow. She has referred specifically to land "in an accessible area". I believe that that meets the criticism made by the noble Lord.
I very much welcome the Bill and the imaginative and, I hope, exemplary concept of Tramlink. A number of interesting experiments have been undertaken, sometimes under the aegis of local authorities, in other parts of the country. In this case, we are referring to Croydon and to a public authority. It is absolutely right that one should contemplate the best way of progressing these ideas. If the scheme

1091
involves the introduction of private capital and if that can be procured, that is all to the good; but it is the service that is to be provided that is all important as far as the passengers are concerned, not the way in which the service is owned.
I believe that this form of transport will prove to be environmentally friendly, clean and attractive and that it will reduce congestion and offer much greater convenience for passengers. I also believe that it will prove to be cost-effective. After all, one has only to consider the number of cars that it would take to convey the same number of people as can be carried by one of these vehicles. If full, I believe that about 220 people can be conveyed. Carrying that number of people in cars would probably involve using about 90 cars. I do not need to make the point in greater detail about environmental benefits.
At the very beginning of her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out that people with physical disabilities will find these vehicles suitable for their use. I hope that the same will apply to people with other mobility handicaps. I refer, for example, to mothers with pushchairs who find almost any vehicle difficult to negotiate. That problem could properly he confronted by this very modern form of transport.
The questions that have been raised about other environmental concerns are powerful points which need to be properly considered. I am not sure that we are in the best position to do that tonight and it is for my noble friend Lady Nicol to determine whether she wishes to push this to a vote.
Some question was raised about the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment which has been or is to be carried out. I am not sure whether that process has been completed. I doubt it, but I should like to hear from the noble Baroness on that point.
Whatever may be the position, I am sure that in the course of the development problems could well arise. My hope is that the promoters of the scheme will see the value of transparency and openness with a public who, by and large, have overwhelmingly welcomed the scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, pointed out. If problems arise, as undoubtedly they will in a scheme of this complexity, I make that plea for transparency and openness. It is in the best interests of the scheme itself to abide by that precept.
I turn now to the forecast use. The February 1992 briefing stated:
"It is hoped that the system would be integrated into existing ticketing arrangements such as Travelcard and that fares would be comparable to those paid by bus passengers with concession rates available for certain groups".
I wonder whether, nearly nine months later, the House could hear from the noble Baroness how far those hopes have been translated into much firmer assurances. What discussions have taken place in the interim?
Much of the investment, particularly for the infrastructure and also for the supply of equipment, is to be procured from the private sector. A figure of around £ 140 million is involved. That was stated in the briefing nine months ago, since when we have been enveloped in the cruelest recession in modern times. Are those projections still valid, or do they need to be
1092
revised in any way? In that event, or in any event, what kind of grant will be required from the Government? Are the Government responsive to that need?
The issue of compensation is raised in Clause 24, in Part III and in Clause 40. Can we have any idea in global terms what is contemplated in this regard?
My final point may be one of detail to be filled in at a later stage. I make a plea for an up-to-date method of fare collection. We seem in this country and in this metropolis to be eons behind the well-tried and successful methods of fare collection which apply in a number of cities in Belgium—contrary to most people's belief, from time to time I did actually travel by public transport rather than in the Commission car—in France and in other places. The idea of being able to punch a ticket when one boards a tram or a bus seems infinitely better than the arrangements we have in this country. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say a word about that and allay some of my concerns.
I conclude where I began. This is a bold and imaginative scheme. I wish it well. Although the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, had some doubts about the Instructions, they are matters which give rise to issues which certainly ought to be considered by the Select Committee, whether or not the Instructions are put to a vote.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on her introduction of the Bill. I welcome this opportunity to set out briefly for your Lordships the Government's position in respect of it.
The Government support the Bill in principle. Indeed, a light rail scheme for Croydon and the surrounding area was one of the recommendations of the four London assessment studies carried out on behalf of the Department of Transport back in 1989.
Tramlink would help ease widespread traffic congestion in Croydon and the surrounding area, providing an environmentally attractive alternative to increasing capacity through new road building or the widening of existing roads. It would also provide an orbital public transport link, linking Wimbledon, Mitcham Junction, West Croydon, East Croydon, Birkbeck, Elmers End and Beckenham British Rail stations, which would complement the predominantly radial links that exist at present. Finally, it would provide travellers with a real alternative to using their cars.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has said, Tramlink is to be a private sector project, albeit one that might require an element of public sector grant. The Government firmly believe that Tramlink provides a good opportunity for the private sector to contribute to the public transport needs of London. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to say that the promoters have established a private sector project development group, comprising Tarmac Construction, AEG (UK) Ltd. and Transdev, to take forward the development and design of Tramlink. Shortly before Royal Assent the promoters will hold a further competition to select the private sector concession company or consortium that would

1093
actually build and run Tramlink. No commitment has been or can be given on the provision of public sector grant: the case will be considered on its merits in the light of the availability of resources and other competing priorities at the appropriate time. Public spending is under particular pressure at present.
Your Lordships will note that there are some 40 or so petitions against the Bill. Petitioners will have the opportunity of presenting their objections to the Select Committee. The Select Committee will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of being able to hear expert evidence.
I therefore ask your Lordships to support the Second Reading of the Bill so that it can pass to a Select Committee for detailed examination.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate. I should like to reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised. Perhaps it would be slightly easier if I were to deal with them in the order in which they were brought up.
I have great sympathy with many of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I took an active part in the Planning and Compensation Bill. I remember supporting his views about blighted property. One of the difficulties on which he then commented and with which I completely agreed is that people often consider their houses to be blighted when they are slightly beyond the point where they would get compensation. I always feel that those people are perhaps the most unfortunate of all. Those who receive statutory compensation at least know where they stand. But those who are slightly affected and yet do not qualify for compensation find themselves in a difficult position. At the moment, however, it is almost impossible in London terms to know whether blight is caused by the economic climate, the lack of buyers, the number of repossessions or other factors. There are so many blights at this stage that it is not easy to quantify that effect.
The noble Earl referred to the 10 years allowed by the Bill. I am grateful to see that it is only 10 years. When I was a member of the GLC I remember that certain houses had the right of route through them protected for 25 years and even as much as 40 years. The people in those houses had been blighted for all that time. At the end of the period we were selling the houses off and removing the blight. Until the moment comes when something is going to be done one does not really know whether it will ever happen, but I do hope and believe that the Bill will proceed to become an Act and that the Tramlink will become a reality.
In his Instruction, the noble Earl made the point that funds should be available to buy those properties in advance. He asked, in particular, whether that would be related to Royal Assent. I must tell him that it will not be related to Royal Assent, but that it would be related to the moment when contracts were let. Royal Assent would be at a certain stage of the Bill and then specifications and detailed contracts would
1094
be drawn up and tenders sought. But until a tender has actually been accepted one cannot be sure that an acceptable tender will be offered. That is the point—as soon as a tender has been accepted—at which the promoters would be perfectly happy to proceed immediately to compensate or purchase. A number of properties have been specifically identified where, in some cases, there would be real hardship. They would certainly be prepared to buy those properties at once so that people would not even suffer the noise or disturbance of work beginning around them, much less continuing.
It must be appreciated that no major construction of any type can be carried out without an element of disturbance during the time involved. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis asked about that point. There will be a code for the construction and very specific restrictions on what hours are worked, and so on. I thought that the noble Lord's remark was ambiguous. I did not know whether he was asking about the inconvenience at the time or at another time.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also spoke about British Rail and its willingness to purchase properties in the line of the Channel Tunnel. That both interested and surprised me. I have written to British Rail about quite a hard case concerning an elderly widow who needed to move but could not sell her house because it was on the line. British Rail replied that there was nothing that it could do in her case until the location of the line was firmly settled. Sure enough, the line has been settled at a different place. Therefore, although I understand the reasoning, my experience in that respect has been different.
The noble Earl made a point about betterment, as did my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am sure that will be carefully studied in debate. However, it is not a subject upon which I can comment at present. The noble Earl said that local searches will show up such matters. Well, planning permission has just been approved for an enormous development of four acres immediately opposite my home. It will be most difficult for people living in the area. But, again, no one knows whether it will ever be built. I believe that with all planning permissions and all such schemes we can only believe that they will happen. Clearly, once they are going to happen, the sooner they are developed and completed the better for all concerned. That applies especially in this case because there will be such a great advantage in terms of public transport.
Many petitioners and this comment applies to all speakers—have and will present their case to the Select Committee. Therefore, I do not think that any of the arguments, including those raised this evening, will be rejected without full consideration. We believe that there will be 25 properties directly affected. Of those,23 are residential and two are commercial. All will probably require demolition and all the affected occupants have been notified. One speaker suggested that the whole matter should be very transparent and that people should know where they stand. I think that we can say that that is being done.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. She spoke about replacement land being vested in the person from whom it was

1095
taken. It is interesting to note that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to introduce an amendment to Clause 48. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that a category is to be brought into the clause stating that, if the land ever ceases to be a tramline, it will revert to the original owners. Or, presumably, if it is a case of a private property it might go to the successors in title for that private home if the land happens to be a garden. That represents quite a change to Clause 48.
The noble Baroness quoted the permanent loss of the 47.5 acres or 19 hectares. I was all in favour of acres until I realised that there were even more of them than there were hectares. I am now in favour of quoting hectares because it does not sound quite so frightening. That quantity of land will not be required. There is an update on the matter. The amount required will he only 9.5 acres of parkland or public open space; that is, 3.8 hectares.
I do not think there is anything sinister as regards the limits of deviation. It is simply that the final line is not precisely determined until the plans are completed. The reason that piece of open space is being used is because that is the route needed; it is not because of any intent to deprive people of amenity land. It is simply that, in order to provide the very good amenity of efficient public transport the system must be linked, and that was the only place, under this marvellous new scheme, where it could be linked without an enormous loss of homes. Of course, people would be very unhappy if many homes were to be lost.
Each section of the tram will carry 60 passengers. On the whole, there will be two unit sections, but there could be as many as four unit sections. They will certainly carry many people. I am happy that the trams will be powered by overhead wires. They are much safer than a third electrified line on which we know so many children have been killed. Even where old British Rail track is being used the electrified line will be taken out and replaced with overhead lines. That is a good improvement in my view.
Several speakers, especially the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about wheelchair users. I emphasise the fact that there will be easy access for wheelchair users, prams and people who have difficulty in raising their feet more than a certain height. Low platforms will he provided as well as low access vehicles. Moreover, where existing old British Rail stations are used they will be rebuilt to make the platforms lower and ramps will be supplied to ensure easy access to the low level platforms. In my view, this is the first form of public transport which will be wholly available to wheelchair users.
The safety measures will have to be approved by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. We expect those concerned to be very particular. Personal safety will be controlled to a very large extent by the fact that each stop of the tram will be monitored by closed circuit television. That should help people waiting on the platform. That is the system used at present on the Docklands Light Railway and has proved to be most successful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned, quite rightly, about the loss of amenity land. My noble
1096
friend Lord Jenk in made the good point that it might not be possible to put such land exactly where it would be desired. It is rather difficult to assess equal amenity value or equal value and accessibility. The way that the noble Baroness has phrased the Instruction makes it seem a rather difficult equation. That is one of the reasons why I cannot accept it.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about fares. At present, nothing is quite settled in that respect. It may be necessary to impose a premium fare in order to pay for what must be a very expensive construction. However, it is hoped that travel cards will be used. I personally raised with the promoters the possibility of an easy system of ticketing. I hope that the system will be similar to the one in Strasbourg where travellers pre-buy their tickets and on boarding the vehicle simply punch it into a machine. They seemed most optimistic and indicated that such a system was under consideration.
The noble Lord also asked about public sector funding. That will come under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968. But that is only a possibility, because the availability of such funding is subject to the general economic constraints and will be determined in the light of prevailing circumstances at the time.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does that mean that if the Government are not forthcoming with a grant in this respect, the scheme will become fatally flawed?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I hope that is not so. The belief is that the combination of London Transport, Croydon Council and the private developer would produce this result. But Section 56 of the Transport Act might make public funds available, and that would be an additional source of funding.
I should like to make clear that the Instructions are valuable and carefully thought out by Members of this House who I know take their responsibilities seriously, and I would not underestimate the importance of what they have put. However, it is not appropriate to send such specific Instructions to our opposed Bill committee. This debate will be studied carefully and every word that has been said here tonight will be considered. For that reason I do not think that the Instructions are necessary.
Further than that, I hope that the Committee will look not only at these two serious matters raised tonight but at every other appropriate and necessary point in this Bill, and many of these are being raised by petitioners. We are fortunate in having such excellent people willing to serve on these committees and giving their time to consider every aspect of these Bills. One past hazard in London transport Bills has been the matter of the time they have taken. Even the Jubilee Line Bill took an enormous amount of time. I understand that if specific Instructions on any particular point are given, that might add three or four days to the proceedings and therefore create additional cost for the committee hearing. I take seriously what has been said, and I thank those people for making their contribution, but I hope that they will not press their Instructions tonight.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
[The Motions in the names of the Earl of Lytton and the Baroness Nicol were not moved.]

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
8.43 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed. Clause 4 [Lump sum on the judicial officer's retirement or death]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("two and one-quarter") and insert ("three").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the lump sum to which a judge is entitled on retiring together with his pension, which is half his salary if he has done, according to this Bill,20 years' service. Perhaps I should put this in its historical context. Until 1950—that is more than 150 years after pensions became payable to the judiciary—the pension was two-thirds of the salary. But pension philosophy moves on, matters change, and it became fashionable, and indeed desirable, for a person to have as part of his pension facilities a lump sum. Accordingly, in 1950 two alterations were made in the judicial pension schemes.
First was the payment of a pension to widows and orphans, and the other was the reduction of the judicial pension from two-thirds to one-half in exchange for the judge having a lump sum equal to twice his pension. He lagged behind what happened in the public sphere, because in the public sphere it was three times the annual pension. The payment for widows and orphans came conveniently not out of the Treasury but out of the lump sum, so that he had his lump sum subject to contributing the appropriate portion thereof towards maintaining the widow and the orphans.
The two themes upon which there have been slight variations from time to time so far as the Government are concerned are, first, that the judges must conform to modern legislation, and, secondly, that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has triumphed in achieving the maximum tax-efficient scheme that was available. Whenever one has sought to achieve what occurs in the private sector, from whence of course the judges have been recruited, the answer inevitably is, "This is not what happens in the public sector, and you have now joined the public sector by ceasing to be self employed and becoming a member of the judiciary". This does not apply in this particular situation.
The current position is that the judges get twice their pension as a lump sum. Or, expressed more simply, once times their annual income, subject of course to the fact that the once times the annual income is the annual income that they are receiving at the moment of retirement. This is valuable because in the past—it may take some time for it to occur in the future—when there have been pay increases, however
1098
limited, a judge who retired on 2nd April following a pay increase on 1st April had his pension calculated upon that new salary with the increase. Now that is to be changed. Another downgrading of the pension facilities for judges, because his pension is based on the annual salary that he had averaged over the last year.
Coming back to the lump sum, it is once times what he is now in receipt of as his annual income on the moment of retirement, or, which amounts to the same, twice his annual pension. What is proposed in the Bill is to put that lump sum up to 2.25. That superficially sounds an improvement, but it is only superficial because there are what are known in this Bill as capping provisions. The judge's pension is not capped, kept down, to a sum that the Revenue consider to be the maximum sum, but the lump sum is capped and it is capped at £ 75,000.
If one takes the lump sum which is achievable by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary on retirement—and I speak with some knowledge, having had that particular experience a matter of a few weeks ago—the lump sum is just in six figures, £ 100,000. But if I was appointed after the Act came into force the apparent generosity of 2.25 would soon disappear because anything above £ 75,000, which in that particular case would be £ 25,000 would be taxed at 40 per cent. Therefore, one must not be thought to be overlooking generosity when it does not exist. What we are seeking to do is to achieve a lump sum which is that which is achieved not merely in the private sector among those who commute their pensions—over 90 per cent. do so—but also in the public sector to which we are so frequently redirected whenever we refer to the private sector. In the public sector three times the annual pension is what is paid, and has been paid for a long time. Accordingly when the Top Salaries Review Body was asked its views on the situation it reported in the following manner. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to what the Top Salaries Review Body stated as reported at col.712 of Hansard of 30th June during the Committee stage of the Bill. The TSRB said:
"Tax free lump sum. Under the proposed scheme an annual pension is payable plus an immediate tax-free lump sum. The maximum annual pension, accrued over 20 years, will be equal to half pensionable pay (capped). The maximum lump sum will be equal to 2 x annual pension x 9/8".
That is 2¼ the figure to which I referred.
I now wish to stress the following remarks from the TSRB's comments to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as regards his scheme. The TSRB further stated as reported in Hansard at col.713:
"However, it is normal in public service pension schemes for the lump sum to equal 3 x annual pension.
It is noted that a factor of 2.25 is the maximum now allowed in the calculation of the optional lump sum under typical private sector final salary pension schemes. That factor applies to the pre-commuted annual pension, with a maximum of two-thirds of final salary. The maximum lump sum calculated on that basis is … equal to the automatic lump sum of 3 x annual pension under typical public service schemes".
In the view of the TSRB the lump sum under the proposed scheme for the judiciary should be improved from 2.25 to three times the annual pension. That would result in conformity with what occurs in the public sector.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had the benefit of the advice of his own independent consultant actuary, Mr. Alexander of Watsons. Mr. Alexander said in paragraph 3.10 of his comments:
"After 20 years the total personal retirement benefit is a pension of one half of final pay plus a lump sum of 1.125 times final pay".
That is the same as 2.25 times the pension. He continued:
"This equates to the Inland Revenue maximum pension of two-thirds of final pay if the lump sum is converted using a factor of £ 1 p. a. pension for each £ 6.75 of lump sum. By reference to the standard Inland Revenue conversion table this implies that retirement takes place on average at about age 73".
He was unaware, of course, of the new maximum age limit. He continued:
"However this standard table does not necessarily represent fully the value of an index-linked pension".
I would add that that is the pension proposed under the Bill. Mr. Alexander continued:
"By reference to a table which does so, the average retirement age implied by a factor of £ 6.75: 1"
that is the 2.25 factor—
"is around 77".
Therefore the 2.25 figure which applies the Treasury approach, or the Inland Revenue approach, presupposes that a judge retires not only two years after the present maximum retirement age but also seven years after the maximum retirement age under this Bill. Mr. Alexander shows therefore the mathematical fallacy of choosing the figure of 2.25. As I have indicated to your Lordships, we judges in the interim consulted our own independent consultant actuary. I have already said that we have sent a copy of the report to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The independent actuary states at paragraph 4.7 of the report:
"The recognised standard is a lump sum of 3 times the pension. However, an even higher multiplier should be given on the grounds that the lump sum is intended to replace the difference between the pension actually payable to a judge compared with what might have been paid to an equally senior employee in the private sector".
In the private sector the pension would be two-thirds of salary whereas for a judge it is to be one-half of salary. The difference is one-sixth of salary. An index-linked pension is worth about £ 12 for each £ 1 of pension and therefore a pension shortfall of one-sixth of salary should be compensated by a lump sum of 12 times one-sixth of salary, that is twice times salary, or four times the pension of one-half salary. The multiplier should therefore be four times and not 2.25.
We appreciated what would happen if we suggested the figure of four times. We realised that we would be told that that is what we might get in the private sector but that we were not in the private sector. Therefore we return once more to the public sector. Those in the Civil Service receive three times the lump sum—that is the public sector—so why on earth should not the judges receive that when they are being forced into this mould in other respects? I beg to move.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am afraid I may repeat a certain amount of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has already said. I judge this matter on simple grounds. There seem to be five criteria by which this matter should be judged. First, in the private
1100
sector the lump sum usually works out, in the way the pensions are computed, at three times under current practice.
Secondly, in the public sector the figure is three times. Thirdly, the TSRB supports the figure of three times. Fourthly, the actuary whom the judges themselves had to consult, in default of proper advice being available to them, supports the figure of three times. Fifthly, the adviser to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"good practice is represented by a lump sum of three times".
Those are five separate criteria by which to judge this matter.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he had concluded that two and a quarter times was reasonable having considered all the material. I am puzzled about what constituted the material he referred to. What other factors have been concealed from us which are known to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? I hope that in the course of his reply the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us what the material was that he considered which led him to arrive at the figure of two-and-aquarter times in the face of the five separate criteria which point to a different figure.
9 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner introduced the amendment with his astonishingly lucid command of detail. He has been seconded by my noble friend Lord Benson with his vast professional experience and computerised mind. It is quite unnecessary and indeed would be idle to try to rival or repeat their expertise in the matter.1 merely wish to emphasise one or two points very shortly.
First, when lump sum payments were introduced into the judicial pension scheme for the first time in 1950 they were paid for by the judiciary. They were paid for by the judges consenting to a reduction of their pension from two-thirds of salary to one-half. Secondly, one must remember that in 1950 the rates of taxation were very much higher and the lump sum was proportionately more valuable than it is today.
Thirdly, on the face of it this seems to increase the lump sum by one quarter, but there are two factors to be set against that. The first is that, as my noble and learned friend said, that sum will be capped. Secondly, for that quarter improvement the judges have to work one quarter longer. Therefore, even if it were uncapped the judges would have no advantage. To treat that as an act of generosity or of bounty must remind your Lordships of Mr. Squeers ordering half a glass of milk, filling it up with water, sniffing it and saying, "Here's richness! ". I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, one has to take account of the tax position in considering these matters. The position is that tax is payable on the lump sum above the cap as a result of the general law. However, the actual amount of the lump sum is increased from two times the pension to 2.25 times the pension. I believe that it is right to look at that apart from the tax question.

1101
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner pointed out that lump sums in the private sector can be one-and-a-half times pensionable pay—which would be three times the half salary or three times the pension—and in the public sector three times pension is also common, although in that case there is a 40 year accrual span.
In my submission the 12½ per cent. increase in the lump sum is appropriate in the judicial situation when one takes account of the fact that in the retained benefits to which I have referred once or twice in the course of these discussions the lump sum which is payable under the retained benefits also has tax advantages. Therefore, the distinction between the various schemes which have been referred to as comparable and this scheme is that in this case the retained benefits are available without their being taken into account. In other situations account would have to be taken of the lump sum element of the retained benefits in the calculation of what was available under the scheme.
Various advice has been referred to. That advice is based on what is available in the other situations. However, in my submission to your Lordships the distinction between those other situations and the present scheme is the existence of the retained benefits with their aspects of lump sum as well as of pension arrangements.
For those reasons I am not able to accede to the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, will he tell us, bearing in mind that he has frequently said that he has achieved the most tax effective scheme attainable, whether he has sought the revenue's views as to whether it would accept that the judges should be treated in the same way as pensioners are treated in the public sector?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I explained a moment ago that the distinction between those other schemes to which my noble and learned friend referred and this scheme is that under this scheme the pension holders are entitled to the retained benefits with the tax advantages which those benefits carry. It is for that reason that the 2.25 multiplier is appropriate here.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I infer that that is a negative answer and that the revenue has not been asked as to whether it would accept that judges should be treated as other people are in the public sector.
I shall withdraw my amendment in the hope that by the time we reach Third Reading my noble and learned friend will make good his proposition that he has achieved the most tax efficient scheme attainable by consulting with the revenue, which controls these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.57:
Page 5, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment with Amendment No.40. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if Amendment No.58 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos.59 to 61 inclusive.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.58:
Page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Where a person dies within five years of retirement his personal representative shall be granted a lump sum equal to five times the annual rate of pension less any annual sums paid to him by way of pension.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was put before your Lordships at Committee stage because what was provided in the present clause resulted in a situation where a judge who died within one year of his appointment achieved precisely nothing. If he dies after two years, his widow gets very little. I need take little time on this for the simple reason that this is another of the proposed amendments in respect of which the draftsman found four months to be inadequate to put it into type. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kindly indicated in a letter of 20th October addressed to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice (of which I have a copy) that he was considering an amendment on these lines. The letter reads:
"I propose to modify the method by which the lump sum paid on death following retirement is calculated. I intend that the lump sum should be five times the deceased's annual pension at the time of retirement less any benefits already received".
I do not know—I am sure it is my fault—what is comprised in the words "less any benefits". If it involves the inclusion of the lump sum, it produces precisely the nil calculation of which I have complained. There is little point in speculating on what is meant by the drafting in this letter. What one needs to see—it is promised for Third Reading—are the actual terms of the amendment. They may be precisely what we have put in our amendment. It may be overoptimistic but by temperament I am an optimist.
Once again, I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor if he will give the House an assurance that it will get the terms of that amendment not later than one week before Third Reading. Of course, we shall be delighted to receive it earlier. No doubt my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would like to indicate whether I have correctly understood the position.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wrote in the terms to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has referred as a result of consideration of this matter. My intention was to take account in the calculation of the lump sum in the benefits received. But I would want to make clear, in view of the way my noble and learned friend has recounted this matter, that the decision I have taken has been capable of being taken only fairly recently. It is not the draftsman who has been waiting to do the work over the past four months; it is a question of being able to make the necessary decision. The draftsman has been instructed on the basis I described in the letter. I certainly believe it should be possible to produce the amendment in this matter at least one week before Third Reading.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on that most helpful assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 5, line 36, after ("pension") insert ("increased by any pension paid under section 19").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.59 concerns another esoteric part of pensions law and practice. I hope I shall be able to explain it simply. The death benefit paid to a widow is at present capped. That means that if it is above £ 75,000, up to 40 per cent. of anything beyond that figure is paid by way of tax. If one is achieving the most tax-efficient scheme obtainable, there seems to be no reason to pay tax unnecessarily.
Therefore I rely first upon what the Top Salaries Review Body said in its comments to my noble and learned friend on this particular subject. I read from paragraph 3.12 of the observations sent to my noble and learned friend:
"A death-in-service benefit of 1½ x pensionable pay"—
which is to become at least twice having regard to my noble and learned friend's amendment—
"(capped) is low and there is therefore no need for the cap to restrict benefits. The cap on death-in-service comes into play only when the tax-free lump sum exceeds four times the capped salary at the date of death. The cap applies to the benefit, not to the pensionable pay".
If further support were required for the wisdom of that proposition. it is to be found in the assistance rendered to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor by the Government's own consultant actuary, none other than Mr. Alexander of Watson's, to whom reference has been made earlier. On page 4 of his comments, he says:
"We further note that if pay exceeds the "cap", the gratuity in excess of 1½ x"—
shortly to become at least two—
"the cap would be paid from the unapproved scheme and would therefore be taxed. We recommend that instead all of the death gratuity is paid from the approved scheme, thereby ensuring that no tax would be payable. This is possible because in all cases 1½ full pay"—
I interpose again to say that that applies equally to twice full pay—
"will he less than the Inland Revenue maximum gratuity payable from the approved scheme of 4 x capped pay".
Our own expert, Mr. Wynne-Griffith, says:
"The part of the lump sum death benefit that relates to salary in excess of the "cap" will be taxed (as pointed out by the Independent Actuary)"
that is, Mr. Alexander of Watson's—
"It is possible to enhance the benefit up to 4 times the lesser of salary or the cap and so avoid the tax. This is common practice in the private sector. It seems peculiar that judges should have such a low level of benefit and still be exposed to tax on some of it when, in the private sector, the whole of a larger benefit is paid free of tax".
So all sides—the TSRB, the Government's own independent consultant actuary and the independent consultant actuary to whom the judges have been obliged to have recourse—make the same observation. Once again, I ask in the spirit of humility: how is it that this is the most efficient tax effective scheme when all three experts say that that should not occur? One is obliging the judges under the scheme to pay more tax than the Revenue requires. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend said, this amendment seeks to improve the level of lump sum payable on death in service or death in early retirement by ensuring that the whole of any such lump sum (including such part of those lump sums as is derived from salary above the pension cap) are not taxable. This pension cap is a part of the modern pensions law which applies to all other members of society, no matter what their career paths or the peculiarities of their chosen profession. One of its features is that our particular scheme is different from the general in respect of the retained benefits. Up to twice the salary, lump sum death benefit can be paid without taking account of retained benefits.
If the lump sum multiple should exceed twice the salary, retained benefits need to be brought into the calculation. That is the position. Therefore the reason for this system is the retained benefits arrangement which I have described and which I believe is extremely appropriate in the case of the judges.
My noble and learned friend made an observation in relation to one of the earlier amendments after I had sat down when he was withdrawing his amendment. It is quite inappropriate to suggest that I have not discussed all these matters with the Inland Revenue. As I have stated, I represent Her Majesty's Government; and all aspects of the Government are available to me. However, the explanation of the situation is the one that I have just given.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, do I take it from his last answer that the Inland Revenue has declined to supply the same tax facilities to the judges in relation to capping benefits as applies generally to the remainder of the public?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that would be a quite improper inference to draw from what I said. I stated that one has to take account of the fact that in this scheme the retained benefits are allowed with a tax advantage. With the schemes to which my noble and learned friend referred, that is not a feature. It is because of the additional feature of the retained benefits with their tax advantage, including lump sums, that the point arises.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may raise this point. We have heard much about retained benefits. That may be of great interest to people who have had very high incomes at the senior Bar in London. However, speaking as a Scot, that does not apply—as I am sure that the noble and learned Lord knows full well—among those who are appointed as sheriffs. I suspect that it does not apply in England and Wales to those who are appointed as circuit judges.
It is ridiculous if the pension scheme is to be worked out on the basis that those appointed as judges are expected to have had an income at the Bar of hundreds of thousands of pounds when that is demonstrably not true for the vast majority of those appointed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we are in danger of transgressing the rules of order. However, with the leave of the House, I answer in this way. The tax provisions which enable people, if they so wish, to have retained benefits apply to those who are at the Bar and become sheriffs in Scotland just as they do to those who may become members of the circuit Bench in England. The benefit is available to people with far more modest incomes than hundreds of thousands of pounds. I was never in that category by quite a long chalk.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps I may ask how many deficiencies in this Bill are the retained benefits to be found to cover? To every point that has been raised, my noble and learned friend has prayed in aid the retained benefits. The retained benefits were the answer to the 15 years,20 years point. The retained benefits were the answer to the point that my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner raised a few moments ago. The retained benefits are the answer to this point. How many holes in the Bill can the retained benefits fill? How many deficiencies will they be prayed in aid to cover?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one has to remember that with their advantages the retained benefits are a feature of the scheme. Therefore in so far as questions are raised, I require to refer to them as an aspect of the scheme which distinguishes it from another. It is not a question of holes in the scheme which are met by the retained benefits. It is that the scheme cannot be considered without giving effect to the fact that it allows for the retained benefits. They are intended to enable the persons who are in a previous career to make pension provisions during the time that they work in that career in a tax efficient way with the appropriate tax relief. It is during that part of their career that they have this opportunity. During the later part of their career when they become judges it is appropriate to take that into account as part of the arrangement that this provision allows for them.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, during the debate on the accrual period of 15 years (increased to 20) I set out four reasons why I respectfully submitted that the retained benefits are a red herring. Those reasons are recorded in Hansard and I do not propose to repeat them.
It is perfectly clear that if, as we all believe, a considerable proportion of the judiciary, certainly circuit judges and sheriffs, have no, or no significant, retained benefits because of the expense of dealing with their mortgages and/or their children's education, it would be totally wrong for them to bear the burden of suffering from an inability to enjoy what the rest of the public enjoy merely because there would be some High Court judges, in all probability, who had been able to afford to spend sizeable amounts of money on pensions before—and I emphasise this—they reached the age of 50 or thereabouts.
Accordingly, I give my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor notice that on Third Reading I shall seek to introduce amendments enabling judges to opt
1106
in or to opt out according to whether or not they ask for their retained benefits to be taken into account. I imagine that the circuit judges will say, "Keep the retained benefit concession of which you speak; I would rather serve 15 years than have my non-existent retained benefits taken into account. Keep your retained benefits concession; I would rather have three times the lump sum. Keep your retained benefits concession; I would rather have the death benefit uncapped", and so forth. By that means my noble and learned friend will have achieved that which he says is so important; that those who have valuable retained benefits must, so he believes according to the new philosophy, have them taken into account. It is totally inequitable constantly to reply in relation to those who have no, or no significant, retained benefits, "On behalf of the Government I have decreed that although you do not have this advantage you will nevertheless suffer the disadvantages which you would not otherwise have suffered had you been an ordinary member of the public."
On that basis, and with that suggestion of what will be contemplated in the future, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.60:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert ("increased by any pension paid under section 19).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment. I am told by those who know better than I that under the Social Security Act 1973, in particular Section 63(2), (3) and (4) and Schedule 19, there is an obligation for the Bill to refer to the fact that there is an entitlement, even though there has been service of only two years, to the appropriate pension for that period. That is my understanding of the obligation, which can be checked.
Whether or not I am right, it is wrong that there should not be in a Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill a reference to an entitlement of which the judges will know nothing unless it is included in the Bill. That is the reason for this modest amendment and I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will accept it. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I find it difficult to understand how Amendment No.60 provides a basis for the point which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has just made. However, I am happy to read carefully what he said. I believe that the Social Security Act payments are preserved under the provision, but I am willing to look at that matter. However, Amendment No.60 does not appear to bear directly on the point.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is entirely my inadequacy which has led to the difficulty. It is as simple as this. In view of the legislation in the Social Security Act 1973 every pension must provide that if a person has served at least two years he is entitled to whatever is the right figure for those two years. That is an obligation which lies upon the Government. Leaving aside the strict law, when putting the

1107
entitlement of a judge to a pension into primary legislation, I should have thought that the Government should put in the totality of his entitlement and not expect him to have to look in other legislation to see whether there is something additional.
The amendment states:
"The appropriate Minister shall make regulations providing deferred pensions, lump sums and other derivative benefits at appropriate rates and subject to appropriate conditions for persons who cease to hold qualifying judicial office after serving two years therein without becoming entitled to a pension under subsections (1) to (4)".
The justification for the obligation is to be found at Section 63 and Schedule 19 of the 1973 Act. I have confessed to my inadequacies but I do not believe that I can make the matter any clearer.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that there is a misunderstanding. We are dealing with Amendment No.60. I believe that my noble and learned friend is speaking to Amendment No.65. I understand his point as covered by Amendment No.65 but I am suggesting that is not covered by Amendment No.60. I believe that there has been a misunderstanding.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I apologise. Amendment No.60 deals with another technical aspect of pension practice. In the ordinary private sphere the widow of a senior executive receives two-thirds of the pension of her husband on his death. That is based upon his having a two-thirds pension himself. In the case of a judge, the pension is fixed at a maximum of one-half his annual salary, but, in addition, there is a mandatory lump sum. He has not, as in the private sector, the option to commute. He is obliged to keep to the one-half and accept the lump sum.
In order to equate the position with the widow in the private sector, the judge's widow should not be provided with one-half of the judge's pension as such but there should be included an increase resulting from the actuarial calculation of the value of the lump sum which has been paid or is payable. The object is to increase the widow's pension by taking into account not only her husband's pension of one-half but the lump sum which is part and parcel of the pension provisions. Otherwise, you are affording to the widow less than half of the husband's entitlement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, again I have a little difficulty in connecting the noble and learned Lord's comments with the precise amendment. I believe that the matter is covered by what I said in relation to Amendment No.59. Indeed, I had understood that Amendments Nos.60 and 61 were to be grouped with Amendment No.59. The underlying principle is the same for all three.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it may be entirely my fault but I fail to understand the answer to my submission. I am seeking to introduce into the legislation an entitlement for the widow's pension to be increased by the pension equivalent of the lump sum. It is an actuarial calculation to be added on to the one-half of the widow or widower's pension.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have a little difficulty in following that. It may be that the wisest course is for me to read what my noble and learned friend said and seek to deal with the matter in correspondence. The basic situation covered by Amendment No.59 is also the underlying principle that applies in Amendments Nos.60 and 61. The reasons I gave were concerned with that. If I have not properly understood the submission of my noble and learned friend, I shall endeavour to read it and understand it at more leisure later.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, on the basis that further thought will be given to the proposition, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. It may assist my noble and learned friend to refer again to the report of our consultant actuary, Mr. Wynne-Griffith, which we sent to my noble and learned friend as far back as last July. The point is now covered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.61 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No.62:
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("one and a half times") and insert ("twice").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment I am proposing to increase the relevant benefit from one-and-a-half times to twice. That has already been the subject of discussion. My noble and learned friend referred to the fact that that is what I am doing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.63:
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("one and a half) and insert ("three").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a rival amendment to Amendment No.62. It relates to the death benefit.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had the benefit of the advice of an independent consultant, Mr. Alexander, of Watsons, whose firm advised the Top Salaries Review Body on pensions for Members of Parliament. In his report to my noble and learned friend, he said:
"There has been a clear trend of improvement in this area amongst pension schemes generally and good practice is represented by a lump sum of three times".
In the light of that recommendation by the independent consultant I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am puzzled by Amendment No.62 which inserts "twice". I can see no reason why the lump sum paid on death should be any different from that paid on retirement. As the House has heard, we have argued very strongly for the purposes of subsection (1) of the clause that payment should be three times. There is no reason why on death it should be any smaller sum. I share the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner about the government adviser's advice which seems conclusive. I cannot understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not follow the advice of his own adviser.

1109
Also the judges themselves have taken advice on this and it is the same. Their advice is that in 75 per cent. of private sector schemes pay under these conditions is three and four times the salary. In the face of that evidence, on what grounds does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put forward the figure of two? I say in parenthesis that I hope on this occasion that we shall not again have the question of retained benefits brought out. At this end of the Chamber we are getting rather tired of the subject. One can play the card once, but one cannot play the same card three or four times in the same game.
To change the metaphor, one simply cannot stop up every hole and every flaw in this Bill by crying out "retained benefits!"I hope that it will not be referred to again. But do not let me be deflected from the point that all the advice that has been given both to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself and to the judges is that the figure should be three times. On what specific ground has any different figure been chosen?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that technically we are dealing with Amendment No.63. So far as I am concerned the situation is that, having considered the matter in the light of what is available in the public service generally, the correct figure for this particular benefit is twice pensionable pay. That is the provision of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The schemes for Members of Parliament and the fire and police services have this particular provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Benson, does not wish to hear any more about retained benefits. I can understand why he says that. However, I have to point out that the retained benefit is a factor which distinguishes this scheme from others. I have no doubt that at least the noble Lord, Lord Benson, is suggesting that that is the answer to everything. It is an unavoidable characteristic of the scheme. Therefore, when any aspect of the scheme is called in question, one must look at the whole of it, including that provision.
The proposed lump sum on death-in-service benefit which I am proposing is twice the pensionable pay. That is equal to four times the full pension of half pay. That is higher than the retirement lump sum benefit and therefore surely it seems generous enough. For these reasons, I am unable to go beyond the twice figure that I have put forward in Amendment No.62 to which your Lordships have assented.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he take it for granted that from these Benches we are also a little fatigued at the repetition of retained benefits? Perhaps I may quote the rather adorable words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who said—and I do not know whether he noted it—that he thought that the suggestion was a red herring. Later on in his speech he said that it was inedible.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in the optimistic prospect that my noble and learned friend might give more thought to this matter, I quoted his own expert. Our own expert, to whom we were obliged to go, says this:
"The lump sum on death is only 1½ times salary. This is a very low level of benefit indeed".
I pause there. He was right because your Lordships have increased the lump sum to twice salary having resisted that attempt in Committee. So, our adviser was right in saying that one and a half times was too low. Let us see how he continues. He stated:
"It is seen to be even less generous when set in the context of the very low level of spouse's pension in these circumstances".
That is a reference back to the fact that a widow or widower gets no part of the pension equivalent of the lump sum.
He then went on to say:
"The private sector pays much more (75 per cent. of schemes pay 3 or 4 times salary: NAPF survey)—and particularly so to senior employees, in my experience".
There is the further material upon which I hope that my noble and learned friend will reflect. He is to be congratulated—and I do congratulate him—on recognising that one and a half times salary was too low and on increasing that to two. In the time before Third Reading, perhaps he will reflect upon the proposition that has been made by both his own adviser and our adviser that two is still too low and that the figure should be at least three. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.64 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No.65:
Page 6, line 1, at end insert:
("( ) The appropriate Minister shall make regulations providing deferred pensions, lump sums and other derivative benefits at appropriate rates and subject to appropriate conditions for persons who cease to hold qualifying judicial office after serving two years therein without becoming entitled to a pension under subsections (1) to (4) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I believe that I have already spoken to this amendment, but I shall do it again because I made such a poor showing. It may be that having said it once, your Lordships will be able to respond straight away and I will not need to take up the time of the House but now I shall reculer pour mieux sauter if that is not the case.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I followed the argument when my noble and learned friend made it before, although it was slightly earlier in our proceedings. I find myself in the novel situation of trying to resist being given an additional regulation-making power by my noble and learned friend. I do so not because I do not wish to make regulations governing preserved pensions, but because I already have that power in conjunction with the Secretary of State under the provisions of Social Security Act 1973, Section 65.
The existing arrangements are established under the existing judicial pensions scheme by the Judicial Pensions (Preservation of Benefits) Order 1988. I anticipate that a new order will have to be made in connection with the new scheme, but I do not believe

1111
that any additional powers are necessary. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and probably my noble friend Lord Renton would feel it inappropriate to give unnecessary regulation-making powers in this Bill when they already exist under the Act to which I have referred.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, that still leaves the deficiency unremedied, which is that in what is meant to be primary legislation covering judicial pensions, there is not inserted any reference to an obligation that exists to pay even though only two years has been served. For the purpose of ensuring that this primary legislation is as complete as it should be, I respectfully submit that that should be included otherwise it is a situation which is, so to speak, on a suppressio veri by not being brought to the attention of the judiciary who will look to this Act with no doubt a varying lack of enthusiasm for enlightenment on their pension facilities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I take the point that something on the lines of what the noble and learned Lord implies in this regulation-making power should be dealt with but it would not mean very elaborate provisions to turn that into primary legislation.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which seems to be now on offer, perhaps I can withdraw the amendment and see how we can better cater for it at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos.66 to 68:
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("and,").
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("subsection (4) above") and insert ("this subsection").
Page 6, line 4, at end insert:
("(6) A person to whom a lump sum is paid under subsection (1) above but who resumes service in qualifying judicial office shall not he required to refund the lump sum; but if the whole or any part of it is not refunded, an amount equal to so much of it as has not been refunded shall he deducted from any lump sum which subsequently becomes payable to or in respect of him under subsection (1), (3) or (4) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No.40. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I propose to put them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Surviving spouse's pension]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.69:
Page 6, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, like those noble Lords whom I saw hesitating a moment ago I had assumed that we would not be progressing beyond Clause 4 and reaching the emotional subject of widow's pensions, their remarriage or lack of remarriage and the like, particularly as we have covered most of the contentious field on the pensions' aspect and further proceedings on the Report stage are scheduled for Thursday this week.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have what I hope is a helpful submission to make to the House. I am told that it is by no means the rule of law—and certainly not of the Medes and Persians—but that it is customary to try to reach the end of the numbers shown on the groupings document. The last number is 74. I therefore assumed that the custom would be observed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we had a very long Statement in the middle of our deliberations. We have made very good progress. It is now eight minutes to ten o'clock and I suggest that what my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner proposed is right. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned number 74. In fact the last number is 77.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, while consultation appears to be going on through channels that are sometimes described as usual, it would seem unreal to go to Amendment No.74 which is half way through Clause 5 and more proper to stop at the end of Clause 4 where we are now. In addition, I have had some indication that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may have some intention to make some changes in regard to the provision relating to widows, widowers and others. Perhaps by Thursday those amendments will be available.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches I certainly do not object.
[Amendment No.69 not moved.]
House adjourned at six minutes before ten o'clock.

  PEERS: INTRODUCTION PROCEDURE
  PEERS: INTRODUCTION PROCEDURE
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION PROPOSALS: COSTS
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION PROPOSALS: COSTS
  YOUTH TRAINING: NOTTINGHAM
  YOUTH TRAINING: NOTTINGHAM
  PAROLE BOARD PANELS: RULES
  PAROLE BOARD PANELS: RULES
  MANCHESTER PRISON
  MANCHESTER PRISON
  PEST BIRD CONTROL PROPOSALS
  PEST BIRD CONTROL PROPOSALS